Talk:Voynich manuscript/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Solved?

It seems that there is a solution. -Theklan (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

This paper is a bit of a joke to be honest. It doesn't even begin to translate anything. Definitely can't be called "solved."Wikiditm (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Are we reading the same paper? --Auric talk 22:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Another critical response[1] 173.228.123.207 (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm no linguist, but this looks like the usual nonsense to me.

If you give yourself enough latitude in interpreting the results, you can come up with any answer that seems right to you.

ApLundell (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

https://phys.org/news/2019-05-bristol-academic-voynich-code-century-old.html?fbclid=IwAR0FRYjI7jTFrAXB-QpwfYtJC0gymv-dNqLE4y6VbIcOYDHD08iIa5pPyVU 131.137.245.207 (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

As a point of interest, I'm always suspicious when someone is described as "an academic". It's such a good sounding, but extremely vague thing to say. (Like "inventor")

Turns out he was a PhD student in biology. I changed the article to describe him as a "biologist", as news articles are calling him "doctor" so he apparently now has his PhD, and so "biologist" seems like the best description.

He is not listed as a professor on UoB's website, but a "Visiting Research Associate"[2]. ApLundell (talk) 06:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what Wikipedians may think about the author, what counts is that Romance_Studies_(journal) decided to publish the paper. We do have a general policy of preferring Wikipedia:Primary Secondary and Tertiary Sources, so it is fine that we defer mentioning this paper until there has been some wider, secondary reporting on it. Lklundin (talk) 06:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC) - PS: Which there seems to be now. Lklundin (talk) 06:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I certainly won't fight for it, but I think this one has received enough media attention that we may as well include it in the list. At least while it's still hot in the news and people keep coming here expecting to see it. Just so long as we don't treat it as any better than all the other efforts.

One day that list will get too long and we'll have to trim it again, but there's no harm leaving the current decipherment-of-the-month on it for now. ApLundell (talk) 08:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

A good quote from the Guardian article "You can’t just have one person saying: 'I've cracked it.' You have got to have the field, on the whole, agreeing." William Avery (talk) 08:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I deleted the section again. There needs to be consensus on this talk page for the material, and consensus relies on policy-based arguments. WP only covers topics that are WP:DUE. Newspapers quoting Cheshire's claims do not count. Sources attacking Cheshire do not make the attacked claims WP:DUE. There must be evidence that a significant minority holds or supports the viewpoint. That readers come to this article to learn about Cheshire's claims does not mean that those claims should be reported here. WP's purpose is not to recite every claim to a solution. WP does not intend to cover transient events. If Cheshire has solved it or made significant progress, that achievement would not be ephemeral. If he has made progress, then the significant minority will come. Glrx (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Nobody has ever made "significant progress". That's not the metric.

ApLundell (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not editors here think it is "a bit of a joke", this purported solution has been very widely reported and readers will expect it to be mentioned. We should include academic sources rebutting it, of course, but we should not exclude all mention of it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, like I said I won't fight for it. But I do think the fact that it was so quickly rebutted, even informally, by experts indicates that it's risen above the noise level. The fact that there's a rebuttal available also makes it a nicely representative example for the article's non-comprehensive list of decipherments-of-the-month.

What I would really like, is for the entire "Decipherment claims" to be reformatted into a discussion about how the VM regularly attracts these kinds of overly-optimistic pattern-seeking decipherment claims. They've honestly become the largest part of the document's story. The current claim is an almost perfect example of that recurring phenomena. I think making the reader understand that these decipherments are a regular event would be more useful than having a short list that we have to constantly debate inclusions for. ApLundell (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle restoration should be undone. WP:DUE is policy. Who are the prominent adherent's of Cheshire's work? Nobody. That means it does not belong on Wikipedia.

WP also values independent sources. Rewriting a press release is not an independent source. It does not matter how many newspapers rewrite the PR. Also, just quoting Cheshire does not cut it. Ref 100, EurekAlert is a dead link. Ref 101, Gary Manners, mostly quotes the PR: "The press release from University of Bristol in South West England promotes a paper that reveals the secret language of the Voynich manuscript has finally been understood." To the limited extent Manners exercises independence, he states others have made confident claims before, but Cheshire "seems to have solid backing"; Manners does not go into that backing. Ref 102, the Guardian, states the claim, does not evaluate it, but points to Fagin's criticism. Ref 103, BBC, just regurgitates the claim and includes a lot of direct quotations. All of the citations depend on Cheshire's claim. That does not count on WP.

We decide how important some topic is. DUE is not some belief that a lot of people come to this article interested in Cheshire's work so we should include it. We don't get to read Cheshire's paper and pass judgment. We need sources for that. And right now the independent sources are panning it. That's not the kind of material WP should have.

Glrx (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

"And right now the independent sources are panning it."

Of course they're panning it. It's total nonsense.

Nobody is arguing that it should be included because we think it might be true.

The manuscript is undecipherable. The notable thing is that people keep trying and failing. Actual academics have mostly given up on the VM as useless. To the extent that the manuscript stays relevant, it does so because of popular culture, not because of academic culture.

The VM is to linguistics what perpetual motion machines are to engineering. ApLundell (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

(Although, see my comment above. I think the endless cycle of false decipherments could be worked into a prose section that organically mentions some notable examples rather than just presenting a short, cherry-picked list. If we can get consensus for that, I'd be happy to take the first stab at writing it.) ApLundell (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not arguing truth. I'm not arguing WP:N. I'm arguing the POLICY of WP:DUE: "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." Who are those prominent adherents? Nick Pelling could be prominent, but he does not adhere. AFAIK, there are none. Until there are such adherents, the material does not belong in the article. When some prominent adherents appear, then it may be included.

And why does the insertion have more column inches refuting the claim than describing the claim? That just seems perverse. Let's include some idea and also shoot it down. That's not an encyclopedia's charter.

And it is beyond me why somebody would say "It's total nonsense" but think it should be included.

