Talk:Shugborough inscription

A J Morton's theory

Can anyone explain why the Morton Solution portion keeps getting deleted? It doesn't appear to be promotional, has already been filtered through various wikipedians, and is - to be fair - very short. Why should a widely reported solution, one that seems more believable than every other solution referenced on the page, be omitted? Has someone decided that the page should only contain references to dubious (read failed) research? Or can we inject some logic and make a more believable page?

Andrew Morton (is that's his name?) seems like a serious historian, so I'm not sure why this keeps getting deleted. As far as I can tell, there's only two groups (Shugborough Hall and Grail/Priory pseudo-history) that would want this information squashed. 85.179.139.152 (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Shugborough hasn't been in the news like this for years. It's surely worth mentioning that the letters match the initials of the residents of the Shugborough in the early 19th century?? [Edit:] Just noticed EW has now decided to leave a good chunk of it in, albeit heavily edited. 85.179.138.8 (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I have reverted edits that have given Morton's theory pride of place, with its own paragraph in the introduction and its own subsection, neither of which are given to any other specific theory. You deny that any edits have been promotional, but omit to mention that this is what these edits have done. In my opinion, Morton's theory is worthy of inclusion on the same basis as the other acrostic theories.

Please go to this notice for discussion of what to do about the issue, i.e. should we give Morton pride of place or should we list his theory as one among many? Incidentally he has been referred to in both the Times (the London one) and the Scottish Sun as suggesting that the Holy Grail was brought to Ayrshire.

I have taken the liberty of adding the header "A J Morton's theory" to this current thread which was previously without a title.Elephantwood (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that Morton's theory has recently been in the news is no reason to give it predominance here over other efforts. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Incidentally both Andrew Baker and Richard Belfield have pointed out that Morton's theory sinks as soon as one realises that the inscription was referred to in the 1767 poem, and therefore could not have been carved in or after 1806. Morton's response that Mary Vernon-Venables was alive in 1767 does not rescue his theory, given that nobody has come up with any reason why someone in the 1760s would have wanted to say "Viscount Anson, Vernon Venables" when George Adams, the Viscount Anson to whom Mary eventually got married only got the title Viscount Anson in 1806!!

Of course, pretty much every theory about the meaning of the inscription is wholly speculative and although any of them could conceivably be correct, most are almost certainly not so. Such matters attrach green-inkers. As is rightly said in the article, no theory has been published which rests on a solid cryptographic footing. Perhaps one day such a theory will be published and will become generally accepted. Perhaps it won't. Or perhaps cryptography cannot provide the answer - this is very possible. For now, let's just list the various theories that have appeared, to give readers an unbiased picture. Elephantwood (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

All edits by Elephantwood have been reverted after the discussion (started here: Discussion on Morton Solution) unveiled a large chunk of his (Elephantwood's) obvious agenda. As per discussion, if the entry needs updated, EW is probably not the man to do it. 85.179.74.143 (talk) 05:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The editor promoting Morton's theory seems to be a nutter - in his recent edit summary, he has accused me of promoting my Grail page. I haven't got a Grail page, and am not promoting anything. Morton's theory deserves mention in a list with other theories, most of which have nothing to do with the Holy Grail. I am reporting this edit war.Elephantwood (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Elephantwood do not insult people by calling them names like 'nutter' its against the rules--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 11:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I apologise unreservedly for using such language. I hope the issue of what amount of importance should be given in the article to the Morton theory can be resolved in a courteous way. I would also appreciate if nasty statements about myself could be retracted, such as the allegation that I am ramping my Grail page, when I do not have a Grail page and am not promoting any particular theory, whether involving the Holy Grail or otherwise. (All who are familiar with Shugborough will know that the story about the Grail being at Shugborough was invented by Richard Kemp when he was a senior official at Shugborough, for public relations reasons). I support the mention of Morton's theory on the same basis as all the other acrostic and other speculative theories, none of which have been widely accepted either by cryptanalysts or historians. I have never removed mention of Morton's theory from this article, and in fact in one edit I wrote about it for longer than has been done by subsequent editors. (This particular edit by me was rather wordy and clumsy, and I support the improvement to it made by another editor). What I do not support is giving more importance to Morton's theory than to the other theories. I believe the reverts by User:92.231.189.224 and User:85.179.138.8, whose behaviour shows in my opinion remarkable similarities, are unhelpful and verging on vandalism. For that reason, I have made a report on this unfortunate edit warhere, and have asked for others to become involved. As I said on that page, "Please can administrators look at the recent history of this page in relation to the issue of what kind of mention to give to the Morton theory. I am sure that objective consideration can lead to a reasonable solution".Elephantwood (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This is shocking. Paul Barlow seems to have a good record, and is clearly a experienced wikipedian. How long will Elephantwood be allowed to continue controlling everyone's edits here? By removing references to Morton, EW has given undue priority to the Grail and the Priory. The grail once again has "pride of place" as EW calls it. Barlow originally gave the Morton Solution its own subheading. This is now surely a discussion for Barlow and Elephantwood? 85.179.75.25 (talk) 12:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

