![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
My edits:
I think I've made some improvement; of course, it can be always improved more. For example, I noticed that names are used inconsistently, that there are wikilinks to redirects etc.
Regarding cited bibliography: I think if a source is cited only once, it should not go to cited bibliography but directly to the reference using <ref></ref>
. Am I right? /Example is Shailor; it is used only once as a citation (it is used 14 times but in the same form). So why not to include that same form directly so it is in references section?/
Please refer (if needed to comment) to each numbered item one by one, so it's easier to follow discussion. -- Obsuser ( talk) 02:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Basically - the VM 'looks like' a manuscript of the early 15th century; the cost of production of such a long text (vellum, inks/colours, at least two scribes etc) may well rule out 'outsider art' , forgeries and similar - and a range of people from trained cryptographers to interested historians (professional and interest) have not been able to 'crack the code' - so possibly some other approach to understanding the document is needed. Jackiespeel ( talk) 17:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Whose work or actually what did I "destroy"?
I can only repeat the most important stuff (alongside: Template {{ Aut}} is not safe for use in CS1 templates as it pollutes COinS metadata!; {{ Aut}} is not professional; what does it even mean professional?):
@ ApLundell: I've never seen someone using as much offensive language here as Tisquesusa (to tell someone "you are autistic", I mean – what!?)... But never mind, I'm here to discuss the article and plan to apply suggestions when I find time...-- Obsuser ( talk) 19:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Is this edit from some IP actually good? I see "Foror or..." too, not "For or or..." (very first characters of the first line). It is not "image above", too. It is on the right, at least on my monitor. -- Obsuser ( talk) 19:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
POROR,ORSG,TOM,8HTAL,OPTOR8G-
0TOR,OR,ORO,RAM,HZG,0AN,8AR-
Can [1] be made use of or developed. (Noting again that it is a public wiki in which there is currently only one participant.) Jackiespeel ( talk) 09:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
THIS IS THE ORIGINAL VIDEO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4E3BgWiqtk
AND THIS IS THE ADDENDUM TO ORIGINAL VIDEO EXPLAINING VOYNICH WRITING SYSTEM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF8LVn4HVh4
SOLUTION WAS ALSO PUBLISHED ONTO A NATIONAL ITALIAN NEWSPAPER:
http://www.lastampa.it/2016/04/06/cultura/ho-svelato-la-lingua-segreta-del-manoscritto-voynich-aHO9kOzrDruiEeSBG84wVI/pagina.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.102.162.6 ( talk) 06:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The problem is - the text looks 'way too complex' to have been created by stencils (the text is not in blocks) - and having created the stencils why not use them elsewhere? Jackiespeel ( talk) 13:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
@ Glrx: and others; the last edits on the article have mostly centered around two works by Thomas O'Neil; his blog (that is automatically deleted by a bot because it's hosted on wordpress, a site on the blacklist) and his book (only available on kindle and just 38 pages "long"). I haven't read the work and indeed it seems the editor adding it looks for promotion, but is there a convincing argument to not include this particular person's analysis of the VMS? I am neutral in this; ok with either decision, but would like to know if it's based on anything to exclude it? Tisquesusa ( talk) 20:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Can some agreement be made on including details of the latest publications - having details added and removed repeatedly does not contribute to Wikipedia. Jackiespeel ( talk) 10:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
So only two users are for complete exclusion, and around seven to mention or full inclusion. Facsimiles other than French one should be mentioned; I will leave to others how and where in the article. -- Obsuser ( talk) 20:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Now to wait for the next presentation and also 'I have translated the following words...' Jackiespeel ( talk) 09:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I added section that links to work by Derek Vogt: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Voynich_manuscript&diff=753017818&oldid=752404530 but it was reverted with this description: "Not notable, unreliable source (youtube)". Derek seems to work with Stephen Bax and publishes on his web page ( https://stephenbax.net/?p=1550). As the topic involves phonetics, posting these findings as video makes sense IMO. Please re-evaluate this change. 109.241.147.199 ( talk) 21:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