Much of the argument above seems to indict the relevance of the VM. That's not the issue here. This is not a deletion discussion about the main article; the VM is clearly WP:N. Furthermore, a belief that the VM is irrelevant is not an argument to stuff an article with additional irrelevance.

Glrx (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

"And it is beyond me why somebody would say "It's total nonsense" but think it should be included"

Nonsense is nearly 100% orthogonal to notability and relevance.

I hope you don't take this attitude to articles about perpetual motion machines or UFO conspiracy theories. ApLundell (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Though I support that we in general do not include the latest wild claims about Voynich, I think User:ApLundells argument is mistaken. I would expect articles on UFOs and perpetual motion to cover (and, obviously, mostly debunk) some of the most notable nonsense that has been in vogue at various times. An article on UFOs not mentioning Roswell would be strange. OK, bad example considering UFOs are a real thing - natural phenomena, unfamiliar types of aircraft etc. My point is that "fringe science" (and worse) is a valid subject.--Nø (talk) 06:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be no likelihood of consensus here on whether or how to include mention of Cheshire's claims, and so editors who think that they should not be included should raise the matter at a forum like WP:RFC, to get outside involvement. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

That's backwards. No consensus usually means that newly added material goes. See WP:NOCON.

But more than that, I'm not seeing policy-based argument for inclusion. Cheshire made a claim. A PR was distributed. Some news outlets picked up the PR. WP:CONSENSUS is weighed by policy arguments. Glrx (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the point is that other editors do not seem to agree with your interpretation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I am anotjher editor who firmly believes "readings" of Voynich Ms is one of the areas where wikipedia shoud await solid secondary sources or tertiary sorces before including the latest claim (which in practice means that most claims will never be included). In principle, some false and debunked claims can be included, if their media coverage or scholarly discussions have been notable enough in themselves to make them a significant part of the ongoing saga of the Voynich Ms. But one misguided article in the Guardian, say, is no where near enough to meet this criterion. -- As I've stated above, when dealing with current affairs - developing stories - of course material may appear in wikipedia that later need to be amended. But adding stuff to be on the forefront of the story, when all likelihood is that it later will be not amended but deleted, is not the right approach in an encyclopaedia.--Nø (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

This research has been publicised much more widely than "one misguided article in the Guardian". The news that Cheshire's university is now disclaiming any role in the research now raises wider issues. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment I'd say it's notable at present because of the ongoing coverage. It's been picked up at lay science news sites. At least for the time being, I think we serve our readership best by covering it, so they see that it's nonsense. — kwami (talk) 02:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of Cheshire's (non-)results.

I see above that there has already been much discussion on this. This is good. So to clarify:

The original claim has been sufficiently covered to warrant inclusion: Daily Telegraph, Tech Times, The Times, The Guardian, Boston Globe.

The rebuttal has also been sufficiently covered: The Telegraph, BBC News, Ars Technica, The Independent.

——SerialNumber54129 11:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

No, it does not. It fails WP:DUE because there are not prominent adherents. Please read the policy.

The first pro-reference you cite, The Daily Telegraph, has the title "Bristol University distances itself from claim 15th century Voynich manuscript has been cracked amid academic scepticism". Its first few paragraphs state,

Bristol University has withdrawn a claim that one of their academic’s cracked a 15th century manuscript.

Earlier this week the University announced that Dr Gerard Cheshire, a research associate, had solved the famous Voynich manuscript in just two weeks, with his findings published in the journal Romance Studies.

Dr Cheshire described how he had “a series of eureka moments” to successfully decipher the manuscript's codex, which revealed the only known example of proto-Romance language.

But the Russell Group University have since removed an article from their website about Dr Cheshire's work after "concerns have been raised about the validity of this research."

So the researcher's university is no longer in the support camp. The implied pro Boston Globe reference, states Bristol withdrew support ("Now the University of Bristol, which originally publicized Cheshire’s findings, has distanced itself from the research, saying it needs to take a further look.").

Failed theories by amateurs are not worthy of coverage. The article is about the VM; it is not about possibly dubious efforts by unknowns.

Glrx (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

But Cheshire's paper cannot simply be dismissed as a failed theory of an amateur, because the paper has been published by a peer-reviewed journal. Lklundin (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

It is certainly true that Glrx does not understand the policy they keep making vague reference to. Reliable sources have covered the affair; DUE exists to ensure that poorly-sourced material is not given equal weight. ——SerialNumber54129 09:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

There will never be "prominent adherents" of any individual theory. However we still need to communicate that there exists an endless parade of false decipherments. That's an important part of the story.

The Chesire decipherment is an excellent example because it's debunked. (A common problem with fringe topics is that nobody bothers to debunk them, so it's difficult to have a discussion that is both rational and sourced.)

So, while I have no particular attachment to this exact decipherment, I really do think it's important to have examples, and this is one is at least getting balanced coverage.

I still think Glrx is fundamentally misunderstanding this conversation.

He keeps harping on the fact that it's been debunked, that the university doesn't support it, etc. None of that is the point. We're not including it because the we expect it to improve the reader's understanding of the text of the manuscript. It obviously won't.

We're including it because false decipherments, including this relatively prominent one, are part of the story of the manuscript.

The VM is a historic artifact that is not done making history, in its own small way. ApLundell (talk) 05:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

It is regrettable that you do not understand my argument. I'm OK with theories that get acceptance but then are discarded. Lamarckian evolution. Ideas by amateurs are not dismissed because they are amateurs. Jules Verne got credit for submarines; Arthur C. Clarke for satellite communications. The problem is Cheshire's theory has no prominent adherents. Verne's and Clarke's ideas got traction and supporters. AFAIK, Cheshire is the only adherent of his theory, and he is not prominent. When there are prominent adherents of his theory, then it belongs in Wikipedia. That's what WP:DUE teaches. Cheshire does not hold a significant viewpoint. Compare that to Amelia Earhart and the Gardner Island Hypothesis; it's very unlikely she landed there, but a significant minority believes she may have landed there. The GIH is WP:DUE because of Hooven, Gillespie, Clinton, and others.

Cheshire does not belong in the main article. WP:DUE would permit it "in some ancillary article".

