Talk:Voynich manuscript/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Category rename

Just letting interested parties know I've opened a category renaming request at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 2 for Category:Manuscripts written in undeciphered writing systems to be renamed to Category:Undeciphered manuscripts. The previous category was removed from this page, but I do think readers would expect this article in that category. Additionally, one of the other items in the category, the Rohonc Codex, has the same might-not-be-a-writing-system issue Voynich has. Based on that I thought the easiest way to satisfying everyone's concerns was to do the same dodge of unknowns with the category name as we've now done with the lede. Presuming the name change goes through we could restore the category to this page. --(loopback) ping/whereis 13:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that readers would expect this article to be in this category, which is a good enough reason to put it back in that category, whatever it turns out to be named.

After all, categories are designed to help readers find articles, and it's reasonable to think you could find this one in that category. Being nitpicky about the certainty of that assumption is a good thing for the text of the article, but categories should be a little more broadly construed to be useful. ApLundell (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Also think this is a good idea! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to straight revert the editor who removed if I can get the situation to a point where everyone's happy with the outcome instead, so let's try that first and if it fails we can press the issue at that point. It's a 4 item category of interest mostly to massive dweebs like myself, it's not going to impact anything if it's down a member for a few days and especially if we all walk away feeling like we got along and accomplished something together at the end. --(loopback) ping/whereis 21:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

It copied pictures from the Troula and De Balneis Puteolanis medical books from medival latin

Further study of the herbs and images in the book reminded Gibbs of other Latin medical texts. When he consulted the Trotula and De Balneis Puteolanis, two commonly copied medieval Latin medical books, he realized that a lot of the Voynich Manuscript's text and images had been plagiarized directly from them (they, in turn, were copied in part from ancient Latin texts by Galen, Pliny, and Hippocrates). During the Middle Ages, it was very common for scribes to reproduce older texts to preserve the knowledge in them. There were no formal rules about copyright and authorship, and indeed books were extremely rare, so nobody complained.

Once he realized that the Voynich Manuscript was a medical textbook, Gibbs explained, it helped him understand the odd images in it. Pictures of plants referred to herbal medicines, and all the images of bathing women marked it out as a gynecological manual. Baths were often prescribed as medicine, and the Romans were particularly fond of the idea that a nice dip could cure all ills. Zodiac maps were included because ancient and medieval doctors believed that certain cures worked better under specific astrological signs. Gibbs even identified one image—copied, of course, from another manuscript—of women holding donut-shaped magnets in baths. Even back then, people believed in the pseudoscience of magnets. (The women's pseudoscience health website Goop would fit right in during the 15th century.) renegadeviking (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Nicholas Gibbs's theory is mentioned briefly in the article. ApLundell (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

"Medical textbook" is consistent with Gerard Cheshire's translations. One is here https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004797 Keith Henson (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Other: unsolved or deciphered case of cryptography

The title is a field in the infobox. The wording is weird; I'd make it "unsolved and undeciphered, and there must be a one-word synonym for "case of cryptography". Also,

But first, why is the line there at all? What does it add? How many other infoboxes have an "Other" field? —Tamfang (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I think we're better off without it, but happy to go with consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Now that you point it out, it is rather redundant. I would support deleting it. Justin Kunimune (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Paper mentioning Cheshire

https://www.academia.edu/40504861/An_Application_of_Data_Mining_And_Frequency_Analyses_to_Determine_Source_Languages_of_the_Voynich_Manuscript?email_work_card=thumbnail&li=0 Keith Henson (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

New claim by Austrian says manuscript was decrypted and was written by Jost von Silenen

Dr. Gregor Bernhard-Königstein is a lecturer in church art, member of the Institute for Spiritual Theology and Religious Studies at the Pope Benedict XVI Philosophical-Theological University in Heiligenkreuz, Austria.

