Talk:Voynich manuscript

Dr. Gregor Bernhard-Königstein is a lecturer in church art, member of the Institute for Spiritual Theology and Religious Studies at the Pope Benedict XVI Philosophical-Theological University in Heiligenkreuz, Austria.

He has recently claimed the Voynich manuscript has been decrypted, and published a 67 page summary (p.44-67 is in English). I read the English version yesterday and the lecturer is knowledgeable, to say the least. Before you question why the article was posted in OTS, understand I have the same lack of preference with websites that request an email or login, but this site does not request either. For good measure, I stored a copy for those who refuse to type any information to retrieve or download content, knowing it is unnecessary. I don't expect older scholars to be all tech savvy, and they may have their reasons. If someone wanted to store a copy of a file in a safe place, then OTS would appear to be a logical choice. I don't question that. "APA-OTS is Austria's strongest distributor of multimedia press information in text, image, video and audio form at home and abroad." https://www.ots.at/presseaussendung/OTS_20230310_OTS0148/sensationen-zur-schweizer-garde-im-vatikan-und-zu-den-habsburgern-der-voynich-code-ist-geknackt-anhaenge https://www.hochschule-heiligenkreuz.at/lehrende/dr-gregor-bernhart-koenigstein/ It was reposted on a Hawaii Channel 2 station website (KHON2, a Nextar Media Group) through EIN Presswire): https://www.khon2.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/623052672/the-voynich-silenen-comedy-it-has-been-possible-to-decode-the-voynich-manuscript-as-a-bishops-memoir/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexstar_Media_Group

The OTS site states: "Free download Editorial use is free of charge and permitted in connection with the broadcast. You help us to further improve our offer if you provide the following information:

"Surname:

Editor/Medium: *

planned release:"

I entered my own information and received the document, which I posted on my own repository: https://github.com/hatonthecat/Voynich-Manuscript/blob/main/PDF_20230310_OTS0148_0.pdf there is a download link on the page (does not require a login).

Now that I made the document easily accessible, I'll leave it to the scholars and skeptics to analyze. Peace Tetraxho (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

It's not a question of whether or not OTS is a good web hosting service.

It's a question of whether or not this paper has been published by a reliable publisher. Self-published essays are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. (With a few exceptions that don't apply here.)

ApLundell (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Just the usual soapboxing for random non-peer-reviewed claims. Let's wait if anyone (scholar, cleric or layperson) without promotional ambitions will cite it in the near future. Until then: WP:UNDUE. –Austronesier (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

All good points. I would like to add that the lecturer who wrote the article has a PhD, works at a Cistercian theological university, one with a parent organization as the Roman Catholic Church. Technically, any scholarship out of the Catholic Church should be considered infallible, if it was written by a Bishop or Pope (I write more about that on my user page). In the 1400s, Papal Supremacy was still the law of the Papal States, thus writings from a Swiss Bishop in the late 1400s would be considered authoritative.

I am not requesting the edit to be undone, at least at the moment. But I guess I don't count as that layperson, or scholar, apparently because I and/or Dr. Bernhard-Königstein have been singled out for having "promotional" ambitions. I do this out of a hobby. Dr. Bernhard-Königstein has one co-written, out of print book on Kant on Amazon for sale: https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Birol-Kilic/dp/3950398198/

Last I read, scholars access Wikipedia for reference. Maybe I am wrong to assume scholars hang out here (just admins?) on Saturday nights like me and would be interested in reviewing this material. Insinuating my writing is a soapbox is unwarranted and suggests possible elitism of this moderation. If Dr. Bernhard-Königstein's claims were found to be disproven, I would reject the claims faster than someone can remove another Wikipedia edit (the first two apparently used an "unreliable" tag for a new claim). Undue weight is more applicable to cases where a standard is established (e.g. heliocentrism), not something that hasn't been identified. I believe extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but if I were supernatural, I'd feel bad at humanity for taking so long to decipher this holy manuscript, and I feel bad as a human for even suggesting that. Like Ace Ventura, Pet Detective said, "in order to find the dolphin, you have to think like the dolphin." I am employing Strasbergian method acting to help me imagine the possibility that a Swiss Bishop commissioned this hitherto "manuscript", which the author claims is actually a breviary. From my examination, it looks largely allegorical, not mathematical (except for astrology illustrations) nor gibberish.

One of the problems with peer review is that it is impossible to rule out favoritism. From the neutral point of view page, "Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship."

I have already forwarded his paper to a few scholars to review, so I trust that it will get ample scrutiny in due time. My main point is that I think Wikipedia serves as a quicker watering hole for sharing new, serious theories between interested parties than websites which are not at all equipped with historical expertise or professionalism like Reddit and, to a lesser extent, YCombinator.