The notion that a journal is peer reviewed does not mean we must cover it. Wikipedia does not cover every paper that is published in peer reviewed journals.

Regurgitated press releases are not independent and they should not be used to judge significance. Many articles show the viewpoint does not have other adherents. It's not a failed theory that should not be included but rather a theory (whether or not it failed) that never gained traction that should not be included.

So name some "prominent adherents" to Cheshire's theory. If you cannot, then Jimmy Wales says the viewpoint does not belong in Wikipedia.

Glrx (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• The amount of coverage forces us to include it prominently - but the criticism should be given significant weight.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, arguably it's the criticism rather than the original story that is the notable factor. ——SerialNumber54129 13:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Amateurs (in the fields in question) publish "decryptions" of Voynich every year, and some of them gain a certain notoriety in the press, unrelated to their actual merit. And wikipedia editors push inclusion of the latest such claim every year or two, so we have these lengthy discussions. There are really three positions on their inclusion:

1. No way! Only when a claim has been through peer review and we have strong secondary or tertiary sources should they be included in an Encyclopaedia! (I support that view, mostly.)
2. If it is covered by several serious news outlets, it is notable and should be included.
3. Well, the third position is really just an argument in favour of the second that I actually can support to some extent (though I'm not sure one can find Wikipedia policies to back it up): When a claim is covered in major news outlets, there will be people looking up Voynich in Wikipedia to learn more. We need to supply them answers - and we need to have enough on the latest claim to stop most unsophisticated editors (pardon my elitism!) from adding ill-considered nonsense about the claim.

Should we, perhaps in a separate article, maybe a "List of claims about decryption of the Voynich manuscript", briefly cover the most widely publicised deciprement claims - with a prominent disclaimer that they generally

• have not gained broad academic support,
• do not decrypt significant parts of the entire manuscript,
• and are based on a set of dubious ad hoc assumptions?

--Nø (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

There are probably several aspects - 'I have deciphered a few words' claims, 'here is a new idea about, or piece of information on, the actual manuscript as a thing - context, history etc.' and 'appearances and discussions of these topics in the media whether serious news or more creative sources.'

And consider various of the fantastical claims that were made about some of the scripts of the Ancient World before they were deciphered in the modern era (19th century-present) - how likely is it that the same will apply to the VM? Jackiespeel (talk) 11:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Jackiespeel, you are right (and thanks for fixing a couple of spelling mistakes/typos in my post), but I'm not sure what you think about my suggestion? (But then, I'm not sure what I think about my suggestion either!)

In principle, Wikipedia does not have high academic/encyclopaedic standards on some pages, and lower on other pages in the article space - and what I'm suggesting is to lower the bar in one designated area.

Is there a level-headed Voynich forum, blog, or whatever, somewhere, that can be trusted to give at all times a reasonable view on the current status of various claims? Then, perhaps that might instead be linked in a prominent way in a section on "recent claims". But I haven't found such a site that is currently updated on Cheshire.--Nø (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I do proofreading as part of my day job - and correct things automatically. Jackiespeel (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I believe Cheshire should be included because his theory was first peer-reviewed and published, but then crashed. That he is wrong doesn't really matter, the fact his theory was initially supported and made reputable news sources, however, does. Unlike a fringe theory by an amateur.

A separate article about disproven claims might be too much, though. I don't think there are enough peer-reviewed failures by credible researchers to justify a page. The current section in the main Voynich article is enough, I think. That section might need some weeding, though. Not sure if, for example, Joseph Martin Feely should be in there. Yintan  15:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this reasoning regarding Cheshire. The following is my relatively uneducated speculation, but given that (1) the statistical analysis of the VM makes a (Central or East) Asian language more likely than a Romance one, and (2) Romance linguists quickly criticized Cheshire's reasoning as circular and aspirational (and several other bad things beyond what established scientists usually say to newcomers), and (3) that his paper does not actually decode the VM, I have to wonder if the peer-review of Cheshire's paper was maybe less thorough that it could have been and if eventually the paper will have to be retracted - or maybe deemed to have a "special status" similar to the (in)famous "Equidistant Letter Sequences in the Book of Genesis", which a reputable peer-reviewed journal published as a "challenging puzzle" to its readers (which typically deem the paper to be a bunch of crackpot nonsense). Even if something along those lines were to happen with Cheshire's paper, it would in my opinion and in the words of ApLundell be because "The VM is a historic artifact that is not done making history, in its own small way". PS. Let it be known that I believe the VM was written in the first half of the 1400-hundreds and that I find it inconceivable that someone back then should be sufficiently clever (and wealthy) to create such an extensive document full of gibberish, yet presented in a manner such that to current, modern analysis it appears to not just be that. Apologies for the digression. Lklundin (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

There is my suggestion 'now somewhere in the archives' that the VM was someone familiar with other scripts/hands (eg Secretary hand or Chancery hand copying an original text (allowing for the VM being a compilation) and mis-writing it.

There are Voynich Manuscript-themed wikis on Wikia (which uses a somewhat different format to the standard wiki layout) - visitors welcome, and various discussion groups. Jackiespeel (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

As much as I think the VM is interesting, I don't think it's big enough to warrant a spin-off article like "List of Discredited VM Decipherments". If such an article was created, I'm pretty sure AfD would merge it back into this one.

ApLundell (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Just because some of the finest cryptographers at Bletchley and elsewhere (whether or not with access to 'current supercomputers'), paleographers and others have failed to resolve/translate the VM doesn't mean that someone else with no such background won't pop up every six months with a claim as to the deciphering.

