Talk:Voynich manuscript/Archive 2

Name pronounciation
I am currently translating this in greek, and I was pretty sure the word "Voinich" should be pronounced with the "ch" as in "Mach" but I came upon some greek web pages that have the name pronounced with the "ch" as in "cheese" (possibly according to Voinich's Polish roots). So, which one is correct? Thanks in advance - Badseed 21:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * According to the French article on the person, his Polish name was Wilfryd Michał Habdank-Wojnicz, and Polish cz is [tʃ] as in cheese. Good enough? ;) &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 13:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks alot Nighstallion :) (and Mushroom & Syzygy who helped on this). Going for the pagemove :) - Badseed 22:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hoax counterclaim
I put a "citation needed" on the counterclaim to Rugg's work. The way the sentence is written now is an example of weasel words. RelHistBuff 14:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction?
The intro says it's thought to have been written about 400 years ago, but later on the article says: "most experts assign the book to dates between 1450 and 1520" (500 years ago).Everyking 07:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I noticed that. And if most experts say that, why does the article go on so much about the possibility that Bacon (too early) or Dee and Kelley (too late) wrote it? To my eyes (I've done some postgrad research with late-medieval/early-sixteenth-century documents), 1450-1520 is in the right ballpark for the document as pictured. qp10qp 17:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The "look and feel" of the document is mostly late 15th century, as are the few datable images (clothing, crossbow). Dee and Kelley are attactive because of the document's history, and because a later origin allows a wider variety of enciphering systems. ;-) As for Bacon, he is no longer seriously considered an option. I think the intro should say "about 500 years ago" --Syzygy 09:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Zipf's law
"Language scholars have noted that the manuscript shares certain word statistics (Zipf's law) with natural languages that random text generally lacks. On the other hand, some research indicates that random text demonstrates such features as well."

Actually, the kind of frequency/ranking distribution that is stated by Zipf's law is the one you get if you create arbitrary (random) texts from a given alphabet. More information on Zipf's law can be found in Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing by Manning and Schütze.

I would be interested which "language scholars" claimed that Zipf's law describes something inherent to natural language. IMHO the sentence is much to general. Either cite a source, or remove it. --zeno 16:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Sunflower
I fail to see how this can be said to resemble a sunflower, are we sure it's the correct page? The plant pictured looks a lot like an Astrantia; flowers, leaves and roots all match. 62.113.159.156 01:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've changed the caption on the image, the "sunflower" is a different illustration. 62.113.159.156 17:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Scientific American Link
Doesn't go to anything related to Voynich manuscript. Amnion (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian emroidery connection
Look at the pictures of this Hungarian emroidery http://magyar.org/ahm/index.php?projectid=4&menuid=187

Seems reminiscent of some of the plant art in Voynich. Could it be that the artist was familiar with Hungarian embroidery representation of plants and therefore this influenced their style when they painted the manuscript plants? If so this would mean that the artist grew up in the milieu of Hungary and related peoples such as Armenians, Cossacks, Tatars.

Look at the Armenian and Georgian alphabets. There is a certain similarity in style which is also shared by the Voynich writing system. One wonders whether Armenian and Georgian took on their forms partly based on an earlier non-recorded writing system. If so, that former writing system is likely to be more or less syllabic. But that is maybe a bit too speculative. A more likely reason for the similarity is that the Voynich writer lived and worked in an Armenian/Georgian milieu and therefore, when he designed his writing system, he came up with a superficial similarity.

How much effort has been put into analyzing languages like Cuman Tatar, Chuvash, Old Turkic, Armenian, Kartvelian, Adyg, and so on? This manuscript is more likely to be written in a language with central eurasian connections and less likely to be written in a well-known european language.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * "How much effort has been put into analyzing languages like Cuman Tatar, Chuvash, Old Turkic, Armenian, Kartvelian, Adyg, and so on?" - None to speak of, and (IIRC) all of it was limited to very marginal quick-and-dirty analyses, none of which have been published in a scientif journal in recent times. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

History section - clarification
The first paragraph of the History section:

"especially the dress and hairstyles of the human figures, and a couple of castles that are seen in the diagrams."

Does a couple mean a pair or several?

"They are all characteristically European, and based on that evidence most experts assign the book to dates between 1450 and 1520. This estimate is supported by other secondary clues."

What are those secondary clues? You've got me intrigued, now satisfy the curiosity!

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess couple here means several. The secondary clues are eg the "ductus", ie the style of handwriting and drawing (how much perspective and anatomy did the artist master?, etc.), the type of vellum (parchment) used, and the extraneous writings which were done in Roman letters of that era. Besides, we know that the VM existed around 1600, and cryptography, especially with invented scripts, wasn't around much earlier than 1400. So, while it's not hardcore proof, it's good circumstantial evidence. -- Syzygy 09:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The interesting conclusion of the collected research effort is that while the author was probably European (and most likely from the region around the Alps at that - if the dating is correct), if there ever was an underlying plaintext it almost 100% certainly was not in any of the languages or that region (and neither in any other European language). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Broken internal link
The "codebreakers" link found at the introduction of the article redirects to a cheat device (Code_Breaker), not to Cryptanalysis. I also left a comment at Talk:Code_Breaker. 77.49.2.144 09:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Schinner's claims?
I didn't get around to read Schinner's article in Cryptologica, only a comprehension in Spiegel Online. But it appears to me that he simply compared natural languages with the VM under the assumption that the VM is plaintext, just with a different set of letters. But obviously he did not take the effects of various enciphering schemes into account. For example, anagramming could substantially alter word-initial and word-final distributions of various letters. Does anybody know if my assumptions about Schinner's text are true? --Syzygy 09:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, he breaks up the text into tokens/syllables which would render his analysis rather resistant to anagramming. But I find his claim that "In particular, the so-called Chinese theory now appears less convincing" to be weak; his analysis does not contain any plaintexts that would be needed to make such a statement. (And it should be "Tungusic, Austro-Asiatic or perhaps Chinese theory").
 * I noticed a major flaw of many analyses: the assumption that transcriptions of "Voynichese" can be relied upon to render the text correctly. So while there are approaches that dwell upon the differences between "daiin" and "daiiin" and how they might come about, it is not possible to say what "ii" or "iii" actually corresponds to. But this can be circumvented, by trying out a theory in any of the 3 major transcriptions (Currier, EVA, Frogguy). Nonetheless - as per Rugg:
 * "The sample shows 'm' in its usual position at the end of a line, and a rare example of 'q' followed by 'ckh' instead of the usual 'o'."
 * But is "m" a letter, or if not, what is it? We just don't know for sure. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * See also here - some citicisms of Rugg's methodology hold true for Schinner's. Namely puzzling details such as the fact that the Ms. seems to have page or paragraph "headings", which are very often unique words. How are these generated? How come that the "dictionary" seems to be section-specific?
 * (AFAIK, nobody has ever started with the assumption that, if the Ms. is not gibberish, some of the words in the Plants and Herbals section must mean "root", "flower", etc in the plaintext, and be very rare to absent in all other sections. Which is as reasonable, if not more reasonable, an assumption as the proposal that some guy spent many months to produce a most elaborate hoax. Not exactly a get-rich-quick scheme.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Reordering, headers
I've done some copy-editing work on this. My main task now will be clearing out the extlinks (either linking them properly to points where they're referenced in the article or removing them) and figuring out how to better incorporate the illustrations (which have far too much whitespace to themselves just now). Chris Cunningham 13:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"Constellations with no celestial analogue"?
In the Kathar rite section:

The constellations with no celestial analogue are representative of the stars in Isis' mantle.

Which constellations are meant here? I know that several star "maps" in the VM couldn't be identified unambiguously, but that's not necessarily because there were no matches. --Syzygy 07:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Content section - clarification
There is a citation tag for the English & Latin entropy comparison, I found this link to a thorough analysis but unfortunately it doesn't quite seem to fit the requirements of a reference. Still, it's nice to know there is such a study.Nazlfrag 04:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguous wording in the intro
I don't want to criticize anyones particular style of writing or for that matter the authors of this particular entry, but I have some concern over the introduction of this entry. It reads:

"The Voynich manuscript is a mysterious illustrated book with incomprehensible contents.  It is thought to have been written between approximately 1450 and 1520 by an unknown   author in an unidentified script and unintelligible language."

I don't want to nitpick on one word, but the word "unintelligible" seems suggests that the writing was done in a way that biases the entry towards the hypothosis that it's a hoax. While the language in use has evaded understanding, the style of the writing doesn't suggest that it was deliberately difficult as the word "unintelligible" connotes. In fact, quite the opposite, structure and sytax are all quite intelligible in the scripts language, even if the actual content of the language is not. Therefore, I'm deleting the word unintelligible so that the introduction sounds more neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronocoon (talk • contribs) 00:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Voynich and Saragossa Manuscripts?
Has anyone looked into the similarities of the Voynich Manuscript and the Saragossa Manuscript?

Could they be the same thing?

Or could they be something that was popular back then; like "tramping" was popular during Mark Twain's days - so cryptic manuscripts were back in the age of Napoleon. ..

One manuscript might be as similar as Mars is to Earth; but still something to look into.

There are some running themes these two pieces carry with them - namely cryptic language and naked women!

I enjoy both of them, but I feel that most of all these so-called undecipherable documents are far easier to understand than others portray them to be.

I think and feel there were a lot of manuscripts that later became phony manuals or skeleton keys to no where. And sometimes it doesn't matter how much you tell someone the sky is blue they're still going to say its plaid.

The Bible is one of those spectacular and sensational examples, and is probably the most famous rendering of several "mysterious" manuscripts thrown together to emulate one big bad manuscript; filled with more cryptographic elusive double talk, sex, and violence than any other book in history. And obviously a book built upon morals. . . the most famous of last words.

Anyway - I've said my 2-bits. In my opinion I think all of these writings were written by a bunch of drunkards with nothing better to do - like most of history.

4.240.18.21 07:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Oct.4th 2007 stnono


 * By "Saragossa Manuscript", do you mean the fictional work described by The Manuscript Found in Saragossa? Wdfarmer 12:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Identification of plants
In the Illustrations section, it is stated that "None of the plants depicted are unambiguously identifiable", with a (dated October 2007) attached. On the other hand, in the Theories about contents and purpose section, it is stated that, although "attempts to identify the plants [...] have largely failed", "a couple of plants (including a wild pansy and the maidenhair fern) can be identified with some certainty". Whilst not strictly contradictory, I find the sentence in the Illustrations section to be misleading. Does anyone else feel it should be changed? Ayla (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing question: Pandora's Hope
The article mentions James Finn's book "Pandora's Hope"; the beef I'm having with it is that it's apparently published by PublishAmerica, a vanity publisher with little editorial control, and as such it should be considered a self-published source. Thus this source should really be scrutinised better. Have these claims been examined in another, more reliable source? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there a need for it? The article references Pandora as the source of a rumour (ie, this is what the author has to say), not as fact (This is how it is.) So, personally I don't have an issue with self-published references in this case. --Syzygy (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"Weasel words"
I don't think the two words in question are weasel words. The micrography markings are indeed "illusory" in as far as they really aren't there (there are cracks in the ink layer, but no deliberate "letters"), and Martin's process is "convoluted" since (as far as I understand it) it requires a number of steps with the later steps reusing intermediate results from previous steps in an all but straightforward manner. But I'm open to suggestions for a better wording... ;-) --Syzygy (talk) 08:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The Clutch issue
Hi all,

The comparison of the clutch pictures to the Voynich images is clearly not fitting for the WP:


 * Since the manuscript is proven to be in existance as early as 1912, comparing it to an early 21st century clutch is quite pointless. Only a comparison to an early 20th century clutch would have a hint of merit.


