Talk:Cryptogram of Olivier Levasseur/GA1: Difference between revisions

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: 11WB (talk · contribs) 04:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Aviationwikiflight (talk · contribs) 16:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll be reviewing this article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aviationwikiflight! Thanks for this! I haven’t worked on this article for a few months or so, and this is my first time working directly on a GA review. Should be good to work on this throughout the week! 11WB (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty good read so far. Just a suggestion (so if you don’t do it, it won’t stop this article from becoming a GA), in the “Of historical events” section, you could add the fact that contemporary literature does not corroborate de La Roncière’s claim that Levasseur threw a cryptogram into the crowd: “La Buse throwing a cryptogram into the watching crowd shortly before his execution, was not found in any contemporary literature. For the first time, this part of the legend occurred in the novel by de la Roncière in 1934. The assumption is very likely that de la Roncière invented this part of la Buse’s legend…” Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I have included that La Roncière likely fabricated this in his 1934 novel and that the claim isn’t present in contemporary literature. I also reread that part of Dahlke’s paper to make sure the information is 100% correct! 11WB (talk) 10:42, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just making a note here, whilst this article has gone through AfC and subsequent improvements with @Mathglot, I do still think it would be really good in this process to assess the references. Some of them are from what could be self-published authors. When I originally researched the article I attempted to confirm the facts with the best sources I could find.

The work undertaken with Mathglot mostly related to formatting and WP:MOS, with a bit of work on differentiating primary sources from secondary. I’ll take this opportunity to say that working with Mathglot was extremely informative and thoroughly improved the article. Credit definitely should be given to them, as this was a joint effort!

The translations should also be assessed, as French isn’t a language I natively speak, unfortunately!

(Sorry! I have a tendency to get carried away! I’d feel bad if I didn’t give credit to Mathglot in this review!) 11WB (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just replying here so that this GA doesn’t expire, @Aviationwikiflight. I’ve got some time over the weekend and during the week to go ahead with this review. No worries if you’re busy. I completed a GA yesterday, so I have an idea of what to expect now! 11WB (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the wait. I now have more time to finish the GA during the weekend. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Olivier Levasseur was born in Calais in 1688, at the beginning of the Nine Years’ War. – The cited source doesn’t verify the “Nine Years’ War” part. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Receiving a Letter of marque from Louis XIV… – Same here. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• …began to build a reputation as an efficient pirate. – Can’t see where this is stated in the cited sources [1] [2]. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• …having been dismantled in a recent passing storm. – Can’t seem to find this in the cited source. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The first one is cited in ref 5. My placement of the inline citations is a bit off. I’m actually about to sign off, but I will verify these this evening. I think these are a simple case of moving the inline citations to the end of the correct sentences. 11WB (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Meant to say the second one, my apologies. I definitely need to sleep for a little while! 11WB (talk) 10:20, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Aviationwikiflight, I have no issue with you going ahead and listing everything you find. I’m pretty confident that all information in the article is correctly cited, it’s just the location of the inline citations that may be oddly placed. Happy to go over as much as I’m able to later today! I know that some of these are quick-fail criteria (verification and sourcing). Definitely hope to get a chance to look at this stuff myself before that potential eventuality! 11WB (talk) 10:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done Nine Years’ War comes under WP:SYNTH and has been removed from the text.
  •  Done The appropriate reference has been added to the immediate text.
  •  Done Ref 5 states: ‘Called the Buzzard, he was famous for the speed and efficiency with which he attack enemies and captured ships.‘. Ref 7 states ‘He accumulated obscene amounts of wealth along the way. His exploits were legendary, earning him the nickname La Buse — “The Buzzard.”‘ Neither source uses the word ‘ruthless’ and ref 5 describes his ability to attack other ships with ‘speed and efficiency’. Ref 1 however does describe Levasseur as ‘ruthless’ on page 1. ‘This is how the story is passed on: In the waters of the Indian Ocean, a ruthless French pirate known as la Bouche, the Mouth or la Buse, the buzzard, attacked a rich Portuguese cargo ship in 1721.‘. I have added ref 1 to this text.
  •  In progress I definitely remember reading about the storm in one of the sources. I will find this and get back to you. @Aviationwikiflight

  11WB (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done Page 4 of ref 1 says ‘At Saint-Denis, the pirates found a large Portuguese cargo ship lying at anchor that had lost all of her masts and two thirds of her canons [sic] (Lazinby, 1722)‘. I have found a source that does mention the storm, however it is not currently added to the Wikipedia article. [3] It says ‘Among the most dramatic episodes of the Golden Age of Piracy was the 1721 capture of the Portuguese treasure ship Nossa Senhora do Cabo by Levasseur and Taylor. This heavily armed vessel, transporting immense wealth including gold, silver, diamonds, and religious artifacts, was en route from Goa to Lisbon when it was damaged in a storm and sought refuge near Réunion Island.‘ As this source discussed Lazinby’s account of what happened, what I believe I may have done is include the original source from Lazinby as an inline citation, rather than the source from Shipwreck Center. I have now included it as an inline citation.

