<![CDATA[The Voynich Ninja - Positions we can agree upon]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/ Wed, 15 Apr 2026 18:53:07 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[word starting [q] must have a valid counterpart word starting [o]]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-2360.html Sat, 31 Mar 2018 18:51:19 +0000 davidjackson]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-2360.html Emma suggests :
Quote:words beginning with [q] have two particular relationships. The first is that a word starting [q] must have a valid counterpart word starting [o], and it is not enough for the plain word without either [q] or [o] to exist. Conversely, even if the [o] form exists, that does not mean that the [q] form will.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.]]> Emma suggests :
Quote:words beginning with [q] have two particular relationships. The first is that a word starting [q] must have a valid counterpart word starting [o], and it is not enough for the plain word without either [q] or [o] to exist. Conversely, even if the [o] form exists, that does not mean that the [q] form will.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.]]> <![CDATA[There are 244 people in the "Zodiac" section]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-2196.html Wed, 29 Nov 2017 08:34:10 +0000 VViews]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-2196.html
Q10

70v2:29
70v1:15

Q11

71r:15
71v:15
72r1:15
72r2:32 (30 + 2 in the central roundel)
72r3:30
72v1: 30
72v3: 30
72v2: 31 (30 + 1 in the central roundel)

Q12

73r:30
73v: 31 (30 + 1 in the central roundel)

Total people in the "zodiac" section: 303]]>
Q10

70v2:29
70v1:15

Q11

71r:15
71v:15
72r1:15
72r2:32 (30 + 2 in the central roundel)
72r3:30
72v1: 30
72v3: 30
72v2: 31 (30 + 1 in the central roundel)

Q12

73r:30
73v: 31 (30 + 1 in the central roundel)

Total people in the "zodiac" section: 303]]> <![CDATA[There are 234 people in Q13]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-2195.html Wed, 29 Nov 2017 08:19:29 +0000 VViews]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-2195.html continuing the polls about counting things, it's time to move on to people in Q13.
A re-post of the count from the original Counting Things thread:
75r: 14
75v: 29
76r: text only
76v: 5
77r: 4
77v: 7
78r: 15
78v: 9
79r: 7
79v: 4
80r: 16
80v: 12
81r: 13
81v: 16
82r: 15
82v: 8
83r: 5
83v: 4
84r: 33
84v: 15
Total: 231 people in Q13.]]> continuing the polls about counting things, it's time to move on to people in Q13.
A re-post of the count from the original Counting Things thread:
75r: 14
75v: 29
76r: text only
76v: 5
77r: 4
77v: 7
78r: 15
78v: 9
79r: 7
79v: 4
80r: 16
80v: 12
81r: 13
81v: 16
82r: 15
82v: 8
83r: 5
83v: 4
84r: 33
84v: 15
Total: 231 people in Q13.]]> <![CDATA[Medieval Abrahamic religious imagery is not depicted within the manuscript]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-2106.html Sun, 17 Sep 2017 21:08:44 +0000 davidjackson]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-2106.html Statement
None of the traditional religious imagery that we would associated with late medieval Abrahamic (ie, Christian, Jewish or Islamic) religions is depicted within the manuscript.

Explanation
The manuscript is devoid of traditional Christian, Islamic or Judaic religious imagery. For example, only three crosses appear in the whole codex and none of them in a religious format (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).

Also, Professor Raymond Clemens suggested when asked "What's your opinion on the apparent lack of Christian iconography?" that [You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.]:

Quote:>> RAY Yeah, the imagery is consistent, so if you look at comparable herbals there's not going to be a great deal of difference. Those references will be in the text. So, you know, there will be instructions on what to say when you're picking this herb. But it wouldn't necessarily show up in the images themselves and that's normal in the herbal, the pharmacological material... but I really don't know what to do with the bathing women, that's... [LAUGHS]

Also, none of the images have a clear Biblical or Koranic setting.]]> Statement
None of the traditional religious imagery that we would associated with late medieval Abrahamic (ie, Christian, Jewish or Islamic) religions is depicted within the manuscript.

