Talk:Voynich manuscript/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Comparisons

The volume with the Alphabetum Kaldeorum dates to about the time the VM was made. To what extent was there a 'culture of constructed scripts' at the time? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Am I missing something?

"...letters of the Latin, Cyrillic, and Greek alphabets are generally written the same way regardless of their position within a word (with the Greek letter sigma and the obsolete long s being notable exceptions)." 211.225.33.104 (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The distinction you are making is not based on position, though. The "L" in "Latin" is capital because it is a proper noun, not because of where "Latin" appears in the sentence; and while it is true that first letters are capitalized, this applies to all letters and is a function of starting a new sentence, rather than positional. What the article is referring to is something more like (simplified) if every sentence was of the form subject/predicate, then you'd put "L" in the subject part and "l" in the predicate part, etc.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 06:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Most 'running hand' text does have slight variations with letters - depending in part upon how easy it is to join the two letters (and possibly also depending upon syllable lengths - the brain 'sees' a gap so one is created). Jackiespeel (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The article refers to scripts in which letters have different initial, medial, ligature, final, etc. forms. Greek sigma in lowercase (σ) has a different form (ς) when it is the last letter of a word. 75.247.162.108 (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

James Child

It seems quite clear in context that James R Child and Jim Child are the same person who authored several papers. As of 5 January 2014, the article treats him as two people. 75.247.162.108 (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Stenograph

"An argument against steganography is that having a cipher-like cover text highlights the very existence of the secret message, which would be self-defeating: yet because the cover text no less resembles an unknown natural language."

Except it would serve it's purpose even more thoroughly? let's assume that the text contained in the manuscript is in fact an actual language and was intended to be actually read, if the encoded message was encoded with stenography, the non-essential text would only help to camouflage the actual message, and it would only make it harder for those not in the know; those in the know would know precisely what to ignore...

can we remove the quoted passage, as it's clearly incorrect? Bumblebritches57 (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing it. It's not sourced anyway, so it's probably just someone's WP:OR. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Wait, I don't understand your point.

How would drawing attention to the document's mysteriousness "serve its purpose even more thoroughly"?

Steganography is usually done with mundane text, not mysterious giberish as in the VM. Which that quoted sentence correctly points out is an argument against the VM being steganography. Right?

APL (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

A Preliminary Analysis of the Botany, Zoology, and Mineralogy of the Voynich Manuscript by Arthur O. Tucker, Rexford H. Talbert

• http://cms.herbalgram.org/herbalgram/issue100/hg100-feat-voynich.html
• http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/1689897 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.96.216 (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• A critique of the T&T article: http://www.ciphermysteries.com/2014/01/21/brand-new-new-world-nahuatl-voynich-manuscript-theory

Oh, and why is it that whenever something Voynich-related pops up on Slashdot or Reddit, someone there feels the need to insert a link to it right at the top of the Wikipedia page? It's just another selectively-evidenced Voynich theory, one not obviously or demonstrably better than the thousands of other selectively-evidenced Voynich theories out there. *sigh* Nickpelling (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Then why is this "new study" called out in the lead of the article? Does it need to be taken out? Or at least moved to a less notable location? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The dating seems to be out (even if one brings in 'Bristol seafarers and fishermen discovering America and subsequently telling Columbus).

As I have said elsewhere - a 'solution' to the VM would have to explain or translate more than a fraction of the whole. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussed in the lead twice, currently. I would argue that it should be removed from the article entirely unless there is coverage in reliable secondary sources. But if it were to stay in, it should probably go under the "Purpose" section. Tdslk (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Reading the last ref above, the criticism of their "analysis", it is surprising that it's in the lead and I vote to remove it posthaste. Apparently their analysis discards almost every other study done and even discards the radiocarbon dating of the velum used. It sounds like their analysis is a pile of amateurish poop. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was bold and took it out. I don't mind mentioning it somewhere else, but certainly not in the lead. Any suggestions? It doesn't belong in the Authorship section, since it doesn't attempt to identify the author. It doesn't really belong in the Language section either, since it doesn't seem to decipher that either. Suggestions? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 19:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It seemed best suited for the other theories section, so that's where I put it. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 19:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't much care about whether this new HerbalGram study is written about in this article, but I have a problem with Nick Pelling promoting his own work here and using it as an argument to add or remove material. It is a violation of WP:COI. Mr. Pelling, aside from your self-published works, can you produce any reliable sources that refer to you as a Voynich expert or say that you are an authoritative source of information about the Voynich Manuscript? I note that you have a large paragraph in this article about your book, which is only sourced to the book itself. This is a violation of WP:SELFPUB. If you cannot produce such sources, I will remove that paragraph from this article. Unless you can demonstrate that any serious scholarly community considers you an expert, your material and opinion do not belong in this article. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

As I have said previously - a compromise in such cases might be to make use of the Wikia Voynich wikis and cross reference with this article or talk page. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Use Wikia Voynich for what? We wouldn't be able to cite it because wikis are not reliable sources. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Given WP's position on original research etc I was suggesting using the several VM-related wikis on the Wikia platform (which have different coverages) as a way of developing concepts, reporting on research etc. Sometimes it is useful to decamp elsewhere. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph has been tagged, so it is fair game for removal. Although I think Mr. Pelling's contributions have been reasonable, I don't see the paragraph as adding much to the WP article. Consequently, I'd support Wilbury removing the paragraph as WP:UNDUE as well as the reasons cited above. (UNDUE can be countered by showing that Pelling is a prominent authority.) Glrx (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, very reasonable. I do not mean to take on an unfriendly tone at all, but I would like to see some independent sources that refer to Pelling as an authority. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I am 'merely' the person developing two of the wikis above mentioned - my interests are the context of the VM and Wilfrid Voynich himself.