The comment appears, is removed, is returned, is removed again, and is re-returned... can some agreement be reached please. Jackiespeel ( talk) 21:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Would [7] be a sufficient reference for inclusion? Jackiespeel ( talk) 21:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
The constant addition and removal of effectively the same passage in question detracts from the article and is mildly irritating. Would something along the lines of my 'Reproductions...' sentence be a reasonable compromise? Jackiespeel ( talk) 09:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The current issue (February 2017) of the magazine Prospect has a review of the facsimile/article on the VM on page 82. Jackiespeel ( talk) 21:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Is there any attempt (save for Stojko's freakish 'vowelless Ukranian') to interpret the text as Slavonic? No, I am not a crazy patriot, I have just noticed that some features of VM which are regarded by non-Slavonic speakers as improbable, are quite consistent with 15th-century Russian or Bulgarian: - "too short words": words could be abbreviated; - "absence of one-character or two-character words": there would be little or no such words in a medieval Slavonic text; - diacritics are much like those used in the 15th-century Cyrillic script; - some of the characters are identical with those of the 15th-century Russian secret scripts; unfortunately, the scripts in question do not have a shared system of meanings; - seemingly meaningless word repetition and mentions of fictitious plants are quite normal in Slavonic charms. Okay, I do know, this is a tactless 'original research'. But I just want to know if anyone had done it before. I would be happy to get references. 176.15.77.168 ( talk) 19:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I came here because I have a vaguely similar line of reasoning... any bilingual person who can speak basically "unrelated" languages (say, ukranian vs english) can write "phonetically" in one language using the pronunciation rules of the other -- just like romanized japanese. the result is trivial to read+write for the writer yet totally opaque for almost everyone else. add a custom alphabet and it's pretty hard to decode! Mcslinky ( talk) 03:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
"Protein testing in 2014 revealed that the parchment was made from calf skin, and multispectral analysis showed that it was unwritten before the manuscript was created." This seems to mean that multispectral analysis showed that the text didn't exist before it was written on the parchment. Does it mean to say that the first use of the parchment was for this manuscript? i.e. that "unwritten" means "unused"? -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 02:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
https://ria.ru/science/20170419/1492432885.html
Article: russian scholars unlock the secret of mysterious Voynich manuscript. Not encrypted, but plain text, allegedly containing 60% English or German and 40% Romance languages, written down after removing all vowels and spaces from the text (similar to hebrew sacred-script style). 82.131.210.163 ( talk) 14:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Occam's Razor applies to the VM as anywhere else. Jackiespeel ( talk) 18:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Voynich manuscript. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a very thoroughly researched piece that casts very serious doubts on the perception that the manuscript dates from the middle ages. I will post a link to it here: https://proto57.wordpress.com The author debunks basically all the myths used to support a medieval origin, including numerous pictures that bear a striking resemblance to post-colonial era inventions such as the telescope, microscopic images from the early 20th century and so on. The Marci letter (supposedly dated to 1665) also is very likely a forgery by Voynich himself. The very fact that he allegedly purchased the manuscript in 1912 and only showed it to the public 3 year later in 1915 is quite telling. Why would he do that if he was in possession of such a mysterious book? Fairly obvious at this point that he took these couple of years to actually manufacture the manuscript basing it on the authentic Barsch letter (which mentions unknown script to the author and star signs, HOWEVER it omits the naked women, baths, etc). Voynich was a dealer in old manuscrips and had access to old calfskin, old paints, dyes and could have fabricated such a book if he wished to.
What the author in my view proves is that the whole notion that the book was created sometime in the 15th century is based mainly on wishful thinking and people's tendency to gravitate towards mysteries even when there are none, as in this case. I strongly suggest everyone interested in the Voynich so-called "mystery" to read into the link I have given. Granted, it is long and takes some time to read through, but it sheds light to the subject.