Explanation
The manuscript is devoid of traditional Christian, Islamic or Judaic religious imagery. For example, only three crosses appear in the whole codex and none of them in a religious format (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).

Also, Professor Raymond Clemens suggested when asked "What's your opinion on the apparent lack of Christian iconography?" that [You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.]:

Quote:>> RAY Yeah, the imagery is consistent, so if you look at comparable herbals there's not going to be a great deal of difference. Those references will be in the text. So, you know, there will be instructions on what to say when you're picking this herb. But it wouldn't necessarily show up in the images themselves and that's normal in the herbal, the pharmacological material... but I really don't know what to do with the bathing women, that's... [LAUGHS]

Also, none of the images have a clear Biblical or Koranic setting.]]> <![CDATA[There is evidence of corrections within the text]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-1593.html Sat, 04 Mar 2017 22:33:03 +0000 davidjackson]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-1593.html Statement
There is evidence that corrections to the text have been carried out.

Explanation
It has been asserted in the past that the text was written fluidly in one pass and that there is no evidence of amendments to the text.

This is incorrect, as demonstrated in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. We can safely say that the text appears to have been corrected, possibly in an attempt to proof-read.]]> Statement
There is evidence that corrections to the text have been carried out.

Explanation
It has been asserted in the past that the text was written fluidly in one pass and that there is no evidence of amendments to the text.

This is incorrect, as demonstrated in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. We can safely say that the text appears to have been corrected, possibly in an attempt to proof-read.]]> <![CDATA[The root of the plant at the top right of f89r1 is animal-shaped]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-1070.html Fri, 11 Nov 2016 21:10:54 +0000 MarcoP]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-1070.html Statement: The root of the plant at the top right of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. was drawn to suggest an elongated animal.

Explanation: The head of the animal is represented in profile, in the upper part of the root. An eye and the mouth were drawn. The base of the stem of the plant corresponds to the mouth of the animal.

[NOTE:  the original statement was
"The root of the plant at the top right of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. was drawn to suggest an elongated animal with forked tail". 
In the comments, it was pointed out that the forked tail might be two secondary roots. So I removed the reference to the tail.]

.jpg   f89r1_tr.jpg (Size: 65.09 KB / Downloads: 105) ]]> Statement: The root of the plant at the top right of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. was drawn to suggest an elongated animal.

Explanation: The head of the animal is represented in profile, in the upper part of the root. An eye and the mouth were drawn. The base of the stem of the plant corresponds to the mouth of the animal.

[NOTE:  the original statement was
"The root of the plant at the top right of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. was drawn to suggest an elongated animal with forked tail". 
In the comments, it was pointed out that the forked tail might be two secondary roots. So I removed the reference to the tail.]

.jpg   f89r1_tr.jpg (Size: 65.09 KB / Downloads: 105) ]]> <![CDATA[VMBOK phase 1 - rev. 11.12.2016 (last approval 11.12.2016)]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-971.html Tue, 25 Oct 2016 21:58:27 +0000 Anton]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-971.html Generic:

The Voynich Manuscript is a manuscript handwritten in an unknown writing system and containing numerous images. No other document written in Voynichese script has been found up to date.

History:

TBD

Physical material:

Generic

The Voynich manuscript is not a palimpsest.

Palaeography:

TBD

Text:

Generic

TBD

Labels

The predictability of glyph placement within label vords is in concordance with that of vords in the main corpus.

Marginalia

TBD

Imagery:

Generic
TBD

Large Plants

There are 129 full-page plant illustration pages (aka Large Plant pages) in the Voynich Manuscript.
They generally feature one plant per page, but there are five pages which feature two plants, so there are a total of 134 large plants in the Voynich Manuscript.
For a page-by-page breakdown, please refer to the OP in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. thread.