Somewhere in the afterlife the actual person(s) who planned out and wrote the VM is/are happy that their creation is still being enjoyed. Jackiespeel (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

A list of claims article would indeed risk deletion (WP:NOTDIRECTORY), or pruning and merging (per ApLundell's prediction). —PaleoNeonate – 13:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Most would be 'X proposes theory involving (previously unmentioned person, group or location) and provides a random selection of "deciphered" words; Nick Pelling and others mention it on their websites; somebody enthusiastic puts a en entry onto the VM article; claim gets discussed variously and flaws pointed out; theory fades out; Y proposes a theory' and repeat. Jackiespeel (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Prediction

I have actually read all the Gerard Cheshire papers. Has anyone else in this discussion read them? They hang together logically, explaining the origin of the VM and the relatively mundane content. I stand by what I wrote up thread that his explanation of the VM will eventually be accepted. There really are no VM experts you can ask because before Cheshire nobody had a clue. Also, it is far from clear how one *could* become an expert. Keith Henson (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Although I have straddled the border myself, I will point out that this talk page is for discussions on how to improve our article on the Voynich manuscript, not for discussing the topic itself.

The merit of the work Cheshire did has been questioned. It's hard to avoid discussion of the topic or at least the papers.Keith Henson (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

As for Cheshire's paper, I would as a mathematician with some knowledge of cryptography say that his paper is fundamentally lacking with respect to _how_ he arrives at his result (which is why scientists in the field has referred to the paper's reasoning as 'circular' and 'aspirational'.

I would call it bootstrapping and I really don't know how else the VM could be understood. I think he makes an excellent case for when and where the VM was written. If you object to his when and where analysis, it would seem fair for you to propose an alternative analysis.Keith Henson (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

"This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Voynich manuscript article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."

Just a gentle reminder. Yintan  09:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

So while one cannot dismiss the possibility that the continued research in the VM will one day lead to an understanding of its language and that at that point some of the assertions in Cheshire's paper will happen to be commonly accepted, I will have to agree with Cheshire's detractors, that his paper does not advance our understanding of the topic. I therefore think it reflects very poorly on the editors of the publication 'Romance Studies' that they chose to publish the paper and similarly I think his peer-reviewers did a very poor job. Lklundin (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Have you read all the Cheshire papers? I would also say that your knowledge of cryptography is not applicable if the VM is not encrypted. I am not a cryptographer myself, but I know a little about it because I hung out on the cyperhpunks list for some years and know a few of them such as Phil Zimerman and John Gilmore. Keith Henson (talk) 04:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't claim to be a linguist, but his method seems very similar to the methods other people have used to get very different results.

People who are linguists seem to think his results are nonsensical.

You say "before Cheshire nobody had a clue", but there are loads of people who think they've decoded the manuscript. The oddity here isn't that a layman came up with a "solution". The oddity is that a journal published it credulously.

I believe that the VM contains enough gibberish that if your decoding method is sufficiently relaxed you can find any truth you look for. (Similar to people looking for truth in Nostradamous's predictions who allow themselves to shuffle word order. Or people who find "incriminating" anagrams in long sections of famous books.)

ApLundell (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I would like to see these decodings of the VM. Do you have a pointer to some of them?Keith Henson (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I understand why they published it. It tells a logical story and supports it with considerable evidence.Keith Henson (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

If Cheshire understanding of the VM is correct, then it contains *no* gibberish.Keith Henson (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I notice a complete lack of response to my question about reading the papers. Can I presume you have not read any of them? I found the papers to be fun reads. I am sensitive to BS across a wide range of subjects, and my detector didn't go off even once.Keith Henson (talk) 05:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the Cheshire paper and it is absolute utter bullshit. He has no understanding of the basic concepts of linguistics (calling sequences of two and three letters diphthongs and triphthongs though they are not, does not know what the term "proto-Romance" actually means and how one would demonstrate that something is or isn't proto romance), and his argumentation would not survive an intro to linguistics class - using for example "lateral thinking" as an argument (which means basically "I pulled it out of my ass"). And worst his "deciphered" texts are a hodgepodge of random words that sound like they might be from a Romance language just mixed together and then retrofitted to have something that resembles a meaning. It is a complete travesty that this was published.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

There are at least three Cheshire papers. Glad that someone in this discussion read at least one of them.Keith Henson (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Hear, hear, triple hear. Anyone under the impression that Cheshire's work makes so much as an inkling of sense should read these two articles before participating in the discussion.

(Btw, Keith, could you please sign off each of your comments with four tildes? It's a little difficult to decipher who is talking.) Drabkikker (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The comments on the second paper are interesting. They correct a misunderstanding that is unfairly used to attack Cheshire. Cheshire made no claims that the language used had been preserved 1000 years before it was used, in fact, he was very clear that the VM was written in the current language of the time which he dates to the year.Keith Henson (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Natural language - East and Central Asia

In the section "Natural language", the "general inscrutability of the illustration" is cited as an argument in favour of an East or Central Asian language (probably written in an invented script by a Westerner, as far as I gather). This particular argument seems silly, which is duly indicated later in the paragraph, quote: "no one [...] has been able to find any clear examples of Asian symbolism or Asian science in the illustrations". However, unless it is clearly sourced (and I think it isn't), I think the argument should be removed.

I believe the intent of that passage is to suggest that the document may have been created by a European trying, and badly failing, to illustrate East Asian plants he had never personally seen. It could be more clear.

I think that sort of thing is relatively common. We've all seen medieval bestiary illustrations.

There are still objections to that theory, but there are objections to all the current theories. ApLundell (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

This would be roughly contemporary with the VM.

And look at the medieval bestiaries and zodiacs - eg 'the creature called a crab' and 'the creature called a scorpion.' Jackiespeel (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Ephemera & popularity

I see that Cheshire now has his subsection in the main article, so that topic is closed for now. But I would like to make a couple of general points.

–glrx states that "WP does not intend to cover transient events". If that is so, why was there an article, updated daily, about the recent (Dec 2018-Jan 2019) US Government shutdown? Clearly WP does, at least sometimes, deal with ephemera.

– Again, glrx says "DUE is not some belief that a lot of people come to this article interested in Cheshire's work so we should include it". I believe the existence of the above article refutes this. I submit, IMO, that that is exactly a good reason for including material in an article which in itself is notable (WP policy, not sure where, states that an article must be notable, but the contents are not required to be notable in the strict sense). This is an encyclopedia, not a professional journal; we do our users a disservice (again IMO, not WP policy) if we do not include at least some discussion of a topic that many users are likely to come here looking up. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 12:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Cost of creating the VM ?