Any opinions on my comment 'somewhere above' that the base text for the VM should be 'a whole piece' - even if just a stretch of lorem ipsum? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Spike W, I understand your position (though not the intensity of your desire to take down the Nick Pelling Wikipedia page, *sigh*), so I am currently trying to find clickable versions of the 20+ newspaper articles where I have been interviewed and quoted at length. Unfortunately, these are proving hard to retrieve - most seem either to have disappeared or to be behind paywalls. Nickpelling (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

You completely misunderstand my actions. I actually desire your page to present and well-referenced to secondary sources that confer notability. Only in its current form should it be deleted. Thus far, I have seen lots of claims to your notabilty, but no proof. Produce a list of sources and I will go about finding and verifying them. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

(reset) Just noting that there are several overlapping conversations in the above. Jackiespeel (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Decoding the Manuscript

It could well be that the headings are just insignificant.. perhaps they exist to mislead the reader into thinking the text was about the picture.But still, it may work out to something. Perhaps the I meaning only AM occurs in GOD few words in the text.

The script is often said to be arabic, but do the phonetics now match more to Gujarātī  ? The author may have used latin vowels for latin words, or as shorthand due to difficulty with Gujarātī Also the R is like Gujarātī , in that Gujarātī uses vertical bars for adjunct 'i' on consonants.

101.174.48.71 (talk) 09:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

This page is for discussing ways to improve the article, not for really coming up with theories or trying to decode the manuscript. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Stephen Bax claim of decoding

The University of Bedfordshire is claiming that professor Stephen Bax has decoded the Voynich. [1], [2] The article seems short on expected details. I'm not conversant enough to assess this claim. Anyone want to take a crack at it and update the article accordingly? TJRC (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The paper is here.

Looks like he's 'decoded' ten words. And by "Decoded" he's found an alleged correlation between those words and proper nouns related the illustrations.

Except, he's not decoded even those ten words into a known language, I think he's just noted similarities with the ancient roots of those words.

To a layman like me it seems like the kind of fast-and-loose interpretation that allows people to find "correlations" in Nostradamus's predictions, but maybe I feel that way because I lack detailed knowledge of how ancient manuscripts are decoded. APL (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with APL. I wouldn't lend this guy any weight until his paper is peer reviewed or written about in the relevant literature. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to you both, for the link to the paper and for the comments. Looking at the paper, I think the poor professor has made some worthwhile modest but significant progress, and recognizes it as such (he emphasizes that his work is a mere proposed partial decoding), but his university's PR department regrettably got carried away with its breathless claims that he has "crack[ed] the code." I feel kind of sorry for the guy; he'll probably be the target of reactions to his institution's exaggerations. TJRC (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The only two news stories we're allowed to have about the VM is that someone has "cracked the code" or that someone has "proven it to be a hoax". Luckily, we won't run out of news because those two stories can be repeated as many times as necessary. APL (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

An editor removed the section about Bax in the lead, saying it was inappropriate there (which is was). I added it back in, under the "Other theories" section. Given this discussion, should it be removed entirely? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm very uneasy about this, per WP:SELFPUB. I've seen some news outlets pick up on it, probably due to the university's marketing efforts, but I've yet to see any reliable source call this paper notable. The content is an "exceptional claim" and requires better sources. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I think Stephen Bax story should be mentioned in the article as it is a notable scientific attempt at decoding some words and symbols. However, I think its in the wrong section 'Authorship hypotheses' - 'Other theories'. His work is on the Language not the Authorship. Maybe move to in 'Language hypotheses' - 'Little known natural language' - the paper states it could be a language that died out. His method is a bottom up approach - trying to identify one word at a time (and its symbol's sounds). This was apparently successfully used to decode Egyptian Hieroglyphs.

The BBC has also reported the story, maybe a useful source bbc Jonpatterns (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

His theory is the script was invented for a language or dialectic which had no written form, the culture since becoming extinct. He cites the Glagolitic alphabet and the Kiev Missal as a possible similar scenario. See his video at about 40mins Jonpatterns (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, you may have a point, especially in light of the BBC coverage. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Bax doesn't make huge claims in his paper, he is modest and tentative and invites others to examine and test out his research findings. He certainly doesn't claim more than some quite modest decoding. He writes at the end of his paper: "it is important not to underestimate the difficulties which lie ahead; this paper offers an analysis which is explicitly both provisional and partial. Indeed I suspect it will take many months, if not years, to test out, corroborate, and amend the analyses I have set out above, and perhaps several more to come to a full understanding of the document as a whole. In short, this mysterious manuscript still retains most of its mystery. Although we may have laid a rope on the ‘white whale of the code-breaking world’, it is still swimming free, perhaps to intrigue and baffle us for a long time to come" Varnebank (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Change required

In the 'fabrication by Voynich' section have 'the recent discovery ...' - when? Jackiespeel (talk) 09:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Newspaper reference

Can I note an article Nottingham Evening Post 21 March 1930 - Voynich in his will stated that the Manuscript could be sold to any public institution for $100 000, but could not be sold to a private collector. (Seen on a 'general newspaper website'). Jackiespeel (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

BBC News article

Article on BBC News website - might be useful? [3] AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

In the article it should be Friedrich Engels rather than Karl Marx. Jackiespeel (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Travel Channel

On the above UK TV channel - a forthcoming episode of 'Castle secrets and legends' includes the Voynich Manuscript among its selection. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The matrial was one component among several, and was effectively a depiction of 'Voynich finding the book - which still remains undeciphered' rather than adding to the material. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

The entire Illustrations section of this article appears to have been lifted intact, from this product description at the Barnes & Noble website:

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-voynich-manuscript-wilfrid-voynich/1117073514?ean=9788087664193

I don't know if B&N has copyrights on their product description, but someone probably should look into this and write some original content for this section, if necessary.