He has recently claimed the Voynich manuscript has been decrypted, and published a 67 page summary (p.44-67 is in English). I read the English version yesterday and the lecturer is knowledgeable, to say the least. Before you question why the article was posted in OTS, understand I have the same lack of preference with websites that request an email or login, but this site does not request either. For good measure, I stored a copy for those who refuse to type any information to retrieve or download content, knowing it is unnecessary. I don't expect older scholars to be all tech savvy, and they may have their reasons. If someone wanted to store a copy of a file in a safe place, then OTS would appear to be a logical choice. I don't question that. "APA-OTS is Austria's strongest distributor of multimedia press information in text, image, video and audio form at home and abroad." https://www.ots.at/presseaussendung/OTS_20230310_OTS0148/sensationen-zur-schweizer-garde-im-vatikan-und-zu-den-habsburgern-der-voynich-code-ist-geknackt-anhaenge https://www.hochschule-heiligenkreuz.at/lehrende/dr-gregor-bernhart-koenigstein/ It was reposted on a Hawaii Channel 2 station website (KHON2, a Nextar Media Group) through EIN Presswire): https://www.khon2.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/623052672/the-voynich-silenen-comedy-it-has-been-possible-to-decode-the-voynich-manuscript-as-a-bishops-memoir/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexstar_Media_Group

The OTS site states: "Free download Editorial use is free of charge and permitted in connection with the broadcast. You help us to further improve our offer if you provide the following information:

"Surname:

Editor/Medium: *

planned release:"

I entered my own information and received the document, which I posted on my own repository: https://github.com/hatonthecat/Voynich-Manuscript/blob/main/PDF_20230310_OTS0148_0.pdf there is a download link on the page (does not require a login).

Now that I made the document easily accessible, I'll leave it to the scholars and skeptics to analyze. Peace Tetraxho (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether or not OTS is a good web hosting service.

It's a question of whether or not this paper has been published by a reliable publisher. Self-published essays are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. (With a few exceptions that don't apply here.)

ApLundell (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Just the usual soapboxing for random non-peer-reviewed claims. Let's wait if anyone (scholar, cleric or layperson) without promotional ambitions will cite it in the near future. Until then: WP:UNDUE. –Austronesier (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

All good points. I would like to add that the lecturer who wrote the article has a PhD, works at a Cistercian theological university, one with a parent organization as the Roman Catholic Church. Technically, any scholarship out of the Catholic Church should be considered infallible, if it was written by a Bishop or Pope (I write more about that on my user page). In the 1400s, Papal Supremacy was still the law of the Papal States, thus writings from a Swiss Bishop in the late 1400s would be considered authoritative.

I am not requesting the edit to be undone, at least at the moment. But I guess I don't count as that layperson, or scholar, apparently because I and/or Dr. Bernhard-Königstein have been singled out for having "promotional" ambitions. I do this out of a hobby. Dr. Bernhard-Königstein has one co-written, out of print book on Kant on Amazon for sale: https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Birol-Kilic/dp/3950398198/

Last I read, scholars access Wikipedia for reference. Maybe I am wrong to assume scholars hang out here (just admins?) on Saturday nights like me and would be interested in reviewing this material. Insinuating my writing is a soapbox is unwarranted and suggests possible elitism of this moderation. If Dr. Bernhard-Königstein's claims were found to be disproven, I would reject the claims faster than someone can remove another Wikipedia edit (the first two apparently used an "unreliable" tag for a new claim). Undue weight is more applicable to cases where a standard is established (e.g. heliocentrism), not something that hasn't been identified. I believe extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but if I were supernatural, I'd feel bad at humanity for taking so long to decipher this holy manuscript, and I feel bad as a human for even suggesting that. Like Ace Ventura, Pet Detective said, "in order to find the dolphin, you have to think like the dolphin." I am employing Strasbergian method acting to help me imagine the possibility that a Swiss Bishop commissioned this hitherto "manuscript", which the author claims is actually a breviary. From my examination, it looks largely allegorical, not mathematical (except for astrology illustrations) nor gibberish.

One of the problems with peer review is that it is impossible to rule out favoritism. From the neutral point of view page, "Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship."

I have already forwarded his paper to a few scholars to review, so I trust that it will get ample scrutiny in due time. My main point is that I think Wikipedia serves as a quicker watering hole for sharing new, serious theories between interested parties than websites which are not at all equipped with historical expertise or professionalism like Reddit and, to a lesser extent, YCombinator.

Thank you and goodnight. Tetraxho (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I guess it was naïve of me to not have any of "papal infallibility", "Ace Ventura, Pet Detective", and "Strasbergian method acting" on my "This Voynich Theory Is WP:RS Because..." bingo card. -- asilvering (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Tetraxho, I think you have misunderstood that role Wikipedia plays in scholarship.