Lastly, what I propose is that the date of creation be changed to early 20th century, or at least that such a date be given as a viable alternative to the shaky at best carbon dated date. The carbon dated calfskin only dates the vellum and as mentioned Voynich had access to plenty of old calfskin, which he could have used. mezil ( talk) 15:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
That is what I have included it as. An alternative, and it should be stated as such. mezil ( talk) 16:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Some allowance has to be made for WV running a business which included a significant amount of travelling so 'puzzling out some obscure book' might well have been a hobby - and he probably asked all his contacts first before going public.
And, as has been said 'at various points in the past, by various people in a number of places' - what would he get out of forging a peculiar document of that length, that was one of a kind? 'Creating a few pages that are obviously a construct to get an understanding of medieval manuscripts and have a bit of fun' is one thing - but forging the entire VM is something else (and would probably ruin his reputation as a bookseller). Jackiespeel ( talk) 21:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Incidentally, he has been researching for over a decade. His views have evolved. As Tisquesusa said, he is FAR more than just a blogger. He presents tons of circumstancial evidence that the Voynich is a modern hoax. Why not mention it as a viable option. You reverting is a bit of a bitter move to be fair, but you can continue to do so if you feel like it. mezil ( talk) 23:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
has anyone else noticed that this is a book on botany and not a weird manuscript as it is being presented — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.219.128 ( talk) 18:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
He has a page on Polish Wikipedia - which does not mention the VM. Jackiespeel ( talk) 09:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Do we have a good secondary source that describes Rich SantaColoma's work yet?
It's very irritating that such an in-depth and comprehensive look at the topic can't be used in the article. This is a perennial problem with Fringe topics, of course, and I 100% agree with the WP policies that make this an issue, but I had still hoped that the topic had enough mainstream appeal that we'd at least get some popular press that summarizes the work? But I haven't been able to spot any.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
My edits:
I think I've made some improvement; of course, it can be always improved more. For example, I noticed that names are used inconsistently, that there are wikilinks to redirects etc.
Regarding cited bibliography: I think if a source is cited only once, it should not go to cited bibliography but directly to the reference using <ref></ref>
. Am I right? /Example is Shailor; it is used only once as a citation (it is used 14 times but in the same form). So why not to include that same form directly so it is in references section?/
Please refer (if needed to comment) to each numbered item one by one, so it's easier to follow discussion. -- Obsuser ( talk) 02:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Basically - the VM 'looks like' a manuscript of the early 15th century; the cost of production of such a long text (vellum, inks/colours, at least two scribes etc) may well rule out 'outsider art' , forgeries and similar - and a range of people from trained cryptographers to interested historians (professional and interest) have not been able to 'crack the code' - so possibly some other approach to understanding the document is needed. Jackiespeel ( talk) 17:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Whose work or actually what did I "destroy"?
