Talk:Voynich manuscript/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Nicholas Gibbs' article in the Times Literary Supplement

Since there seems to be some disagreement about what language to use to discuss the Gibbs article in the Times Literary Supplement, I'm creating this section for us to talk it out.

Gibbs may be right. He may be wrong. But Wikipedia policy requires that we don't write our personal judgments as to his correctness into the article.

I also disagree with the characterization made in an edit that the Gibbs article is "original research"; by Wikipedia convention, what makes the Gibbs article not-original-research is not Gibbs' rightness or wrongness, but the fact of the TLS's publication of his article. Nandesuka (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

It is not original research by Wikipedia's definition.

It should be mentioned along with every other "solution" of the week.

Describing it as similar to some previous work probably is original research by Wikipedia's definition, and should probably not be mentioned.

ApLundell (talk) 05:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

All of the claims to a solution in that section should use reliable, secondary—not primary—sources. There will be plenty written on Gibbs's take soon enough. Until then, only use the primary source for basic claims about his own theory. It can also be used for material descriptions or other facts surrounding the manuscript as long as the sourced claim isn't about his theory (keep editorial distance). (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 07:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to waiting until this new theory of the month is mentioned by the press to establish it's notability, so long as we can agree that, its notability established, we can reference this publication directly if the popular press glosses over important details. ApLundell (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Though they are not precisely the same, Gibbs' claim is without doubt *similar* to Feely's 1934 claim: both assert that Voynichese is idiosyncratically abbreviated Latin. Why mention one without mentioning the other? And then how can the article sensibly mention Feely's attempted decryption without mentioning D'Imperio's authoritative summary of his work, however briefly? To be honest, there's a much stronger case for deleting the mention of Gibbs' decryption here (a single interview in the TLS hardly counts as a definitive test of worthiness) and retaining the mention of Feely's decryption, simply because the latter does all the same things yet has been definitively assessed by a number of experts, as reported by D'Imperio. Nickpelling (talk) 10:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the inclusion of either of the sources you mention. I'm only opposed to glibly saying unreferenced "This work is similar to that work". If we included the earlier work, and organized them both under a sub-heading like "Abbreviated Latin", I don't think anyone would complain about that. ApLundell (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The missing heading is actually Shorthand. I'll add that in, along with removing the two other well-meaning additions referring to Nicholas Gibbs' theory that have been added in the last 24 hours. :-( Nickpelling (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. It is too early to include this material in the article. Where is the decipherment? Claiming it is shorthand does not make it so, and even if it is shorthand, one still needs to show how to interpret it. Mention of this work needs to wait until secondary sources tell WP it is worthwhile. Glrx (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the "decipherment" is missing; it is not in both the secondary sources that are listed and the Times article is behind a paywall. I don't know what Gibbs has proposed in that sense; it is not decoding if you don't present any evidence about the code used. Yet, that doesn't mean we should delete the part. Keep it updated, referenced and short, yes, but not just completely delete it. Tisquesusa (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

WP is not a newspaper or a journal. It is not the place to track claims and progress about the VM. WP can wait until others have assessed the work. If Gibbs has done something significant, then there will be plenty of RS to tell us that in the coming weeks and months. Glrx (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

When a major newspaper or magazine publishes a finding - even if that finding proves to be wrong - that's relevant. Multiple secondary sources have, as you have noted, reported on the TLS article. Put bluntly, even if this later proves to be wrong it's already past the threshold where discussing his claim is notable, by fact of the amount of coverage. Waving this away as 'recentism' smacks, frankly, of WP:OR. Nandesuka (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

(e/c)

@Czar:

Gibbs, a writer, has been hired for some TV special.

I don't see a single secondary source above. I have not claimed there are secondary sources.

We have Gibbs finding a publisher for his ruminations about VM. Gibbs is a primary source. Maybe he's trying to drum up interest by running a PR campaign. WP doesn't trust primary sources because primary sources must be interpreted and evaluated -- something that WP editors are not supposed to do.

TLS is not even a good primary source. What experience does TLS have with VM or codes and ciphers? VM is an arcane subject and out of TLS's league. We are not talking about a peer-reviewed article in Cryptologia.

Then we have a several other sources saying Gibbs wrote an article that said X. Repetition does not a secondary source make. The authors are not making their own assessments, they are just parroting that Gibbs made a claim. Secondary sources have the intellectual perspective to examine the claims in primary sources and pass judgment upon them.