I think a small but important piece in understanding the VM is the money it took to create it. The more expensive it has been to create this thing, the more unlikely it is to be a hoax and instead be something that at the time of its creation was deemed useful to someone. (The word 'likely' is to be taken literally, since regardless of cost the VM could be an elaborate hoax).

In the section Voynich_manuscript#Parchment,_covers,_and_binding I repeated the information that the VM's 'parchment is prepared from "at least fourteen or fifteen entire calfskins"'. Admittedly, the raw materials (parchment + ink in different colors) would probably not be that expensive, but I have to imagine that substantial effort by one (or more) skilled scribe(s) went in to the actual writing and drawing and that this must have taken quite some time, which was of a certain value.

So do we have any information anywhere, of estimates of the number of person-hours that went into creating the VM and the cost of those together with the cost of its raw materials?

Lklundin (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Some pigments would be very expensive - notably the blue (the only source of lapis lazuli at the time was Afghanistan). There would also be the costs of draft/layout versions (what would have been the material for these - paper or something else).

The cost of the VM probably rules out the 'outsider art' proposal. Jackiespeel (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Obviously, the creator had a lot of time on his/her hands -- so does it seem unlikely that the person in question also had the economic means to purchase what was required for the project? An excentric nobleman, perhaps? Well, it depends on how outrageously expensive the materials were.--Nø (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Why not create something that is actually readable? Was it written by someone who could read another script copying an Italian manuscript of the time (try copying German Fractur/Secretary hand/Chancery hand)? Was someone trying to create 'a text from Prester John' or similar?

This is venturing into Original Research - so is probably best discussed elsewhere - possibly here. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Lot's of people did create something readable.

You're right that making an unreadable document is outlier behavior, but that's why we have an article about this document and not the many thousands of documents whose intent is perfectly clear. ApLundell (talk) 00:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

We are straying from the original question - which would involve research along the lines of [3].

Would not outlier behaviour in the early 15th century have been treated as 'demonic possession' (and appeared in the ecclesiastical or other records)?

The point is that the VM is 'an isolated item with no context' which appears to have a meaning that never quite comes into focus. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

That's a cartoonish oversimplification.

That's like saying "Would not outlier behavior in the 2000s have been treated as 'terrorism' and appeared in police records?"

Besides that, I think you're greatly overestimating the attention a weird book would have gotten. Early owners before Voynich (if it existed before Voynich.) probably thought it only a minor mystery. Some mundane old book in some language that they weren't familiar with. They probably had several books they couldn't read in their collection. That'd be pretty normal back then. It wasn't until later that it became clear that nobody could read it. ApLundell (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Whom are you saying is making 'a cartoonish oversimplification' - I was summarising various points, and there #is# little context to to the VM.

And - while one can see WV creating a few pages to see how old manuscripts "worked" or putting several documents into 'a modern sammelband' - why would he create something as extensive as the eponymous manuscript, and then spend much time getting people involved in deciphering it?? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I was trying to say that the idea that any unusual behavior would be automatically assumed to be demonic (rather than an ordinary and harmless affectation) is a cartoonish view of the middle ages. ApLundell (talk) 05:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Creating something as long and complex as the VM would be seen as noteworthy/weird/more than just harmless eccentricity. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why. Nowadays people have much more elaborate hobbies than that. Hobbies aren't a new phenomena. ApLundell (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Any ideas as to the costs of production?

How long would a suitably prepared calfskin remain viable as a writing material and how rapid was the transition to paper for 'ordinary/domestic/business uses' in the 15th century in Europe (given the rise of the printing press). Jackiespeel (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't don't think your first question has a definite answer. If the Voynich had blank pages, you could write on it to this very day.

Hoaxes are occasionally attempted by removing blank pages from ends of existing manuscripts and writing on them.

I'm sure you'd need to be a bit careful, but it doesn't stop taking ink. ApLundell (talk) 05:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

It might be possible to 'do comparisons' - there will be records for purchasing herbals and similar manuscripts at least some of which will presently survive, so a rough figure could be deduced (even allowing for several texts being brought together in one volume/there seemingly being two authors etc) - and if 'they' had the time, intent, money and other facilities the actual number of different beasts involved could be worked out (were 14-15 skins used or 'a selection of pieces from many more'?)

How common and how expensive would paper have been in the early 15th century? Would it be for 'professional usage - merchants and scribes', 'tradespeople and general usage', regional etc?

Passing thought - could the VM have been a scribal display piece using the equivalent of lorem ipsum? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Rich Santa-Coloma (https://proto57.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/but-who-would-use-vellum-anyway/) did some research into the matter. IIRC he estimated the cost of vellum for the VM to be comparable to a few hundred or thousand dollars/euros, so, while not negligible, still within the range of a dedicated amateur or hoaxer. He also attempted to recreate some VM pages and found it didn't take very long, a few hours per page at most. (Caveat: Not knowing the enciphering algorithm, it's unclear how long the enciphering process would have taken in addition to net scribing time.) -- Syzygy (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

How accessible was 'manuscript-quality' paper in the first part of the 15th century - ie in the generation immediately prior to the printing press (which would need a sufficiency of somewhat more robust paper)?

And a scribe might well have been familiar with more scripts and 'hands' (secretary, chancery etc) than we are now, so taking on 'a text in another script' might have been less daunting than to us now. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The VM is written on vellum (a kind of parchment), not paper, so I don't understand the relevance of the availability of paper? (IIRC, at the presumed time of the creation of the VM, around 1450, paper wasn't yet very common. Creation of the printing press and more wide-spread production of paper somewhat caused each other.) --Syzygy (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Whether it was written on 'the normal medium for documents of that period and length' or 'something considered exotic' might well say something about how the VM was perceived/presented at the time of its creation. (Consider how 'ordinary mass produced paper', 'hand made paper (including exotic)' and 'vellum and parchment' are viewed now.) Jackiespeel (talk) 09:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Hoax: self-citation method

Gordon Rugg proposed in 2004 that text with characteristics similar to the Voynich manuscript could have been produced using a table of word prefixes, stems, and suffixes. (Cardan grille method)

This year, Torsten Timm and Andreas Schinner proposed a simpler method, based on "self-citation": "A possible generating algorithm of the Voynich manuscript" https://doi.org/10.1080/01611194.2019.1596999 It is possible to access the paper online: http://kereti.de/pdf/TTAS.pdf

I would suggest to add one or two sentences about this paper.