On the page as it currently stands, Morton's theory is listed as one of five theories, each of which is given its own bullet-point. Not one of these theories has anything whatsoever to do with the Holy Grail. The article should mention that it has been alleged that there is a Holy Grail connection, not because there's much chance that the allegation is true, but because it has been widely made. I fully support referring to 'pseudohistory' in the lede. Please do not try to present giving Morton's theory pride of place as if this is the only alternative to promoting a Holy Grail theory. Mention in the article of the Holy Grail could usefully be improved. I would agree with you about that.Elephantwood (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Elephantwood was caught replacing a Telegraph citation with an unavailable lesser source, thereby suggesting that the Morton Solution was not widely publicised. Since there doesn't appear to be a single reference to a scholarly attack upon Morton, indeed the opposite is true, EW's opinion that Morton is a discredited fringe historian may be his and his alone. 85.179.143.97 (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

People interested in the question of what amount of importance the article should give to the A J Morton theory should read this, where I have asked whether the edits and contributions from (German-registered) IP addresses beginning '85.179' and '92.231' are in fact being made by A J Morton himself.Elephantwood (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

And where I answer in the neg. 85.179.143.97 (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Morton Solution - what importance to give to it?

Recent edits have sought to devote an entire paragraph in the introduction and an entire later subsection to A J Morton's theory. The alternative suggestion is that this theory should be listed along with other, mainly acrostic, theories.

A J Morton's theory is that "OUOSVAVV" stands for "Orgreave United with Overley and Shugborough, Viscount Anson Venables Vernon", in reference to the man who took over the Shugborough estate in 1806, and his mother, denoted using her maiden name.

A more widely-held belief is that the reference in a 1767 poem to "mystic ciphers" referred to the inscription more than four decades earlier.

I have suggested that edits seeking to give special importance to the A J Morton theory appear to be promotional. They are coming from two IP blocks (85.179 and 92.231), both based in Germany, where A J Morton lives (see here and here).

See discussions and comments here, here, and here.

Before I get corrected on this, 1767 is of course 39 years before 1806, not "more than four decades" :-) Elephantwood (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Calling me AJ makes you look like a conspiracy theorist, something that is reflected in almost all your contributions. Elephantwood has been caught and warned for creating a dubious account for the sole purpose of discrediting the research and Paul B.'s wiki edit. He has been warned for abuse and namecalling, and for masquerading as a newbie when in fact he is an experienced wikipedian. Doubt was raised that perhaps he was a blocked wikipedian. He was caught substituting a high profile citation with a lesser source, just to discredit the research. He did this repeatedly, and explained to the wiki community that the story had not been widely reported. He has been caught and warned about his obvious misrepresentation of Morton's website content, specifically those parts he uses to label Morton a fringe historian.85.179.143.97 (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

He maintained to begin with that the story was reported "in a small town Scottish newspaper" yet failed to register here the existence of this page (International Press Reports). He implied that Morton had made some kind of claim regarding the Holy Grail, yet he failed to mention this page (Grail or not to Grail). Elephantwood suggests that Morton wrote "at least one article on the history of the potato" but neglects to mention this page (Published Works). Furthermore, in his attempt to portray a writer well known for his opposition of pseudo-history (Morton is an outspoken enemy of pseudo-history) as a fringey pseudo-historian, Elephantwood intentionally failed to mention this page (Bio), this page (Blog), and worst of all, this page (Academic Endorsements). 85.179.143.97 (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

None of that deserves a response, except to say that it is extremely off-beam to say that I carry out censorship in order to glorify the Holy Grail, which is what you just said. If you would like to contribute to this discussion, please can you keep to the topic. The topic is the amount of importance that the article should give to A J Morton's theory that 'OUOSVAVV' stands for 'Orgreave United with Overley and Shugborough, Viscount Anson Venables Vernon'.

If you continue to think that this theory deserves an entire paragraph in the introduction, and an entire later subsection, rather than being listed together with other acrostic theories (none of which mention the Holy Grail), please say why. Obviously if there's no argument to support that view, and given that everyone agrees it's notable enough to get mentioned, then it should just be listed in the same way as other acrostic theories. The floor is yours. I support the article as it stands.