 * Anyway, it's original research, not backed up by external reference.


 * While interesting and fun, we may safely assume the resemblance between the pictures and the clutch to be coincidental.

So, please don't include the clutch pictures again.

Cheers, --Syzygy (talk) 08:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Cultural impact section...
This was removed a long time back, which is fair enough for unsourced sections in a featured article - nevertheless, some of its items look possibly relevant, if given better sourcing. Anyone know anything more on these, and if they're relevant enough to add back in? They were removed (and can be seen at) this diff. SnowFire (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Availability
Where can I get a copy? 74.78.98.109 (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Assuming you want a digitized copy, and not a physical book, you can get it here. There are many more links on the article page that will help you with research. I don't think this is a currently printed book per se, but a lot has been written about it - check bookstores and book selling websites. –  j ak s mata  18:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Beinecke images are a bit cumbersome to work with, since you download each page seperately. They offer very high resolution pictures, though. A low resolution pdf of the whole book can be found here. There also used to be a french reproduction on paper under the titel "Le code Voynich", but this appears to be out of print. Cheers, --Syzygy (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Source
The following statement appearing under the section entitled, "History" badly needs a citation: "Baresch apparently was just as puzzled as we are today about this "Sphynx" that had been "taking up space uselessly in his library" for many years." --TriTertButoxy (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Several small things
The article mentions two years for the date of Marci's cover letter: 1666 in History and 1665 in Theories (the next section, line 2). I do not know which is correct.

There are several instances of the word recently, which should be replaced by dates: - (History) His 1639 letter to Kircher, which was recently located by Rene Zandbergen, is the earliest mention of the manuscript that has been found so far. - (Steganography) Recently, a new theory has been put forward, suggesting elements and substructures, rather than whole characters, might be the key to deciphering the Voynich Manuscript.

There was another one which I fixed. And of course, the entire article is severely lacking in references. The book Labyrinths of Reason can be used as a reference for some of the history (it is only referenced once at present). --KarlFrei (talk) 10:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Why was my contribution removed?
This article is terribly out of date. The Voynich was solved in 1987 by Dr. Leo Levitov. It is no longer shrouded in mystery. To see the complete solution click here where there is a book shown, with ISBN etc. Someone just removed my entire contribution to this article. I'd like to know why.

Octogenarian 1928 (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The opinion which you were referring to has already been added to the article. Moreover, you phrased it in a way which implied either that everyone agreed with Levitov, or that everyone who didn't agree was wrong. Several people have advanced different theories after Levitov, as you can see from the article, so clearly not everyone agrees with him. People who disagree with him may be wrong, but you can't say that here: WP:NPOV. BillMasen (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Octo, it's a bit odd that you champion a theory, repeatedly include material regarding it, but apparently are unaware that Levitov's theory has already been discussed in the article at length. In "Voynich circles", Levitov's theory doesn't have much support. He basically invented a language to match what he thought he found in the VM, and then made up a theory about the Cathars which doesn't fit with anything we've hitherto known about them -- especially the meaning of Isis and the venesection rites.


 * The biggest problem is that Levitov's modus operandi gives him so many degrees of freedom in translating. This allows one to fit virtually anything to arrive at legible, though usually neither comprehensible nor coherent results. The effect is known as "Baby God's eye" after the eponymous translation suggested by John Stojko. --Syzygy (talk) 08:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Another solution
I believe the VMS was written using an invented 'language' that does not have any meaning. My rather inferential reasons can be found at; http://www.geocities.com/chris123yh/voynich/v1.htm I will leave it to those more skilled at editing to decide if it is suitable for including in wikipedia.

211.26.48.54 (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Chris parry


 * Unfortunately, it is not. To be included in Wikipedia, information has to follow this standard. –  j ak s mata  20:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Calling Mart Vabar
Mart,

Sorry to say that, but Wikipedia is not a discussion forum for new ideas, but tries to be an encyclopedia for established knowledge. Please, stop introducing your speculative comments into the Voynich article. The Voynich mailing list will be more than happy to receive your mails and discuss your ideas, but here you're disrupting the gears of Wikipedia.

Cheers, no offense meant, -- Syzygy (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It's Obvious!
After reading the comic .... yeah .... it IS obvious. Human Nature doesn't change... the Voynich manuscript is really an early adaptation of what would eventually become known as dungeon and dragons... the ultimate paper and pen fantasy game. http://xkcd.com/593 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.14.198.53 (talk) 06:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * ... and about as comprehensible...? ;-) In all earnest, please, people, stop promoting the XKCD link. It simply doesn't belong here. -- Syzygy (talk) 06:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * While I agree the reference to xkcd doesn't belong in this article, I will freely admit that this is an interesting read I would have never found otherwise. Excellent work. It will definitely be showcased all day - I would guess this article will get more hits in the next 24 hours than it has so far this year. Newsboy85 (talk) 07:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * God damn fanboys need to keep this crap off of Wikipedia. Most of the comic's reasonings for it doesn't even hold up because NOBODY CAN READ IT. 68.255.77.94 (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, what a positive attitute for the thousands of people who will see this page, and the work you've put into it, only because of that comic. Maybe you should just delete the page and store the only copy on your hard drive so no one can mess with it. I'm glad you took the opportunity to curse at us, especially those of us who are regular contributors to other parts of the project. Newsboy85 (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I came here from the xkcd cartoon, and would just to thank Newsboy85, syzygy and any other contributors to this article. I had no idea this existed, and the article does a good job of describing the manuscript and the issues around it. Without heading off into 'leftfield' conspriracy theories. Good work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.132.129 (talk) 10:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Does the xkcd cartoon deserve a mention?
This constant editing of anything xkcd mentions is getting ridiculous. At best it is akin to a raid from 4chan, at worse it belittles the credibility of Wikipedia and reduces it to an xkcd fansite.

Could some editor with a bit more knowledge/authority than I propose a movement to have xkcd banned/regulated in the same way scientology has been? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.23.232.41 (talk) 11:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure we're quite there yet. As always, a quick mention of this xkcd should be enough to restore sanity. — sjorford++ 11:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, and Articles for deletion/In popular culture. Hmm. Anyway, I think we're on top of the problem, is what I'm saying (although I'm less sure than I was 5 minutes ago). — sjorford++ 11:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That would be impossible. Scientology seems to have used a set of fixed IP addresses which where banned. (Or at least I think this is how it works.) xkcd's fans are many, one would have to ban every single IP address they use for such a thing to work. Wikipedia could banish references to xkcd, but that wouldn't be encyclopedic. And, on a personal note: I think lots of Wikipedia editors read and like xkcd. Banning all of them would harm Wikipedia.--85.179.195.74 (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia could banish references to xkcd, but that wouldn't be encyclopedic." I suppose you think all of the other books out there calling themselves encyclopedias are not encyclopedic because they don't mention xkcd comics in all of their entries? Get a grip. DreamGuy (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * One could posit the xkcd cartoon is the most important thing to happen to this book in many many years, given the exposure it will now get... 157.185.37.180 (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, you seriously need to take a reality check. xkcd is not the most important thing to happen to ANYTHING. DreamGuy (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the reason I looked at this article. To put a reference to xkcd is debatable, but there is no reason to feel like users are being malicious. --Out of Phase User (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

So, I'm an xkcd fan, and while I have been to this article before (probably didn't edit), It was the reason I came here today. He does have a valid (though tongue in cheek) theory. I think it could have a place in the article, but because his "research" is his own, and has been published by himself, referencing it now would be "original research". If it gets reported on, then it would then have more merit. McKay (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm just going to put out there that xkcd is an very popular webcomic and that the damage (free article publicity is damage?) is done. Every time someone looks at this comic there is a chance they're going to come to wikipedia via google to check it out. I think an "In Popular Culture" reference is completely justified. --Out of Phase User (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why the hell would they need to read that xkcd references Voynich manuscript if they came to this page from xkcd? This is nothing but self-masturbatory fanboyism. xkcd references must be purged from Wikipedia articles on sight, because they are no different from spam. Also good thing that Randal "I can't even bother to proofread my crappy comic" Munroe misspelled "glossolalia", because otherwise we would have 2 spam targets on our hands right now.  Grue   16:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

xkcd doing a comic on something isn't notable enough for a mention of that fact in the article on that topic. Neither is something appearing breifly in The Simpsons or Buffy or whatever. The existence or nonexistence of xkcd has no impact on this article in any way, shape or form. If you like a comic, fine, put a mention of it on your blog or whatever, but this is WP:NOT a blog. This is an encyclopedia, not a list of trivia. DreamGuy (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As awesome as xkcd is, I agree that some of the Wikipedia references to it can be absurd. It's a comic, it's made for humor, as such it doesn't have much weight as an encyclopedic entry outside its own page. Obviously, certain comics could well be argued as notable to such context, if an In Popular Culture section already exists with other, as-notable entries, but really, I must challenge its notability in such articles as this... And yes, I did come here as a result of the xkcd comic, as, seemingly, do many others, so we don't need to see "xkcd referenced this", nor do others here for research or curosity probably care. All in all, xkcd ftw, just don't kill it by doing such nonsensical edits. Dark dude (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I often read through Wikipedia, and work on articles where I see it necessary; I too was drawn here from the mention in the comic. You're absolutely right about the Popular Culture notoriety--it's just not "popular" to be called popular culture from a neutral POV.  Most of the nonsensical vandalism is coming from anonymous IPs.  --TarrVetus (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow. I came to this entry, with the best of intentions, to add a In Popular Culture section for http://xkcd.com/593/ .  Now it looks like I'll have to fit an uphill battle to get it in.  This is one reason why I haven't edited WP in about three years.  I guess I should have known better, right?  (Not "popular"?  I guess that's a word reserved for people, places and things that show up in tabloids.) 68.103.0.248 (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As mentioned above, if Buffy isn't popular, neither is xkcd. Whilst I have no doubt that you are acting in good faith, "In Popular Culture" sections are controversial in terms of their right to exist even when referencing mainstream culture rather than internet subculture. Stannered (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah this is an Anon, and probably in the wrong spot and you'll probably delete it but read it first- To solve the xkcd problem shouldn't you just make a page for it like "xkcd references to Wikipedia" and stop at that, or give them a mention on the Wikipedia 'in popular culture' page with all of the mentions he makes in the comic to WP? That would be the best way to do it, then you wouldn't have to worry about article vandalism. Oh and P.S. This section is like a pussy flame war- haters verses lovers. Get over yourselves.