Kadmos (talk) 09:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Derek Vogt: A personal blog is a reliable source

Hi,

Stephen Bax was a well-respected expert within the field of Voynich manuscript studies. As such I think his personal blog constitutes an acceptable source for the notability of Derek Vogt's claims. I think the section should be reinstated.

>Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university, newspaper or employer (a typical example is Language Log, which is already cited in several articles, e.g. Snowclone, Drudge Report). Usually, subject experts will publish in sources with greater levels of editorial control such as research journals, which should be preferred over blog entries if such sources are available.

Mr. Bax was a well-known professional researcher who was writing within his field. His blog should thus constitute an acceptable source.

2A02:AA1:101C:959:BA81:98FF:FE35:3BE4 (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

So ... because Bax was a respected researcher, we should use Vogt's personal YouTube channel, and a comment left on a blog as a reliable source?

I don't think I follow your logic at all. ApLundell (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The use of personal blogs must, I believe, be reserved to cases where there is a good reason why no other sources can be used. In the case of a four year old controversial claim on a subject receiving considerable attention, that still can be sourced only by a personal blog and a youtube personal channel - there is no such reason. The material should be removed from the article.--Nø (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

No, that is only the case for personal blogs written by non-experts. The policy just says that, in the case of experts, journals should be preferred, if such sources are available. Implied then is that, whether non-journal sources are available or not, as long as the blog is written by an expert and within his or her field, it is an acceptable source.

(I also object to your description of Mr. Vogt's claim as "controversial" - the VMS is a controversial subject, but Mr. Vogt's claim itself has never to my knowledge been the object of any controversy. However, that is outside the scope of this discussion.)

94.191.150.195 (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Bax was a respected researcher, and the primary source is the second one - "Voynich phonetics (June 2015 version) by Derek Vogt" - posted on Mr. Bax' blog. It shows that Mr. Vogt was well respected by Mr. Bax. The first source (the comment) is just for the name. The YouTube sources are to establish the exact nature of his work, for which they suffice well.

To be precise, I'm attempting to provide proofs for the following statements:

1. Derek L. Vogt is well-respected by other experts in the field

2. Derek L. Vogt is the same person as Derek Vogt and Volder Z

3. Derek L. Vogt said that his work as a general linguist was done.

4. Derek L. Vogt found (hypothesized) that the Voynich language's evolution was consistent with the known timeline of Gypsy migrations

From the following premise:

1. Stephen Bax is a reliable authority.

The sources for 2, 3, and 4 are Mr. Vogt's own assertions. The source for the first claim is Stephen Bax.

Would it be less controversial if I removed everything but the first claim and rewrote it based off only what could be found in "Voynich phonetics (June 2015 version) by Derek Vogt"?

94.191.150.195 (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I would personally be happy to have both Vogt's and Bax's thoughts in the article, because I think they're both intelligent and thoughtful researchers, but I'm a little uncomfortable that the sourcing is on the dubious side. Wikipedia's rules on sourcing don't really allow using personal blogs in situations like this. In general, that's an important rule to keep the fringe crazies out. (And with a topic like the Voynich Manuscript, that's a serious concern!) ApLundell (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Translation of a page

The Algorithmic Method for Translating MS408 (Voynich).

https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004653

I wonder if the whole manuscript translated would be a best seller? Keith Henson (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Although it is "self-published" it may be worth reading this: https://ling.auf.net/buzzdocs/ There is some supervision on the contents of this archive.

One of the major objections in the talk discussion is that the attempts don't translate enough of the work. This translates a page. How much would be we need to include it? Keith Henson (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

A self-published translation of the entire book would not be enough. But, naturally, such a remarkable accomplishment would soon be covered by reliable secondary and tertiary sources, and thus make it into the article soon enough.--Nø (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. Cheshire's method is straightforward--enough so that either he or someone else will translate the book. Then it will get into copyright issues.

It doesn't happen very often but once in a while someone outside of a study area will solve a long-standing problem. That seems to be what happened here. They also get rocks thrown at them. Keith Henson (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

A "translation" of a single page doesn't prove anything. Many people have tried. No one has managed to translate the entire manuscript. Experts don't seem to be impressed with Cheshire's efforts. We should wait until someone has a full translation and it's been accepted by experts before passing judgement on it ourselves.

Cadar (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as an expert on the VM? I really don't think there are such people, but if you could name one or two and what they have done to gain "expert" status on the VM I would appreciate being enlightened. Far as I know, nobody before Cheshire had a clue about how to read the VM. Being able to read it seems like the minimum qualifications for an "expert." Keith Henson (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as an example of where I stated that there was "such a thing" as a Voynich expert?

You certainly implied that there are Voynich experts by "been accepted by experts" above. Keith Henson (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I certainly did not imply anything of the sort, and I certainly do not appreciate any suggestion to the contrary. But if you really want to quibble, there are people who actually do know something about various fields which impinge on this specific subject and who have studied the VM in some depth. If you're so determined to put an "expert" label on someone, why not start there?

OK, if you are agreeing with me that there are no Voynich experts, then Cheshire's work will never be "accepted by experts" because there are no such persons. Keith Henson (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not agreeing with you that there are no experts. I'm also not going to continue this argument with you, because it's just a waste of my time. I've said everything on the subject I intend to.

The word "expert" occurs six times in the article. Perhaps you'd like to dispute all of those, as well? Or perhaps you might accept that there are experts in the fields of such things as medieval manuscripts and old languages who have an opinion which might possibly count?