Small Plants


The Small Plants section, actually composed of two groups of folios (88r-99r1 and 99r-102v1) features a total of 45 containers. For a page-by-page breakdown of the number of containers and items beside them, please refer to the OP in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. thread.


Quire 20

There are 324 stars in the margins of Quire 20. Red paint has been applied to 163 of them. For a page-by-page breakdown, please refer to the OP in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. thread.


Recognizable Patterns

The roots of the plant in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. include depictions of two You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. heads. The roots of the second plant of the bottom row  of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. include depictions of five anthropomorphic heads. The roots of the fourth plant of the bottom row of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.  include the depiction of an anthropomorphic head.

Misc

TBD]]> Generic:

The Voynich Manuscript is a manuscript handwritten in an unknown writing system and containing numerous images. No other document written in Voynichese script has been found up to date.

History:

TBD

Physical material:

Generic

The Voynich manuscript is not a palimpsest.

Palaeography:

TBD

Text:

Generic

TBD

Labels

The predictability of glyph placement within label vords is in concordance with that of vords in the main corpus.

Marginalia

TBD

Imagery:

Generic
TBD

Large Plants

There are 129 full-page plant illustration pages (aka Large Plant pages) in the Voynich Manuscript.
They generally feature one plant per page, but there are five pages which feature two plants, so there are a total of 134 large plants in the Voynich Manuscript.
For a page-by-page breakdown, please refer to the OP in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. thread.

Small Plants


The Small Plants section, actually composed of two groups of folios (88r-99r1 and 99r-102v1) features a total of 45 containers. For a page-by-page breakdown of the number of containers and items beside them, please refer to the OP in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. thread.


Quire 20

There are 324 stars in the margins of Quire 20. Red paint has been applied to 163 of them. For a page-by-page breakdown, please refer to the OP in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. thread.


Recognizable Patterns

The roots of the plant in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. include depictions of two You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. heads. The roots of the second plant of the bottom row  of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. include depictions of five anthropomorphic heads. The roots of the fourth plant of the bottom row of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.  include the depiction of an anthropomorphic head.

Misc

TBD]]> <![CDATA[[Suspended] About the products]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-760.html Fri, 16 Sep 2016 18:18:01 +0000 Koen G]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-760.html 2) There are two possible exceptions in the "small plants" section. A colored cube and a frog.]]> 2) There are two possible exceptions in the "small plants" section. A colored cube and a frog.]]> <![CDATA[Human figures, their number and clothing.]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-754.html Thu, 15 Sep 2016 18:31:59 +0000 Koen G]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-754.html
1) There are [over five hundred] human figures in the manuscript.
I'm not sure of the number, but I seem to remember Rene once said something like this. Does anyone know more or have a source?

2) Additionally, a number of faces are found in the roots of some plants and on representations of heavenly bodies.
Plants with faces are:
- f33r: two faces
- f89r1 bottom middle: five faces
- f101v2 bottom: one face

3) Most human figures are completely naked (ignoring headgear). 

4) Fifty human figures are clothed with at least one piece of clothing (ignoring headgear).

5) A large majority of human figures are female.

6) Some human figures have androgynous features.

Number (4) is based on a count I did just now. I ignored everything worn on the head, but included all other clothes worn, including a couple of ambiguous cases. The count might be repeated by somebody else to see if I didn't make any big mistakes.]]>
1) There are [over five hundred] human figures in the manuscript.
I'm not sure of the number, but I seem to remember Rene once said something like this. Does anyone know more or have a source?

2) Additionally, a number of faces are found in the roots of some plants and on representations of heavenly bodies.
Plants with faces are:
- f33r: two faces
- f89r1 bottom middle: five faces
- f101v2 bottom: one face

3) Most human figures are completely naked (ignoring headgear). 

4) Fifty human figures are clothed with at least one piece of clothing (ignoring headgear).

5) A large majority of human figures are female.

6) Some human figures have androgynous features.