For a quasi secondary source, see Brian Dunning's No, the Voynich Manuscript has not been 'decoded'. Dunning says, "A large red flag is raised by Gibbs’ explanation. He says he was commissioned by an unnamed television network to come up with a solution for the Voynich Manuscript. In other words, his solution is not the result of years of study or expertise or collaboration with other experts, but rather it is content created for a TV show. Popular television networks, such as the History Channel, have extraordinarily poor reputations for manufacturing sensational pseudohistory." Dunning's views, while secondary, are not a reliable source because it is a blog. Some believe Dunning has enough cred behind his blog to make it a reliable source, but he does screw up (e.g., misunderstanding the Gardner Island Hypothesis).

Another failure is WP:UNDUE. There hasn't been enough time for a significant minority to evaluate and believe the claim. Undue stuff does not belong in WP. And Gibb's does not have that authority by himself.

Gibb's claim is not OR by a WP editor.

WP:BRD says the material is out until there's consensus here.

Glrx (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

If you want to try to make the argument that the Times Literary Supplement is not a notable source, by all means be my guest, but that seems like a specious argument, on its face, to me. Nandesuka (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

There have been at least fifty other Voynich theories that have been covered in newspapers and magazines in the last decade (and I've seen just about all of them), so why on earth have so many Wikipedia editors stepped forward in the last 48 hours to push Nicholas Gibbs forward as worthy of special treatment here? The sooner Gibbs' theory is removed from this page, the better a page this will be - and heaven knows it's a page that needs improvement, however small that may be. Nickpelling (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

"notable source" has nothing to do with anything on WP. The subject of an article on WP must be WP:N. Material included in the article must be WP:DUE. It is not my WP:BURDEN to show exclusion. Glrx (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - no reliable, secondary source picked that up. Ars technica and other are just repeating what Gibbs is claiming, but they didn't review and can't of course assess the material (because they are not historian journals or the like), they only report the claim happened.

I am pretty sure in the next few days we'll hear a lot of researchers formulating their opinions on Gibbs' ideas. Until then, it seems not correct to list it here. - Ffaffff (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Not yet. I'd want to see medievalists weighing in on the proposed translations, which have not yet been revealed in much length. There are less than forty characters in the script, and it seems to me that interpreting them all as scribal abbreviations yields a text with a stunted vocabulary, or plenty of room for eisegesis by the 'translator'. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a pretty safe bet that this guy is fooling himself. He went in with a strong theory and used an "decoding" method that gives him a wide latitude in what words he chooses, and then, lo and behold, he discovered that his theory was exactly right. Of course he's fooling himself.

But that's not really the question. We're not here to determine WP:TRUTH. Just notability. ApLundell (talk) 05:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I respect your stance (which, correct me if I am wrong, is "if a big newspaper reported it, we need to put it there"). My question is: there are some dozens claims (some say around 50) of deciphering it, and most of them land on big newspapers first, only to be crushed by dry medievalist studies a few weeks later. What should we do with those? Add them all to Wikipedia (now I count only 7 of them)?

What I say is that there probably is a bar to limit how many deciphering attempts go into this page: the bar probably being "any attempt which, right or wrong, is historically or methodologically relevant".

The answer to this question lies in a secondary source which can make such analysis, and I don't think any of the provided sources qualifies. Am I wrong?

