Talk:Voynich manuscript

Solid evidence of forgery by Voynich himself

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)

Interesting read but unfortunately self-published sources like blogs are not considered reliable unless the author is a noted expert or the blog is cited in reliable sources. Otherwise it's just another crackpot writing about his theories and any of us could do the same. As for the date, please provide a reliable, published source (meeting WP:RS) to support what you've written, otherwise it's original research and not allowed. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with mezil, apart from researcher Richard SantaColoma, more people have suggested this possibility. It is listed in the article as a possibility and that's what it should be, not a "definitive proof", that is up to the reader to decide. Tisquesusa (talk) 16:13, 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)

I have reverted the additions. A wordpress blog is not a valid source. ApLundell (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Correct, there is no debate about this. Blogs violate WP:RS and therefore WP:V which is a policy here. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The medium is not of relevance. Richard SantaColoma has published a lot more, he is not "some random person writing a blog". What counts are his analysis and arguments. Tisquesusa (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Encyclopedias document current academic consensus, they don't judge new arguments on their merits. The content or quality of his analysis and arguments don't matter to this discussion.

The medium is of relevance. WP Guidelines are clear that blogs are to be mistrusted as third party sources except in exceptional circumstances. ApLundell (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

(ec) It absolutely does matter. Self-published sources are not subject to any editorial oversight, fact-checking, peer review, etc. We can't take your word for it that the author is considered an expert in the field. We'd need reliable, published sources (such as academic papers) citing him as authoritative. In which case, you're correct that his blog may be able to be used in a limited fashion (to cite what he states or believes). Please read WP:SPS. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

If that would be the case, about half of all the references in this article could be removed. The website by Zandbergen is also a personal website, the websites by the other researchers too. This is an exceptional case; due to the interest, most of the researchers are amateurs. Tisquesusa (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to culling self-published sources from the article, even if that makes it shorter. (Except in cases where they're referencing statements specifically about the self-publisher, which I don't think would apply much in this article.)

It would be work, though. And I fear a number of editors would come out of the woodwork to protect their favorite theories, so it might be like pulling teeth. ApLundell (talk) 17:04, 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)

We're not here to debate the merits of the idea. It doesn't matter if it's good or bad. It especially doesn't matter if you or I think it's good or bad. ApLundell (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, the amateur researcher in question seems to have just personally edited the the article. That makes me even more reluctant to use his blog as a source. ApLundell (talk) 00:57, 20 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)

The Voynich Manuscript does fall into the category of 'topics inviting original research, theories that are considered more or less valid by others and discussions on both on this talk page' (and sometimes it is useful to discuss the practical reasons for or against).

Further discussion can be continued on the talk page for [1]. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Its a book on Botany.

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)

"Manuscript" means a document or book that was written by hand.

Since none of the plants can be identified as real plants, I think "weird manuscript" is a good description. ApLundell (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Zbigniew Banasik

He has a page on Polish Wikipedia - which does not mention the VM. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

"Proto57" blog

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.

ApLundell (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Nicholas Gibbs' article in the Times Literary Supplement

Since there seems to be some disagreement about what language to use to discuss the Gibbs article in the Times Literary Supplement, I'm creating this section for us to talk it out.

Gibbs may be right. He may be wrong. But Wikipedia policy requires that we don't write our personal judgments as to his correctness into the article.

I also disagree with the characterization made in an edit that the Gibbs article is "original research"; by Wikipedia convention, what makes the Gibbs article not-original-research is not Gibbs' rightness or wrongness, but the fact of the TLS's publication of his article. Nandesuka (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

It is not original research by Wikipedia's definition.

It should be mentioned along with every other "solution" of the week.

Describing it as similar to some previous work probably is original research by Wikipedia's definition, and should probably not be mentioned.