Number (4) is based on a count I did just now. I ignored everything worn on the head, but included all other clothes worn, including a couple of ambiguous cases. The count might be repeated by somebody else to see if I didn't make any big mistakes.]]> <![CDATA[Evaluation of the project so far.]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-748.html Wed, 14 Sep 2016 09:49:42 +0000 Koen G]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-748.html
Positive:
I really like the debate and the fact that everything is reconsidered and concrete evidence is compared. I still fully support this project and I think it could help us and the study of the manuscript a lot.

Problems:
- People vote before the debate starts. Sometimes details emerge that could change one's vote, but not everybody will keep reading the thread after voting.
- Not everybody is qualified to judge everything. For example, I did not know exactly what defines a palimpsest. Some others were clearly not familiar with the definition of "religious iconography" and so on.
- People can vote "no" and shoot down an idea without any explanation whatsoever.

Since we are trying to build solid foundations, I think it's worth a try to circumvent these problems. 
My proposal for a solution:

1) Don't start with a statement, but a question: is the MS a palimpsest? Is there any conventional religious iconography?
2) Debate follows, evidence is gathered.
3) If a consensus is reached or it looks like everything has been said, an editor closes the thread and distills a statement from it. In this statement there can be room for nuance if necessary. The statement is presented in a new thread and people can still suggest to have it changed. 

I believe this will lead to a better, more comprehensive result. These are of course just suggestions, so feel free to suggest an alternative as well Smile]]>
Positive:
I really like the debate and the fact that everything is reconsidered and concrete evidence is compared. I still fully support this project and I think it could help us and the study of the manuscript a lot.

Problems:
- People vote before the debate starts. Sometimes details emerge that could change one's vote, but not everybody will keep reading the thread after voting.
- Not everybody is qualified to judge everything. For example, I did not know exactly what defines a palimpsest. Some others were clearly not familiar with the definition of "religious iconography" and so on.
- People can vote "no" and shoot down an idea without any explanation whatsoever.

Since we are trying to build solid foundations, I think it's worth a try to circumvent these problems. 
My proposal for a solution:

1) Don't start with a statement, but a question: is the MS a palimpsest? Is there any conventional religious iconography?
2) Debate follows, evidence is gathered.
3) If a consensus is reached or it looks like everything has been said, an editor closes the thread and distills a statement from it. In this statement there can be room for nuance if necessary. The statement is presented in a new thread and people can still suggest to have it changed. 

I believe this will lead to a better, more comprehensive result. These are of course just suggestions, so feel free to suggest an alternative as well Smile]]> <![CDATA[Rules and purpose of this task forum]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-730.html Sat, 10 Sep 2016 06:50:25 +0000 davidjackson]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-730.html Please read and understand the following before posting in this forum.

Questions should be PM'd to an Editor or asked in the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..

1. General

The task ultimately aims at developing a more or less comprehensive reference in regard to the Voynich Manuscript and research thereof. This can be briefly called "Voynich Manuscript Body of Knowledge" (VMBOK). This is an ultimate result which may or may not be reached in future. However, in the foreseeable period of time, the task narrows down to collecting and putting down in a coherent manner most basic and indisputable facts about the Voynich Manuscript itself. (This is designated as "VMBOK phase 1").

The difference of VMBOK (be that VMBOK on the whole or just VMBOK phase 1) from similar projects elsewhere is that information is entered into VMBOK not at anyone's personal discretion, but after a thorough community discussion and based on a community decision (expressed via the voting system). It is expected that in this way the correctness and comprehensiveness of records will be maintained.

2. Structure

VMBOK is comprised of blocks. Blocks are just sets of statements grouped together in a coherent and thematic manner. A block contains one or more statements. The purpose of working with blocks instead of individual statements is to save time and reduce overhead.