Our role is to summarize published consensus. That's what an encyclopedia is.

This is not a place for scholars to form new consensus, or to evaluate the strength of anyone's arguments. That is done in traditional publications.

ApLundell (talk) 07:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

You're right, I'm sorry. I have taken my discussion to Reddit. Thank you, ApLundell; I have a tendency to be sometimes quite enthusiastic in defending new and original claims. Tetraxho (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Tetraxho, I agree that is a better forum for this at the moment. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Paper by Fletcher Crowe

Should a link be added to "The Voynich Manuscript: Decoded" by Fletcher Crowe PhD from the fall 2022 issue of Journal of Historical Archaeology and Anthropological Sciences? [1]https://medcraveonline.com/JHAAS/JHAAS-07-00262.pdf From the Abstract: This research shows that the strange Voynich symbols code for Arabic. An equivalency table between Arabic letters and the Voynich characters is developed, and large sections of the Voynich text are translated, including pages picturing flowers, stars, spices and women. A 600-word dictionary of Arabic-Voynich-English was developed. George Fergus (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

If reliable independent third-party sources discuss it, maybe, but not until then. Papers like that are a dime a dozen; Google Scholar gives over 1,000 such papers, many of are of the similar kind as this one and in less-questionable journals than this MedCrave journal. User:Headbomb/unreliable is showing the link to that paper as "Predatory/Depreciated" for good reason. If it's going to be mentioned it absolutely cannot be on the basis of that paper alone, because the existence of that paper doesn't mean anything significant. - Aoidh (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

need help to undo revert on an edit

I made an edit "added bitter gourd plant leaves" on (29 august time 17:08).I think it will be useful to someone trying to crack the "voynich manuscript", even through it is a minor edit and may seem trivial, it may me a important clue to somebody else. So please undo the revert.Fodegrass (talk) 06:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

It is sourced, so that's good. However, I would tend to agree with User:Dumuzid that it seems trivial. Especially if the goal of including it is to help researchers decode it, which doesn't really fall under Wikipedia's goal of providing the casual reader with a broad understanding of a topic. I wonder if that note would be better suited to something like the Voynich Language Wiki. Justin Kunimune (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, on second thought, it's not that trivial. I think it would be valuable to put it in as an example; maybe just reword it a bit to complement the flow of that paragraph better. "While some illustrations closely resemble real plants, such as what seems to be a bitter gourd on page 17, others seem to be composite: the roots of one species…" or whatever is appropriate.

As an aside, did you intend to cite the book The Voynich Manuscript: The Unsolved Riddle… by Gerry Kennedy, or the review of that book by Robin Gillbank? Your citation points to the review, but it's only two pages long and I don't see the note about the bitter gourd in it. Justin Kunimune (talk) 12:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Very much with Justin Kunimune here -- again, apologies for the revert, and I was a bit on the fence about it. As written, however, it struck me as not quite working. If you were to adjust it so it is more of an example and less like something that is independently notable, I think that would likely do it. Thanks for your efforts, Fodegrass. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to both @Justinkunimune and @Dumuzid for your advice.Fodegrass (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Fodegrass: Can you provide us the relevant quote from the book by Kennedy & Churchill? Initially you simply added: "On page number 71 the leaves of the plant resemble that of a plant bitter gourd", while in the second edit, you grafted the info to a preexisting sentence about "composite" plant drawings[2]. When we cite information from the book by Kennedy & Churchill, we should follow what they write about the bitter gourd and what significance they assign to this detail in the Voynich manuscript. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the book, and Google Books only allows for a limited preview (a search within the book for "bitter gourd" yields no result). –Austronesier (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I removed that citation in my last edit.Fodegrass (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Which makes your addition an unsourced WP:CUCKOO-edit. I have reverted it and please don't re-add it without a source that actually mentions this detail and which explicitly tells us why mentioning it is significant. –Austronesier (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I added this information because the leaves of the plant on page 71 of the "Voynich manuscript" book resembled exactly that of the bitter gourd plant, and also it is an herbal plant so I thought it might be a useful clue to people researching this topic. but I can,t find any source so okay.Fodegrass (talk) 13:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Have we Reviewed adding Alisa Gladyseva’s translation and decipherment?

