Talk:Voynich manuscript

Template:CryptographyReader Template:V0.5

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 81.152.136.95 (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2007

"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#Disambiguation_page_needed.3F. 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 [1] 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. – jaksmata 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. – jaksmata 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)

<sarcasm> 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. </sarcasm> 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)

XKCD

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 Wikipedia: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)

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 (talk) 08:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)