ApLundell (talk) 05:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

All of the claims to a solution in that section should use reliable, secondary—not primary—sources. There will be plenty written on Gibbs's take soon enough. Until then, only use the primary source for basic claims about his own theory. It can also be used for material descriptions or other facts surrounding the manuscript as long as the sourced claim isn't about his theory (keep editorial distance). (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 07:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to waiting until this new theory of the month is mentioned by the press to establish it's notability, so long as we can agree that, its notability established, we can reference this publication directly if the popular press glosses over important details. ApLundell (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Though they are not precisely the same, Gibbs' claim is without doubt *similar* to Feely's 1934 claim: both assert that Voynichese is idiosyncratically abbreviated Latin. Why mention one without mentioning the other? And then how can the article sensibly mention Feely's attempted decryption without mentioning D'Imperio's authoritative summary of his work, however briefly? To be honest, there's a much stronger case for deleting the mention of Gibbs' decryption here (a single interview in the TLS hardly counts as a definitive test of worthiness) and retaining the mention of Feely's decryption, simply because the latter does all the same things yet has been definitively assessed by a number of experts, as reported by D'Imperio. Nickpelling (talk) 10:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the inclusion of either of the sources you mention. I'm only opposed to glibly saying unreferenced "This work is similar to that work". If we included the earlier work, and organized them both under a sub-heading like "Abbreviated Latin", I don't think anyone would complain about that. ApLundell (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The missing heading is actually Shorthand. I'll add that in, along with removing the two other well-meaning additions referring to Nicholas Gibbs' theory that have been added in the last 24 hours. :-( Nickpelling (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. It is too early to include this material in the article. Where is the decipherment? Claiming it is shorthand does not make it so, and even if it is shorthand, one still needs to show how to interpret it. Mention of this work needs to wait until secondary sources tell WP it is worthwhile. Glrx (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the "decipherment" is missing; it is not in both the secondary sources that are listed and the Times article is behind a paywall. I don't know what Gibbs has proposed in that sense; it is not decoding if you don't present any evidence about the code used. Yet, that doesn't mean we should delete the part. Keep it updated, referenced and short, yes, but not just completely delete it. Tisquesusa (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

WP is not a newspaper or a journal. It is not the place to track claims and progress about the VM. WP can wait until others have assessed the work. If Gibbs has done something significant, then there will be plenty of RS to tell us that in the coming weeks and months. Glrx (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

When a major newspaper or magazine publishes a finding - even if that finding proves to be wrong - that's relevant. Multiple secondary sources have, as you have noted, reported on the TLS article. Put bluntly, even if this later proves to be wrong it's already past the threshold where discussing his claim is notable, by fact of the amount of coverage. Waving this away as 'recentism' smacks, frankly, of WP:OR. Nandesuka (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

(e/c)

@Czar:

Gibbs, a writer, has been hired for some TV special.

I don't see a single secondary source above. I have not claimed there are secondary sources.

We have Gibbs finding a publisher for his ruminations about VM. Gibbs is a primary source. Maybe he's trying to drum up interest by running a PR campaign. WP doesn't trust primary sources because primary sources must be interpreted and evaluated -- something that WP editors are not supposed to do.

TLS is not even a good primary source. What experience does TLS have with VM or codes and ciphers? VM is an arcane subject and out of TLS's league. We are not talking about a peer-reviewed article in Cryptologia.

Then we have a several other sources saying Gibbs wrote an article that said X. Repetition does not a secondary source make. The authors are not making their own assessments, they are just parroting that Gibbs made a claim. Secondary sources have the intellectual perspective to examine the claims in primary sources and pass judgment upon them.

For a quasi secondary source, see Brian Dunning's No, the Voynich Manuscript has not been 'decoded'. Dunning says, "A large red flag is raised by Gibbs’ explanation. He says he was commissioned by an unnamed television network to come up with a solution for the Voynich Manuscript. In other words, his solution is not the result of years of study or expertise or collaboration with other experts, but rather it is content created for a TV show. Popular television networks, such as the History Channel, have extraordinarily poor reputations for manufacturing sensational pseudohistory." Dunning's views, while secondary, are not a reliable source because it is a blog. Some believe Dunning has enough cred behind his blog to make it a reliable source, but he does screw up (e.g., misunderstanding the Gardner Island Hypothesis).

Another failure is WP:UNDUE. There hasn't been enough time for a significant minority to evaluate and believe the claim. Undue stuff does not belong in WP. And Gibb's does not have that authority by himself.

Gibb's claim is not OR by a WP editor.

WP:BRD says the material is out until there's consensus here.

Glrx (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

If you want to try to make the argument that the Times Literary Supplement is not a notable source, by all means be my guest, but that seems like a specious argument, on its face, to me. Nandesuka (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)