Ffaffff (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

So that's all that Wikipedia comes down to now, is it? A single puff piece in any publication anywhere flicks the yes-its-notable LED on, and in it goes? Blimey, if that is genuinely the way even a sizeable minority of Wikipedia editors now think, the whole project is dead in the water. What a waste. :-( Nickpelling (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Nick, the only thing I see you doing here is bitching and moaning about "the lack of quality" of this article. I also have and had my criticism about that and took up the glove to actually improve it last year June (solving citation neededs, including info about ink, the ownership timeline and full manuscript in an easy lay-out, general referencing issues, adding sources etc. etc.). What have you done about an article you deem, quote from this very discussion "heaven know's it's an article that needs improvement", what, where? No vague comments, what is it concrete? Work on that, especially with your years of Voynich experience. Tisquesusa (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tisquesusa: have you tried loading this page on a mobile device in the last year? What the heck is the set of thumbnails for the whole manuscript doing there? Every single Voynich theory (new or historical) should be moved to a separate page: there should be no speculation on the main page, it should just be factual, there are now more than enough facts to form a really substantial and interesting page on its own. Also: enthusiastic Wikieditors have larded out the page with soundbites from numerous inconclusive research publications, to the point that the article would be unreadable even if it were a tenth of the size. Yet more overenthusiastic Wikieditors continue to accidentally vandalize it with well-meaning nonsense such as this week's Gibbs theory, and probably next month's theory too. Without fixing all of these structural and editorial problems all at the same time, you'd be wasting your time trying to fix this: people would cut and paste the stuff they like back in, and the same rubbish status quo would be reached in no time at all. Do I need to add much more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickpelling (talk • contribs) 20:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Gibbs seems to have settled the matter. There is no mystery, and no cipher. It reminds me of Samuel Pepys's diary which was described for a very long time as having been written in a cipher, and someone spent a very long time trying to decipher it with good success. But it was shorthand! In Pepys's own library, where his diaries are kept, there is a manual for that shorthand system. The solution was actually in the same room. Doh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.228.58 (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The more people who land here asserting blithely that Gibbs has "settled the matter" or other such nonsense, the stronger the case for DELETE grows. Nickpelling (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Possible troll, as I am not aware of anyone thinking Pepys' diary was any kind of cypher or anyone "spend[ing] a very long time trying to decipher it with good success" not knowing it was shorthand. In any case, I am deleting Gibbs section, in the spirit of WP:BRD. I hope whoevers revert it will read this and reply with their rationale. Ffaffff (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• This is a bit of an edge-case. While it is true that Gibbs' piece is notable thanks to several independent entities writing pieces on it, Gibbs has not provided much in the way of technical detail, and appears to have published his findings in no peer-reviewed journals. Until this happens, it is impossible to judge independently whether Gibbs has indeed deciphered the work, or is making exaggerated claims; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so Gibbs should not be mentioned in this article until his claims can be independently verified. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 17:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Ok, there is a critique of the finding. @ApLundell:, is your opinion that we should add it back with the caveat or not add it? In general: what to do in such cases? I would still be in the "no mention" camp, or maybe a 10 words note. Ffaffff (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Tough question.

I do think it's notable enough for inclusion, but I won't fight for it. I don't think the article loses much not having it.

In my mind the question is "Years from now, will reading about this add anything to the article?". It's useful as an example, but as was pointed out above, there's no shortage of breathless announcements that the manuscript has been "decoded", and there's not much value in listing all of them.

I guess if people want to wait and see, I'm fine with that. But, it wouldn't surprise me if it sticks around as a persistant myth. It's being presented in social media as "Men couldn't decode this document for ages. Turns out it's about women's health, but male conspiracy theorists don't want to believe it." which could give it legs. ApLundell (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Social media is not a reliable source.

WP does not celebrate hacks. WP:UNDUE states:

Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

As long as "an extremely small minority" (e.g., Gibbs) believes in the "solution", it does not belong on Wikipedia. Glrx (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

1) I never claimed social media was a reliable source.

2) Wikipedia has articles on all sorts of hacks. So I don't know what you mean here. Competance is not notability, or vice versa.

3) I would argue that Wales was talking about Big Issues, like evolution or something. With a fringe topic like the VN, the "significant minorities" can be a single notable researcher, so your quote about "extremely small minorities" is not relevant.

ApLundell (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

This isn't anything to do with viewpoints. Nobody appears to be suggesting that the article should include "the text has been deciphered by Gibbs," since this is clearly untrue. Simply mentioning his name in the context of his unverified claim, as the article does currently, is perfectly legitimate since his claim has been discussed in secondary pieces. The article does not give him undue credence; it is simply that the existence of Gibbs' claim is a notable fact in and of itself. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 15:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thin it down for now. Gibbs has no reputation as a Voynich researcher, and that he was able to get a banner headline of "Voynich Solution" in the Times Literary Supplement is not convincing. Per Wikipedia's pillar of Neutrality, we must follow the principle of not giving a single theory undue weight in comparison to other theories. The Voynich being what it is, these theories can come in several times a year, and it's not up to us on Wikipedia to cover every single theory that swirls through the internet. We do, however, have a responsibility to use good sources, especially peer-reviewed sources. The TLS, to my knowledge, though it has some reasonable claim to reliability, is not a peer-reviewed source. If other academics weigh in later that Gibbs' theory has some merit, then it might be worth expanding it in the "Theories" section as other secondary sources become available. If Gibbs genuinely has a solution, then other third parties will be able to verify that solution. That said,Wikipedia has no deadline, so there is no need to do anything in a hurry. It might make sense to add a single line about Gibbs in the "Theories" section for now, and then we can circle back on this later. That would at least stop the flood of people coming in and saying, "The Wikipedia article isn't covering this yet, it must be updated." --Elonka 20:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I would say that that his not having a reputation as a Voynich researcher speaks to his credit rather than to his detriment. I think there has been coverage enough at this point for the proposal to merit a few lines - including also the critique.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Again. It's not important whether he "genuinely has a solution". Of course he doesn't. That's not what this discussion is about. ApLundell (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Woops, while this discussion was shaping up I made a tentative edit. I feel it takes into consideration the reason for inclusion (after all, the claim and the way it was picked up by an important newspaper are historical facts) and doesn't give Gibbs' work WP:UNDUE space. Go wild editing! --Ffaffff (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