Cadar (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem with there being experts in medieval manuscripts and old languages. But Voynich is a different topic since not one of these "experts" (prior to Cheshire) can read the VM where the experts in medieval manuscripts and old languages *can* read their subject matter. If you want to call them experts on VM, you certainly can. But I think that bends the concept of "expert" out of recognizable shape. Keith Henson (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

There is no independent evidence whatsoever that Cheshire can read the VM. None. Zero. In fact, there's no evidence at all except a self-published paper, and the fact that it's self-published in the scientific world screams desperation simply because nobody reputable would publish it. Which means one of two things: either it's so radical and ground-breaking, that nobody - including experts (see above) believe a word of it - or it's complete nonsense. In my experience, and based on the law of averages, it's never the former and always the second reason. Don't get me wrong: you're welcome to be a believer if that's what you want. However, your belief or lack of it is irrelevant. As editors on WP, our remit is one thing and one thing only: to present information on the mainstream of scientific knowledge about any particular subject, fairly and without bias. Cheshire and his work are very far from mainstream. If, in the unlikely event he's proven right - and a simple test of his "method" by applying it to the rest of the manuscript will answer that question - and it's accepted by the mainstream, then, and only then, do we get to report on it in depth here, with an unbiased report of the simple facts. Until then, this discussion is moot and merely a waste of every editor's time.

Cadar (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

"no independent evidence whatsoever"

Have you read his translation of the Sundew page? I have. It is consistent, makes sense and fits with the drawings. I find that evidence. Speaking hypothetically, what would it take for you to accept Cheshire's translation (personally, not as a Wikipedia editor) since we seem to agree that there are no experts. Oh, and you say Cheshire is far from mainstream. Can you describe "mainstream" in this context? Near as I can see there isn't one. The article has a dozen completely different takes on the VM. Keith Henson (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I have read it. He's taken word soup and made something out of it. Anybody can do that. It doesn't prove anything. And no - and I repeat - THERE IS NO INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. You reading the page and becoming a firm believer is not any kind of evidence at all. No other expert (and no, I'm not getting into yet another argument on that subject with you) has agreed with his assessment. No one else - not even Cheshire - has managed to translate any other page of the manuscript. Those are the facts. If you can't accept them, that implies a complete lack of neutrality and you shouldn't even be editing this article.

And now this subject is closed as far as I am concerned. I've wasted enough time on it already.

Cadar (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

There are lots of experts in medieval manuscripts. Cheshire is not one of them. ApLundell (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Per above, the experts on medieval manuscripts have had a hundred years (more or less) to ponder the VM. They made no progress in reading or understanding it at all. I don't see where being an expert on medieval manuscripts helped understand or translate the VM. And, for what it is worth, Cheshire makes no claims of being an expert in medieval manuscripts. Keith Henson (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

This is the same logic people use to justify all manner of craziness. For example, people will argue that since main-stream physicists have never developed perpetual motion, they have no expertise relevant to evaluating an alleged perpetual motion machine.

It's true that breakthroughs can, rarely, come from unexpected people, but evaluating whether a breakthrough is real, or just a layman fooling themselves (which happens often, in most fields) is a job for established experts in the field. ApLundell (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

That's true. It is why the US patent office requires a working model of a perpetual mothing machine, something they require for no other class of inventions. Keith Henson (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

No. The USPTO requires working models of perpetual motion machines to discourage the vast numbers of lay people who fool themselves into thinking that they made a breakthrough, when really they're so ignorant of the subject matter they can't even spot their own fundamental mistakes. ApLundell (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

If you make extraordinary claims about a medieval manuscript, the correct people to evaluate those claims are experts in medieval manuscripts. If you disagree, you're disagreeing with Wikipedia's policy about fringe research. Therefore there is no point continuing this debate here. If you want Wikipedia's policies changed, you'll need to start that discussion over at WP:Village Pump, but I'm pretty sure that they'd politely, but firmly, tell you that it's not going to happen. ApLundell (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

"I resemble the remark" that there are no experts on the Voynich. I wouldn't want to call myself among them, but there are certainly a number of people who have dedicated years of their life to the study of the VM, know about the past and current research, have accumulated findings, historical connections etc. and have made links to biographies. For example, if you studied the statistical properties of the ciphertext, you would soon discover that it's not a simple substitution cipher (as Cheshire seems to assume). So, even short of being able to decipher the VM, there are still experts on it.

As for Cheshire's particular translation attempt, I find it peculiar that the letters b, c, f, g, h, and i seem to be completely absent from the script. --Syzygy (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/07/12/voynich-manuscript-did-bay-area-researchers-decode-mysterious-medieval-book/ Keith Henson (talk) 05:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we need a section in the article, "Translation of the Week"? --Syzygy (talk) 06:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

https://www.academia.edu/40431280/Plant_Series_No._1._Manuscript_MS408 Keith Henson (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

https://www.academia.edu/40700471/Plant_Series_No._2._Manuscript_MS408

It looks like Cheshire is going to translate 100 pages of the text with the illustrations. Keith Henson (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but it looks like he's still using the same methods and ideas that actual experts have dismissed as laughable.

We'll need real sources from actual history/manuscript experts to treat these as anything more than fan-fiction.

(After all, just producing a text is not special. Even if you start with actual gibberish, if you give yourself enough leeway and flexibility, you can come up with a working text. A real translation would be one that other experts could use your method and come up with the same result.) ApLundell (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

https://www.academia.edu/40805336/Plant_Series_No._3._Manuscript_MS408._Nymphaea_alba?email_work_card=view-paper

You might try reading a few to see if they make sense to you. They do to me. Keith Henson (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The question is not whether the alleged translations make sense, the question is whether they come from a legitimate, repeatable translation process that would achieve the same result regardless of who is performing the translation.

Even a Ouija Board can result in text that makes sense. ApLundell (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

There are people with expertise in manuscripts of the period and location (Italy and '1400-fall of Byzantium/development of the printing press), and in texts of the time. Between them they have not been able to translate the manuscript or find an equivalent document (or group of documents) upon which the manuscript could be based.