Given that the text here is sourced, I am thinking it could be plagiarism the other way round.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

You are suggesting that Barnes & Noble lifted a description for one of their products from a Wikipedia article? Considering that they carry something between 500,000 and a half-million products for which they produce their own descriptions on a regular basis, doesn't that seem rather unlikely?

As I look over the sources cited, the two most frequent citations (currently #6 and #8) are simply links to photostatic copies of the manuscript itself, and not to the content of the text here.

Yes, that is what I am suggesting. Looking at the page it doesnt seem that the content there is actually maintained by BArnes and Noble and the book it advertises seem not to be a legitimate book. It seems to me that this book is a selfpublished ebook (published by e-artnow editions whcih publishes ebook versions of non-copyrighted art and literature), and it is probably the author of the ebook who copied content from wikipedia. It is not the first time this has happened you know.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Maunus. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Deciphered manuscript

This article doesn't contain any mention of the deciphering done by Stephen Bax presented February/March of 2014. Here is the link: http://www.beds.ac.uk/news/2014/february/600-year-old-mystery-manuscript-decoded-by-university-of-bedfordshire-professor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.196.99 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 30 May 2014

Actually it does cover it with several sources. Dougweller (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Granted it does make mention of it in the "natural language" section. I meant more that it was placed in the "hypotheses" section while I felt that his research, as it has been peer reviewed, should perhaps be in a new section. Perhaps "Potential Conclusions" ? I'm not really sure what would be appropriate here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.157.247.55 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 30 May 2014‎

Peer review really only elevates it from "crackpot theory" to "academic theory". Some of the other theories in the theories section were published in peer reviewed journals too. Including a number of articles saying that it's almost certainly a hoax.

Until he "decodes" more than just ten words, it's interesting and worth pursuing, but it's not a lot stronger than the other theories. He more or less admits this in his actual paper. (He's less humble in press interviews, but that's how you have to be in academia.) APL (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It hasn't been peer reviewed, or published in a journal. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you're right. It looks like he's just put it on his blog. I thought he had published that first in a journal. APL (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

To what extent can the validity of a translation be that it gives a coherent running text (even of the lorem ipsum type) rather than a mere series of sentences? (Making a general statement) Jackiespeel (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Occult Section

It pains me to erase 2,247 words from the encyclopedia at a time, but it needed to be done to the "hybrid language" section. The manuscript wasn't any kind of Dutch, there was no medieval "pagan cult of Isis", and if there were, it wasn't the same as the Cathars (in my humble opinion.) The only source was a geocities.com site, backed up on the wayback machine, that read like a personal manifesto. -Haikon 02:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Medieval paganism would probably have involved 'peasant beliefs, local pre-Christian deities with Christian saint use-names, learned folk creating poetry in the Classical style making reference to Roman and Greek gods, green men, inhabitants of barrows, sympathetic magic and wise folk.'

There should be mention of 'the explanations' provided for the VM (and possibly why they are impractical or possible). Jackiespeel (talk) 09:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

pdf files and images of the Voynich manuscript

https://web.archive.org/web/20141008150222/http://cnqzu.com/library/Weird%20Documents/voynich%20manuscript.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/20141008150739/http://www.deepsky.com/~merovech/voynich/Beinecke_DL_2002046.pdf

Yale University Library Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library

Beinecke Library Permissions and Copyright Notice

http://brbl-dl.library.yale.edu/vufind/Record/3519597

Rajmaan (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Edith Sherwood

I've reverted this edit.

It didn't seem at all appropriate to have an extremely credulous section about Sherwood, referenced only by articles written by her published on her own website!

APL (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I guess one should not believe everything they read. Eridani (talk) 03:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Leonell C Strong

Some details (including a link) can be found here [4] - is he sufficiently notable for WP? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

He is mentioned the Authorship hypotheses - Other theories sub section, though it could do with a bit of tidying and citation. Wikia can't be used as a reference though, maybe use the pages it cites or/and voynich.nu.

Not entirely convinced about breaking people theories into Authorship and Language - the two are kind of interlinked. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

There was nothing on WP so I just put together a few details (and 'there is only me' on the wiki) - and there should be some coverage of his non-VM activities for a Wikipedia article. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

If Leonell C Strong is notable then either go head and create an article, or use Article for Creation - which allows you to draft an article and get feedback before it goes 'live'. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

He now does have an article (which still needs developing). Jackiespeel (talk) 10:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Article rewrite?

Hello, I've read this article a few times now and I feel it isn't in very good shape. I think it lacks a definite structure and has far too much content which is unsourced, irrelevant, or just wrong. Would anybody be up for a rewrite of the article?

I think there should be the following sections: 1. Introduction 2. Description 3. History (of the manuscript itself) 4. Current research and theories 5. Historical attempts at decipherment/reading 6. In popular culture

The current split between "authorship hypotheses" and "language hypotheses" makes little sense. It also seems pointless to give space to the multitude of theories that have been spawned to explain the Voynich manuscript. There should only be those which are current (that is, not disproven and still taken seriously or actively researched), and those which have historical interest (they garnered lots of attention, even though now disproven or forsaken). Everything else is not notable.

I would be willing to make a start on this, and people can jump in where they see fit. I think the first thing to do would be to remove unsourced speculation that isn't directly relevant. Then maybe any mention of pet theories which never gained prominence and are no longer current. That would make it easier to see what we have to work with and rearrange the text into a new structure..

