Login

ReneZ · (This post was last modified: 28-11-2025, 09:05 AM by ReneZ.)

(28-11-2025, 08:32 AM)Jorge_Stolfi wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I had to remove a line from the article about the mineral You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that claimed that it was used as a paint pigment in the VMS. Just because the McCrone technician copy-pasted the output of their spectrum-matching software onto the report, without checking what palmerite was.

I just removed that reference to the VMS from the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. article. And another one from the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. article. See the respective Talk pages. Please let me know if you find other cases.

To be honest, from where I stand the removal of the plant ID hypotheses is fully justified, but the removal of the line about palmierite is doing the opposite: replacing information from a technical report by an opinion of a non-expert.
Strictly speaking, the report says: "possibly minor amounts of lead sulfide and palmierite", so at least the word "possibly" (or equivalent) should have been there.

However, I don't want to make a point of it, because the whole article says noting at all, and having just the Voynich MS reference doesn't really make any sense.

In earlier days there was a similar discussion about atacamite, which some people thought was non-European. This material was found in other pieces of art in Italy, though. (This is from memory so "C.E.").