I can only repeat the most important stuff (alongside: Template {{ Aut}} is not safe for use in CS1 templates as it pollutes COinS metadata!; {{ Aut}} is not professional; what does it even mean professional?):
@ ApLundell: I've never seen someone using as much offensive language here as Tisquesusa (to tell someone "you are autistic", I mean – what!?)... But never mind, I'm here to discuss the article and plan to apply suggestions when I find time...-- Obsuser ( talk) 19:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Is this edit from some IP actually good? I see "Foror or..." too, not "For or or..." (very first characters of the first line). It is not "image above", too. It is on the right, at least on my monitor. -- Obsuser ( talk) 19:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
POROR,ORSG,TOM,8HTAL,OPTOR8G-
0TOR,OR,ORO,RAM,HZG,0AN,8AR-
Can [1] be made use of or developed. (Noting again that it is a public wiki in which there is currently only one participant.) Jackiespeel ( talk) 09:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
THIS IS THE ORIGINAL VIDEO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4E3BgWiqtk
AND THIS IS THE ADDENDUM TO ORIGINAL VIDEO EXPLAINING VOYNICH WRITING SYSTEM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF8LVn4HVh4
SOLUTION WAS ALSO PUBLISHED ONTO A NATIONAL ITALIAN NEWSPAPER:
http://www.lastampa.it/2016/04/06/cultura/ho-svelato-la-lingua-segreta-del-manoscritto-voynich-aHO9kOzrDruiEeSBG84wVI/pagina.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.102.162.6 ( talk) 06:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The problem is - the text looks 'way too complex' to have been created by stencils (the text is not in blocks) - and having created the stencils why not use them elsewhere? Jackiespeel ( talk) 13:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
@ Glrx: and others; the last edits on the article have mostly centered around two works by Thomas O'Neil; his blog (that is automatically deleted by a bot because it's hosted on wordpress, a site on the blacklist) and his book (only available on kindle and just 38 pages "long"). I haven't read the work and indeed it seems the editor adding it looks for promotion, but is there a convincing argument to not include this particular person's analysis of the VMS? I am neutral in this; ok with either decision, but would like to know if it's based on anything to exclude it? Tisquesusa ( talk) 20:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Can some agreement be made on including details of the latest publications - having details added and removed repeatedly does not contribute to Wikipedia. Jackiespeel ( talk) 10:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
So only two users are for complete exclusion, and around seven to mention or full inclusion. Facsimiles other than French one should be mentioned; I will leave to others how and where in the article. -- Obsuser ( talk) 20:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Now to wait for the next presentation and also 'I have translated the following words...' Jackiespeel ( talk) 09:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I added section that links to work by Derek Vogt: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Voynich_manuscript&diff=753017818&oldid=752404530 but it was reverted with this description: "Not notable, unreliable source (youtube)". Derek seems to work with Stephen Bax and publishes on his web page ( https://stephenbax.net/?p=1550). As the topic involves phonetics, posting these findings as video makes sense IMO. Please re-evaluate this change. 109.241.147.199 ( talk) 21:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
The comment appears, is removed, is returned, is removed again, and is re-returned... can some agreement be reached please. Jackiespeel ( talk) 21:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Would [7] be a sufficient reference for inclusion? Jackiespeel ( talk) 21:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
The constant addition and removal of effectively the same passage in question detracts from the article and is mildly irritating. Would something along the lines of my 'Reproductions...' sentence be a reasonable compromise? Jackiespeel ( talk) 09:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The current issue (February 2017) of the magazine Prospect has a review of the facsimile/article on the VM on page 82. Jackiespeel ( talk) 21:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Is there any attempt (save for Stojko's freakish 'vowelless Ukranian') to interpret the text as Slavonic? No, I am not a crazy patriot, I have just noticed that some features of VM which are regarded by non-Slavonic speakers as improbable, are quite consistent with 15th-century Russian or Bulgarian: - "too short words": words could be abbreviated; - "absence of one-character or two-character words": there would be little or no such words in a medieval Slavonic text; - diacritics are much like those used in the 15th-century Cyrillic script; - some of the characters are identical with those of the 15th-century Russian secret scripts; unfortunately, the scripts in question do not have a shared system of meanings; - seemingly meaningless word repetition and mentions of fictitious plants are quite normal in Slavonic charms. Okay, I do know, this is a tactless 'original research'. But I just want to know if anyone had done it before. I would be happy to get references. 176.15.77.168 ( talk) 19:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I came here because I have a vaguely similar line of reasoning... any bilingual person who can speak basically "unrelated" languages (say, ukranian vs english) can write "phonetically" in one language using the pronunciation rules of the other -- just like romanized japanese. the result is trivial to read+write for the writer yet totally opaque for almost everyone else. add a custom alphabet and it's pretty hard to decode! Mcslinky ( talk) 03:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