Blocks are grouped in sections. When creating a new thread, a section selection must be expressed in the prefix. Currently the following sections are in use:

VMBOK ->
  • Generic
  • History
  • Physical material
  • Palaeography
  • Text
  • Marginalia
  • Imagery
  • Misc
The "Generic" section serves as a high-level abstract, then individual sections deal with respective issues. Each section beside the "Generic" section is structured in the following way:

--> Generic
--> Issue 1
--> Issue 2
...
--> Issue N

Here "Issue 1" etc. are themed issues within the specified section, and "Generic" is a subsection for blocks not falling under any specific issue of that section.

3. Permissions

Each forum member with a non-negative reputation may take part in proposals, discussions and polls.

4. Proposals

4.1 - Opening a proposal
A proposal is filed by opening a new thread in the VMBOK task sub-forum. Filing a proposal means that the submitter proposes to include a new block into VMBOK (or to change an existing block). The proposal contains the initial (draft) revision of the block as prepared by the submitter.

The proposed block should be phrased in the most concise manner possible and should be supported by references as may be required. To save discussion overhead, only statements likely to be approved in pack should be included into a single block. However, the multitude of statements in a block should not be extended to such degree which makes it unlikely for the block to be approved as a whole.

4.2 - Factual content
Prior to opening a proposal, the submitter should assess whether all statements of the proposed block represent confirmed facts only. Here is an example of a statement representing a confirmed fact:
  • The VMS is an illustrated manuscript written on vellum.
Here is an example of a wrong statement (which should not be proposed):
  • The VMS was written by Roger Bacon.
Here is an example of a disputable statement containing a hypothesis (which should not be submitted):
  • The VMS contains some material authored by Roger Bacon.
The statements proposed should be statements. In other words, they should be definite. Here's an example of an indefinite statement (which should not be proposed):
  • The VMS may contain some material authored by Roger Bacon.
"May contain" is pretty much the same as "may not contain", it does not represent a statement of fact, but (at most) an estimate of likelihood.

The statements should be about facts about the VMS, not about facts about the research of the VMS (because the latter is just outside of the scope of VMBOK phase 1). The following statement is an example of such out-of-scope:
  • Researchers X, Y and Z argue that the VMS contains certain material authored by Roger Bacon.
Nor should statements examine explanations about the VMS. The following is an example of such an out-of-scope statement:
  • Researcher X's theory that the plant on folio Y represents a daisy is correct
4.3 - Titles of proposals
The title of the proposal should be a summary of the statement, when-ever possible.

If the statement is too broad for a summary, then a description of the block should be given (ie, a statement about handwriting on different pages could be summarised as upon the distinct calligraphy present within the manuscript).

Editors reserve the right to modify titles without prior notice should they feel it necessary.

5. Discussion

Following a proposal having been filed, discussion thereof is conducted in the same thread. The submitter is welcome to edit the text of the proposed block so as to reflect the results of the discussion - by correcting, adding or deleting statements.

Participants to the discussion may argue in favour of the block (or certain statements therein) or against such. They also may propose their own revisions of the statements of interest. This is done in the thread of the statement. Off-topic remarks will be moved by editors, and constant off-topic remarks may lead to a loss of reputation that will prevent the poster from future participation in the forum.

The discussion is moderated by Editors (who are made moderators of the whole sub-forum of the task). If an Editor sees that more than one statement of the block is being substantially disputed, s/he may split the block (and the respective thread) into two (or more, as appropriate) blocks, so that those may be discussed separately.

The discussion is generally not limited in time. When an Editor sees that no substantial comments are being added no more, s/he puts the block on poll. Depending on the nature of the discussion, the poll may be of the "approve/disapprove" style or of the "approve variant 1/approve variant 2/.../approve variant N/decline all variants" style. The poll is open (i.e. it is publicly seen who voted for which option). The period of the poll is three weeks.

Decision to approve is made by the qualified majority (80% of votes). If less than 80% of votes are collected in favour of approval, this means that status quo is preserved and no changes are introduced into VMBOK.

Editors have veto right against any approval.

After the poll the thread is locked and moved into the appropriate suib-forum.