 * o have to agree. the inflamatory rhetoric (comparing xkcd fans to RAIDERS) is getting inflamatory, and I personaly would have never heard of the Voynych manuscript until this xkcd comic (in fact i thought it was invented for the purpose) given its expository nature and educational content as well as it shigh profile within the Internet comunity, this comic deserves at least a small reference, if not on this page then on a seprate page to complete the entology of the xkcd phenomenon. that is the only encyclopedic reponse. remember were are not a print encyclopedia so we can expand beyond the narrow margins as le other Britanica or encarta. Smith Jones (talk) 01:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To a point I agree with you, Jones. Wikipedia isn't a printed encyclopedia and therefore shouldn't act as one. But there is always the commitment for arcticles on WP to remain encyclopedic in their tone and register. We have to decide here on the talk page whether or not adding a one off mention by a reputable webcomic is contextually fitting for an article that currently has no "impact on pop culture" section at all. Personally, I'm torn. On the one hand, xkcd is a well circulated web-publication, worthy as any for a pop culture reference. On the other hand, the tone of this particular article makes the hasty addition of a media section rather incongruous. It doesn't help matters that I disagree with having pop culture sections in articles of historic interest anyway; I feel it detracts from the encyclopedic writing style.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PenguinCopter (talk • contribs) 10:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * thats a fair point. let me reiterate that I can aree that this erference should be kept off this page. HOwever, the previous posters x2 seccestion that there be a eparate page for references in kxcd to other things in popuilar culture page can be a good idea. Altenratively, if that is is seen as too uncyclopedicially, we can also add this section to the xkcd page on Wikipedia. Again, I am not triyng to pushy or oggreppive here, but it is imprortant that we include all relevant facts in the hemisphere there in some extent to ensure that we have a comprehensive and increasingly relevent non-politically correct encyclopedia. I can live with the reference not being grudgingly on the Voynich manuscript page but if it should be then it can be in anonter section where it is more relevant suhc as the location with which I have previously describing. Smith Jones (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

People let us try to remember our mission here. The Isiah (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * exactly. we must remember our mission to combulate all information verifiable into one medium that everyone can access to as a medium for the whole world to learn all. THAT is int he intent of the founder of Wikipedia. Smith Jones (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Our mission is not to compile all information. It's to write quality encyclopedia articles that help people learn about things, and seeing an xkcd comic doesn't help a reader learn about the Voynich manuscript. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 19:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * precisely i am thinking that we are actualy in agreemenmt. xkcd is not: "# Plot-only description of fictional works: Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not solely be a plot summary, but instead should include the real world context of the work (such as its development, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis) alongside a reasonably concise description of the work's plot, characters and setting. Articles on fictional works containing little more than a plot summary should be improved to provide more balanced coverage that includes real-world context. For more information on writing about fiction, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).

xkcd does not fal into any single one of those qualifications listed on WP:NOT so there fore it has a place. if NOT in this articel but pehraps in its own article or a seprate article. Smith Jones (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Lyrics databases. Most song lyrics published after 1922 are protected by copyright, and any quotation of them must be kept to a minimum, and used for the purpose of direct commentary or to illustrate some aspect of the style. For songs in the public domain the article should not consist solely of the lyrics (Wikisource should be used for such articles instead), but should instead provide information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, and so on. Quotes from an out-of-copyright song should be kept to a reasonable length relative to the rest of the article, and used to facilitate discussion, or to illustrate the style; the full text can be put on Wikisource and linked to from the article. Never link to the lyrics of copyrighted songs unless the site linked to clearly has the right to quote the work, such as being owned by the band itself. See Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources for full discussion.
 * 2) Excessive listing of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists.
 * 3) News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.) While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. Furthermore, Wikipedia articles should not list frequently asked questions (FAQs). Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s). See also: Wikipedia:News articles"
 * WP:NOT is not an exhaustive list; just because something's not in the list doesn't mean it should be included. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 21:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * it am YOUR decision to reference wp:not. its not my fault is if doesnt say what you want it to say. now, I am not saying that this informatin should go into this article necessarily. however, xkcd is a high-profile and extremly well-read source read by extremely amounts of people all over the world. the exposure gleaned by this alusion is probably the most exposure that something comparitively insignifiant such as the Voynich Manuscript will have ever been receiving for a long time. It fits every conceivable standard of notablity and verifiablity, especially since xkcd has it's own article whereas all of this information could be asily incorporated without the educational value being demenished. Par example, the poster above my second post mentioned a xkcd referencs in popular culture article which would be a good idea for such a endeavor. Alternatively it coudl be incorporated here or in the xkcd article notably. Comprehend? Smith Jones (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is far from "the most exposure" the VM will get; it's not "insignificant", it's a pretty big deal, and being mentioned in xkcd is definitely not the most important thing that's ever happened to it. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 22:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * i was merely triny go emphasice my point that the xkcd reference was a huge deal. it maynot be the biggest thing ever but this encyclopedia contains more than just the biggest flashiest events ever. it is more tha n just the broad strokes. the deeper, subtler and possibly even superphysical details that create our culture and society are equally and perhaps even more important. after all, if we striped all the little details away we would end up with the stubs or the old Simple Wikipedai. Smith Jones (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

On the issue of not compiling huge articles of every bit of information available, fair point. We do, however, generally add "cultural impact" sections to articles such as this, to give a bigger picture. The dilemma as I see it is thus: we have a good case for crediting the VM with having a cultural impact, influencing a widely read webcomic BUT adding a section detailing said influence might seem out of place in an article detailing an esoteric manuscript with disputed and mysterious origins. Considering this is a FFA, and looking around at similarly themed FAs, very few have pop culture sections mixed with more traditionally encyclopedic text... just a thought. --PenguinCopter (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * believe me i understand this but wikiepdia is not very traditional is it ??? however, he is possible that I will allow you to instead comproomise; let us worth together to create a compilaiton of xkcd references in popular cloture. I t will be a fitting tribute to such an importrant aspect of our civil society and to such a long running institution as largely running as Peanuts or Calvin and Hobbes. I can assume that you wil agree with me on this?? Smith Jones (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Jones, don't get me wrong, I don't want to see wikipedia become another printed encyclopedia. It's just that the articles that get featured happen to be the ones most stylistically similar to the ones you find in Britannica. Again, I'll stress that I'm sitting on the fence here, the two sides to the debate are looking pretty even. But I wouldn't suggest that xkcd has had anything like the cultural impact of the two print toons you mentioned. The average Joe westerner is more likely to have heard of Watterson than Munroe.

--PenguinCopter (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * that may have been true a while ago, but if you look at al the links on the page xkcd then there is a lot of data Smith Jones (talk) 23:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't matter. xkcd is not the be-all and end-all of human existence, it's not a "huge deal" for the Voynich manuscript (it might be a huge deal for you because you had never heard of the Voynich manuscript before, but I am sure the people who study it are not all that excited), and it's certainly not as well-known as Peanuts or Calvin & Hobbes. (Not that that matters anyway, there's no point splitting hairs over such a triviality, so let's please keep the discussion on-topic.) r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 23:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * i am sure that you is right but check up at the top of THIS VERY PAGE "On 5 June 2009, Voynich manuscript was linked from xkcd, a high-traffic website." a high trafic website the most prominent of references in livng memory according to this very talk page. written in thetop of this very page is those words. I can agree that it is not the most imrpotant part of the whole existence of htis Manuscript but it is very important in terms of this limited perspective and therefore there is releveance in creating a new page for xkcd outside of this one. xkcd refernences in poopular culture Smith Jones (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I suppose I should've had a look at the discussion page before trying to put in xkcd as a reference in popular culture in this article! I remember that it just struck me as weird that it wasn't already in there, given that other articles tend to have the same sort of note. If it weren't for xkcd, after all, I wouldn't have even heard of the Voynich manuscripts. It's the same for most pop culture references--they tend educate the unwashed about these sort of things! Jarus (talk) 05:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an unnecessary and undesirable addition per WP:TRIVIA. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * i am afraid toa polgoize that you have dragically misinterpited the policy in the sense of relating to this article. In accordance with this agrement, which intended to read: "There are a number of pervasive misunderstandings about this guideline and the course of action it suggests:


 * This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all. Smith Jones (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. Some information is better presented in list format.
 * f* This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies.

"

THEREfore, if and only if you chose to misread this artile can it explicitly by said to prohibit xkcd from wikipedia entirely. this is not a gun. all points of view that meet wikiepdia guidleines with regards to weight, wp:nwp:vwp:rsare justified Smith Jones (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A good explanation is the "Mir kills Kenny in South park" example in first paragraph of the article Handling_trivia. As explained this may be more important for an article about South Park or Kenny but is not important to Mir and hence should not be included in an article about Mir. The same situation is here. The Voynich manuscript is important for xkcd comic but the xkcd comic is not imporant for the Voynich manuscript, hence it should not be mentioned in this article. 85.3.107.169 (talk) 07:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good way of looking at it (although, to be honest, the VM is no more important for xkcd than xkcd is for it). I agree with you that a single comic doesn't deserve mention in either of these articles. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 13:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on people, lets all get a life and move on. Can't we just take a vote about whether to include the mention or not so we can quit talking about it? Geez. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.145.220 (talk) 08:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. xkcd referenced this article. xkcd is pop culture. Ergo, a reference in pop culture. If xkcd has taken the mickey out of Wikipedia in the past, what of it? That doesn't change the plain facts. Oheso (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * PROPOSAL: If we can find another WP:RS * WP:N sourc e that emntions the voynich manuscripts mention in xkcd, we can include it. if not, then we should not the to avoid causing a community rupture that can destroy wikiepdia Smith Jones (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, no. You would need to find a source that talks about how important the xkcd comic is in the context of the VM...not just one that mentions it. As for that, that's not really a new proposal; that's the conclusion that was reached a month ago, there's no need to dig this back up again.
 * And, by the was, was this capitalization change really necessary? It's not a big deal, but in general you should try to avoid editing other users' comments on talk pages, per WP:Talk page guidelines. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 00:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * nice try, but i was merely reiterating the conclusiont aht i myself developed to end the xkcd debate. and i didnt edit users comments i was merely making them fit the WP:MOS guidelines of capitalizaiton or noncapitalization. i thought that we ewere trying to contribute to a factual encyclopedia, not one that focuses on just internet memes and irrelevent pop cutural asides about every subject such as xkcds reference to voinich manuscript. i guess iw as wrong then sorry for trying to reach a positive consensus. Smith Jones (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * On general priciples, I think that a section "In popular culture" is appropriate for articles on topics that tickle the immagination of the general public --- like the Voynich manuscript. However, Google gives 57,600 hits for "voynich manuscript": obviously we cannot mention every webpage that refers to the VMS.  Even the list of scholarly articles and books about the VMS is too long to include here.  So, to earn its space in such a section, an entry would have to be a really significant piece of work, it should be notable, and its notability must be long-lasting.  Now, xkcd's cartoon is hardly a significant piece of work: the amount of creative work that went into it is nowere near what goes into a movie or a novel, not even that of a comics album or a song.  Neither is that particular cartoon an extraordinarily popular or remarkable item among the author's production.  While people unacquainted with the VMS may think that xkcd's "solution" is cute or clever, it is just one among hundreds of humorous "solutions" that have been proposed over the last 80+ years --- some of them much funnier and bizarre than his.  Opinions may differ on how "notable" that cartoon really is, but it is a fair bet that, 10 years from now, it will hardly be remembered --- just as about any cartoon by any cartoonist from 10 years ago. In conclusion, I see no justification to mention that particular cartoon in the article.  All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If I may, at the moment no-one has any idea just how prominently XKCD will figure in a history of the 21st century. It could be unknown after a decade or remembered for centuries to come. Wikipedia has, essentially, infinite space and a single line addition to the article mentioning its reference and pointing back to the XKCD entry and article number hardly seems like a damaging inclusion. Are there really any solid arguments as to why the note should not be included other than "XKCD isn't important enough" or "It's not professional for an Encyclopedia to reference a comic"? Wikipedia is grown mostly by volunteers and if they think it's important enough to mention in then why not let it stand? MarkTBSc (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been gone over so many times. The xkcd comic is not significant to this topic, and if we went around adding every insignificant thing we could to every topic then we would no longer have an encyclopedia. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 22:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Mark, WP has a policy to link only to the premier websites. WP is not an archive or a mirror of the web, but is there to provide quick access to relevant information for the user. This is impossible if the link lists are cluttered with a plethora of irrelevant pages like xkcd. (Many a decent website have fallen prey to this policy of linking only the best, and they deserve much more inclusion than xkcd.) -- Syzygy (talk) 07:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Who
In the Steganography section, a question is asked about who made a suggestion
 * Some people suggested that the plain text was to be extracted by a Cardan grille of some sort.

