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.
Voynich manuscript is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Constructed languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of constructed languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Constructed languagesWikipedia:WikiProject Constructed languagesTemplate:WikiProject Constructed languagesconstructed language articles
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indigenous peoples of the Americas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of the AmericasWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasIndigenous peoples of the Americas articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
It may be churnalism given how much of that text is an exact copy of similar sites like Adnkronos and iLLibraio. I'm not sure if this is enough to warrant mentioning as a decipherment claim on the article itself, but news articles come out every few years with similar claims and it's just the latest of a very, very long list. - Aoidh (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's from November 2022. If it hasn't made it into reliable secondary (or tertiary) sources by now, it is with high probability because it is fringe, and not a reliable wp:SOURCE. (If it had been new, I'd have said that it with high probability was fringe, and shouldn't be included until it made it into reliable sources -- unless it had created so much of a stir in mainstream media that we should cover that stir (probably without endorsing the theory). Nø (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Claims that have been covered by independent reliable sources should be considered as possibly mentioning, but if every claim was mentioned it would be a list hundreds of names long. The Voynich manuscript may be an important part of a scholar's work, but is the scholar's work an important part of what we know of the Voynich manuscript? Routine churnalism isn't evidence that this is the case. - Aoidh (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's an article on Ars Technica [6]. For what that's worth. It's less detailed than the blog post, but it might impart a little notability.
It's really remarkable the way some of the marginalia is clearly visible in UV but completely invisible in normal colors. I'm sure these images will fuel generations of more speculation. ApLundell (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This paper provides the solution to understanding the hitherto unknown writing system used for the manuscript listed as MS 408 at the Beinecke Library, Yale University. The writing system uses symbols, punctuation, grammar and language that are each unique. The manuscript is not encrypted, in the sense that its author made an effort to conceal the contents of the manuscript, as has been presumed by some scholars. Instead, it is code only in the sense that the modern reader needs to be versed in the calligraphic and linguistic rules to be able to translate and read the texts. Furthermore, in discovering its writing system, it became apparent that the manuscript is of invaluable importance to the study of the evolution of the Romance languages and the scheme of Italic letters and associated punctuation marks now commonplace in those and other modern languages. In short; it is revealed to be the only known document both written in Vulgar Latin, or proto-Romance, and using proto-Italic symbols. The original title for the manuscript, given by its female author, is: What one needs to be sure to acquire for the evils set in one's fate. It is a book offering homeopathic advice and instruction to women of court on matters of the heart, of sexual congress, of reproduction, of motherhood and of the physical and emotional complications that can arise along the way through life. The manuscript has now been dated to the year 1444 and the location of its creation has been pinpointed to the court of Castello Aragonese, on the island of Ischia: as expounded in the companion paper Linguistically Dating and Locating Manuscript MS408: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003808Keith Henson (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But this is just more Cheshire. He has of course solved all of these problems (as of course has Eleonora Matarrese, entirely differently), but until third-party scholars who are actually experts in something confirm that his claims make sense, they do not belong in WP. Incidentally, "homeopathic advice", given centuries before the invention of homeopathy would be identified how, exactly? Imaginatorium (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should think not. This appears to be a Turkish journal; Chesire writes his usual stuff about how the document has been decoded (by him, which he fails to mention), and fails to identify the document by the name which would be the warning flag to the people considering whether to publish this, assuming they are actually trying to peer-review the article. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightbadger: In response to this edit summary, the issue isn't gatekeeping information, it's making sure the article has relevant information to this article. The content being added is not supported by reliable sources in any way, and is sourced only to what appears to be a preprint on WP:ACADEMIA.EDU, which has not been peer reviewed and even if it had, needs third-party sources showing relevance before being included in the article. The number of people that have made the same claim as individual number in the hundreds if not thousands, most of which have no relevance to the history of this article's subject. Do you have reliable sources that support this individual's claim being relevant to this article's subject? - Aoidh (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the removal.
There is no third party coverage of this research. The author doesn't appear to be a trained expert in the subject.
Just a minor point, but it's seemingly not even a preprint, but flatly self-"published" using Academia as a vehicle for promotion/distribution without any indication that the author intends to submit it anywhere for peer-review. –Austronesier (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I'm so used to seeing Adademia.edu being used for pre-prints that I assumed, but you're correct, I don't see any indication that it's even a pre-print. - Aoidh (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find it again, but when I was trying to find if this had been mentioned in any third-party sources, I cam across a blog post (on LinkedIn, I think) that mentioned she intended to submit it to an medievalist academic journal. And she mentions in more than one place that it's "entered peer review."
So one of the amateurs that has been never been cited in the relevant academic literature about this topic now has gotten more WP attention by adding links mentioning his participation in a conference. To put it bluntly: can anybody tell me why we should devote an entire boldface-headed paragraph to someone whose appearance in secondary sources is limited to a short mention in CNN and a shoutout in the pop-sci e-zine Open Culture? There's more of this sort in the section "Decipherment claims", but we need to start somewhere to remove anything that violates WP:DUE WEIGHT. WP is an encyclopedia. Austronesier (talk) 11:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