"Protein testing in 2014 revealed that the parchment was made from calf skin, and multispectral analysis showed that it was unwritten before the manuscript was created." This seems to mean that multispectral analysis showed that the text didn't exist before it was written on the parchment. Does it mean to say that the first use of the parchment was for this manuscript? i.e. that "unwritten" means "unused"? -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 02:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
https://ria.ru/science/20170419/1492432885.html
Article: russian scholars unlock the secret of mysterious Voynich manuscript. Not encrypted, but plain text, allegedly containing 60% English or German and 40% Romance languages, written down after removing all vowels and spaces from the text (similar to hebrew sacred-script style). 82.131.210.163 ( talk) 14:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Occam's Razor applies to the VM as anywhere else. Jackiespeel ( talk) 18:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Voynich manuscript. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a very thoroughly researched piece that casts very serious doubts on the perception that the manuscript dates from the middle ages. I will post a link to it here: https://proto57.wordpress.com The author debunks basically all the myths used to support a medieval origin, including numerous pictures that bear a striking resemblance to post-colonial era inventions such as the telescope, microscopic images from the early 20th century and so on. The Marci letter (supposedly dated to 1665) also is very likely a forgery by Voynich himself. The very fact that he allegedly purchased the manuscript in 1912 and only showed it to the public 3 year later in 1915 is quite telling. Why would he do that if he was in possession of such a mysterious book? Fairly obvious at this point that he took these couple of years to actually manufacture the manuscript basing it on the authentic Barsch letter (which mentions unknown script to the author and star signs, HOWEVER it omits the naked women, baths, etc). Voynich was a dealer in old manuscrips and had access to old calfskin, old paints, dyes and could have fabricated such a book if he wished to.
What the author in my view proves is that the whole notion that the book was created sometime in the 15th century is based mainly on wishful thinking and people's tendency to gravitate towards mysteries even when there are none, as in this case. I strongly suggest everyone interested in the Voynich so-called "mystery" to read into the link I have given. Granted, it is long and takes some time to read through, but it sheds light to the subject.
Lastly, what I propose is that the date of creation be changed to early 20th century, or at least that such a date be given as a viable alternative to the shaky at best carbon dated date. The carbon dated calfskin only dates the vellum and as mentioned Voynich had access to plenty of old calfskin, which he could have used. mezil ( talk) 15:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
That is what I have included it as. An alternative, and it should be stated as such. mezil ( talk) 16:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Some allowance has to be made for WV running a business which included a significant amount of travelling so 'puzzling out some obscure book' might well have been a hobby - and he probably asked all his contacts first before going public.
And, as has been said 'at various points in the past, by various people in a number of places' - what would he get out of forging a peculiar document of that length, that was one of a kind? 'Creating a few pages that are obviously a construct to get an understanding of medieval manuscripts and have a bit of fun' is one thing - but forging the entire VM is something else (and would probably ruin his reputation as a bookseller). Jackiespeel ( talk) 21:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Incidentally, he has been researching for over a decade. His views have evolved. As Tisquesusa said, he is FAR more than just a blogger. He presents tons of circumstancial evidence that the Voynich is a modern hoax. Why not mention it as a viable option. You reverting is a bit of a bitter move to be fair, but you can continue to do so if you feel like it. mezil ( talk) 23:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
has anyone else noticed that this is a book on botany and not a weird manuscript as it is being presented — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.219.128 ( talk) 18:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
He has a page on Polish Wikipedia - which does not mention the VM. Jackiespeel ( talk) 09:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Do we have a good secondary source that describes Rich SantaColoma's work yet?
It's very irritating that such an in-depth and comprehensive look at the topic can't be used in the article. This is a perennial problem with Fringe topics, of course, and I 100% agree with the WP policies that make this an issue, but I had still hoped that the topic had enough mainstream appeal that we'd at least get some popular press that summarizes the work? But I haven't been able to spot any.