Please do let me know what you think. Emma May Smith (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

'I created it' - [5] can be made use of (or linked to). Jackiespeel (talk) 10:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I've added a section for "Historical decipherment claims". The goal is to let the claims of people like Newbold, Feely, and Strong be mentioned in the article, but not let their theories mix with current research. They should be included because they are historically important, but they're no longer relevant to active research. The article needs to be much clearer to the reader in this respect.

I think that maybe the theories of John Stojko and Leo Levitov should go in this section as well. Though theories which are less well known and likewise defunct should just be removed entirely. I don't know if Child's proposal of a North Germanic dialect or Banasik's Manchu theory are really notable.

Also, the "Historical decipherment claims" section could easily be spun off as a separate page in the main article became too long. Emma May Smith (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The VM #looks# like a 'conventional medieval manuscript' (even the paleographer person I showed it to) - and it seems to be 'all of a piece' (unlike many of the stated translations). Jackiespeel (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Edith Sherwood

Thomas.Hedden (talk · contribs) has recently tried to include a section about a theory of Edith Sherwood. It is sourced entirely to Sherwoods own website and is not supported by any secondary sources. Unless it can be shown that Sherwoods proposal has received attention in secondary sources it is not apt for inclusion. We cannot include every selfpublished theory on someones blog or personal website - the article should only include those theories that have become part of the literature about the codex and are taken seriously by scholars.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Sherwood's work is well known, even appearing on a television program about the Voynich Manuscript. However, I'm not sure how widely it has been cited rather than simply discussed. My guess is that few other researchers have taken her theory seriously. Emma May Smith (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

If there is enough media coverage that might justify having a section on her work, but we cant have a section sourced entirely to her own website and writings.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The previously mentioned wikis are still open to anyone wishing to contribute :) Jackiespeel (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Khojki Scripts suggestion

Is there any further evidence for this proposal - and how would the document have got to George Barech (the earliest #known# owner of the document)? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC) (correcting earlier entry)

Sukhwant Singh voynich theory notable or not

http://www.voynich-manuscript-landa-khojki-scripts-sindhi-mahajans-book.net/ Jonpatterns (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Like so many other articles on the Voynich manuscript, this looks credible and interesting. But we need a secondary, not self published, source to give it credit before it belongs in this encyclopedia.--Nø (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

Should there be a designated sandbox area for VM theories - or a statement that 'translations' should be 'more than a few lines'/produce a running text and suggestions proposed for how the manuscript ended up at the Villa Mondragone before they can be considered for this article?

(Sometimes useful to actively discuss whether a possibility is practical or not practical) Jackiespeel (talk) 09:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Ethel (Lilian) Voynich

She appears under her full name on the WP article - and in a fair proportion of the articles on a websearch on Ethel Voynich - so which should she appear as on this page? Jackiespeel (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Beate Missing-Watson

(Referring to the text deleted as having insufficient third party references) As in other cases - the VM text 'to the casual observer' looks like a running text - but the translation suggested does not appear to match this. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I stopped reading when I got to "Sometimes the transcribed word was not translatable but with substituted or exchanged vowels it was". I also appreciate the handy trick of saying that something "must be a code phrase" when the proposed translation results in gibberish.

In any case, Google can't seem to find anyone taking this person seriously, although I suppose that could because Google isn't giving me any German-Language results. APL (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Using de.yahoo to look for the name there are a handful of Youtube and similar entries dealing with the Nazca Lines.

'My theories' - there has to have been some previous material for 'the author(s)' to get the text so even and smooth (try copying even a short Cyrillic/Greek/Fraktur text if you don't know the script) and there is some underlying running text - even if it is of the Lorem ipsum kind. (A recipe converted into 'standard paragraph format' would look obviously wrong). Jackiespeel (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I am definitely taking the Voynich interpretation of Mrs. Missing-Watson very seriously. I am sure that the Voynich interpretation cannot be compared to a cryptographic algorithm. The Voynich manuscript was written freely and was not coded for any automatic decryption. So it is very probable that the Voynich author (or authors) have put in some (or even many ) deliberate irregularities like exchanging vowels or mixing up some letters. The (possibly very few) addressees of the manuscript still could read it and so the decryption is - as reality has proved - very effective. I give you an example: Yu Cen stilunderst dis txtx, ritee? Of course a computer running a deciphering algorithm would not understand this, but human readers will most probably do if they speak English. Like Mrs. Missing-Watson, I really think that this easy method has been used by the Voynich authors, but of course not in a world language but in a rare, almost extinct language with a cipher (still reminding of old Glagolitic language). This is really a serious attempt in my opinion, as far as I see and in my opinion it is by far the most convincing Voynich interpretation yet. And it has lead to convincing results - see the page with the translated parts.AgentMMK (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that if you can freely substitute letters you can come up with "convincing results" from any translation scheme. If you're further allowed to hand-wave your failures by saying that an untranslatable block "must be a code phrase", there's no document so full of absolute gibberish that you can't interpret as you like and come up with "convincing results".

The technique could be applied to machine-generated random words and still generate good results. It's a form of Pareidolia. ApLundell (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Voynich manuscript. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150529205622/http://beinecke.library.yale.edu/digitallibrary/manuscript/voynich_analysis.pdf to http://beinecke.library.yale.edu/digitallibrary/manuscript/voynich_analysis.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130928231907/http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1516863.php/Mysterious-Voynich-manuscript-is-genuine-scientists-find to http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1516863.php/Mysterious-Voynich-manuscript-is-genuine-scientists-find

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

A good source to add

What We Know About The Voynich Manuscript See here: http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W11-1511 (PDF warning). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

What kind of animal?