A Gibbs rebuttal section had been added, which I removed: much as I (personally) agree with what was said, the quotes were all taken from blogs etc, and so shouldn't be included here. For now, if a whole bunch of Wikieditors are so intent on including Gibbs here, let him have his day in the sun: just only give him a very small towel to sit on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickpelling (talk • contribs) 20:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The Skeptoid piece does appear to be a blog, but the [1]rebuttal piece |in The Atlantic would seem to be worth referencing. It is written from the point of view of the work, not the author. --Elonka 20:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree the Skeptoid hast to go, I agree the Atlantic fits pretty well in the "secondary sources", no matter where the quotes come from. I suspect we will have to be happy with a non scholarly source anyway, @Nickpelling:, because I don't see any journal writing a rebuttal to a non-published theory, even if it featured prominently in the TLS. --Ffaffff (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Secondary sources now in Ars Technica, The Atlantic, etc. Wikipedia is a tertiary source—we should be paraphrasing reliable sources secondary to the theory (not the primary source, which is the theory itself in the TLS) By the way, didn't catch that ping above czar 04:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Ink age

It is unclear if the age of the ink has been studied, Hermes 2012 pointed this out too. There is a study from 2016, concluding "..results in the present work need to be compared with analogous studies of historic documents having iron gall inks on parchments" prokaryotes (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Article tweaks

Since nobody did it, I did! I added ars technica and the atlantic (secondary, reliable sources) to gibbs section. I also removed the entire manuscript scan because this is an encyclopedia entry, not wikisource. If someone who is knowledgeable about the VMS sees this: please boldly axe down everything which is not essential from this article. As it is it is very difficult to understand/navigate for a layman like me. I'll take a break from this article, thanks everyone and happy editing! --Ffaffff (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I've recently read the entire page and think it isn't too bad. However, when it comes to streamlining, tweaking the article - I suggest moving the parts on decyphering claims into a new article, with a summary kept here. prokaryotes (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

IS anyone against moving the section on claims of decipherment to new article space? prokaryotes (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

My offer of the other wiki stands. Jackiespeel (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you say against or support? Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

"Article space" is a special term in wikipedia; same as WP:Article namespace. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Answering your question, with question: What benefits do you see? The section in question is relatively short. Are you going to expand it to a decent article? Staszek Lem (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I picked this part, because it presents a chapter which can stand on it's own. Would I expand on it, idk, probably not much. But this seems rather uncontroversial, instead of axing down everything which is not essential. I rather read trivial stuff too, or vague details while dealing with this topic. prokaryotes (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Rip-off?

A significant text of wikipedia and this ("Exhibit A") coincide verbatim. Example: The overall impression given by the surviving leaves of the manuscript is that it was meant to serve as a pharmacopoeia or to address topics in medieval or early modern medicine. Exhibit A is multiused as a reference in our article (" In 27.April 2014 Sukhwant Singh has published his first video in Youtube, which asserted that the manuscript is written in Landa Khjoki scripts. Later he published a 55 minute long video in youtube which provides a substantial proof for each section of the Voynich Manuscript, and recognizes that it's written in variating languages of Landa Khojki, having connections to Khawaja Ismaili, Bukhara, Samarkand, Uzbekistan. In this video he also recognizes lot of places which are located on this same area. The book of Eaton describes these findings as "an ancient languages from the Sindh region of what is now Pakistan. He said it is a compilation of knowledge passed down through the generations from one "Holy Man" to the next, and was carried to Europe by the Romani. Maybe." Mr. Singh has also established a web site, where he has published his findings. He claims that he is able to translate any given page of the manuscript, and is actully working for the full translation in his freetime.JouniJokela (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