In the later Hoax section, the 'some' are mentioned again but this time citing the D'Agnese article:
 * In his [Rugg's] reading, he came across an encoding device called the Cardan Grille, first described in 1550 by Girolamo Cardano. ... Using such an encoder, Rugg figures it would take a smart fraudster an hour or two to write an entire page.

So, there's your answer: Gordon Rugg. DLeonard (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not quite, since the Steganography technique uses the grille to hide/retrieve "valid" information, while Rugg uses the grille to create nonsensical pseudo-ciphertext, so they're using the same tool, but to different ends. -- Syzygy ([[User talk:Syzygy|talk
 * Indeed the "someone" could be more specific. As I remember, the suggestion that the VMS was a meaningful cipher text to be decoded by a grille of some sort was made (a few years before Rugg's paper) in the Voynich manuscript's mailing list.  Indeed, practically any cryptographic method or device that has ever been used in the last 500 year has also been proposed by someone as a possible key to the Voynich manuscript.  All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Semi Protection necsary?
I think that it might be necesary for an administratior to impose smeiprotection or even fullprotection of this article for a preset yet indefinite era in order to curb the xkcd revert war. thank you for your considion Smith Jones (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Full protection requested. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think protection is the right way to go here, and have left a message at RFPP. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 13:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If you refuse a reference to xkcd, then...
...you can delete 3/4 of this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher_stone

and it's just an example, you can find hundreds of similar articles on wikipedia.

I mean, there is absolutely NO reason to remove xkcd reference. When a popular book/movie/song/comics or whatever raises the popularity of an object/subject by talking about it, like when harry potter refered to philosopher stone, it deserves a reference here on wikipedia, it's the RULE that it pleases you or not.

I understand that some people reacted bad after childish xkcd edits and wanted to fight this kind of vandalism, but removing a reference that suits perfectly to an article is also a kind of vandalism.

Those who say "yes but it's a comics not a book so it's not the same" or what, those who say "xkcd is internet subculture not mainstream culture", etc, it's totally YOUR opinion and statements like that had never been made by wikipedia. Nowhere. You can check all criterions that state if something is relevant or not, they are met here. And sorry to contradict some people but if a full episode of buffy was about this book, it would deserve a line in wikipedia.

Don't invent rules that suit to you. Why do you think there are articles about memes here, why do you think there's a (long) article about xkcd here?

If you want we can call superior authority but they will agree with me.

And if you're not convinced yet imagine being a researcher who works on this book, and feeling like you're almost the only one to be interested by such a subject, but still you check wikipedia regularly to see if there are new theories in case, and... suddenly you see that reference to xkcd and realize that the subject becomes popular again, and touches new generations, new kind of people... somehow it feels good.

Wikipedia is this kind of place when a theme can be seen from several angles and you may be happily suprised by discovering other aspects of it. Don't ruin that.

PS: Sorry for my poor english, it's far from being my native language... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.196.29.147 (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment. The threshold for inclusion here is coverage of the allusion in independent reliable sources. So for example, if in an article about the manuscript, The New York Times were to mention in some detail the xkcd reference, it would be perfectly appropriate to include in this article. As, to my knowledge, no independent reliable source has written about the relation between the manuscript and the comic, there is nothing verifiable Wikipedia can say about it. Regards,  Skomorokh   03:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's interesting that you should raise the Philosopher's stone. That's exactly what we don't want this article looking like.  Listing every work that has referred to the Philosopher's stone adds nothing to the article except make it longer.  If I had time, I'd go through and clean that up.  Xkcd made this comment in 'In popular Culture'.  If we had a similar list to the one found in "Philosopher's stone" in the "Wood" article, how would the reader's understanding of wood be improved? -- (ɔ|ʇ) uıɐʌoɥɔ ʞɹɐɯ 03:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting to note that the ones to explain the works of Wikipedia are the ones who can't bother to set up a user account, but call from an IP address...


 * Anyway, on a more serious note: Lists of trivia and "popular culture" are strongly discouraged in WP, and the Philosopher's Stone is exactly an example of how not to do it. IMHO, XKCD would merit a mention if it seriously proposed a new theory (rather than a joke), or if it at least concerned itself with the Voynich MS in a major work, rather than a single strip. -- Syzygy (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * But in my opinion that's exactly what it does - presents a new theory. Considering that each major theory presented in the article has holes, the xkcd theory is no worse than any of them. I'm also wondering about the specialised definition of "reference". To me a "pop culture reference" would be using a subject as a cultural icon, which assumes everyone knows what it is. For example, a spy movie saying "oh, that would be as impossible to decipher as the Voynich Manuscript." Whereas this comic deals DIRECTLY with the VM, it is focused ON and ABOUT the VM, not just "referencing" it. That makes it more than a "reference" to the VM. And although the primary intent is amusement, the xkcd theory is no less legitimate than the others presented here. 07:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC) (edited to show my wiki ID, and to state that I did not add the comic ref to the article but am only posting in the discussion.) Tkech (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't a serious theory though presented in a scholarly manner. Its a webcomic. it makes it significantly less legitimate. It doesn't remotely belong here and needs to be removed per several policies including WP:NOT. We're not a web directory which is all this section currently is.--221.138.100.168 (talk) 10:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

XKCD is not a new theory. It's a joke. What would be the point of a rule-book in an illegible script and probably an unknown language? You'd obviously need a second rule-book to read the rules. XKCD satirizes the arcane and seemingly overly complex rules of D&D and similar games by comparing them to the equally arcane VM. (It's sad that one has to explain the meaning of XKCD to those who champion the inclusion of it here... sigh...) -- Syzygy (talk) 11:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * you are incacurrately perceiving thie results of Randal Munroes's resaerch. if you look closely, the detail and art inscription installated at this so-called "joke" is a new theory presented ina nonthreatening and easy to understand way. The mannerisms with which they are presented are trappings without the boring formal archadaemics that many people cn find offputting outside the field. It is in fact the representation of a reasonable and equaly evidenced point of view, expressed by a top NASA former employee. If NASA -- the National Aeronotics and Space Administration are considered less to be deferenced to, then quite frankly all other sources are lesser as well. that is my firm belief and I will in the future present further evidence to try to rationaly persuade you around to this pov Smith Jones (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Equating the personal opinion of someone who used to work at NASA to the opinion of NASA itself is... weird logic. Anyway, what expertise would they have in ancient languages? They're rocket scientists. A reliable source is only reliable in its primary fields. I would not consider a Nobel prize winner for chemistry a good source of information for the politics of the Roman Empire. Nev1 (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * that's a good point. now that it hink about it randal munroe is billed as an ex-Nasa contractor and not a current nasa contractor. however, i still think that a reference to the voynich manuscript on the xkcd poage is in order or Smith Jones (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Munroe is not a "top former employee of NASA". He had a brief and minor gig there, and he thinks it's funny that he can say he used to work at NASA&mdash;he himself has said that his job was pretty minor and fans have blown it out of proportion. Anyway, like Nev said, the fact that he worked at NASA for a year doesn't mean that a joke comic he makes is automatically a serious theory. It is a comic, a joke. The fact that you so blindly believe this is a real theory is, to be perfectly frank, the most inane thing I have heard in this entire discussion, and shows that your opinion here is worth very little. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 13:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not make personal attacks. This discussion page is for discussing the article, and arguments related to altering the article.  Measuring the worth of an editor's opinion is a logical fallacy known as "Ad hominem". -Verdatum (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand me...my message was not meant as a personal attack, but was just to point out that someone who seriously believes this is a "theory" obviously lacks the competence to contribute rationally to this discussion. It's unfortunate, but true. I'm all for welcoming people to the discussion, but the people need to be able to think like adults. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 16:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I love this comment. "I wasn't personally attacking anyone.  I just wanted to point out that a drooling moron such as him would have very little to contribute to this discussion.  That's just a fact, not an attack on anybody."  :-D131.107.0.86 (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Smith, I'd be afraid to see the state of the xkcd article if every topic mentioned in every comic was mentioned and linked. Luckily, that's off-topic for this discussion page.  If you haven't read Wikipedia:Handling Trivia yet, I highly reccomend it.  It makes some very good arguments. -Verdatum (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * that article seems ot be direcly on point. can we reach a compromise here? if there are relevent outside sources such as news media or discussion journals scientific or linguinic directly linking Dr Munroes comic strip to the voynich manuscript, I can bring those sources here for your ocnsideration, and if there are not then I will drop the matter and agree to kip a reference out of xkcd off of the voynich page? is that a good compromsie? I asm triyn gto follow the actual rules as well as good essays when ia m making my contributories so the prsonal attacks would be very good to cease. Smith Jones (talk) 03:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are no such sources, so I suppose that means you can drop the matter. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 04:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, Randall Munroe does not have a Ph.D. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 04:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * whatever —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith Jones (talk • contribs) 12:16, 12 June 2009
 * Such a reference would need to be a non-trivial, reliable source, and would need to explain how the comic made a valuable contribution to the understanding of manuscript.  Since the comic was a joke, I suspect you have a better chance of decoding the manuscript than finding such a reference. -- (ɔ|ʇ) uıɐʌoɥɔ ʞɹɐɯ 06:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * i agree perfectly; however, in time this situatn ma ychange and i want to leave my room open for improvement. my main prupsoe here is not to necesarily include this but to fo0rge a path for future of inclusion of perhaps other relvent materials; idont watn this article to be clsoed off to editing or heaviyl restriscted because of disputes liek edit wars which is why I engaged in this cause to leave the article open for future, reliably sourced and verifiably informatin Smith Jones (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd go one step further and say that this hypothetical source would not need to "make a valuable contribution to the understanding of the manuscript". Most any claim made by a Reliable Source on the topic of the manuscript that mentions the comic could be used as an appropriate secondary source to replicate the claim in this article.  But yeah, it's probably not bloody likely :) -Verdatum (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

See http://xkcdsucks.blogspot.com/2009/06/comic-593-pages-of-nonsense.html. There we go. /thread Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 00:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * thats just some piece of shit (pardonne mon francais!! :D) blog run by anyone; it meets no standard of WP:RS WP:V et cetera et certara to justifuy including XKCD or this blog in this article. I am forced to concludce that the people against the xkcd reference are correct and that there is no reason to justify including xkcd in this article isnc eits not just not that important according to any standard of improtant that iwhjhci loud include Smith Jones (talk) 00:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My argument was against including it. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 04:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Trivial mentions in web comics will NEVER be included in this article
So please stop wasting your time arguing about this. We've dealt with this exact same situation on tons of other articles. Bringing a mob of fans here won't change Wikipedia policy. DreamGuy (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I fear your comment comes of as throwing down a gauntlet, which only serves to force those in opposition into a defensive stance as opposed to a reasonable and logical discussion of the issues at hand.
 * There is no explicit and inarguable policy regarding trivia. The only policy issues in question are WP:NOT's "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" which currently doesn't even mention the concept of trivial information, and WP:OR, which is a stretch, as secondary sources mentioning the specific comment can be found, just of questionable authority.  The issue of trivia is discussed at WP:TRIVIA and WP:HTRIV, the first being a stylistic guideline, and the second being an essay, which actually goes into detail of why handling trivial information is so complicated.  It is perfectly legitimate to consider Consensus separately for each article.
 * I think your best solution is to just relax and wait a month or so. Then if the offending reference still exists, try removing it and reviving the discussion if needed.  By then, most of the less WP-saavy xkcd fans will have moved on to the next edit war and you'll be more likely to get a reasonable discussion. -Verdatum (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop feeding the trolls
Arguing with each and every point that's being posted here doesn't achieve anything. We're being trolled at the moment - please don't exacerbate the problem by feeding the trolls. -- (ɔ|ʇ) uıɐʌoɥɔ ʞɹɐɯ 02:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please Assume Good Faith. While I see some people who are mistaken about the nature of Wikipedia, I'd hardly consider it trolling.  There is nothing wrong with discussion.  If people are merely restating prior arguments without addressing existing counter-arguments, then obviously it can be ignored.  -Verdatum (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, there's nothing wrong with discussion, but arguing with someone who is claiming that the comic is proposing a serious theory rather than making a joke, is not going to achieve anything. -- (ɔ|ʇ) uıɐʌoɥɔ ʞɹɐɯ 23:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Zipf's law
The article states,

'These fine touches require much more work than would have been necessary for a simple forgery, and some of  the complexities are only visible with modern tools (like the prose's obedience to Zipf's law).'