I see by our page on vellum that the process of preparing vellum sometimes makes it impossible to determine what species of animal supplied the skin, but do we know anything about what kind of animal skin this vellum is made from? J S Ayer (talk) 02:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

European Voynich Alphabet

As this page has been deleted from en-Wikipedia but not from other language WPs, can some reference or indication be put here. (See [6] for a listing - or at least a link to [7] (from the French WP page). Jackiespeel (talk) 10:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Can we link to another language wiki? And why was the English page deleted while the other language pages were considered valuable enough to keep? French Wiki page on European Voynich Alphabet --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Mo idea why it was deleted - the reason given is 'incomprehensible.'

Anything 'reasonable but OR' can be transferred from WP to [8]. Jackiespeel (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Arabic

Just a little note: A post on the German talkpage to the VM links to a deleted blog post (but the person linking it gave the gist of it), where somebody noted that the pages of the VM are numbered with Arabic numerals, which would be highly unusual in 15th century Europe. They then found out that by simply turning the pages upside-down, the text turns out as a fairly easily readable Medieval Arabic script. Add to that that many people have pointed out similarities to Arabic or Semitic language features, which only never made much sense because nobody had the idea to turn the book on its head before.

Their hypothesis was that it must have been written somewhere in the Kingdom of Sicily, as its Norman-Arab-Byzantine culture had both a significant amount of Arabic speakers and a significant connection to mainland Italy, which would explain some Italian features in the illuminations. --2003:71:4E33:4607:8517:E1AA:BCE4:FB1E (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

So many people have offered simple tricks that would allow the manuscript to be "easily readable", but they never manage to actually produce a translation.

Probably because humans are pattern-seeking creatures,so we think we see a resemblance to some language we're familiar with but can't read. ApLundell (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The Arabic numerals were probably added later (and who hasn't so annotated some document in their possession?).

As I said 'somewhere above' I showed a paleographer unfamiliar with the VM and its history an online image - their response was to the effect 'No problem, I will have a look at it at home.' Jackiespeel (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hah! I really want that story to end with you not seeing your friend for twenty years, then finally he shows up with a full translation. ApLundell (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a version of the story with 'a person' getting 'a genealogist' to chase their family tree, being repeatedly told 'we're still working on it' and, 'some time after' getting a knock on the door 'Sorry, we took so long Your Majesty.'

To anyone with a even a passing familiarity with medieval documents (museum visits/TV programs etc) the VM 'looks like' it belongs within that tradition rather than 'some other manuscript region' (eg Celtic or Cyrillic script manuscripts). Jackiespeel (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Mysteries of the world

In the top 25 mysteries of the world the Voynich Manuscripts is in the 24th position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.82.216.253 (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Which list? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

It's number 24 here: http://list25.com/25-greatest-unsolved-mysteries-ever/

It's number 2 here - it appears to be the same list numbered in reverse: http://www.emlii.com/79f4593c/25-Mysteries-That-Have-Scared-The-Creeps-Out-of-Everyone

it's also on this similar but shorter list http://www.bizarbin.com/biggest-unsolved-mysteries/

It's also here http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/archaeology/the-worlds-biggest-mysteries-scientists-still-cant-solve/news-story/aac87ed0bc09d5cd4dfba0d49f613334

And here (along with my old friend the Tollund Man): http://listverse.com/2008/02/25/top-10-most-overlooked-mysteries-in-history/

And here http://www.cracked.com/article_16871_6-insane-discoveries-that-science-cant-explain.html

Also here http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/arts-culture/photos/10-of-the-worlds-biggest-unsolved-mysteries/go-figure

In short, using Google, one can easily make an long but unnotable list of unnotable lists of notable and unnotable, real and supposed mysteries. And Voynich is on many of them. So what.--Nø (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

'I have many little lists of things wonderful and curious and mysterious...' - but links to which list are useful (as demonstrated). Jackiespeel (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Voynich manuscript. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050910212025/http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=0000E3AA-70E1-10CF-AD1983414B7F0000 to http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=0000E3AA-70E1-10CF-AD1983414B7F0000

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The Cathars

Would they not be speaking (dialects of) Occitan rather than Flemish? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hoax counterarguments

I just read the Montemurro paper referenced in the "hoax" section, and I noticed that it's conspicuously missing any comparison of the Voynich Manuscript to any plausible hoax-creation technique. The patterns found in the text are argued to be indicators of meaning, because they don't exist in "random texts", and weren't known at the time the manuscript seems to have been created. But of the papers cited that I was able to get for free, they don't compare to human-generated random texts, they compare to truly random, machine generated texts.

Human-generated random is very different than machine-generated random. (Language is so instinctive in humans, we might instinctively put those patterns in even nonsense writing.) Do we have any sources that discuss statistical features like Zipfs Law as regards to human-generated hoaxes?

I ask because our section on the hoax hypothesis leaps headfirst into complicated hoax-generation techniques like Cardan grilles, and advanced statistical features unknown in ancient times, without first discounting the more obvious technique of simply writing down some plausible-seeming nonsense off the top of your head.

There must be some source that has explored and tried to discount this possibility? ApLundell (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Whatever else can be said about it the VM #looks like# other documents of the time and place.

Another possibility - the text was copied from real texts by someone who was not actually literate in the 'Italian hand/script' (but was a confident writer in another script).

The Voynich Manuscript wiki on Wikia can be used for discussions of this type which become too OR orientated for WP. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, and I'm not really interested in spinning theories.

It just bugged me that the bit about it being a hoax, only really covers a very complicated subset of the hoax theory. I intended to fix it, but then I realized the sources cited don't even address the possibility of normal human sitting down and writing some gibberish, which has got to be the most immediately obvious type of hoax.

You're left with the thought that creating such a hoax would have been impossible in that time. Which may or may not be true, but the sources don't really say that.