  11WB (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Reworded the sentence to better match the sources as well. 11WB (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Just before we make a start on the Cryptogram section, I feel it is necessary to add some context regarding Le Flibustier Mystérieux. I had a conversation with @Mathglot about this here and explained that La Roncière presents it as a WP:SECONDARY source, when in actuality it is WP:PRIMARY. I made the decision to attribute the entire section, which was necessary anyway due to it being an historic account. The entire book is written in French, with no set in stone translation to English. I am not a native French speaker, and so translating it involved using multiple translators and comparing them back and forth, to make sure I got the most accurate translation possible for the article. @Mathglot does actually speak French natively, and that is why I reached out to them through WP:TRLA in the hopes of properly verifying the translation. As of yet, this has not happened. This section is going to be tricky for sure, simply due to the contents being known as a hoax. I fact-checked as much as I could using Dahlke’s paper, which was an extremely valuable resource when researching. I can see some tags have been added, so we at least have something to go off when we begin working through this section for the GA review!

11WB (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did originally have concerns about the entire section mostly being cited to la Roncière but I think (as you explained above) that as long as his claims are attributed to him, there should not be any problems. And one more thing, I’m sorry for the delay. I should be able to fully review this article on Thursday/Friday. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all @Aviationwikiflight! I am currently focused elsewhere on Wikipedia, so this gives me a bit of time to dedicate to those projects. I can direct my attention here for the end of next week! 11WB (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The section should really supplemented by secondary sources. I’ve searched for some and found these: [4][5]

I’ll add more as I find them! 11WB (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Though I’m not exactly sure of the reliability of the two sources that you’ve provided. Regarding this book, I can’t find much information on who “Bath G.J.” is, nor can I find any convincing sources demonstrating the publisher’s reliability (KeyPress); same here for Koyolite Tseila and PRNG Éditions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 06:21, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

G.J. Bath is likely a pen name. Google Books claims they’ve been researching Captain Kidd for 30 years for the book “Maps, Mystery and Interpretation“. My assumption is they’re either an enthusiast (like us), or an expert at some level. I lean more towards the latter, as what they discuss in regards to Levasseur is quite advanced cryptography, beyond what I would expect to be at a fundamental level of understanding.

This is backed up by what is explained here regarding KeyPress publishing, which says ‘our mission is to disseminate the science and technology of behavior by partnering with experts in the field to create high-quality and lasting publications.‘ I am confident in concluding that Bath is an expert.

As for Koyolite Tseila, based on what this page says, her work likely amounts to a WP:BLOG. I will need to remove that source if that is the case. 11WB (talk) 07:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the source by Tseila from the article. 11WB (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the long wait. For certain I’ll be able to get to it tomorrow. Just, would it be possible to add specific page numbers when you’re using citations (see Template:Reference page (<ref>Random source</ref>{{Rp|X}})? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That can be done. I will need to set some time aside over the weekend or next week to go over the references and assign the correct numbers to each inline citation. 11WB (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page number additions are mostly  Done. 11WB (talk) 07:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Whilst the raid on Nossa Senhora is known to have indeed taken place, many details such as the specific artifacts aboard the ship and what took place afterwards are dubious. – Would you be able to quote where this is stated in the source? I’m unable to find it myself. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I’m not sure how reliable of a source Seiyaku is. There appears to be no editorial information. According to the website, “original articles are coming in from people all over the world.” Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Not criteria related, but could the section add more emphasis on the fact that the cross never existed per the HistoCrypt 2024 article? From my reading, I’m getting the impression that the cross may have existed. Relevant quotes: “It seems, most surprising, that the much-described Golden Cross of Goa had never existed, and only entered the legend after the paperback novels of de la Ronciere in 1934 and 1940.” – “But then, the cryptogram would exist as a real artefact – which has not been found or its existence confirmed.” Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dahlke’s paper on page 7 says: ‘The Portuguese cargo ship Nossa Senhora existed, and it had the viceroy of Goa on board during the pirates’ raid in 1721.‘ I will reword the sentence in the article.
  • I have replaced the source with an article from Herald Goa, which is a Portuguese newspaper that started printing in 1900. Its about us page looks legitimate. It confirms that the cross is from the Se Cathedral, but not that it was dedicated to Catherine of Alexandria, so I have removed that part.
  • The authenticity of its existence would be more appropriate as a sentence included in the authenticity section. 11WB (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  All three are now  Done. 11WB (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Besides the small introduction on the book in the beginning, I fail to see the relevance of this section, some parts of which were tagged with “[relevant?]”, coupled with the fact that the Clavicles of Solomon are never mentioned in the article ever again. (As a suggestion, you could make a section which contains a small introduction on who is Charles de La Roncière and what his book is about.) Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is no problem, his work is difficult to understand. The Clavicles of Solomon are part of the key that he uses to decrypt Levasseur’s cryptogram. I would need to read those pages again, as I don’t fully understand it myself, however Nick Pelling (an independent researcher, he is considered a subject-matter expert) did write a short article on his site that explains its relevance. Basically, the Clavicles are part of La Roncière’s decryption method, but because of the novel being written in Old French, this information is left confusing for the reader. 11WB (talk) 09:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The quote Pelling provides, to my best understanding, explains that La Roncière wanted to use the Clavicles to decrypt the various petroglyphs on the island. 11WB (talk) 10:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The relevant tag was added by @PJsg1011. They also made a bunch of other edits to the text, some of which I don’t really understand the need for. The copyedits have unfortunately confused this section more, rather than the opposite, which I assume was the intention here. I’ve pinged them, so maybe they would care to weigh in on whether they believe the quote tagged with ‘relevance’ is necessary? 11WB (talk) 10:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Pelling provides evidence with an excerpt from La Roncière’s 1941 novel ‘Explorateurs et pionniers français’, which can be viewed here. I failed to establish the relevance of the Clavicles of Solomon to the cryptogram in my research before. With this context, I can add both Pelling’s article and La Roncière’s own summary as references to the article, along with a slight rewrite or additions. 11WB (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]