Any number of 'cryptography (and related fields) experts - including people at Bletchley Park, who inter alia created the Tunny machine to decipher the Lorenz cipher) have tried their hands on the VM, without success.

A gallimaufry of persons of varying degrees of relevant expertise have attempted to 'do something' with the VM, and have seemingly not got further than 'a few scattered words' or 'a page', said translations tending not to fit into the texts of the period (or, often any period).

The original author(s) of the VM have been very successful in keeping interest in their manuscript continuing. Jackiespeel (talk) 13:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

https://www.academia.edu/41260989/Plant_Series_No._5._Manuscript_MS408._Hesperocodon_hederaceus

Cheshire goes into considerable detail about the translation method he uses. Keith Henson (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Possible copyright violations

Following a note from a user at the Teahouse, it looks like there might be some historic copyright violations on this article. Geographyinitiative removed some material but I suspect there will be more - I have posted a report at the copyright violations noticeboard. WJ94 (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

For reference, the website which some material appears to have been copied from is [4]; the diff that removed it is here. WJ94 (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

See also [5] Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jorge Stolfi and WJ94: Dear user Jorge Stolfi, you are a scientist. The edits you made a while back were done in the infancy of the website and so you could have in no way expected that they would still be here without citations all these years later. I would like to invite you to add the citations you didn't at that time and rewrite the article in a more appropriate manner given our standards today. I'm not interested enough in the material to make a thorough-going clean out. Only you and you alone can redeem this page and make Wikipedia into the encylopedia it was meant to be. Do it for the children who are reading unsourced material. Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: Indeed, I made most of my contributions to that article well before Wikipedia adopted the "citations needed" policy. It even was a "featured article" for a while.
However, it is not true that "Only [I] and [I] alone can redeem this page". A Wikipedia article does not "belong" to the editor who created it, and he has no more obligation to maintain it than any other editor. I do have a warm spot in my heart for this topic and this article; but it is only one of several thousand (literally!) articles in my watchlist, and there are dozens where I think that my work would be better employed. So I cannot promise to work on this one any time soon...
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed in the past. It is not a copyright problem. The website in question has copied from us. ApLundell (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi ApLundell - thanks for clearing that up for us, much appreciated. I couldn't work out exactly what was going on which is why I posted here to see if anyone else could help. Although I probably could have done a better search through the talk page archives. WJ94 (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I have added the {{backwards copy}} tag to the talk page so that people don't make my mistake again. ApLundell, since you are more familiar with this that I am, do you want to double check what I've done? I've left the |id= tag blank; do you think you could work out the correct page ID to fill in there? No worries if not - it's not essential. Thanks again. WJ94 (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Related : It looks like something weird has happened to the talk archive. The old discussion is somehow hidden by this bot edit, but I can't figure out why. Could someone who's more of a wizard with wiki-markup take a look? ApLundell (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Good luck and good wishes to all- I'm only passingly interested in the subject for its relation to Asiatic languages. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

It is not that anybody on WP 'owns' pages they create but that they may often have a wider knowledge of the subject and/or be able to turn the result of 'a multitude of multiple re-editings' on the original text back into something coherent than others. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@ApLundell, Jackiespeel, Jorge Stolfi, and WJ94: As with all material on the Wikipedia website, a source does actually need to be provided for these claims. Since none is forthcoming or has been in the past 15 years that this has been on the page misleading children and the general public, in the name of all that is good on Wikipedia, I hereby delete this passage. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: I have restored some of that text, with a main reference (An article on the Swiss weekly Weltwoche) and two auxiliary refs on the properties of Chinese languages. The peculiar Chinese year divisions are documented in the solar term article.
By the way, the Weltwoche article was well known to "Voynichologists" at the time, and could be found by a Google search for "Jacques Guy", "Voynich" and "Chinese". The obligation to provide sources falls on all editors, not just on the original editor or on "other editors, not me, am too busy". Generally, before deleting or tagging some material as "unsourced", when one has no reason to doubt the claims, one should make at least a token effort to find suitable sources.
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 03:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jorge Stolfi: Thank you for that work. It needs more work but I'm glad we are moving in the right direction with an attempt to add some kind of sources that could be checked by someone. Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Jacobus ownership

The article and the timeline state that the manuscript was at some point owned by Jacobus de Tepenecz, who at some point was Rudolf's II court doctor. That belief rests entirely on one piece of evidence: Jacobus's name or signature written at the bottom of page 1. However, I recall that there were questions about whether that was his signature, or simply a name that someone else wrote at a later time, after guessing that he could be the author.
(In the Jesuits' eyes, Jacobus was the most notable member of Rudolf's court, because he had been educated by them. He has a lengthy biography in the main chronicle of the Jesuits in Bohemia; by contrast, Tycho Brahe is almost not mentioned at all. That chronicle reports at length how Jacobus's prestige was due to his innovative herbal preparations. So, it does not seem unlikely that Kircher or some later Jesuit, researching the possible origins of the book, could have conjectured that Jacobus was the author.)
Moreover, that writing was almost completely destroyed by chemicals that Wilfrid Voynich applied to that page, trying to enhance it. People seem to have a rather low opinion of Voynich's integrity, and have suspected him of various kinds of fraud related to the manuscript, from falsifying that signature (and then applying the chemicals to disguise the fraud) to creating the whole book himself.
The fact is that Wilfrid believed (or wanted others to believe) that the book's author was Roger Bacon, on the basis of the 1665 Marci letter. So it is possible that he wrote that name to strengthen the link to Rudolf -- and hence, by that letter, to Bacon.
Thus I would say that ownership by Jacobus before Baresh is likely, but not certain. As for Jacobus having received the book from Rudolf, "in payment for debts" -- that seems to be pure speculation, with no evidence that I know of. If it is to be mentioned, it should be as a theory by Such von Such, with a reference.
--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Rainer Hannig

Since it's a self-published source, I don't see how his "theory" deserves mention. Besides, the whole analysis is supported only by one Twitter-tweet (from nobody in particular), so I think we can safely say the analysis is unsourced, too.

May we delete the section? --Syzygy (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)