I would like that section to start off by indicating why the simplest hoax answer is doubted to the point where complicated techniques like Cardan grilles are even being considered. ...uh, but I can't actually find the answer to that question. ApLundell (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Although I like your suggestion that it's just a really bad copy by someone who didn't read the (mundane) source language. Are there good sources that discuss that? If so, I'd love to see that in the article. That's got to be the funniest theory. Even moreso than a hoax. Imagine the if the original was discovered. ApLundell (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

'In other contexts' - objects produced for export to the European/western markets copied texts seen without necessarily understanding what was there; the coins of Offa of England imitating an Arabic coin: there are probably other examples. And then there is the joke about policemen going in threes - one who can read, one who can write and one to keep an eye on these dangerous intellectuals.

It is easier to imagine someone creating the miscopied text than spending much more time creating a cipher, 'transliterating/enciphering' the original text and then copying the new text out in a fair hand (especially given the length of the VM).

There must have been a certain amount of 'learning how to write the script' and draft versions of the text - what became of these documents - they can't all have been on wax tablets/blackboard equivalents. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

My idea is as much a speculation as any of the others - but its chief merit is its relative simplicity.

'Anyone reading this talk page' could learn to write, for example, the Cyrillic alphabet and 'copy what they see' - and would probably produce mumpsimus text rather than an accurate transcript as readily as they can write their own language.

In 1416 Victor Frankenstein, manuscript merchant, concerned at the way manuscript writer-copyists' fees are eating into his profits, trains up Igor the pattern/outline-tracer to produce work at a fraction of the cost. After one volume he decides the experiment is not a success and decides to invest in printing technology. (This #is# a story-plot/speculation.) Jackiespeel (talk) 13:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

In this scenario Igor would be speaking 'a language of the German family' and is literate in Blackletter script, so requires relatively little practice to 'learn the text and layout.'

A suggestion no more - and probably best continued here [9]. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

An article on the Offa coin is here [10]. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyone care to follow the links from the paleography article and see if there is anything the VM has a passing resemblance to? Jackiespeel (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Alexander Ulyanenkov claim

A quick websearch - there seems to be insufficient confirming detail for inclusion on the Wikipedia page.

If there is, a mention here [11] might be more appropriate. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Or or or...

Is this edit from some IP actually good? I see "Foror or..." too, not "For or or..." (very first characters of the first line). It is not "image above", too. It is on the right, at least on my monitor. --Obsuser (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Alchemy

This is **so obviously** an alchemical text, I don't even know where to start to criticize this article. Here's my "four tildes" ---> Have fun. 24.51.217.118 (talk) 08:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Provide 'comparable examples.'

Which sections do you wish to criticise? The description of the manuscript as an object, the historical sections, the possible "things it could be", what?

Is there a possible document from which it could be mis-transcribed (following my suggestion above)/otherwise 'readily transformed'? Jackiespeel (talk) 09:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

This is obviously an alchemical text, and the line about "doesn't resemble known alchemical equipment" completely misses the point -- I think the article is trying to relate a connection to alchemy to some type of proto-chemistry (ie. mention of "equipment"), while the subject alchemy is clearly of the esoteric variety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.51.217.118 (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Alchemical texts of the time period featured a lot of illustrations of early laboratory equipment. That sort of equipment was not standardized yet, so they needed the illustrations. See this for example. It would be an oddity for an alchemy text to skip such illustrations. (But Voynich is missing a number of pages. I suppose you could theorize that someone tore those pages out for reference or something.)

You may be thinking of modern "new age" uses of the word alchemy. This "new age" definition is more spiritual and philosophical. (And thus doesn't need chemical equipment.) But that type of "alchemy" is strictly modern. It didn't exist before the 1940s, so it doesn't make sense to try to understand the Voynich Manuscript through that lens. (I suppose some gurus might pretend that that kind of alchemy goes way back, but it really doesn't. There's no mystery as to where it came from.) ApLundell (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, but, a pool full of women with a liquid fed by a pine cone doesn't really seem to be part of any laboratory apparatus I'm aware of. This text seems to be trying to convey concepts or archetypes, rather than document some type of laboratory setup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.51.217.118 (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Reminder that this is a talk page for improving the article here, not a forum for discussing our theories. --McGeddon (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

There are other places for such discussions (see my comments somewhere in the talk page archives). Jackiespeel (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Template added

I have created a template containing the full manuscript with the pages as they are known, the missing pages based on the folio numbers and the different topics. As the text is not decyphered, the pages where only text is seen are indicated as "text", to not interpret they belong to the earlier sections which they probably do. This template serves for convenience in the article (the full table would be far too big to scroll through and prone to vandalism, and as a guide to the link between the folio names and page numbers. Commons has listed all the images of all pages/folios which is linked in the table, organised that the foldable pages can be seen too. The template: Template:Voynich manuscript complete, also see the Talk page there. It was a lot of work, but I think it was worth it. Cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 09:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Very fascinating subject, rather poor article

Considering the age of the article, the amount of literature written about it and the impact and mystery of it, the article is actually quite poor. A B-class status seems steep imho. The article is -sometimes outdated and also not great- 5x Featured and 1x Good on other wikis. I've read the article and made quite some corrections and added citation needed tags. I read the talk archive 1 and this page, will read the rest of the archived talk later. I have heard about the Voynich Manuscript (which should be capitalized) before, but never read the en:wiki article. Now, looking at the photos by Yale, as a layman:

