Talk:Voynich manuscript

Where was VM found by Voynich
The article gives Villa Mondragone, Frascati as the place where the VM rested until offered for sale to W. M. Voynich. But apparently, that's not right and the actual place was Villa Torlonia in Castel Gandolfo (near Rome again). There was some secrecy around the sale that perhaps led to this confusion. (source: ) Mandevil (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Terminological distinctions

 * ApLundell, the reason why, in the "Voynich manuscript" lead, I changed "decipher" to "decrypt" is that cryptologists reserve "decipherment" for the reading of a cipher by its intended recipient; and "decryption", for the reading of either a cipher or a code by an unauthorized recipient.
 * Similarly, while persons innocent of the difference between a cipher and a code often, in English, refer to either as a "code", there is a very basic distinction between a cipher and a code. (Some other languages commit the opposite error, calling both a code and a cipher a "cipher".) David Kahn, in his The Codebreakers (loosely titled thus for readers innocent of the differences!) very carefully explains the distinctions.
 * Best, Nihil novi (talk) 04:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * You don't need to put a message on my talk page, page me to it, then put the same message here, and page me here.
 * Anyway, here's the reply I was about to put on my talk page :


 * "Decipher", outside of crypto industry jargon, has a bunch of meanings at least one of which must apply to the manuscript, but "decrypt" specifically implies that the text is some form of code or cipher, which is not established and implying otherwise is a point of contention. If using the plain English meaning of "decipher" offends those who insist words must only be used according to narrowly defined jargon, then I suppose "understood" or "explained" would also work there, but to my mind that would be a slightly weaker sentence.
 * I'm not sure why you bring up the difference between codes and ciphers. I do understand the difference, but to my knowledge applying either to the manuscript is entirely speculation. ApLundell (talk) 04:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Very much with ApLundell here. Approaching the Voynich as being written in either a code or a cipher is to assume facts not in evidence and very much in dispute.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As I note above, the verb "to decrypt" is applicable to either a cipher or a code, particularly to the reading of an enciphered or encoded text by an unintended recipient.
 * The verb "to decrypt" comes from the Greek for "to uncover" or "to render unsecret". Even If the Voynich manuscript were to prove neither a cipher nor a code, the verb "to decrypt" would still remain applicable to that manuscript. At the same time, that verb's use would make a small contribution to preventing public misapprehension and misapplication of the terms "cipher" and, more especially, "code", which in recent years has been massively misused.
 * Nihil novi (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You are still assuming facts not in evidence. In order to be "decrypted," there would have to be an underlying message.  It has not been proven that is the case.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Greek italics could be the way it has been written
The text in the Voynych Manuscript could be Greek Italics. Lara3030 (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * It could be telling a story about nitric oxide (which was not even discovered at the time of the manuscript's assumed creation date) and the importance of health directions to try and avoid ovarian cancer. These words could be picked up by running a Greek to Russian translation with Google Lens (Google Lens seems to pick up some parts of the text as Greek Italics). Lara3030 (talk) 09:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There is also something about the Greek army service in 401 BC, though I may be wrong. Lara3030 (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The text could be many things, but only hypotheses repeated in reliable secondary sources warrant inclusion in the article. Otherwise the article would be much too long.  Also, Google Lens, like all machine learning models, is based on guesswork and often makes mistakes. Justin Kunimune (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Lara3030 What do you mean? This is what I intend with "Greek italics".-- Carnby (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Spake by David L Williams
The manuscript is a major plot point in a play - Spake, by David L Williams. See https://newplayexchange.org/plays/14094/spake. 66.76.14.59 (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the heads-up! I am not sure that it is WP:DUE for inclusion in the article at this point, but it may be in the future.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Another attempt
News from Italy. Scholar Eleonora Matarrese states she has deciphered the manuscript: la Repubblica (quite reliable source).-- Carnby (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)

And what about this paper ? It seems pretty sound and well documented to me. --95.233.177.138 (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * What I'm seeing online marks that publisher as a predatory publisher, and whether that's true or not I don't see any evidence that this paper is in any way peer reviewed or acknowledged in any reliable sources. - Aoidh (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So only attempts or claims published in a peer-reviewed journal should be mentioned?-- Carnby (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)