Whereas the arcticle on Zipf states, 'That is, one starts with an alphabet of N letters, one of which is a blank space, and thus acts as a word separator. By picking letters randomly, with a uniform distribution, one generates a random string; the string will consist of "words" of various lengths. After ranking these words, and plotting their frequency, one obtains precisely Zipf's law. Thus, Zipf's law does not seem to shed any light on the linguistic structure of language, but is rather an artifact of using letters to spell words.'

I would remove this section, as it seems contradictory, but I thought I'd bring it up here. --Blixa555 (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, I'm not convinced I understand your problem with the extract as presented. What do you object to, the first cutting or the latter? --PenguinCopter (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you have a point Blixa. I believe the issue is that Zipf's law was used as an argument against it being a forgery long ago, while, although the notion that Zipf's law holds for random character strings was mentioned in the preface to Zipf's book, The Psycho-biology of Language: An Introduction to Dynamic Philology (1965), this was neither well understood, nor formally proven until 1992. Since the parenthetical portion of the passage you quoted is not cited, for all I know, no reliable source ever used Zipf's law as an argument against the document being a simple forgery, and the claim is pure Original Research.
 * If a reliable source could be found that makes this argument, it could be mentioned in the article and then the article could explain why the argument is flawed, but barring that, removal seems appropriate to me. -Verdatum (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * perfect criteria

Overly restrictive on the links?
Whoa, people, hold it, please!

Lately, there's been some wild reaping amongst the links for the article. While I'll admit that some of them were of dubious quality, I feel that the latest edits have been a bit overly restrictive. Rene Zandbergen's site for example is still considered the starting point for everybody interested in the subject. I wouldn't mind if there were better alternatives, but since Voynich research is mostly an amateur occupation, there simply are no "professional" sites dealing with the matter in depth.

As the article is right now, there are few links left for the interested reader where he could find further information allowing him to get more seriously engaged in the subject.

Your opinions, good gentles? -- Syzygy (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * there is a link, it is called Google. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a colection of meaningless links,. profesional or amateur, they all have to meet WP:RS sionce we don not link to attack sites or any other random musings based loosely on the topic. besides, the links that are in place right not contain expansive detail on the subject and provide an ironclad educational basis for its continuing elucidation as per our demonstratvie commitmenet to our readeship and consumerist base. Smith Jones (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I might be missing a bit of irony or trolling here, so I'll just take your edit at face value.


 * Your stance appears a bit curious, regarding you pleaded for inclusion of the dubious XKCD link a few days ago... Anyway, the current "ironclad" link basis consists of the document itself, a tentative list of owners, and two links to Rugg's work, which really is only a small aspect of Voynich research. With all your googling, I doubt you'd come up with better links than there already were. Not to mention the fact that "Your link is Google" renders the whole idea of external links from WP obsolete, don't you think? -- Syzygy (talk) 06:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think you're missing any implied subtext in the above comment. But anyway, if you think that the site provides a unique reference beyond that which can be included in the article itself, add it back in. The list is currently manageable enough that we can discuss individual additions readily. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Syzygy is correct, anyone interested in the Ms. can do little better than Rene Zandbergen's site . It is the best overall introduction to the Voynich, and would be helpful to anyone new to the subject. It offers far more unbiased information than any other single web resource. This link should certainly be reinstated.Entdecker (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * i was presuaded by intelctual arguments that the kxcd link wa inapprorpiate; whyshould I favor the inlcuison of OTHER inapprorpiate links now? I would be a hypocristic to agree to that. however, I do agree that the voynich.nu/index site is very well-done and should be allowed, but other ewsbites should be on a case-by-case basis rather than incoroprating every possible article refernecing it on the Internet. The same standards that binds the xkcd site should also respize the place Smith Jones (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well thank you for understanding the distinction between the two issues, smith jones. Are there any objections to adding in this one link, for now? The original line is: Voynich.nu: The Voynich Manuscript Comprehensive information and analysis Entdecker (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Smith_Jones, the question is not whether to include inappropriate links or not, the question is which are inapproriate links and which are appropriate. -- Syzygy (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * your condensation is muc happreciated syzygy; however, standard of innapropriate links is what determines what links should go in or not. i have no particular objections to www.voynich.nu/index.html because it seems to meet our standars of WP:RS (alnthough I am not sure; are sources themselves upheld by WP:N?) can WP:V be applied here I am nto sure how we can verify anythign in the mainstream media since this is by defintiion not a mainstream source. My initial incliatnion is to support the inclusion of this source since it provides a great description of the subject and is one of the few sources that I have found while searching that even meets the relative comprehensivity and comprehensibility (easily to understand, and containing beaucoup informations) that we need for an extenral link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith Jones (talk • contribs) 16:24, 18 June 2009

Okay, since everybody seems to be cool with René's site, I reintroduced it, and for good measure also wrote the Dmoz entry in. I also think Nick Pelling's blog would qualify unter the clause

4. Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.

from External_links, "Links to consider", but I'm aware this is debatable, so I won't throw a tantrum if anybody objects. As one who has spent some time with the Voynich MS, Pelling's site (along with René's) is certainly one I would point newcomers to. -- Syzygy (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I readded the xkcd link, independent of any discussion here; while a joke, I think it a good joke, and one of the few that are likely to be made on this subject. I should like to counted as inclusionist on this matter. For those whose curiosity may be aroused, it is xkcd number 593.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed it. I don't really see any reason for it (we generally don't just link to any jokes we can find that happen to be about the article subject), it doesn't increase the reader's understanding of the topic, and it just clutters the external link list. An xkcd fan or Wikipedia editor might think it's funny to put there, but from a reader's perspective it's just a random bit of non-information that's not useful. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 22:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We document sillier ideas with a smaller audience; see much of Phaistos Disc decipherment claims, especially Proto-Ionians. Furthermore, this is an external link, not an article or even a sentence. I included it because I would have been glad to see it as a reader.  Third opinions? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (indenting self, since i'm not a 3rd opinion) External links should generally be large resources, not just individual pictures or things. As for sillier things in other articles, this is an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS sort of argument; if there's junk in other articles, it's probably because it's slipped through the cracks (keep in mind that most of Wikipedia is crap&mdash;if you don't believe me, click Random article for a while&mdash;I'm not saying anything about the articl you linked as an example, just articles in general). Once a link is subject to extended discussion and scrutiny like it has been in this article, we shouldn't necessarily be using other, less scrutinized articles as comparisons. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 17:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good; because I was one of the two or three people who wrote Proto-Ionians. One of the purposes of Wikipedia is to document silly ideas, in a clear and neutral tone - an example I did not write is at John Cleves Symmes, Jr., who believed there was a hole through the earth. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Rajang! are you disrespecting the career of rICHARD lalor by calling him crap? I htought the xkcd was resolved towards disclusion but apparently it was mistaken, but please dont drag offtopic and relevent links into this discussion by disrespecintg of one of Englands most prominent statestmen from the 19th century Smith Jones (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, no, no! Rjanag is disrespecting Lactobacillus sanfranciscensis! A poor, innocent species of lactic acid bacteria that helps give San Francisco sourdough bread its characteristic taste, apparently. Rjanag, apologies are in order. Cheers, <b style="color:#000">TFOWR</b>This flag once was red 19:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Guys, guys! I thought it was clear that I was disrespecting Gareth Whelan! That guy's a jerk! <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 19:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And he's spot on about the Fighting Jackrabbits. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Scientific American
You would be better off incorporating attributed material from this article than giving it as an external link. That's because it's not a free download. Nobody can tell how relevant or useful it is unless they either go somewhere they can read it on microfiche or some other archive, or pay to get the whole article. 4.249.3.66 (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the idea is not necessarily to provide all the information for free, but to give links to reliable reputable sources, whether they cost you or not. (Otherwise, it wouldn't make sense at all to link to a book...) -- Syzygy (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the IP doesn't necessarily mean directly copying, but just using the Scientific American EL as a source for information within the article, describing what it says and citing it. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 11:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

www.voynich.nl
I would like a link to my website www.voynich.nl, with translations and explanations of the voynich manuscript.

BUT, the info on the website is copy right protected and I add no text to wikipedia, just a link (towards something special ???).

If the copyright might becomes a point of discussion I withdraw the question.

VMS Sphinx (Jody Maat)

P.S Nick Pelling has me on his list of theories (and google found me too/very good).

I get comment on things I do wrong, not in order with the wikipedia rules. Do I get an answer to my question as well 213.10.45.124 (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

213.10.45.124 (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am waiting your response Rajang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.45.124 (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, your website is not a reliable or credible academic source, and Wikipedia's policy on external links generally discourages posting links to blogs or personal opinions of random people (the fact that Nick Pelling briefly mentioned you on his blog doesn't mean that you are a famous academic or that your personal opinion is necessary in this article). I am not the only person watching this article who has opposed adding your link; see, for example, here. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 17:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to agree with Rjanag - your website is self-published material, and you are not an established expert on the topic of this article. Your work has not been previously published in reliable third-party publications. Wikipedia policy on this is detailed here. –  j ak s mata  20:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

-

Now just for the ........I am a nautical engineer (HTS degree) and gave (being an educated officer) lessons at the Roayal Dutch Marine acadamy (for navy officers). I have 2 bachelor degrees (Physics and mathematics, I read/speak 5 languages, Dutch, English, German, French and Spanish (and you try to make a fool out of me ?).

Third parties have no interest ?

SBP-EB: Query Received Publisher Would Like to Review Your Work‏ Van: Publishing Acquisitions Dept. (submissiondepartment@strategicbookpublishing.com)

Hello! After review of your query, we would like to examine your work forpublishing. (For reference, your query is at the bottom of the email). -- We are a traditional publisher and from your query form, we believe that youmight fit our publishing criteria. We are a smaller, boutique publisher sowe can make decisions very quickly. Please visit our website atwww.StrategicBookPublishing.com for an overview of our company and you cansee some of the fine authors we represent at our author marketing sitewww.AEGauthorsEdge.com.