References

This page is strictly about the wikipedia article. We're not here to decipher ancient manuscripts.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Decipherment with the help of Wikipedia It's basically possible for everyone to Decipher the Voynich Manuscript. Also Mr. Singh used just common Wiki pages on his work. Of course you need to be able to understand the meaning of the words, so as also Mr. Singh says, a help of a native Sindh spaker is still needed here. JouniJokela (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC) Laṇḍā scripts Landa script Chart. Khojki script	unicode=U+11200–U+1124F Final Accepted Script Proposal The key phrase 'any single page' (rather than a longer text). The initial reaction of the paleographer I called up the text for 'a few years ago' was that it was an ordinary medieval text. And the manuscript is written in a 'running hand' rather than laboriously considered and transcribed. Jackiespeel (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the Gale Eaton book is a light general interest book about hoaxes, and the reference to Singh is three sentences long. (And one of those sentences is merely explaining who the Romani people are!) That's not a reference that establishes notability. This is still just a self-published theory. One among hundreds. ApLundell (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Latest decipherment claim

A claim has been made by Ahmet Ardic, "an electrical engineer by trade who also studies the Turkish language in his spare time" and his sons. Supposedly the language is Old Turkic. Claims to have translated Folio 33-V. They've submitted a paper to "a scholarly journal at John Hopkins University."

source: Brodie Thomas (Feb 27, 2018). "Calgary engineer believes he's cracked the mysterious Voynich Manuscript". Metro Calgary. Retrieved 28 February 2018.

--Auric talk 12:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks promising! The journal is the semiannual Digital Philology I think. Indefensible (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Experts are skeptical, to put it mildly... http://ciphermysteries.com/2018/02/28/voynich-theories-throw-onto-already-blazing-hearth Drabkikker (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Please add a section under Decipherment claims for The Ardiç family (Ahmet Ardiç, Alp Erkan Ardiç, Ozan Ardiç, etc), aka “Ata Team Alberta” (ATA). Seems the Wiki page is deficient if you can't find any reference to this when there are a several public sources of the proposed translation. Verificity (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Does the method produce long, coherent stretches of text? Is there a reasonable explanation as to how and why the VM ended up in Prague and Italy (and bears at least a superficial resemblance to Latin-using medieval documents)? If not, then the theory is unlikely to be taken seriously. Jackiespeel (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware none of the claims thus far have resulted in anything resembling coherent (and reproduceable) text, so if that's the criterion for inclusion they should all go (perhaps not a bad idea). I'd say the Ardiç attempt is as "worthy" (mind the quotation marks there) as the others, so I don't see much reason not to include them, other than that they haven't published their results (yet). In fact someone already added a section on them a while ago, but the edit was reversed. (Also see the discussion below.) Drabkikker (talk) 08:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The 'stretches of coherent text (though different sections may have different source languages)' test #is# my idea/proposal - so can be countered.

There should be some form of list of 'translators and theorists' - they are out there, and people are likely to persistently add them if they are removed. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Any claim to a decipherment should produce lots of reasonable and coherent text. Otherwise, the decipherment would be statistically insignificant. Choosing some complex set of rules that results in deciphering a single nonsensical sentence is not statistically significant.

Yes, the list of claims is too long, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to add more stuff to the list.

The simple test for inclusion here is WP:DUE. There should be a significant minority that evaluates the claim and finds it credible. It should not be some guy claims he's deciphered the VM, he publishes a press release, and then several newspapers pick it up and report some guy claims to have deciphered the VM. We need sources that evaluate the claim and find it credible. Extraordinary claims require better sources.

That applies to all claims. If some guy claims he cannot decipher the manuscript but knows it is written in some ancient language in some forgotten script, that is just speculation without something more. WP needs sources that evaluate the claim and agree that find the speculation is reasonable.

It also does not hurt us to wait. If some guy makes a claim on Tuesday, we don't have to publish that claim on Wednesday or even in the next three months. If there's a claim about submission to a scholarly, peer-reviewed, journal, then we can wait to see if the submission is actually published. If somebody actually deciphers the manuscript, there will be a lots of sources supporting that claim. Copiale cipher.