You do not do your case a service by continually mentioning Elephantwood. If there is a good case for giving your, oops, A J Morton's theory its own paragraph in the introduction and its own subsection, please make that case now. Here, on this talk page. Elephantwood (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

See my last two messages. You ask why the topic deserves a subheading and improved coverage? It is the most convincing explanation I've heard. Do you not agree? Please explain why? There doesn't seem to be a single academic debunking of it, nor does there appear to be an academic discrediting of Morton as a historian. It is, therefore, currently uncontested.

Now, why does the Grail get a subheading?85.179.143.97 (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said: "If you continue to think that this theory deserves an entire paragraph in the introduction, and an entire later subsection, rather than being listed together with other acrostic theories (none of which mention the Holy Grail), please say why"

Agreed, the mention of the Holy Grail could probably do with some improvement.

The only 'arguments' proposed in favour of bigging up the A J Morton theory are a) it's the most sensible theory (which seems to be believed by A J Morton and zero, one, or two other English-speaking people living, as he does, in Germany), and b) it hasn't been debunked yet. This is verging on the ridiculous. None of the other theories have been debunked yet either. Not even those which don't seem to have been formulated on the basis of an ignorance of the reference made to the inscription in the 1760s, long before 1806. Of course there is no case for giving this man's theory pride of place in the article. If there is such a case, make it. Cease this drivel about how I have a "loyalty" to "pseudohistory". I think the way the Priory of Sion topic is mentioned in the article is fine. Elephantwood (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that it doesn't look like it can be debunked and has been covered by newspapers all over the world is a major factor in Paul Barlow's contribution I'm sure - it was even on the radio. 85.179.143.97 (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you agree to retain this version, being the form the article took after an edit by Paul Barlow? Please can you say. If so, then our dispute has been resolved.

(As far as I can recall, neither this edit nor the current version has a single word by me in it. Nor am I aware that anyone called Paul a nutter, by the way. Nor do I control anything whatsoever on Wikipedia. Nor have I shown any loyalty to pseudohistory. And so on. So please calm down. If we are close to reaching agreement, let's be pleased about that). (sig:Elephantwood)

Is it just me or is it slightly boneheaded to still distrust this new solution and the veracity of its creator? Given the coverage, his involvement in this mystery is now a matter of public record. 85.179.143.97 (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

We dealt with the poem when EW first brought it up. It's nonsense. Morton even talks about it here, and mentions one of the authors EW cited as a reliable source (he clearly isn't). 85.179.143.97 (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to that. I repeat: "If you continue to think that this (A J Morton's) theory deserves an entire paragraph in the introduction, and an entire later subsection, rather than being listed together with other acrostic theories (none of which mention the Holy Grail), please say why". Hopefully you realise that I do not control anything on Wikipedia, that I have no loyalty to pseudohistory, etc. But it doesn't matter whether you do or don't. To judge by what you say above, it seems that you may be able to support this version of the article. I hope this is so. If so, please can you tell the world by posting here to say so. Then our dispute is over. I am not challenging you; I am asking whether you could agree to use this version of the article in this encyclopedia.Elephantwood (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have authority either, but I had no involvement in the Morton Solution edit you are reverting. In fact, I reduced it and tidied it up. I even made it look less promotional and was on your side very briefly at first. Your removal of notable data, and the exchange of a strong citation with a weak one (setting up a straw man?) leaves your case very weak.

I propose that all EW's edits and reverts are removed. Paul Barlow's subheading should be returned, and THEN we can start discussing what to do with this page, even if the outcome is similar. 85.179.143.97 (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Please understand the procedure: the article has been frozen, and we are supposed to be discussing what should be in it. There is no good reason to insist that changes be made now and then discussion should begin later.

My position is that I am happy with the article as it is now. Someone has come up with a new theory; it's notable enough to be added to the list. By "Paul Barlow's subheading", I suppose you mean the subheading saying "Morton's Theory"? If you, Paul Barlow, or anyone else thinks this theory deserves to be given more importance than other acrostic theories, and its own subsection where the other acrostic theories have none, the onus is on you to say why.