• article lists no information on the type of ink used - the reference gave much more information, so that included in the article
• no information on the thickness of the paper - I have asked this question to experts, awaiting answer and if it will come, I include it in the article
• no information why all the drawings of people are women nymphs/angels
• they look mostly blonde and white; an Asian origin looks very unrealistic has been explained as representing angels who had fair hair, also in ancient Greece and Rome
• the drawings are rather poor considering the very smooth and regular script, is there any source that explains this difference? various hypotheses, no real answer
• only very shortly is mentioned in the text that the colouring seems done later and possibly by someone else. It indeed looks like it and is also very poor compared to the drawings but especially the text. - ref on ink and paint analysis suggest both text and drawings are contemporaneous
• the age dating of the paper is not conclusive of the age of the document, especially not if it's a hoax (which doesn't look like it because of the elaboration of the text, while the images are poor which could mean it is), because someone could have purchased old paper and write on that (much) later; it can then even be of the beginning of the telescope/microscope age and well after the "discovery" of the Americas too much debate about this; no certainty, too much speculation, so more for a blog, forum or Jackiespeel's wiki to discuss
• is there no age dating done of the ink? seems impossible; too much material needed, chance of contamination is too high. There would be little carbon in mineral ink anyway.
• the cover seems much more modern than 600 years, no information about that? - was already described (shortly) in the article
• in general the article is very much about the cryptography/cipher and does not treat the manuscript as a whole evenly. Especially the different "chapters" are just summarized in a couple of sentences I have expanded the sections on ink, parchment, paint and retouching, added the full manuscript in a template and the timeline of ownership. Can still be added more, but in general it is a bit more "balanced" now. The citation needed tag in the beginning is also a question I asked experts and the citation needed tags of the cypher I will ask the Cryptography portal/Wikiproject participants, see below.
• the article doesn't list an overview of all the different letters and how they are written, in a table - added

I've changed quite some language that sounded really like a schoolbook, I am surprised after so many years of edits by so many authors and a former FA status that was still there. My criticism is not meant as an attack to any writer, let that be clear; without everyone's contributions there wouldn't be an article at all, but the timespan could have brought something better, imho. I would love to contribute more in-depth and study this mysterical beast, but there must be many others here who know loads about the Manuscript and the sources that have treated it over the past almost 100 years... Cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC) - edited - Tisquesusa (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

1) A lot of what you're asking for is simply isn't known.

2) Detailed data like tables of letters and pen-strokes would be far too much detail for an encyclopedia article.

3) It's my understanding that dating the ink would be destructive, because of the amount needed. I could be wrong.

4) I suppose you could expand the "chapter" summaries, but only if you could cite secondary sources, since the primary source defies summary.

5) It's not actually paper. It's parchment.

6) A Cardan grille would pretty much require a regular grid to make the text it line up from page to page, without making it obvious which parts of the page you were trying to line up.

ApLundell (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

But, yeah. It could certainly be better. I won't argue with your greater point that the article is a bit... inconsistent. ApLundell (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick answers ApLundell:

1. I've added information (on the parchment, ink and paint) from the already linked references
2. I've added {cite web etc. } templates where they were not
3. I've accessed all the links, removed or replaced the dead ones and updated all access dates to today
4. I've added a table of the letters with a cropped newly uploaded image from Commons

Tisquesusa (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Nice work. Your changes are a real improvement.

The letter table surprised me. It's a lot simpler than I was expecting. I'm sure I've seen more complex ones, but now I can't recall if they were from reasonably legitimate researchers, or crazy amateurs. The VM does attract a lot of the latter.

ApLundell (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Anyone wishing to continue this discussion on the Voynich wikis is welcome (as I have said above). Jackiespeel (talk) 09:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

... but ... this is a discussion about maintenance of this article. It would not be appropriate off-wiki. ApLundell (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, now it's a discussion about a discussion about maintenance of this article. ApLundell (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The Holy Shrine of cryptography - expert eyes requested

The article is still not what it should be for such an important topic although quite some work has been done (see above). But help from people with cryptography experience/interest/knowledge/professional background is requested to solve the 10 citation needed tags in the Cryptography chapters. They are there since 2011 and should be solved, ideally by someone with relevant knowledge (to me it's all as hard to understand as the manuscript itself :-P ). Any help is welcome to strip the article from the ugly tags this "Shrine" doesn't deserve.... Thanks in advance, Tisquesusa (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Shrine?

As various 'persons having expertise with cryptography' and many 'people who enjoy a challenge' have attempted to decipher or translate the VM already, with no success (or 'identifying' merely a few words) a different approach is necessary. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

600 years of non-decoding sounds pretty much like a shrine, doesn't it? But it's a serious question to get the article clean from the tags and have the citations fixed. I have my own ideas about the VMS but they are not for Wikipedia. It's about the article, for analysis and speculations there are so many sites to go to. Your own wiki might be one of them. Tisquesusa (talk) 10:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

ApLundell (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC):::It is not 'my' wiki (on Wikia) but is one on which I am currently the only active person (if you wish to post your theory there, feel free) - and the VM was 'lost from general view' for several centuries so its period of indecipherability is limited to the 'Rudolph II period' and the 'period 1912-present.' The VM looks at least #superficially# like 'a medieval manuscript' (even to the paleographer I called it up on the internet for) - and see my suggestion now in an archive of this page that it was some sort of 'miscopying' of an existing document by someone literate in another script − an experiment which can be readily replicated by anyone here.) Jackiespeel (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

At the risk of going off-topic again. I have to point out that that's not really a try-at-home experiment. Your experimental scribe would need to be unfamiliar with the Voynich Manuscript. Or at the very least, not suspect that the experiment was related to it. ApLundell (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I was making a general comment about copying scripts one is unfamiliar with - and there are historical examples of this.