Glrx (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Glrx, but I think an attempt in principle doesn't have to be statistically significant or otherwise succesful to be notable, just as the article on the Golden State Killer still mentions former suspects (even now where the true perpetrator appears to be identified). If the attempts have been widely reported, it may be notable even if discredited. At this point, more than anything the (hi)story of the manuscript is the story of hundreds of failed attempts, obviously some more notable than others. -- However, I'd say the most recent reports can not be deemed among the notable ones by any standards, at this time.--Nø (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nø: I agree in part. My comment was focused on removing dubious claims of insight or decipherment. The article can cover unsuccessful attempts or observations, but those typically will have some scientific or statistical basis. For example, applying language measures to the manuscript. The inclusion standard for material within a WP article is WP:DUE, a requirement that is different from the notable requirement for articles. WP:DUE says in part, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it". WP is not interested in covering every claim about VP but rather only those claims held by prominent adherents. Generally, self-published works about the VM by unknowns should not be covered. We can wander into a gray area. Nick Pelling might be viewed as a prominent authority on the VM, so if he publishes something in his blog, that might merit mention in this article (with the proviso he would be only ONE adherent). That should not be used to bootstrap WP:DUE for someone else's theory: that is, if unknown X self-publishes his theory of the VM, and Pelling dismisses the theory in his blog, then that is not enough to satisfy WP:DUE: even if Pelling is a prominent authority, he is not an adherent of X's theory. Similarly, newspapers merely reporting "X claims to have deciphered the VM" does not show that there are prominent adherents of X's theory. Glrx (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the method used by the Ardic family does produce long coherent stretches of text. An example is given in the video from 9:07, reulting in the following translation for the entire Folio 33-V page. Quote follows. Diskdaemon (talk) 07:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

If you were to cleave it, this harvestable sunny/multi-ended flower with its flat, oval-like, loose and sticky seeds will be split and scattered.

The crown-looking flower, if moist, is easy to carve and has many kernels, and looks like it has lines of hollow black bubbles in the form of a hair-like whorl.

The shrub size stalk has yellow pendulum-like fany flower on top and a honey-comb like pattern in the center, and if on a muddy watery base, the plant/branch collapses.

As the kernels inside the honey-comb patterened center fill up with oily halvah-like substance, the head of the plant becomes heavy and bends its head to a side and might surprizingly split the stalk.

If the plant has three branches, and one of the branches becomes small/dwarf (like a big button), it shrinks and the juice inside the dying branch is sucked by the tailor (creator), and is transferred towards the two healthy branches which becomes larger/healthier.

The many yellowish arrow-like tips of the kernel/nut can be eaten/consumed by a kissing motion/action.

The weight of the harvest is such that it will benefit (pay very well, profitable) you, the shoe maker/the looters, the hammer worker (blacksmith), the scale worker, partner (business partners), many others/the happy crowd, and even the landscaper (stalk picker).

The taste of the first fruits (nuts) and the attractive appearance of the ornamented crown captivates those buying the plant and takes full control of the buyer (impressing), for even the dying person will remain impressed.

The stalk and the grain (all together) are shoveled with a wide and deep basket - in a swift motion - filling it. Once the flowers are removed the skin of the stalk can be used to braid. A bowl-size flower is as valuable as gold.

The harvester (farmer) cuts the spikes and fills the bag and barn. The buyer weighs it and feels heartwarmed (satisfied).

(reset) There are several different aspects to the claimed translations:

• What constitutes a sufficiency of translated material for the theory to be investigated further - so far this has probably not been reached. (This discussion probably belongs on a suitable VM-themed website/wiki rather than WP)
• What criteria should be used for including someone on a list of 'providers of translations'
• How much detail should be provided for the various theories it is decided to include (and whether there should be Wikipedia comments on the claims - eg Roger Bacon's dates are wrong, the perceived micrography is based on 'misreading' the cracks etc).