The only 'arguments' advanced so far are that you think it's the most sensible theory, and that it hasn't been debunked. Neither are sufficient grounds. Do you have any other reason for including a subsection on Morton? If so, what is it? Please argue your case on its merits. Please do not think that to argue your case on its merits, right now, in this discussion, on this page, is to accept that I am "in charge" of this page. Elephantwood (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Paul Barlow made a sensible looking edit. You kept removing it. The onus is on you to tell us why you removed it. 85.179.139.152 (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The only reasons you've given us is that you don't find the Morton Solution believable (few surely agree with this?), that it was reported only in a small town Scottish newspaper (this bizarre claim has been refuted several times now - it's an out-and-out lie!) and that non-historians have attacked it with poem. Of course you didn't call them pseudo-historians at the time. No, we are not in agreement. 85.179.143.97 (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I find the Morton theory (to call it a 'solution' is biased) just as believable as I find the others. The question is, what argument is there for giving it greater importance than the others, by giving it its own paragraph in the intro and its own subsection? You have offered no sensible argument for that whatsoever.

On pseudo-history, I've always supported the first para that refers to that area of discourse, and the way that it does so. Oh and once someone has read something on their talk page, it's perfectly reasonable of them to delete it. Can you please stop talking about me and respond to the substantive issue: "If you continue to think that (Morton's) theory deserves an entire paragraph in the introduction, and an entire later subsection, rather than being listed together with other acrostic theories (none of which mention the Holy Grail), please say why". It would be crazy to think yours is the only suggested solution (and let's recall what it is: "Orgreave United with Overley and Shugborough, Viscount Anson Venables Vernon") that isn't imbued with pseudohistory and Grail-worship when it's no less speculative than all of the other acrostic theories, none of which refer to the Holy Grail! It seems to me that you have completely lost the argument.Elephantwood (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Elephantwood said: "I find the Morton theory [...] just as believable as I find the others." That's hard to believe. The letters match the names and homes of the residents of Shugborough. You can't just call that a theory. That the letters match is not in dispute. An actual solution from a serious scholar deserves a major entry here in my opinion. Scroll down for a vote. 85.179.143.97 (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course the idea that "Orgreave United with Overley and Shugborough, Viscount Anson Venables Vernon" is the solution, is just a theory. And a highly-speculative one at that, just like all the others. Please stop acting as if all the other acrostic theories have something to do with the Grail. None of the acrostic theories mentioned in the article refer to the Grail any more than the Morton theory does.Elephantwood (talk) 10:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You said the Morton Solution is "just a theory. And a highly-speculative one at that". The initials and property of the residents of Shugborough Hall DO match the letters on the monument. The press indicated that someone had solved it, so this is not in dispute. How YOU feel about it is entirely unimportant at this stage. The initials of the Shugborough residents match the letters in the "code". This undermines your argument. 85.179.143.97 (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Codebreakers

It should be mentioned in this article that the codebreakers of Bletchly Park who examined the inscription were in no way "experts". Just a team of curators who happened to work in what is now a museum. Today, Bletchly Park does not employ code breaking experts and has not since 1946. RedSign (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Elephantwood and 85.

I don't accept EW's edit (more Grail) or the reasons for his edit (he doesn't believe the Morton Solution), whereas I see many reasons to accept Paul Barlow's edit (notability, widespread coverage, apparent irrefutably and the distinct feeling of closure it evokes) and I agree with his voiced reason for his edit ("it's prosaic - not fringe" he said).

I'm also content that, apart from constantly reverting (a mild contravention under the circumstances) EW's dubious contribution, I have done nothing wrong, and have broke no rules.

Elephantwood, on the other hand, is some piece of work: Source doctoring (changed Telegraph to "small-town Scottish newspaper"), misrepresentation of data (implying that this is somehow "fringe" or that Morton is involved in a Grail myth) and verbal abuse (he got a warning for this and deleted it from his talk page?). On top of that, he's been accused (not by me) of account violation, inflaming wars and various other things. An admin has said he has "bad intentions" and is "on thin ice".

All I've done wrong is revert and question the deletion of an entire article section by Elephantwood. I did not write the section in, but I had edited it, and shortened it a bit. I don't necessarily support the subheading, but nor do I agree that the Morton Solution should be allocated so little room (16 or so words?).

I propose that everyone who cares about this topic take a vote. I will agree with the majority decision and drop the subject. Mention, however briefly you like, your preferred edit: would you like Paul Barlow (a good wikipedian) or Elephant (see above travesty) to handle the editing? 85.179.143.97 (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no issue to be decided about personalities. We should be trying to reach a consensus about how to cover the various acrostic theories. Is Morton's more important than the others, to the extent of needing its own paragraph in the introduction and its own subsection? If yes, then why? These are the questions raised by 85's contributions here.

Perhaps someone else, who isn't me or 85, could summarise the case for 'yes'?