Re: uitgave boek‏ Van: Kees Remmerswaal (remmerswaal.kees@gmail.com) Aan: Jody Maat (jodymaat@hotmail.com)

Beste Jody, Bedankt voor je e-mail en je aanvraag voor een offerte. Allereerst, Debutto is een uitgeverij die graag boeken (met ISBN!) op de markt brengt. Jouw vraag gaat om een uitgave in eigen beheer. Daar kan ik je wel bij ondersteunen, maar interessanter voor jou en voor Debutto is wellicht toch een uitgave die een wat breder publiek bereikt. Debutto ondersteunt juist in de promotie en het zoeken naar lezers via zijn netwerk. Het Voynich manuscript is een interessant 'mysterie', waaraan serieus aandacht wordt besteed. Ik zag jouw reactie op de site Noorderlicht en je 'stap - voor - stap-onderzoeksmethode. Wellicht iets om over na te denken.

Dutch publisher wants to pay for it himself..........

Met vriendelijke groet, Kees Remmerswaal

Now, It is your decision. To me it is interesting now. When The book is published I don't want it any more and will discuss your policy on my website ( and where ever).

In my eyes your answer is ridicilous. The whole academic world, nor the best cryptographers ever could do something with the VMS. And you demands it must be done by someone with an academic degree ?? VMS Sphinx (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nobody is demanding that it must be done by someone with an academic degree. What we demand is that your research be verified by third-party reliable sources. If you believe that having attained a degree and having your work published meets this requirement, you are incorrect. Please read "No original research" (also in dutch "nl:Wikipedia:Geen origineel onderzoek") to understand why your theories about the Voynich Manuscript are ineligible for inclusion in Wikipedia.  You must provide third-party (tertiary) sources to backup your claims. –   j ak s mata  16:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

NO ONE can decipher the VMS and I need a third party to VERIFY it ??? (nuts)

I do Not acomplish with your rules (being 'free') and have 'done' with wikipedia.

I do not like your editors, who use the rules in their own profit and have sunnglasses on.

The biggest one is the one deciding about the VMS. (being the public)

Has the editor an academic degree ??? Or just a cheep .... ???

I will discuss this on my website......

You named reliable sources....you want me to give away everything to YOUR 'reliable' sources ???

GP..Jody Maat —Preceding unsigned comment added by VMS Sphinx (talk • contribs) 17:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC) GP = Gatver de Patver —Preceding unsigned comment added by VMS Sphinx (talk • contribs) 17:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC) What 'third party' had Nick pelling, Renee Zandbergen and Scientific America ???

Be honest and I can do something with it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by VMS Sphinx (talk • contribs) 17:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC) You are on my site www.voynich.nl (NOT you, the people decide...I think) —Preceding unsigned comment added by VMS Sphinx (talk • contribs) 17:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I just took a look, it's a personal website, and there would have to be unusual circumstances for this to be ok as an external link, and these don't exist here. Some of the argument above about original research, etc. applies mainly to using it as a source, which obviously we can't do. But WP:EL says no personal websites or blogs as external links, and the only exceptions are if it is the blog or web page of the subject, or if the author is clearly an expert. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * VMS Sphinx, we're not trying to say you're not a smart person. The issue is that Wikipedia has clear guidelines on what sources are acceptable and what are not, and yours is not acceptable no matter how smart you are. The issue isn't the person who wrote the source, the issue is what it is and how it was published. Please read the links you have been given before continuing to dispute this. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 18:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Non problem, put it on the site............Smart people you do not need. (clear)

thanks, on my site —Preceding unsigned comment added by VMS Sphinx (talk • contribs) 18:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I just go on, world is flat, and you believe it....imagine. What you say does not fittttt....I want to talk with the next higher up ( the last thing I do).

VMS Spinx VMS Sphinx (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC) og jah

(the rules)

How can editors I encounter make such big decissions ???

I withdraw the question (no more interested in a link). —Preceding unsigned comment added by VMS Sphinx (talk • contribs) 06:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

VMS Sphinx (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I made my website www.maketheindecipherablecipherable.us itreveals the meanings of all vmssphinx's "words" or whatever above in original language (whichever it was, EN? DE? NL/FR/IT/SP? couldn't tell but its OK cause imaginary probably it was), NOW: make the wikipedia page about this marvelous monograph [its a public document so independently verifiable actually open source (FREE as in libre)] OK so please make the article. When you do it I expect the link to my website. Actually the sources for the article should reference my website. Also the "external links" POLICY which I well understand does not apply because it's not fanfic or WP:OR. vmssphinx thank you for the most enjoyable experience with hallucinatory text since Seraphin's work. --71.198.34.87 (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, demanding that people write an article for you and demanding that they use your self-published website as a source. That's a really excellent way to get things done. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 20:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The credibility of a source should not be determined by its references, but by looking at its information itself. If somebody claims something, they need a reference, but if the work they have done is their own they don't.  Do you look at Freud's work and tell him to get some references?  As an added note, from looking through his web page, it all seems unfounded, and it is never explained how it was translated.  Also, it seems that he mixes up and misidentifies some of the characters.  --Shadow181 (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Shadow, WP is an encyclopaedia, not a discussion forum. Users coming here expect to find established "truths" and facts, not a discussion forum and not a "playground" for ongoing research -- Readers can't assess the relevance of ongoing research without being experts, and you can't expect them to be experts when they come here to get information.


 * Hence, WP policy is to represent what is considered "state-of-the-art" research. To do so, WP relies on the assessment of experts in the field -- namely the references sought above. WP editors aren't encouraged to create references, but to seek out and digest the existing references. (And, most of all, they shouldn't be promoting their own ideas...)


 * OR on the web is all well and wonderful, but WP is not the place for it. Much like the NYT homepage is not a platform for a political party manifesto. -- Syzygy (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Materials?
I am trying to find any references with respect to any chemical analysis, chronological analysis and attempt to locate the origin of the materials of the manuscript (paper, cover etc) but had no luck. I think this would be an important supplement to the article and I am confident such studies must have been conducted. Does anyone know anything?

--Dpser (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * To my knowledge, little to nothing has been done with the VM regarding chemical/physical analysis. Earlier this year, Yale casually announced that a C14 test was to be made (yeay!), but AFAIK the results haven't been published yet. The only thing we currently know about the materials' origin is... the vellum was made from sheep. :-/ -- Syzygy (talk) 06:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I'm not sure we even know it was from sheep. Glen Claston once mentioned he was sure some pages were written on goatskin, so doubtless many different animals remain possible. Still, no gnus would be good news. :-) Nickpelling (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Unicorn hide?

Perhaps the 'interesting thing' is that there are no other documents using the 'script': someone trying to create a forgery would 'place' documents and fragments variously (the incidents involving The National Archives and The Priory of Sion spring to mind. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that this page is meant ot discuss the *wikipedia article* and not the manuscript itself. Queries like this one are more likely to get a useful answer if they are posted to the VMS discussion list.  All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

re: three times in a row
Thought it might be worth to mention that three times in a row is an old way to form the superlative. For instance in the phrase: "Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God almighty." Revelations 4:8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.67.13 (talk) 05:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, yeah, yeah. :-) Nickpelling (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI, no, it (still) hasn't been decoded.
Regardless of what the Slashdot Summary may imply, the article in question does not show that the Voynich manuscript is decoded. The article in question was debunked back in February. Also, the Sherwood article is a self-published source that hasn't received peer-review, thus it wouldn't be appropriate to mention in this article. -Verdatum (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that the manuscript has not yet been decoded, but the blog to which you link certainly does not debunk Dr. Sherwood's theory. I will debunk this debunking:


 * 1. The "letter instance distribution is just plain wrong for Italian"
 * While the frequency and distribution of letters is useful for selecting a cipher to test it is not conversely a test of a cipher. For instance, if I hypothesized that the language of the screenplay "V for Vendetta" was English, you could not falsify this by pointing out that the inordinate frequency of the letter "V" was just plain wrong for English.


 * 2. "Galioss" is a bit of a loose fit for galiopsi
 * I agree it's not a good fit, but it could be an error on the part of the author or it could be correct in his local dialect. A single example is not enough.


 * 3. As an aside, I rather doubt that she has managed to crack the top line of f116v
 * This is an assertion.


 * -- Malthae (talk) 04:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Having gone through hundreds of odd Voynich theories very carefully over the years, I can honestly say that Edith Sherwood's stuff isn't even in the top 20. Sorry, Malthae, but the #1 reason I didn't go into great detail in the debunking is because it's not cryptologically or historically substantive enough to be worth the effort. Nickpelling (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Please note that this page is meant to discuss the *wikipedia article*, and very few "voynichologists" will read it. The VMS discussion list is a much better forum for discussions about the manuscript itself, such as the one above.  All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 12:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops. I never got to my point of coming to the talk page in the first place because I was compelled to correct someone who was WRONG ON THE INTERNET. I was looking in the article for something about Dr. Sherwood's hypothesis. It is not mentioned, nor are any hypotheses which might be similar. I think Dr. Sherwood's hypothesis is simply that the language is medieval Italian and that each word is an anagram. The single mention of anagrams in the current article is in Claude Martin's theory that it "is a hoax based on a convoluted anagramming algorithm for numbers." Personally, I think Dr. Sherwoods idea might be a good addition to the Other Theories section. If nothing else, it has certainly generated a lot of interest in and traffic to this article.


 * I know for certain that a source need not be peer-reviewed to warrant its' inclusion. Wikipedia:Verifiability states that "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The site edithsherwood.com publishes well-cited articles that appear to be accurate within their scope. So, my question is, if I wanted to write a short paragraph about this theory, would it be OK to cite this website or would it require an independent source? Malthae (talk) 08:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

In my understanding the "third party" can't be the author of the fact in question. In other words, if John Doe writes a theory about the Grand Lust of Everything, no matter how well-reputed John or his website are, it's only worthy of mention in the WP if somebody else, like Jane Duda, writes about it in her well-reputed website.

As a Voynichero, I don't know anyone who takes Edith Sherwood seriously except maybe herself. The anagram theories come up from time to time and are all discarded time after time. Some time ago, there was a move on WP to leave only the most probable and plausible theories about them VM, not to make it a repository of all conceivable theories. --Syzygy (talk) 11:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Regardless of its' plausibility, droves of people are coming to this article looking for information about it (I was one of the slashdotters). To have something about it -- anything about it would simply be useful. Malthae (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * But what if no reputable source speaks about it, then what are we to say? "It's reasonable"? "It's rubbish?" Which is it going to be? What are we to use as reference for our opinion? -- Syzygy (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This is precisely where I have run into a brick wall. Those were the exact questions I had when I heard about this and I came here hoping to have some light shed on the subject. Another question I wanted answered quickly was "What would it take to verify or falsify the hypothesis?" (maybe an expert in medieval Italian methodically playing with an anagram program?) Unfortunately I cannot find any good sources. This manuscript is fascinating, though. I'll keep looking! Malthae (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The appropriateness of a source is a difficult one, and policy often purposefully leaves it up for discussion in individual articles. One section that does cover the issue is WP:WEIGHT.  To a lesser extent, there is WP:FRINGE, but that doesn't apply here, as this isn't an article on a fringe theory.  Since Sherwood's post is a self-published source, and the ciphermysteries is a blog, it is neither a reliable source, nor known to be discussed by reliable sources.  Thus is is inappropriate to discuss in the article.  What the Slashdot admins may have failed to realize is that there are numerous amateur theories on the VM, many of which claim to have sweeping portions of the text translated.  And Sherwood's posts are of the same caliber.
 * I'd love to see more details on conclusive statistical analysis of the manuscript, as well as further details of the evidence that had been used to support the various published theories, however, this would take serious work and real research (possibly even going to a real library *evil chord*!)
 * As far as having something for the Slashdotters, I think the presence of this discussion thread explaining the Sherwood article's (lack of) relevancy to this WP article is sufficient. -Verdatum (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * From WP:WEIGHT: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." This clarifies the issue accurately. Since this theory's representation in reliable sources is zero, it's representation in the article should be zero.
 * I have to concur that this discussion is enough since even I knew enough to come to the talk page when I was wondering why there was an absence of this topic in the article. Cheers, Malthae (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

