User talk:Svenstein
I'm intrigued by the statement you left in the edit summary:
I've talked to involved scientist today. Manuscript was NOT "found in archive" but handed over from one scientist to another. Actual source yet unknown.
The source (the presentation document from the proceedings of the workshop) calls the cipher "an enciphered book from the East Berlin Academy". The Wired article says it was "found in the East Berlin Academy after the Cold War. It's since been kept in a private collection ...", so really I should go with these published sources rather than what somebody said to you. If these are mistakes, though, it would be nice if you could get an explanation (and great if you could find something to cite to back it up). Why would they say "from the East Berlin Academy" in the presentation, if that was incorrect? What exactly have you heard? Card Zero (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- I am a journalist in Berlin. After reading that the copiale was found in an archive of the East Berlin Academy I have tried to find out which Berlin archive this was. I have called Dr Christiane Schaefer at the University of Uppsala and asked her about the source of the copiale she has analysed. She told me that she has received it from Prof Wolfgang Hock (Humboldt University Berlin). So I called Prof Hock in Berlin. He told me that he once received it from Prof Wilfried Fiedler when they both worked at Ludwig Maximilians University Munich. So I called Prof Fiedler and he told me that he received the book from another scientist back in the 1970s when he worked at the "Zentralinstitut for Linguistics at the Academy of Sciences" in East Berlin. Fiedler doesn't remember the name of the colleague, and he doesn't know where the manuscript was found. So in the end the copiale came up for the first time about 20 years before (!) the end of the Cold War, was handed over to a scientist of the East Berlin Academy while the original place where it was found is yet unknown. My findings will be published tomorrow. All involved scientists are mentioned on the website about the copiale cephir. Svenstein (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Please read WP:RS and WP:NOR. It is not appropriate to substitute something you say you heard from a researcher for what the researcher has actually published. You may have personal knowledge of something, but that is not a substitute for published verifiable sources, and it is not an adequate reference to change or remove text in an article. Thanks. Edison (talk) 02:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- To make this clear: the group of scientists only mentions in their paper that the copiale is "an enciphered book from the East Berlin Academy". This is correct, as the earliest known owner of the book, Prof Wilfried Fiedler, was a member of the East Berlin Academy of Sciences when he received the book. It is incorrect (and not mentioned in the paper), that this happened "after the Cold War" (but in the 1970s). It is incorrect (and not mentioned in the paper), that it was "found" in the Academy (it was handed over to the member of the Academy by an yet unknown scientist). It is not known (and not mentioned in the paper), if it was found in archive or elsewhere (may be on a flea market, library, private collection, inheritance?). It is also incorrect to link to the Akademie der Künste article in Wikipedia, as the correct Academy would be the Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR.
- My article is now online at Bild.de Svenstein (talk) 10:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- (Found mention of the parallel manuscript.)
You claim in the Wikipedia article that "A parallel manuscript is kept at the Staatsarchiv Wolfenbüttel." The references or links following or accompanying your statement are to an article in the German Wikipedia, which isnot a reliable source, and it is hard to tell whether it mentions said Parallel manuscript, and to [1] Knight, Kevin, Megyesi, Beáta and Schaefer, Christiane "The Copiale Cipher," Uppsala Universitet, Institutionen för lingvistik och filologi website. Includes images of the full text, as well as full translations in German and English. Retrieved October 25, 2011]. I do not see in that reference discussion of a "parallel manuscript," so that claim needs to be removed from the Wikipedia article unless you provide a reliable source. Your personal knowledge is not an adequate reference.Thanks. Edison (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)