It would appear that in 2023 and from work Alisa has done since at least 2019, that her attempt to decipher the Voynich manuscript supported a Galician origin. Which relates to Gerard Cheshire's attempts to decipher and believed it was proto-romantic. However it also matched medieval Galician. As described by Gladyseva. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32351/rca.v5.128 Saml214 (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Do third-party reliable sources mention this being a significant decipherment claim in some way? - Aoidh (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Cheshire again

https://www.academia.edu/101986267/The_Medieval_Map_and_the_Mercy_Mission?email_work_card=title

If anyone wants to work this into the article, go ahead. Keith Henson (talk) 00:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Unless third-party sources discuss this self-published book in some detail about it being significant as a stand-out decipherment claim, it's just another in a very, very, very long list of similar material. In addition, academia.edu itself is a questionable source, at best, according to the many discussions at WP:RSN so appropriate third-party sourcing showing that it is WP:DUE would be needed to incorporate anything about this into the Voynich manuscript#Gerard Cheshire section; even though the previous decipherment claim got attention (and retraction by the university) doesn't mean any subsequent material would be included without due sources on that subsequent material. - Aoidh (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

You could take a look rather than wait for someone to review it. Fascinating story. As long as Wikipedia mentions him, a pointer to his work seems reasonable (as would pointers to any other translations). Not that it matters much, Google search will find it. Keith Henson (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

With WP:DUE in mind it's not a matter of simply having book reviews, it's how significant is this book within the concept of the Voynich manuscript, as viewed through the lens of reliable sources? If there are no reliable sources showing that this book is significant, the answer is "not significant at all" and it doesn't warrant a mention in the article; past work being mentioned doesn't give any other work a pass on needing to show relevance. It may or may not be a fascinating story, but that's not deterministic on if the book warrants being mentioned in the article. - Aoidh (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

There is a problem with "reliable sources." If you set the bar at "can translate," then Cheshire is the only one out there even making a claim. I suppose it doesn't matter, anyone seriously looking into the Voynich MS is going to use Google as well as Wikipedia. Keith Henson (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

More https://www.arteoloji.com/the-cryptography-and-palaeography-of-a-medieval-narrative-map_31 I have written bio pages on 8 or 9 people. Considering doing one for Cheshire, there are certainly enough news mentions to justify one. Keith Henson (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Is it permitted to mention the Voynich Manuscript wikis OR, if reasonable, allowed).

Would the minimum bar for a translation/transliteration be 'several consecutive sentences, making a coherent text, covering matters of interest in the period of writing'? Jackiespeel (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Cheshire has translated most of the manuscript and he is open about how he does it. I wish I knew someone in Spain who could go to the archives of Aragon. I have argued with Cheshire that this can't be the only example of the script, it's far too advanced to have been developed where it was written. Keith Henson (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Minimum bar?

You mean in general? Typically I think academics will want a decipherment method that could be performed independently by different linguists and they'd all come back with roughly the same translation. Anything less isn't really decipherment, it's just a creative writing exercise.

You mean for this Wikipedia article? As always, the notability requirements must be met. Reputable third-party sources must be taking it seriously. Preferably academic third-party sources, but the popular press also counts if it's substantial coverage and not just a parroting of the alleged decoder's press release. Self-published sources like wikis typically don't count. ApLundell (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

There will be 'a starting point' for the deciphering process - one person proposes a sufficiently long translation for others to take on the checking etc required. 'For the present' would a comparison to the initial medieval and onwards 'translations of Egyptian hieroglyphs' as a process be reasonable? Jackiespeel (talk) 12:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The Voynich wikis may be more appropriate for some discussions than WP.

I don't know why Cheshire's work is not being taken that seriously by the academics. But there may be several reasons. For a start, it's not encrypted in any way. The other thing is that it is for the most part a mundane women's health manual except for a description of a rescue operation on a nearby volcano island. I think he took all the mystery out of Voynich and that is largely going to end the interest. I followed his work for years and read all the translations as they were done. I doubt any of the other editors of this page have done the same. But it does not matter.Keith Henson (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

It's probably because his method is not repeatable. As far as I can tell, his method only works for him.

But the "Why" doesn't really matter to us. It's not our job to guess why academics think what they think. ApLundell (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe you have read any of Cheshire's translations. The first step, Voynich symbols to Latin letters is completely defined, a look-up table and anyone can do it.