Given that 'a significant number of expert cryptographers' have had no success in interpreting the VM what other approaches are there (Given the cost of materials and the time needed to write it, 'whoever wrote and drew it' must have had some serious purpose in the act of creation.) Jackiespeel (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Right, and I was saying it's not an experiment that can be "readily replicated by anyone here", because you'd need a scribe who both didn't read the target language, and didn't know what you were trying to prove. You'd also need an examiner who did read the target language to judge if the result was giberish. Even then, I'm not sure what it might prove. That it's possible to copy something badly? (It's not as if it's impossible to adequately copy an unfamiliar writing scheme. I've copied down bits of Japanese writing well enough that someone who reads Japanese can read it without any trouble.) ApLundell (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Summing up and paraphrasing Sherlock Holmes - 'mis-transcribing an existing document is not impossible, so cannot be ruled out'.

As some of the best cryptographers and many others have attempted to decipher the VM what other approaches are there? Jackiespeel (talk) 09:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Voynich Manuscript Timeline

Can I mention [12]. Jackiespeel (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

It can be copied over to the relevant section here (with a few more links as necessary) or linked to as appropriate. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jackie, I don't think a private wiki is a good source to "copy over" here. But the site links to two sources; Zandbergen's site (that I used as reference to create the timeline and linked in the History section above) and the nicely elaborated extensive timeline on the Journal of Voynich Studies. The list of history on that wiki says that Rudolf II acquired the manuscript in 1586 ("1586 VM first appears at the court of Rudolph II, accompanied by a letter which stated it was the work of Roger Bacon."). Do you have a source for that year and the letter mentioned? As far as I know it is not known when exactly he acquired the VMS, only that he did is a decent possibility. I've put the year in the timeline at 1600; the exact year is not too important for the centuries long timeline, but somewhere before his death (1612).

Also the description on the wiki you link to "1608 Jacobus Horcicki gained title 'de Tepenecz': signature so appears in the VM - earliest definite date." is not correct. That he gained that title in 1608 doesn't mean 1608 was the year he signed the VMS, so cannot be called "earliest definite date". The common consensus is that he obtained the VMS as he was creditor to Rudolf II and after the death of the latter got it. That must have been 1612, the date linked in the timeline template. It makes no sense to assume that Rudolf II as the most powerful of the two men and a collector of a lot of books and arts would donate/sell/give the VMS to Jacobus de Tepenecz before his death, less if he paid "600 ducats" for it. The title was gained in 1608, Rudolf dies 4 years later and Jacobus signs the freshly acquired VMS somewhere between 1612 and his death (1622) would make sense. Hence the timeline: 1600 (as tentative age) - 1612 - Rudolf II, 1612-1622 - Jacobus de Tepenecz.

The wiki you link to does not list Georg Baresch, who is a confirmed owner of the VMS between De Tepenecz and Marci.

If you have a reliable source for the 1586 year and the letter, I can add it to the article, which needs a short description introducing the timeline anyway. Tisquesusa (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

It is not a private wiki - it is that I am the only person active on it (and I am involved elsewhere in the wikiverse)- rather a different thing. Contributions and corrections etc are welcome. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Some of the dates would have come from [13], [14] 'and/or similar websites' ([15] does not seem reliable) - would these suffice? Jackiespeel (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The first link is absolutely reliable; the Yale Library itself. The others are not needed then; it was about the start year of Rudolf II, now corrected in the timeline to 1586, thanks. Tisquesusa (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Does the GB addition to the timeline make sense?

Anne Margaret Nill is probably #only# notable for her connection with the Voynichs and the manuscript - but if a page on WP is considered appropriate use can be made of [16].

I know [17] is OR - but 'anything useful can be copied here.' Jackiespeel (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

GB = Georg Baresch? He is named in the sources as the owner, and the sources "make sense", so the inclusion should make sense too. Sure, Anne Nill is not notable enough for a wiki article imo (hence the name unlinked in the timeline) and if she becomes notable she can be linked.

There is a difference between OR (original reseach) on Wikipedia itself or use OR ("amateur" analysis by others) as a source. Many of the researchers are not "amateurs" at all. Stolfi, Zandbergen and others are academics in other or related fields. A botanist may be an "amateur" on the VMS, but is an expert on botany and thus useful (enough) as a source. There are many amateur and "amateur" references on Wikipedia anyway. Art "critics" are also mostly amateurs and their POV is quoted enough (see the films).

The wiki you contribute to is only a reliable source if it's sourced itself by external sources, just like Wikipedia works. Same for blogs and "amateur" websites. Voynich.nu is heavily referenced and one of the most elaborate sources around, set-up by an academic who even has touched the book (see video).

Another thing I am doing different than other people I've seen is "copying data". I rewrite phrases from the sources for 2 reasons: 1) the text will be unique and makes it possible to differentiate in a Google search between the source text and the wiki text. The many Wikipedia clones around copy our texts so searching for terms to solve citation neededs becomes a nightmare. 2) (minor as it is not fully true) is copyrights. There is nothing wrong with copying and referencing phrases from others. What is wrong is copying complete paragraphs and texts and not referencing who was the original author of the work. But if that's wrong, easily 100,000s of articles can be deleted right away because there are so many articles on Wikipedia without references. As it's not the policy to delete those articles, yet to place tags "unreferenced", it would be senseless to delete it here suddenly. Tisquesusa (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@ApLundell below: the "autistic" comment is not "used as an insult", it's an observation. If anyone feels "offended", then that's their problem, not mine. The ways of working are those that count.

Änd if a template causes problems elsewhere, again, it's only a motivation to solve the problem, not to then not use the template. If your car has problems reversing, what do you do? A) you don't reverse, only go forward and thus avoid solving the problem (your and Obsusers strategy) or B) you take the car to the garage and fix the problem (my method)? Making yourself a slave of technology is the wrong way around; technology is slave to us. Tisquesusa (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)