john dee voynich manuscript connection edits?
In the queens conjuror : the life and magic of Dr Dee by Benjamin Woolet. the index references the voynich manuscript at page 82 - yet page 82 does not mention the voynich manuscript, just the text Monas Hieroglyphica by John Dee - I have perused Monas Hieroglyphica by John Dee online : http://www.esotericarchives.com/dee/monad.htm - the only symbolic similarity i can spot to the voynich manuscript is

http://www.esotericarchives.com/dee/monad28.gif

in the text to the left and right below the circle - any thoughts on a connection ? Darwinerasmus (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure there are thousands (if not millions) of images which could be interpreted as perhaps having some connection with a detail on a Voynich page. Hence, you'd need to go beyond observation to sustained and clear-cut Art History reasoning (and publication and review) to come even close to inclusion on the WP page. Sorry if this isn't what you wanted to hear. Nickpelling (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While I agree that any connection drawn by interpretation is inappropriate for the article, is it possible that you (Darwinerasmus) are just looking at a different edition of the Woolet text than the one used for the citation? From Google Books search, the Voynich manuscript is mentioned thrice. -Verdatum (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, read the comment too fast. Like I said, Voynich is mentioned thrice.  It's not uncommon for publishers to screw up page numbers in an index. -Verdatum (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a connection with John Dee Though - In "The First Scientist - a life of Roger Bacon" Brian Clegg states " "In it's time this remarkable book may have been the property of the astrologer John Dee and it certainly found its way into the hands of the Holy Holy Roman Emperor Rudolph II. The author was said to be Roger Bacon" (Clegg,B. ,2003, The First Scientist : A Life of Roger Bacon , London , Constable Robinson , pp 176-178 , 180-182)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darwinerasmus (talk • contribs) 17:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)  Clegg further argues that Brumbaghs translated captions confirm that images "include[ing] a sunflower and a capsicum pepper, both of which were unknown in europe until columbus brought them back to spain in 1493...It's not that the voynich manuscript itself is a fraud, but any link with bacon lies in the imagination,quite possibly the fevered imagination of John Dee" (ibid p182) (Darwinerasmus (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)). BTW can anyone point me in the direction of the part of the voynich that clegg refers to "on the last page are three lines of text in a different hand from the rest of the book...it seemed on decoding that the first few words read 'To me,Roger Bacon'..." (ibid p178) (Darwinerasmus (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)).

Removed opinion
The suggestion that the picture with spiralling arms is a pool with sea urchins is to this editor (with many years of looking at illuminated manuscripts) ridiculous. You have two adjacent pages in which star shapes clearly represent stars. That wiggly line that surrounds the central shape is a much-used formalised way of representing the border of "Heaven", and in early manuscripts typically surrounds God, angels or a representation of the sky.


 * Please say wolkenbanden, it's so much quicker. :-) Nickpelling (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

As for the spiralling arms: The traditional European overlay of "order" by creating constellations joined up by straight lines to make a representation of animals etc, can blind the viewer to the real patterns that the stars form. Once the viewer, like Vincent van Gogh, has observed the spirals, then no telescope is needed. The spiral that is easiest to see is the constellation of Scorpio. The other constellations ignore the pattern and connect bright stars in triangles rather than bands of stars in swirls. Amandajm (talk) 09:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Edith Sherwood
As an art historian, the relationship between artwork that was done for the Visconti family and the Voynich Manuscript jumped out at me. Edith Sherwood has also observed this, relating it to the Visconti Tarot.


 * I covered the similarities between f67v1 & f68v1 and the Visconti raza imprese (specifically, the one in the Apocalypse apse window in Milan's Duomo dating to 1420) in "The Curse of the Voynich" (p.61). You might also ponder the relationship between the VMs' zodiac nymphs and Quattrocento circular Dante-esque representations of the heavens such as the 1474 ducal chapel ceiling in Milan (Curse p.37), etc. But unfortunately none of this is really germane to Wikipedia: I suspect the problem here is that adding a section for suggested art history parallels / links may well triple the size of the Voynich page (which is already too large to be useful). Nickpelling (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sherwood has also made a connection between the VM and Pierre Bercheure's Ovide Moralise specifically the Codex 742 of the Bibliotheque de Lyon. Having looked at the comparisons that she presents, I cannot ignore the similarities and feel certain that the author of the VM was familiar with this edition of that particular work.

I emphatically disagree with Sherwood's opinion that a young Leonardo da Vinci is the author of the VM (as a student of Leonardo I find it unfathomable that anyone could imagine he would produce picture of fanciful plants, when he could study and draw real ones). On the other hand, she has done some solid research which has led to Lyon Codex 742. How do we include this stuff? Amandajm (talk) 07:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You'd need to find out much, much more about Lyon Cod 742 and its relationships to other documents before you could link it to the VMs in anything more than just a passing way (there are plenty of other balneological drawings from this period that resemble the VMs' water nymphs in some way or other). And of course Wikipedia isn't about original research, so you'd need to publish it all somewhere reliable first too. But I would concur that Edith Sherwood's suggested link to Leonardo probably floats in a manner not entirely dissimilar to a sieve. :-) Nickpelling (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm! It's the precise form of those neckless little women that reminds me of Lyo Cod 742. I'd argue for a connection. Amandajm (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * To follow this through, you'd need to look into the provenance, sources, copies of Lyon Cod 742: there's almost certainly some literature on it. But before Stolfi leaps in yet again, I'll repeat that Wikipedia articles (and/or their associated talk pages) aren't the right kind of forum to publish such arguments. You might instead consider blogs that look at enciphered mysteries, perhaps? :-) Nickpelling (talk) 13:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I edited out the Edith Sherwood reference about Leonardo Da Vinci. That article that was listed as the source is not an empirical source at all, it is conjecture at best. The similarities observed are coincidental or not there at all (as in the signature). The extrapolated information to fit her theory and the only information she managed to "decipher" using her oh-so-clever method was that which supported her theory. In addition, Da Vinci was born considerably after scientific studies have dated both the creation of the manuscript and the author's writing it. Lastly, putting aside for a second the fact that Da Vinci's writing and the author of the manuscript's writing look completely different, the manuscript is NOT in mirror writing. If it is in mirror writing, it is STILL under a cyfer of some kind. Cryptologists have been working on this work for almost a hundred years, this art professor isn't going to one day discover its written in mirror writing. It is far more complex than that, and just because some things in a mirror resemble actual words, doesn't mean anything, it is pure coincidence. This should NOT be changed back. No mention of this should exist in an encyclopedic article unless the source is better than some batshit old art historian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvcdrk (talk • contribs) 23:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you please not refer to Edith Sherwood as "some batshit old art historian". Regardless of the fact that you disagree with her opinion, referring to her as "batshit" is unnecessary. She may also be a valued contributor to these pages. Your combination of words suggests a general disregard for art historians.
 * As an art historian, I strongly disagree with Edith Sherwood's theory that Leonardo da Vinci created it. Nothing about the manuscript whatsoever is suggestive of Leonardo. Because Leonardo revealed very little private information about himself in his writings (he left behind no love letters, or anything whatsoever in his writings about his emotions or his religious views) people imagine there is more mystery about him than there was. (by contrast Michelangelo, his contemporary, wrote scuds of romantic poetry.) Leonardo's emotions might be a mystery, but there is nothing the tiniest bit mysterious about his intellectual pursuits. Rarely have a man's intellectual iterests been more fully documented, and never have they been so brilliantly illustrated. It is my understanding, as an art historian, and a scholar of Leonardo, that it is as likely that the Voynich manuscript was written by Professor Filius Flitwick as by Leonardo da Vinci. Amandajm (talk) 09:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is some good evidence by Sherwood that it was written by da Vinci: http://www.edithsherwood.com/voynich_author_da_vinci/index.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.224.208 (talk) 06:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There may well be evidence out there that genuinely demonstrates some subtle connection between the Voynich Manuscript and Leonardo da Vinci. Unfortunately, none of Edith Sherwood's valiant efforts yet does this, sorry. Though an eye-catching hypothesis, the historical facts are proving remarkably slow to catch up with her ambition here. Nickpelling (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

....and also
...why is there no mention of graphomania as a possible solution for the production of this manuscript? It seems far and away the most likely one! (How banal!)


 * Statistically, I'd say there's more obvious evidence for graphomania in this talk page (specifically anything to do with xkcd) than in the VMs. The problem with graphomania as an hypothesis is that it doesn't really explain the complex structural rules present in Voynichese: but perhaps it should (briefly) be listed, it has certainly been proposed enough times over the years. Nickpelling (talk) 10:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, DYK that under the modern raised altar platform in Cologne Cathedral is a medieval floor.... and what is on that floor? A mosaic that has many factors in common with the triple-page-spread in the VM....Amandajm (talk) 07:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Lipsum?
This is just a theory, but has anyone yet put forward the theory that the text is meant as filler text? If that were true, that would raise the possibility of it being a Master-piece (a piece of work produced by an apprentice or journeyman aspiring to become a master craftsman).--Auric (talk) 07:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Featured Article status etc
Could this be reachieved for the 2012 anniversary?

Perhaps the 'odd thing' about the VM is that it has all been done fair hand - there are no signs of rethinking etc: there must have been first drafts/layout design projects etc.

(Can an archive be set up for this page?)

Jackiespeel (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

false this, false that, fiction this, fiction that...
I am getting sick of the constant implications that the VM is a hoax, It's made in many articles to seem as though it's a fact, that it's not real. Someone realy needs to take to things with an objective eye. 210.185.16.215 (talk) 10:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking at the manuscript with an objective eye, I believe that it is a wonderful example of graphomania, which accounts for the fact that it is entirely in "fair hand". However, that is merely my opinion. An opinion which removes any mystery, or any challenge to look for codes and interpretations. However, I am still intrigued as to who it was that spent so much time obsessively scribing! I have a theory as to what caused the obsession.... the poor chap was a frustrated Wikipedian whose computer had died over a long weekend. Amandajm (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Invoking putative graphomaniacs / madmen / hoaxers is an easy way to try to sidestep the tightly logical, carefully multi-layered textual system that is apparent in Voynichese, where (for example) letters have different appearance stats depending on their position within the current word / line / paragraph / page / section / hand. Unfortunately, nobody has yet risen to the challenge (bait?) of refuting Gordon Rugg's claimed hoax analysis (which I would say was based on an already outdated and oversimplified take on the Currier A/B languages), so the Wikipedia article is (by dint of lack of reliable sources) at least a decade out of date on this whole issue. As for a frustrated Wikipedian, you might just as well say that the whole VMs is merely a 550-year-old tweet that pre-dates the 140-character upper limit. Perhaps it's just retweeting Stephen Fry in a very, very verbose cipher? Certainly, its subject matter is probably the Renaissance equivalents of iPads etc, so it's not such a stupid suggestion, hmmm? Nickpelling (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really care what it is.... I just love it! Howzat for POV? Amandajm (talk) 10:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Mercifully brief, but could be briefer still. :-) Nickpelling (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nickpelling, I have just noticed that you have the adaucity to call yourself an "expert" on your wiki-job-description. No-one is aloud to be an "expert" around here! People have been cursed with whitlows on their typing fingers for lesser offences than that! Take it from me. What is more, yuo are dylexsic. Spelling is spelled with an "s" at the beginning not a "k". Amandajm (talk) 11:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nicpelling...I do hope you realise I was joking. I once referred to myself on Wikipedia pages, not as an expert, but as an Art Historian. I was immediately challenged, incessantly, by another editor demanding the details of my qualifications, which, of course, don't really count for anything in Wikipedia terms. Just thought I would explain myself. Amandajm (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Amandajm... please be reassured that, somewhat like Inspector Morse, adaucity is my mddile nmae. (is that obscure enough? can I go now?) Nickpelling (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Base 16
Well, it's something in the base 16. I'll try to decypher it further. Denis Tarasov (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you give more details? While WP is not the right place to publish oder discuss original research, I would be very much interested in your finds... -- Syzygy (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Missing "Evidence" section - Codicology / Palaeography / Art History / Statistics (etc)
I've been going through this article over the last few days, with the intention of correcting the errors, tightening up the arguments, and simplifying the (occasionally tangled) prose. But on reflection, it strikes me that what is fundamentally wrong with the whole thing is that it doesn't really separate objective from subjective; and furthermore that its overall structure helps perpetuate this mingling of fact and speculation. I think that if we were to restructure it more sensibly, we might yet turn this whole article into a genuinely useful resource, rather than the sprawling sequence of speculative stuff it currently is.