Given the number of claims made, we might end up with something like List of archives in Canada here. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jackiespeel: We should flush most claimed translations. There should be a source that supports a statement such as, "Although many people have claimed they can translate the VM, their offered translations have been for extremely short portions of the manuscript and unconvincing. Consequently, there is no evidence that the VM has been translated by anyone." That should cover most attempted translations. There is good reason to cover reasonable investigations or attacks. For example, cryptological investigations of letter and digraph frequencies. The statistical investigation section is appropriate. I suspect there are many adherents to the results of such investigations. Covering attacks by William F. Friedman and the NSA is appropriate; both are prominent. I'm leery of including people such as Stojko; maybe his book is worthwhile because so many Ukrainians were duped, but that is not putting merit on the translation. I'm not comfortable with claims by Bax (whose reference reads like a recycled press release), Gibbs (personal musings in TLS), and Kondrak (Smithsonian recycled Canadian paper's recycled press release); I don't see other prominent adherents to those theories, and the claims are recent. The comments are more along the lines of news reports: X tried to decipher the manuscript using method Y, made some weak claim Z, and others disputed the work. In addition, those efforts do not merit H3 subheadings. Glrx (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes the "others disputed the work" step doesn't even happen, because nobody notable cares.

This is a common problem with fringe topics, where some barely notable person will make a wacky claim, and the only sources are news sources repeating the wacky claim, because real scientists have better things to do than to debunk the latest crazy idea. So Wikipedia has a hard time putting the wacky idea in a context that makes it clear that it's wacky. ApLundell (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Skeleton key

Should the 'skeleton and flesh' statement not be moved after the 'Gordon Rugg and Gavin Taylor' statement - unless they were dealing with the method (as well as the matter in the text immediately preceding the SF statements). Jackiespeel (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

16th Century Mexican Origin

I know people claim to have “deciphered” the code/language all the time, but this is a different angle and wonder if it’s as significant as they make it sound (and thus warrants mention) or if it’s just the theory of the month:

Purdue and Delaware State professors unravel century-old mystery

Javascosts (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced. The armadillo may well be an old-world pangolin, the Sagittarius archer and the castles on the foldouts look very distinctly European, and IIRC the sunflower in period looked distinctly different from how it looks today (and supposedly in the VM.) And if you can't come up with a reasonable translation despite the numerous 'cribs' you claim to have found, it's not looking promising. Let's wait and see what happens to this theory. --Syzygy (talk) 10:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The Nahuatl in their proposal is not Nahuatl but gibberish. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Mystery Solved

A Youtube channel named Voynich Manusctript Revealed released a video on Feb 22 2018 named Voynich Manuscript Revealed (2018) where 30% of the manuscript was translated. Ata Team Alberta (ATA) has found out the manuscript is actually very close to Turkish Language. Video description: "The Voynich Manuscript is a mysterious medieval manuscript written in the early 15th century. To date, scientists, historians, mathematicians and linguists have struggled to decipher the manuscript. However, the mystery has finally been put to rest. Ata Team Alberta (ATA) has deciphered and translated over 30% the manuscript. Currently, a formal paper of the philological study was submitted to an academic journal in John Hopkins University." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.219.175.171 (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

This is discussed in the section "Latest decipherment claim" above. Unless a reliable independent source can be found, nothing here warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. As you say, it's been around since Ferbruary, so if the claim has merit, it should be possible to find such a source. Please note that for this subject matter, even ovetherwise relatively serious news outlets tend to publish sensational claims without proper checking; i.e., news outlets alone are not reliable sources here.--Nø (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I think there are flower medicine's method of 15th century. In these painting the drawing express the benefits of that flower In that century the emperor or painter make it for future MAHESH GURJAR banasthali (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

2000 year old leather compared to 600 year old vellum

Perhaps I should just edit this myself, but I must admit I'm not BOLD and this is my second ever interaction in Wikipedia so I decided to bring it to the talk page. In the section on the manuscript being a possible "Fabrication by Voynich" it ends with a statement and reference about fraudulent fragments of the Dead Sea scrolls existing in significant quantities as evidence that carbon dating of the Voynich manuscript can't be completely relied upon. While I may agree with that personally, it seems to be a clear case of SYNTH as the reference doesn't mention the Voynich manuscript at all, but rather the Dead Sea scrolls. Major differences in the situation are the material in general and time of origin (maybe unused 2000 year old leather is actually significantly easier to come by today than unused 600 year old vellum is. I don't know and the source doesn't make any evidence one way or the other that it is because the source isn't about such a topic). Another, in my mind, bigger issue regarding the differences in the situations is in the case of the Dead Sea scrolls, the forgeries seem to be most commonly small, individual fragments which seems to be a far cry compared to an entire book of vellum which, based on the referenced statement before it, seems to all be from the same source due to the consistency.

