Also, just quoting Cheshire does not cut it. It does not matter how many newspapers rewrite the PR. Rewriting a press release is not an independent source. That means it does not belong on Wikipedia. Who are the prominent adherent's of Cheshire's work? Nobody. ApLundell ( talk) 21:27, (UTC) Ghmyrtle restoration should be undone. I think making the reader understand that these decipherments are a regular event would be more useful than having a short list that we have to constantly debate inclusions for. The current claim is an almost perfect example of that recurring phenomena. They've honestly become the largest part of the document's story. What I would really like, is for the entire "Decipherment claims" to be reformatted into a discussion about how the VM regularly attracts these kinds of overly-optimistic pattern-seeking decipherment claims. The fact that there's a rebuttal available also makes it a nicely representative example for the article's non-comprehensive list of decipherments-of-the-month. But I do think the fact that it was so quickly rebutted, even informally, by experts indicates that it's risen above the noise level. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 21:12, (UTC) Īnyway, like I said I won't fight for it. We should include academic sources rebutting it, of course, but we should not exclude all mention of it. ApLundell ( talk) 20:58, (UTC) Whether or not editors here think it is "a bit of a joke", this purported solution has been very widely reported and readers will expect it to be mentioned. Glrx ( talk) 19:57, (UTC) Nobody has ever made "significant progress". If he has made progress, then the significant minority will come. If Cheshire has solved it or made significant progress, that achievement would not be ephemeral. WP does not intend to cover transient events. WP's purpose is not to recite every claim to a solution. That readers come to this article to learn about Cheshire's claims does not mean that those claims should be reported here. There must be evidence that a significant minority holds or supports the viewpoint. Sources attacking Cheshire do not make the attacked claims WP:DUE. Newspapers quoting Cheshire's claims do not count. There needs to be consensus on this talk page for the material, and consensus relies on policy-based arguments.
#VOYNICH MANUSCRIPT CONSPIRACY THEORIES CRACKED#
ApLundell ( talk) 08:32, (UTC) A good quote from the Guardian article "You can’t just have one person saying: 'I've cracked it.' You have got to have the field, on the whole, agreeing." William Avery ( talk) 08:10, (UTC) I deleted the section again. One day that list will get too long and we'll have to trim it again, but there's no harm leaving the current decipherment-of-the-month on it for now. Just so long as we don't treat it as any better than all the other efforts. At least while it's still hot in the news and people keep coming here expecting to see it. Lklundin ( talk) 06:53, (UTC) I certainly won't fight for it, but I think this one has received enough media attention that we may as well include it in the list. Lklundin ( talk) 06:50, (UTC) - PS: Which there seems to be now. We do have a general policy of preferring Wikipedia:Primary Secondary and Tertiary Sources, so it is fine that we defer mentioning this paper until there has been some wider, secondary reporting on it. ApLundell ( talk) 06:26, (UTC) It is irrelevant what Wikipedians may think about the author, what counts is that Romance_Studies_(journal) decided to publish the paper. He is not listed as a professor on UoB's website, but a "Visiting Research Associate". I changed the article to describe him as a "biologist", as news articles are calling him "doctor" so he apparently now has his PhD, and so "biologist" seems like the best description. (Like "inventor") Turns out he was a PhD student in biology. It's such a good sounding, but extremely vague thing to say. ApLundell ( talk) 01:13, (UTC) 131.137.245.207 ( talk) 02:56, (UTC) As a point of interest, I'm always suspicious when someone is described as "an academic". If you give yourself enough latitude in interpreting the results, you can come up with any answer that seems right to you. Definitely can't be called "solved." Wikiditm ( talk) 20:28, (UTC) Are we reading the same paper? - Auric talk 22:25, (UTC) Another critical response 173.228.123.207 ( talk) 23:02, (UTC) I'm no linguist, but this looks like the usual nonsense to me. It doesn't even begin to translate anything. Theklan ( talk) 12:16, (UTC) This paper is a bit of a joke to be honest. 7 Derek Vogt: A personal blog is a reliable source.3 Natural language - East and Central Asia.1.1 Inclusion of Cheshire's (non-)results.