I therefore propose that before the (currently first) "Content" section, a new section should be added called "Evidence", with suggested subsections "Codicology" (facts about the support material [including radiocarbon dating], inks, paints, construction, quire numbers, foliation), "Palaeography" (facts about the ductus, Currier 'Hands'), "Art History" (techniques used in the construction, such as parallel hatching) and "Statistics" (facts about the letter-patterns and word-patterns). The idea is that by doing this, we can separate out the discussion of what the Voynich Manuscript is from the discussion of what the Voynich Manuscript might be, so that people coming to the topic for the first time can gain an accurate picture untainted by the currently rather high level of embedded speculation. My Cipher Mysteries pages on codicology, quire numbers, parallel hatching may well be fruitful references for some of these topics.

I have elsewhere contrasted the existing speculation-centric "Voynich 1.0" approach with this "Voynich 2.0" history-centric approach: though the main argument against this used to be that we knew too little about the Voynich Manuscript to produce a useful non-speculative introduction to it, my opinion is that this is no longer true. Yet however sensible this change may be from my perspective, it is almost certainly too significant a difference to impose unilaterally on a well-linked article without some kind of sustained debate here first. So... what do you think? Nickpelling (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that it needs sorting out. The first thing to do is revert your recent edit which changed a statement of fact to an interpretation: "Because its author, script and language remain unknown, it has been widely presumed to be an historical ciphertext."
 * Never mind the wide presumption.... just return to the plain fact that the author is unknown and the text undeciphered. (I can't remember exactly how it was worded previously, but it was better). Amandajm (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the presumption (that the Voynich Manuscript 'must be' a ciphertext) was already implicit in the following paragraph, where the discussion jumped directly to talk of code-breakers. All I did was made the 'wide-spread presumption' explicit. The problem is that if you don't happen to like that particular presumption, you'd need to delete the whole of the next paragraph to be consistent. Nickpelling (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the way in which the matter is now expressed. Turning the factual encyclopedic information, ie that its author, language and text are unknown into an adverbial clause subject to the conjunction "because" in explanation of the fact that it is generally considered a ciphertext is not good expression, in an encyclopedic introduction.
 * Tell your reader clearly in the first paragraph that the author, text and language are unknown. This, by itself, is a fairly amazing statement.
 * The opinion that it is a ciphertext belongs in that next paragraph. An important reason for the presumption that it is a ciphertext is that code-breakers have ruled out its being a known language.
 * This has got nothing to do with my personal opinion of what the manuscript is, or whether I like the next paragraph. The manuscript is generally considered a cypherscript, rightly or wrongly. It is appropriate that the article should state what the general and accepted view is, but this remains an "opinion". The opinion is subject to the fact, not the fact to the opinion. The fact needs to be stated in its own sentence, clear of any opinion whatsoever. Simply because the opinion might be wrong.
 * I hope that I am making it perfectly clear that it is not the inclusion of the opinion that it is a cypherscript to which I am objecting. It is the construction of the sentence in which this information is linked that I don't like. I want a clear, stand-alone sentence that states the facts, without anybody's interpretation added to it.
 * On second thoughts, your sentence is not innocuous, as you indicated in your edit summary. What you are doing is constructing a sentence that uses the factual material as a "because clause" to your own opinion. You don't need to persist with this. You can make the change very easily, by including that generally-held opinion within the next paragraph, where it belongs. Amandajm (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, up until now nobody has even tried to make the presumptions explicit, so I'm glad that we are at least now in the position where we can discuss what order they should appear in. I've edited it again to try to reflect your (perfectly valid) criticism, please feel free to tidy it up yet further. :-) Nickpelling (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have just tidied it up again. I'm sorry, I have been rather rude about some of your very expressive language. I don't know whether you write other things for Wiki (I haven't checked) But if you use descriptive words, even in an art article, they get chopped out. They are referred to as "peacock words". I had a dreaful row with a well-meaning editor who insisted  that Leonardo da Vinci could not be described as "famous" because it is a "peacock word", (which I have deleted in the current article where you used it to refer to WWII code-breakers.) In the case of Leonardo, the word was used specifically to denote that his fame exceeded that of any other artist (or indeed person) of his generation). Similarly, I used the word "unique" to describe the status of St Peter's Basilica, thoroughly supported with refs from highly regarded sources. The fact is, some things (a few) a remarkable enough to require superlatives.
 * I feel that the Voynich manuscript fits this category. It is another object that demands that its unique status be recognised. Is there any other undecipherable manuscript of this period that equals it in interest? The quotation that you inserted "the most mysterious manuscript" indicates the way the manuscript is viewed, and is solidly supported with a reference. It would be good to back that quote with another one that doesn't rely on it in any way. Amandajm (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you're right: though I used them for succinctness, they were indeed peacock words. The real point of the first three paragraphs should be to explain why the Voynich manuscript is both extraordinary (perhaps the closest thing to it is the 20th century Codex Seraphinianus) and mysterious. The issue is surely how to express these ideas tersely yet accessibly. Nickpelling (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ha!....I just tried to reverse the paragraphs but discovered some like minded person was in the middle of doing it already. Good. Amandajm (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ummm... that was me. :-) Nickpelling (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent evidence
imho the section 'Recent evidence' should be moved in the lead, after ...mysterious manuscript[2], reworded perhaps as 'In 2009 radiocarbon etc.' including a caveat 'awaits official confirmation' or something. and we should start thinking about reworking the whole textAel 2 (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The recent evidence suggesting the manuscript was written in the early 15th century (significantly earlier than previously believed) must have implications for the various theories discussed in this article. Has anyone so far published anything that attempts to reassess the manuscript based on the new evidence? Everyking (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Plenty of people (including me) have proposed mid-15th century dates, so the difference may not be quite as significant as the documentary makers would have you believe. Also, we're still waiting for a proper paper on the radiocarbon dating to be published, so the evidence is far from complete, which is a shame. Nickpelling (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * moved it; of course we still need a proper announcement but two expert opinions are quoted; revert if  disagree Ael 2 (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't the WP:LEAD summarise the article, i.e. the moved text should be in the main body of the article, rather than being moved to the lead, and it should be summarised in the lead? <b style="color:#000">TFOWR</b>propaganda 17:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. The lead already says it's from either the 15th or 16th century, and the details should be in their own section (although I do think "recent evidence" is a silly heading; it should all just be under one section about dating the manuscript). Kafziel Complaint Department 19:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * the two sentences do summarise a loong protocol of research; the lead says "thought to have been written 15th or 16th c.", I would be glad to remove 'or 16';

perhaps add http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/3145/voynich_under_the_microscope.html, even if it repeats [3]?91.92.179.172 (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Edith Sherwood has also commented carbon dating; is there a good reason not to mention her site in 'external links'?91.92.179.172 (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The only problem with Edith Sherwood's page on carbon dating is that it is just a little bit early - whenever the long-promised paper on the VMs' dating appears, we'll be able to see whether her page utterly refutes that paper or whether the paper takes into account her objections to the tight dating range as claimed (as part of the Austrian documentary). We shall see... Nickpelling (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hoax theories
What is the motive for constructing an elaborate hoax that could only be studied by one person at a time without the aid of, e.g., a holograph reproduction in book form (which requires the invention of photography), or other means of mass reproduction, such as the Internet?

Hoaxes are commonly committed for a pecuniary motive. The manuscript is certainly a curiosity but the sheer amount of labor involved would make a hoax less likely.

Nor is the apparent topic one that is going to excite great interest, as would, e.g., a formula for eternal life, or to make lead into gold, or to change the subject's sex - as Casanova offered to do for the Marquise d'Urfé. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.38.212 (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Any workable Voynich argument should explain how many of the features of the highly structured text came into being: yet rather than doing this, Voynich hoax claims (even the high profile ones) are instead usually worded to sidestep the need for explanation, which (let's face it) is a bit of a cop-out. Hence, when the hoax hypothesis itself doesn't really explain the object, trying to reconstruct motive is perhaps somewhat unnecessary? 78.146.65.82 (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The explanation is pretty obvious, and is one of the two standard reasons for hoaxes. The Emperor Rudolph II once bought a mysterious, unreadable manuscript for 600 ducats He possibly bought it from John Dee and Edward Kelley, although this is not proven. Some theorists think that this manuscript was the VMS; it is also not possible to prove that. One way or the other, though, it certainly shows that a hoax VMS could have been fairly profitable in the right marketplace. Six hundred ducats was probably very roughly equal to USD $22,000 today (see http://1632.org/1632Slush/1632money.rtf.) With 35,000 "words" in the VMS, that works out to about 63 cents per word. By comparison, professional translation services today run about 8 cents per word, copy-editing about 1.5 to 5 cents per word, depending on the technical complexity of the text. In comparison, 63 cents per word to generate nonsense is not exactly untold riches, but a very comfortable sum for an educated man who preferred bunko to real work. -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 08:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, this is back-to-front. The 1665 letter from Marci said that he had heard that it was this manuscript (i.e. the VMs) that had been bought by Rudolph for 600 ducats, yet we don't have any other evidence from court records to support this hearsay. Nickpelling (talk) 14:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Brian Clegg also states "we also know that in 1586, when Dee was in contact with Rudolph, Dee records having 630 ducats, an unusually large sum as he was not well of at the time" (Clegg, B. , The First Scientist : A life of Roger Bacon , Constable , London ,pp180) (Darwinerasmus (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC))

My revert
I undid the IP addition

However, this statement can be irrelevant when handwritten scripts are kept in mind.

I wasn't sure what it is supposed to say, and it also sounds like theory finding or OR. Slap me if I went wrong. -- Syzygy (talk) 06:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
I have a recurring casual interest in the VMS, and today I checked its Wikipedia page again ... including this talk page. And after doing the latter, I just want to say thanks to whoever keeps the madness out of the main article. This talk page clearly shows what a horrible mess that article could have become quite easily. So, thank you for maintaining the sanity of this article (probably at the risk of losing your own if you take everything serious that's thrown at you), for keeping it a reliable source of NPOV information. I realize that such a comment isn't really appropriate for a talk page, but heck, there's so much abuse here which isn't appropriate either, so that a small paragraph of "keep up the good work" shouldn't make it worse ... hopefully. ;) Psyringe (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)