So ultimately my question is, should "However, recent forgeries of Dead Sea Scrolls, which are based on 2,000 year-old leather as their “slate”, render pure carbon dating insufficient.[55]" be removed? 140.186.111.161 (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Voynich himself would probably have stocks of old vellum of varying ages and sources as a result of his antiquarian books trading/buying material from owners - and as he was trained as a chemist (and knew many languages) he probably would have experimented to see how old manuscripts 'worked'/and spot obvious 'improvements.' While he might produce 'obvious constructs and decorative items' - why would he create an entire book with a backstory etc? And he spent much time in trying to get the VM deciphered/trying to prove Roger Bacon created.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are 'saleable things' - and more so when decorated.

Given that the ink used would be organic based (iron gall ink and lamp black) surely it could be dated as such? Jackiespeel (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm honestly not so sure myself that just because he's a dealer in antiquarian books automatically means that he would also be holding onto raw materials for producing "old" books himself, though I do agree that it's potentially possible he may have been able to find somebody who did and acquired them for the purposes of a forgery. What I am saying, however, is that assuming he would would probably constitute OR without reliable a source stating he did or, at the very least one that mentions the possibility as opposed to the current source which has nothing whatsoever to do with either the manuscript itself nor even a remotely similar material except through SYNTH. That is to say, I'm not so much concerned about the sentence and what it implies itself, but rather the source used to support it. Surely there's some source, perhaps even already included in the article that mentions such a possibility perhaps while making a claim that it's a forgery by Voynich? If so, then shouldn't the existing reference be replaced and if not, the sentence removed until a proper source with a similar statement can be found?

Also, I hope I'm not being much of a bother if some of this stuff is obvious. As I said, I'm admittedly using this experience in roughly equal parts to get more familiar with the wiki process as well as to (hopefully) improve the article. Speaking of which, sorry I don't know how to link to policies about synth and original research, though I have lurked around enough that I (I think) basically know what they are, but don't really have any editing experience. I'm just glad the "show preview" button allowed me to figure out how the indentation works. Speaking of which, now that I checked how it signed, I'm the same person as the IP above, in case that wasn't obvious. 2001:48F8:24:1956:619B:6EE8:499B:F434 (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

My argument is more: he was an antiquarian bookseller so would at times acquire 'batches of old volumes and material' which would include loose sheets and unused materials etc, so might well do some repairs and analysis (using his chemist's skills) so that he could 'get the feel of the items and be able to recognise the good, the mis-attributed and the incorrect/bad' - and if he did 'write out a sample/decorative piece (whether or not for sale as such) it would be no more than a couple of sheets.

Not so much OR as 'what we would do if we were in that context.' Jackiespeel (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Really? You've never in your life been tempted to create an elaborate hoax for the pure joy of doing so? You and I think very differently. ApLundell (talk) 08:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Why not create a pseudo-medieval tome with 'cars, wax-cylinder players and other items of the present' hidden in the foliage) rather than something so 'odd'? And what about the practice documents around (some of which would manage to escape into the wider publishing world). A

Perhaps this discussion now belongs here rather than on Wikipedia.

Giving away the gag with easter eggs would spoil the fun and make the whole effort pointless. To me anyway.

I mean, obviously, right? If it was an overt hoax we wouldn't even be talking about it. ApLundell (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

But why ask 'the experts' to translate it - and why not go along the route of The Magic Words are Squeamish Ossifrage?

What about the rough drafts etc?

And there is my suggestion 'somewhere in the archives' that the text of the VM was created by someone literate in another script (mis)copying an extant document of North Italy. (Probability - 'less unlikely than some of the other suggestions made here, but only marginally so.') Jackiespeel (talk) 10:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

All I can say is that creating a "puzzle" is a completely different thing which will appeal to different people. Have you never read a mystery novel and then afterwards imagined how interesting it would be to commit the "perfect crime"? The challenge and sense of accomplishment would be in not leaving any clues.

In the spirit of not leaving any clues, any rough drafts would go straight to the fireplace as soon as they were no longer needed. That's often the fate of rough drafts anyway, but a hoaxer would make certain of it.

And that all assumes that the hoaxer's motives were purely an artistic impulse. If they also expected to turn a profit on the thing, then they'd be even more strict about secrecy. But you don't need to assume that, the desire to create a perfect hoax or mystery is common enough. ApLundell (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

(reset) WV was by this time a long established businessman (who published a number of catalogues of 'books not in the British Library) who travelled widely - so why not create a number of 'odd documents'? Jackiespeel (talk) 11:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)