6. Incorporation Into VMBOK

Approved blocks are incorporated into VMBOK. This is technically done by Editors. The VMBOK text is maintained in a dedicated thread (or in a set of threads, as may become appropriate).

7. Re-evaluation

In the course of time it may become necessary to revoke or change any statements approved previously. The procedure is the same as described above in Articles 4-6. To avoid "ping-ponging", a statement may not be proposed for re-evaluation until six months from the date of its approval.

8. Blocks declined

A block declined (i.e. not approved in a poll) does not mean that all statements of the block are declined. The declined block consisting of several statements may be corrected (e.g. excluding the disputable statement) and proposed in modified form.

If a block of one statement is declined, that means that the statement is declined and the latter may not be submitted again (either standalone or as part of a new block) until six months has expired from the date when the respective poll ended.

Repeated submission of a statement previously declined should be made only with sufficient reasons for that (e.g. new facts have been discovered which prove the statement and overthrow opposite statements). Such reasons should be explained when submitting a block containing a statement previously declined.

9. Editorial decision
The decision of an Editor is final in all cases. Modifications to statement blocks, or the title of the block, may be carried out before polling opens without notification to the poster, although any major modification will be discussed beforehand.

Only Editors may accept a statement for voting and post the poll.


The process for accepting volunteers as Editors is the same as in the Peer-Review system.]]> Please read and understand the following before posting in this forum.

Questions should be PM'd to an Editor or asked in the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..

1. General

The task ultimately aims at developing a more or less comprehensive reference in regard to the Voynich Manuscript and research thereof. This can be briefly called "Voynich Manuscript Body of Knowledge" (VMBOK). This is an ultimate result which may or may not be reached in future. However, in the foreseeable period of time, the task narrows down to collecting and putting down in a coherent manner most basic and indisputable facts about the Voynich Manuscript itself. (This is designated as "VMBOK phase 1").

The difference of VMBOK (be that VMBOK on the whole or just VMBOK phase 1) from similar projects elsewhere is that information is entered into VMBOK not at anyone's personal discretion, but after a thorough community discussion and based on a community decision (expressed via the voting system). It is expected that in this way the correctness and comprehensiveness of records will be maintained.

2. Structure

VMBOK is comprised of blocks. Blocks are just sets of statements grouped together in a coherent and thematic manner. A block contains one or more statements. The purpose of working with blocks instead of individual statements is to save time and reduce overhead.

Blocks are grouped in sections. When creating a new thread, a section selection must be expressed in the prefix. Currently the following sections are in use:

VMBOK ->
  • Generic
  • History
  • Physical material
  • Palaeography
  • Text
  • Marginalia
  • Imagery
  • Misc
The "Generic" section serves as a high-level abstract, then individual sections deal with respective issues. Each section beside the "Generic" section is structured in the following way:

--> Generic
--> Issue 1
--> Issue 2
...
--> Issue N

Here "Issue 1" etc. are themed issues within the specified section, and "Generic" is a subsection for blocks not falling under any specific issue of that section.

3. Permissions

Each forum member with a non-negative reputation may take part in proposals, discussions and polls.

4. Proposals

4.1 - Opening a proposal
A proposal is filed by opening a new thread in the VMBOK task sub-forum. Filing a proposal means that the submitter proposes to include a new block into VMBOK (or to change an existing block). The proposal contains the initial (draft) revision of the block as prepared by the submitter.

The proposed block should be phrased in the most concise manner possible and should be supported by references as may be required. To save discussion overhead, only statements likely to be approved in pack should be included into a single block. However, the multitude of statements in a block should not be extended to such degree which makes it unlikely for the block to be approved as a whole.

