Talk:Voynich manuscript

More Cheshire

https://www.academia.edu/35769088/Linguistic_Missing_Links_instruction_in_decrypting_translating_and_transliterating_MS408_the_only_document_known_to_use_both_proto_Romance_language_and_proto_Italic_symbols_for_its_writing_system?email_work_card=title

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/003808 Keith Henson (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

homeopathy . . . No idea, ask Cheshire. I think his email is easy to fine, if not ask me. Keith Henson (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

https://www.arteoloji.com/ortacag-akdenizinde-zehirli-bir-bitkinin-tibbi-kullanimi_60

Journal article. Considered a reliable source here? Keith Henson (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

Ardıç

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)

Ahmet Ardiç has actually been part of a number of conferences in Turkey and Azerbaijan from what I can tell. His Old Turkic theory is one of many theories on the Voynich manuscript and is one that gets brought up a lot on the topic. I see no reason why it should be removed. DA1 (talk) 05:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

We need relevant secondary sources that tell us these things. It's not enough that you have found cues about him attending concerences. At this point, it equals soapboxing. –Austronesier (talk) 07:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Mind elaborating on this WP:SOAPBOX aspect you're referencing? DA1 (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Professor Lisa Fagin Davis is referenced in the WP article multiple times, including disagreeing with the Greg Kondrak theory and the Gerard Cheshire theory. However, on the Ahmet Ardıç theory, she states:

Davis says their claims hold up pretty well so far, although she is eager to hear from an Old Turkic scholar who can vet the family’s work.

“I don’t know the first thing about old Turkish but it’s very intriguing,” she said. “It certainly fits the known history of the manuscript, it suits the contents. When you put the whole thing together, the contents suggest that the manuscript was produced for medicinal purposes.”

Whether or not their theory withstands expert analysis, it’s unlikely to end our obsession with the document.

“I would say the Voynich manuscript stands at the intersection of the middle ages – which is a topic that is really fascinating to the general public – and the unsolvable mystery,” Davis said.

In a lecture at Wellesley College, uploaded to YouTube on 27 November 2023 (at 01:15:11 timestamped), Professor Davis proactively brings up the Ardıç theory:

who believe that they have found a way to turn Voynichese into a Medieval Turkish dialect. That's really kind of interesting. I'm not a hundred percent convinced by what they're doing, but it's really interesting and certainly it fits the, it's possible.

And in my heart what I want it to be, I'll whisper to you what I want it to be, which is that I really want it to have been made by community of women, recording their knowledge for future generations. That's what I really hope it turns out to be.

DA1 (talk) 08:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I mean, at this point, anything other than the claim than the Voynich manuscript is a constructed language or glossolalia/deliberate gibberish seems pretty fringe. The bizarre repetition exhibited in the text probably suggests that it is the latter, but I don't know what the academic consensus on the Voynich is. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I have been asked about the soapboxing nature of the latest addtions. This puff piece of entirely promotional non-enclopedic text should suffice:

Template:Talkquote

Big deal. Every professional or amateur scholar publishes material (either on their own, or in collaboration with co-authors) and takes part in conferences. But we never mention these things in Wikivoice, unless secondary sources describe these things (i.e. the publication of the article and the participation in a conference) as relevant in itself—which rarely happens even in the case of research that has a real impact on the field unlike the impactless fringe view that is being pushed here. So both references maximally can be used as sources for their contents. But of course, again, only if independent secondary sources cite/cover them. I can't see any evidence that such covarage exists. –Austronesier (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC) Template:Reflist

Claimed translation

Jessica Scott has a glossary and a translation: https://jessicascott125.academia.edu/research#papers . I have not been able to find any secondary sources. 136.36.176.51 (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC) Sorry, I didn't see that Scott had been discussed before. Anyway, the link to her material is here. 136.36.176.51 (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Just for what it's worth dept. I downloaded the paper: The first sentence is

"The following paper is the Latin translation of MS 408 1r1."

She is (I think) trying to say that this paper includes a Latin transliteration of V. If anyone writing something like this cannot understand the difference between transliteration and translation, there is not much hope for them. And it's downhill from there. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Yale Digital Library Page Count

This article states both that "the Voynich Manuscript consists of around 240 pages" AND that "Yale University published the manuscript online in its entirety." However, the link provided for said digitization has 213 pages, not 240. Therefore, one of the previous quotes must be untrue; I am inclined to believe that is the matter with the first one, for the Yale website confirms the statement that "This object has been completely digitized." 200.80.186.72 (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Part of the discrepancy might be the fold-out pages.

Perhaps "Around 220" would be closer without getting into the weeds about how to count the weirdly shaped pages? ApLundell (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Suggested addition: Hildegard of Bingen authorship hypothesis

Hello editors, I’m the author of a 2025 independently published book that proposes a new authorship theory for the Voynich manuscript. I’m disclosing this as a COI (conflict of interest), and will not edit the article directly.

If deemed appropriate, I suggest this be added under "Proposed decipherments" or "Further reading":

• Martinez, Larry C. (2025). Unlocking the Voynich Enigma: Hildegard von Bingen’s Legacy and a Linguistic Key. ISBN 9798285518730.

Proposes authorship of the Voynich manuscript by the 12th-century abbess Hildegard of Bingen, based on structural and symbolic comparisons with her constructed language *Litterae Ignotae* and Germanic monastic scripts.

Thank you for considering. AuthorLMartinez AuthorLMartinez (talk) 02:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

We don't have reason to mention self-published works by non-credentialed authors. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Remsense ‥ 论 02:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Well if the Self-Publish book yields profound strong academic & scholarly insight to an enigma that other Scholars have yet to provide answers too- then I would imagine that self-publish work would be of interest to MENTION; and I'm a Credentialed Medical professional and have published many books- however, I'll still seek other(s) support since this AI-response provided to me on Wikipedia seemed pretty aggressive & rude. Hopefully, after after collaborating with some Reputable Editors and Institutions- maybe will yield a more respectful 'reply' - thanks AuthorLMartinez (talk) 08:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

When the inevitable roar of acclaim from the academic & scholarly world greets your work, we will sheepishly join the bandwagon. —Tamfang (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Your accusations of well-established editors being "AI" is considered a personal attack, which is not allowed on Wikipedia; see WP:NPA. Please stop doing that, and converse with other editors as equals, not as if we're machines.

Once you get your work reviewed, we can include it. Before then, no. Wikipedia isn't a publicity platform to get the word out. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Just to back up user:Remsense: If your book is well received in the scientific community, there will soon enough be independent citable sources that will allow us to include it. If it creates a media buzz, that might be reason enough for inclusion, but in this particular area, where numerous proposals before have created a buzz but soon been forgotten, it would take a lot.Nø (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not an AI (so far as I know) and I also agree that third-party sources are required.

The Voynich Manuscript attracts a surprising number of researchers who are not medievalists wishing to try their hand in someone else's field, but even if the author was a famous and credentialed medievalist, Wikipedia's sourcing requirements would still require a peer-reviewed source, or ideally: third-party sources about the work. (Which would surely come quickly if the truth of the arguments are so profound.)

Finally, I don't see anything wrong with User:Remsense's comment here. ApLundell (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)