Thank you and goodnight. Tetraxho (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Ok, I guess it was naïve of me to not have any of "papal infallibility", "Ace Ventura, Pet Detective", and "Strasbergian method acting" on my "This Voynich Theory Is WP:RS Because..." bingo card. -- asilvering (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Tetraxho, I think you have misunderstood that role Wikipedia plays in scholarship.

Our role is to summarize published consensus. That's what an encyclopedia is.

This is not a place for scholars to form new consensus, or to evaluate the strength of anyone's arguments. That is done in traditional publications.

ApLundell (talk) 07:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

You're right, I'm sorry. I have taken my discussion to Reddit. Thank you, ApLundell; I have a tendency to be sometimes quite enthusiastic in defending new and original claims. Tetraxho (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks Tetraxho, I agree that is a better forum for this at the moment. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Should a link be added to "The Voynich Manuscript: Decoded" by Fletcher Crowe PhD from the fall 2022 issue of Journal of Historical Archaeology and Anthropological Sciences? [1] https://medcraveonline.com/JHAAS/JHAAS-07-00262.pdf From the Abstract: This research shows that the strange Voynich symbols code for Arabic. An equivalency table between Arabic letters and the Voynich characters is developed, and large sections of the Voynich text are translated, including pages picturing flowers, stars, spices and women. A 600-word dictionary of Arabic-Voynich-English was developed. George Fergus (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

If reliable independent third-party sources discuss it, maybe, but not until then. Papers like that are a dime a dozen; Google Scholar gives over 1,000 such papers, many of are of the similar kind as this one and in less-questionable journals than this MedCrave journal. User:Headbomb/unreliable is showing the link to that paper as "Predatory/Depreciated" for good reason. If it's going to be mentioned it absolutely cannot be on the basis of that paper alone, because the existence of that paper doesn't mean anything significant. - Aoidh (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

I made an edit "added bitter gourd plant leaves" on (29 august time 17:08).I think it will be useful to someone trying to crack the "voynich manuscript", even through it is a minor edit and may seem trivial, it may me a important clue to somebody else. So please undo the revert.Fodegrass (talk) 06:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

It is sourced, so that's good. However, I would tend to agree with User:Dumuzid that it seems trivial. Especially if the goal of including it is to help researchers decode it, which doesn't really fall under Wikipedia's goal of providing the casual reader with a broad understanding of a topic. I wonder if that note would be better suited to something like the Voynich Language Wiki. Justin Kunimune (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Well, on second thought, it's not that trivial. I think it would be valuable to put it in as an example; maybe just reword it a bit to complement the flow of that paragraph better. "While some illustrations closely resemble real plants, such as what seems to be a bitter gourd on page 17, others seem to be composite: the roots of one species..." or whatever is appropriate.

As an aside, did you intend to cite the book The Voynich Manuscript: The Unsolved Riddle... by Gerry Kennedy, or the review of that book by Robin Gillbank? Your citation points to the review, but it's only two pages long and I don't see the note about the bitter gourd in it. Justin Kunimune (talk) 12:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Very much with Justin Kunimune here -- again, apologies for the revert, and I was a bit on the fence about it. As written, however, it struck me as not quite working. If you were to adjust it so it is more of an example and less like something that is independently notable, I think that would likely do it. Thanks for your efforts, Fodegrass. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks to both @Justinkunimune and @Dumuzid for your advice.Fodegrass (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

@Fodegrass: Can you provide us the relevant quote from the book by Kennedy & Churchill? Initially you simply added: "On page number 71 the leaves of the plant resemble that of a plant bitter gourd", while in the second edit, you grafted the info to a preexisting sentence about "composite" plant drawings[2]. When we cite information from the book by Kennedy & Churchill, we should follow what they write about the bitter gourd and what significance they assign to this detail in the Voynich manuscript. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the book, and Google Books only allows for a limited preview (a search within the book for "bitter gourd" yields no result). –Austronesier (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

I removed that citation in my last edit.Fodegrass (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Which makes your addition an unsourced WP:CUCKOO-edit. I have reverted it and please don't re-add it without a source that actually mentions this detail and which explicitly tells us why mentioning it is significant. –Austronesier (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

I added this information because the leaves of the plant on page 71 of the "Voynich manuscript" book resembled exactly that of the bitter gourd plant, and also it is an herbal plant so I thought it might be a useful clue to people researching this topic. but I can,t find any source so okay.Fodegrass (talk) 13:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

It would appear that in 2023 and from work Alisa has done since at least 2019, that her attempt to decipher the Voynich manuscript supported a Galician origin. Which relates to Gerard Cheshire's attempts to decipher and believed it was proto-romantic. However it also matched medieval Galician. As described by Gladyseva. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32351/rca.v5.128 Saml214 (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Do third-party reliable sources mention this being a significant decipherment claim in some way? - Aoidh (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

https://www.academia.edu/101986267/The_Medieval_Map_and_the_Mercy_Mission?email_work_card=title