4.2 - Factual content
Prior to opening a proposal, the submitter should assess whether all statements of the proposed block represent confirmed facts only. Here is an example of a statement representing a confirmed fact:
  • The VMS is an illustrated manuscript written on vellum.
Here is an example of a wrong statement (which should not be proposed):
  • The VMS was written by Roger Bacon.
Here is an example of a disputable statement containing a hypothesis (which should not be submitted):
  • The VMS contains some material authored by Roger Bacon.
The statements proposed should be statements. In other words, they should be definite. Here's an example of an indefinite statement (which should not be proposed):
  • The VMS may contain some material authored by Roger Bacon.
"May contain" is pretty much the same as "may not contain", it does not represent a statement of fact, but (at most) an estimate of likelihood.

The statements should be about facts about the VMS, not about facts about the research of the VMS (because the latter is just outside of the scope of VMBOK phase 1). The following statement is an example of such out-of-scope:
  • Researchers X, Y and Z argue that the VMS contains certain material authored by Roger Bacon.
Nor should statements examine explanations about the VMS. The following is an example of such an out-of-scope statement:
  • Researcher X's theory that the plant on folio Y represents a daisy is correct
4.3 - Titles of proposals
The title of the proposal should be a summary of the statement, when-ever possible.

If the statement is too broad for a summary, then a description of the block should be given (ie, a statement about handwriting on different pages could be summarised as upon the distinct calligraphy present within the manuscript).

Editors reserve the right to modify titles without prior notice should they feel it necessary.

5. Discussion

Following a proposal having been filed, discussion thereof is conducted in the same thread. The submitter is welcome to edit the text of the proposed block so as to reflect the results of the discussion - by correcting, adding or deleting statements.

Participants to the discussion may argue in favour of the block (or certain statements therein) or against such. They also may propose their own revisions of the statements of interest. This is done in the thread of the statement. Off-topic remarks will be moved by editors, and constant off-topic remarks may lead to a loss of reputation that will prevent the poster from future participation in the forum.

The discussion is moderated by Editors (who are made moderators of the whole sub-forum of the task). If an Editor sees that more than one statement of the block is being substantially disputed, s/he may split the block (and the respective thread) into two (or more, as appropriate) blocks, so that those may be discussed separately.

The discussion is generally not limited in time. When an Editor sees that no substantial comments are being added no more, s/he puts the block on poll. Depending on the nature of the discussion, the poll may be of the "approve/disapprove" style or of the "approve variant 1/approve variant 2/.../approve variant N/decline all variants" style. The poll is open (i.e. it is publicly seen who voted for which option). The period of the poll is three weeks.

Decision to approve is made by the qualified majority (80% of votes). If less than 80% of votes are collected in favour of approval, this means that status quo is preserved and no changes are introduced into VMBOK.

Editors have veto right against any approval.

After the poll the thread is locked and moved into the appropriate suib-forum.

6. Incorporation Into VMBOK

Approved blocks are incorporated into VMBOK. This is technically done by Editors. The VMBOK text is maintained in a dedicated thread (or in a set of threads, as may become appropriate).

7. Re-evaluation

In the course of time it may become necessary to revoke or change any statements approved previously. The procedure is the same as described above in Articles 4-6. To avoid "ping-ponging", a statement may not be proposed for re-evaluation until six months from the date of its approval.

8. Blocks declined

A block declined (i.e. not approved in a poll) does not mean that all statements of the block are declined. The declined block consisting of several statements may be corrected (e.g. excluding the disputable statement) and proposed in modified form.

If a block of one statement is declined, that means that the statement is declined and the latter may not be submitted again (either standalone or as part of a new block) until six months has expired from the date when the respective poll ended.

Repeated submission of a statement previously declined should be made only with sufficient reasons for that (e.g. new facts have been discovered which prove the statement and overthrow opposite statements). Such reasons should be explained when submitting a block containing a statement previously declined.

9. Editorial decision
The decision of an Editor is final in all cases. Modifications to statement blocks, or the title of the block, may be carried out before polling opens without notification to the poster, although any major modification will be discussed beforehand.

Only Editors may accept a statement for voting and post the poll.


The process for accepting volunteers as Editors is the same as in the Peer-Review system.]]>