The next step, breaking the text string into words, filling in the abbreviations, and translating the words takes context, but it is well described. The resulting translated text makes sense. Most of the manuscript is about mundane women's health (as it was understood in the 13th century). But there is one section that records a rescue mission to an erupting volcano.

Point taken. Of course, Cheshire is an academic. Keith Henson (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

In the field of ancient manuscripts, or history, or linguistics, he is a layman. Exactly the sort of person who might accidentally see a pattern where none exists.

He wouldn't be the first enthusiastic amateur to create an alphabet and then massage the text into a coherent translation. ApLundell (talk) 06:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

https://www.arteoloji.com/the-cryptography-and-palaeography-of-a-medieval-narrative-map_31 One more academic paper. Keith Henson (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

THE CRYPTOGRAPHY AND PALAEOGRAPHY OF A MEDIEVAL NARRATIVE MAP

This article demonstrates the technique used for reading the narrative of a Medieval map, listed as MS 408. The writing system and language had confounded linguistics scholars for some time because both were unfamiliar, but they were explained in 2017, allowing the translation of scripts and annotations accompanying the images drawn on the map. Here four examples are presented to explain the procedure used in transliterating the alphabet symbols and then translating the Medieval phrasing into English. The language of the map is an archaic form of Iberian Romance, mixed with Greek and Latin. The writing system is based on the ancient Greek, and Phoenician and Arabic alphabets. The map was created by the nuns at Castello Aragonese, Ischia, to record a rescue mission in the Tyrrhenian Sea, following a volcanic eruption in the year 1444. The date is included on the map, written in Latin abbreviation, otherwise known as sigla. Keith Henson (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Once again, this reference is Cheshire telling us he has completely solved the problem. But what is missing is a series of academic papers by other authors, who have studied the various other attempts to explain the document, and who now say: "Amazing, this all makes sense, Cheshire has solved the problem". When you find one of these, I suggest you present it. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

That's nice. Third party verification? ApLundell (talk) 06:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if there will ever be an acknowledgement that Cheshire solved the document? The only people Wikipedia editors would credit are all invested in the undecipherability of the manuscript and are not about to admit that an outsider figured it out.

There is still a bit of mystery. I think the writing system is too well developed for this to be the only example. I have talked to Cheshire about looking for similar examples in the archives of Aragon. Finding them would cinch some of his arguments. But it is possible the script developed entirely on Ischia which had a long history of being settled by the Greeks.

In any case, I think that if you read his work and follow the translation steps it is utterly convincing. Not to mention that the rescue mission is a gripping tale. Keith Henson (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The only people Wikipedia editors would credit would be someone that reliable sources show has deciphered or translated it, as Cheshire solved the document is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim with no reliable sources backing up that claim whatsoever. Cheshire claims to have solved the document is a more accurate description, and puts them in a group of hundreds of others making such claims; this individual is not unique in making these claims by a long shot. Even if editors were convinced by the merits of the individual's claims, that would not warrant inclusion in the article. It needs reliable sources, that and only that would warrant an inclusion of any of this material into the article. - Aoidh (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Henson, let me turn that around on you : When will there be an acknowledgement that Ahmet Ardıç solved the manuscript and successfully translated it from it's now-proved proto-turkish origins?

Or do you not think that a single amateur publishing an alleged translation with nothing but very harsh criticism from actual experts is sufficient?

Does it only count if you're personal friends with the enthusiastic amateur?

Anyway, I have read (some of) Cheshire's works, and though I'm no expert, his method seems no different from the non-rigorous method that many people have used to self-delude themselves into thinking they're translating a text when really they're just creative-writing. (Not just voynich, either!) It's similar to interpreting Nostradamus's writings, or using a Ouija board, or even operating divining rods. In all those cases, there seems to be a strict procedure, but the result is ultimately not coming from the procedure. The person doing it really believes, but that doesn't mean it's true.

So until some experts weigh in, and ideally replicate his process independently, Cheshire is just one of many. ApLundell (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

"that Ahmet Ardıç solved the manuscript and successfully translated it from it's now-proved proto-turkish origins?"

I would very much like to read this solution. Is it up on the net somewhere?

"personal friends"

I know Cheshire sort of though email. Never met him in person.

Curious about who you would classify as an expert?Keith Henson (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)