If anyone wants to work this into the article, go ahead. Keith Henson (talk) 00:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Unless third-party sources discuss this self-published book in some detail about it being significant as a stand-out decipherment claim, it's just another in a very, very, very long list of similar material. In addition, academia.edu itself is a questionable source, at best, according to the many discussions at WP:RSN so appropriate third-party sourcing showing that it is WP:DUE would be needed to incorporate anything about this into the Voynich manuscript#Gerard Cheshire section; even though the previous decipherment claim got attention (and retraction by the university) doesn't mean any subsequent material would be included without due sources on that subsequent material. - Aoidh (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

You could take a look rather than wait for someone to review it. Fascinating story. As long as Wikipedia mentions him, a pointer to his work seems reasonable (as would pointers to any other translations). Not that it matters much, Google search will find it. Keith Henson (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

With WP:DUE in mind it's not a matter of simply having book reviews, it's how significant is this book within the concept of the Voynich manuscript, as viewed through the lens of reliable sources? If there are no reliable sources showing that this book is significant, the answer is "not significant at all" and it doesn't warrant a mention in the article; past work being mentioned doesn't give any other work a pass on needing to show relevance. It may or may not be a fascinating story, but that's not deterministic on if the book warrants being mentioned in the article. - Aoidh (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

There is a problem with "reliable sources." If you set the bar at "can translate," then Cheshire is the only one out there even making a claim. I suppose it doesn't matter, anyone seriously looking into the Voynich MS is going to use Google as well as Wikipedia. Keith Henson (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

More https://www.arteoloji.com/the-cryptography-and-palaeography-of-a-medieval-narrative-map_31 I have written bio pages on 8 or 9 people. Considering doing one for Cheshire, there are certainly enough news mentions to justify one. Keith Henson (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Is it permitted to mention the Voynich Manuscript wikis OR, if reasonable, allowed).

Would the minimum bar for a translation/transliteration be 'several consecutive sentences, making a coherent text, covering matters of interest in the period of writing'? Jackiespeel (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Cheshire has translated most of the manuscript and he is open about how he does it. I wish I knew someone in Spain who could go to the archives of Aragon. I have argued with Cheshire that this can't be the only example of the script, it's far too advanced to have been developed where it was written. Keith Henson (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Minimum bar?

You mean in general? Typically I think academics will want a decipherment method that could be performed independently by different linguists and they'd all come back with roughly the same translation. Anything less isn't really decipherment, it's just a creative writing exercise.

You mean for this Wikipedia article? As always, the notability requirements must be met. Reputable third-party sources must be taking it seriously. Preferably academic third-party sources, but the popular press also counts if it's substantial coverage and not just a parroting of the alleged decoder's press release. Self-published sources like wikis typically don't count. ApLundell (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't know why Cheshire's work is not being taken that seriously by the academics. But there may be several reasons. For a start, it's not encrypted in any way. The other thing is that it is for the most part a mundane women's health manual except for a description of a rescue operation on a nearby volcano island. I think he took all the mystery out of Voynich and that is largely going to end the interest. I followed his work for years and read all the translations as they were done. I doubt any of the other editors of this page have done the same. But it does not matter.Keith Henson (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

It's probably because his method is not repeatable. As far as I can tell, his method only works for him.

I find it hard to believe you have read any of Cheshire's translations. The first step, Voynich symbols to Latin letters is completely defined, a look-up table and anyone can do it.

The next step, breaking the text string into words, filling in the abbreviations, and translating the words takes context, but it is well described. The resulting translated text makes sense. Most of the manuscript is about mundane women's health (as it was understood in the 13th century). But there is one section that records a rescue mission to an erupting volcano.

But the "Why" doesn't really matter to us. It's not our job to guess why academics think what they think. ApLundell (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Point taken. Of course, Cheshire is an academic. Keith Henson (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

https://www.arteoloji.com/the-cryptography-and-palaeography-of-a-medieval-narrative-map_31 One more academic paper. Keith Henson (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

THE CRYPTOGRAPHY AND PALAEOGRAPHY OF A MEDIEVAL NARRATIVE MAP

This article demonstrates the technique used for reading the narrative of a Medieval map, listed as MS 408. The writing system and language had confounded linguistics scholars for some time because both were unfamiliar, but they were explained in 2017, allowing the translation of scripts and annotations accompanying the images drawn on the map. Here four examples are presented to explain the procedure used in transliterating the alphabet symbols and then translating the Medieval phrasing into English. The language of the map is an archaic form of Iberian Romance, mixed with Greek and Latin. The writing system is based on the ancient Greek, and Phoenician and Arabic alphabets. The map was created by the nuns at Castello Aragonese, Ischia, to record a rescue mission in the Tyrrhenian Sea, following a volcanic eruption in the year 1444. The date is included on the map, written in Latin abbreviation, otherwise known as sigla. Keith Henson (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [reply ]