85's view is that Morton's theory deserves pride of place because it evokes "the distinct feeling of closure (...) in reasonable-minded people". One has to ask where are these "reasonable-minded people" who believe that "Orgreave United with Overley and Shugborough, Viscount Anson Venables Vernon" is the solution to the Shugborough inscription, discovered at last after more than 2 centuries? Can he produce even one such reasonable person other than A J Morton himself (whose views on the importance of his own work obviously don't count), and zero, one or two other English-speaking people living near Morton in Germany?

Note to 85: I don't care what your address is, and have not started "tracking" it down. You have made a legal threat: please go here for information from the site owner.Elephantwood (talk) 10:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

We need someone else to comment. 85.179.36.74 (talk) 10:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This is my last attempt to help you, 85. Please suggest, here on this page, the specific changes you would like to be made to the article, giving your reasons why they should be made. If you do so without mentioning me or any other user, you will be doing your case and the community a favour.

I do not intend to return to any discussion, anywhere on Wikipedia, concerning this article.Elephantwood (talk) 10:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

My reasons for rolling back your edits have been outlined many times and recorded for posterity. We need someone else to comment. 85.179.36.74 (talk) 10:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

One last thing - I suggest that the sentence that reads:

"A. J. Morton said the letters match the names of the residents of Shugborough in the early 19th century"

should be changed to:

"A. J. Morton has said that the letters match the names of the residents of Shugborough in the early 19th century, and denote the words: Orgreave United with Overley and Shugborough, Viscount Anson Venables Vernon"

The other acrostic theories get their suggested eight-word phrases mentioned, so Morton's theory should too.Elephantwood (talk) 11:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

We need someone else's comment. I've proposed reverting the article back to Paul Barlow's edit before people begin talking about what to do next. 85.179.143.97 (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Pseudo-historians

Several other users have objected to Elephantwood's behaviour and his revisions. His reasons for the edits, and the edits themselves, were misleading and he's been caught and reported for manipulating not only me, but the community and the admins of wiki, into accepting an edit that puts undue focus on the 1980s hoax that is the Priory of Sion, the Holy Grail and the long discredited book Holy Blood and Holy Grail.

He also doesn't appear to have a single supporter for these edits. Boing has criticised him, as have Paul B and DeCausa. So has Lerdthened. And S.G. And Doctalk. So has EdJohnston. So have I. Yet Elephant cannot find any support for his views or his edits. They were made without any consultation, and reverted an edit made by Paul Barlow - an award-winning wikipedian.

I do not necessarily endorse the new subheading for the Morton Solution (though I don't see why not - and I do not know a single reason to oppose it), but I do propose that EW's suspiciously biased edits be removed or filtered. At least 8 wiki users have publicly accused Elephantwood of poor conduct, and his claims re Morton have been discredited as misrepresentation, community manipulation and lies.

Do you want a reversion to Paul Barlow's edit, or should we let pseudo-history dictate the contents of an encyclopedia? 85.179.76.167 (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The block does not necessarily endorse the current edit so it's open for debate, so please can someone else manage the article content. Or am I wrong? 85.179.76.167 (talk) 12:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if you think you get to decide who is and who is not welcome here, and that you are allowed to slag people off in Talk page discussions, you are very much wrong, yes. The discussion should be about the content, not about the people - and anyone who gets consensus (whether you consider them "pseudo" or not) gets to make their changes. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This was not the question. We already have a majority since Paul is a regular on this page, and he made the offending edit. I support his edit. I was told to gather support by Ed. Clearly doing so is a violation. I quietly reverted EW's edits (while he trammels my action across four or five different discussions) and doing so was clearly a violation. I disputed EW's right "to decide who is and who is not welcome here" and I received no aid. I watched dumbstruck as his edit was locked in place, and received no aid. Your inaction led to this. 85.179.76.167 (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You said "We need rid of the pseudos! They are not welcome here", and that is out of order - you do not get to make decisions like that, and you must focus solely on the content and not on the editors - please see my further comments below. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and one other point, consensus is not the same as a majority vote (especially not when we only have a very small number of people contributing) - a consensus decision takes into account Wikipedia's policies, like notability, and a majority argument that contravenes policy will not be considered to have achieved a consensus -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This dispute

Replying to a couple of points raised above, to take them out of that emotion-laden section...

• Re: "Boing has criticised him": Boing warned all sides to stop the edit-war, that is all, and I did not agree or disagree with anyone regarding the content or version of this article. Please do NOT misrepresent me as having taken any side in this content dispute (I accept there was no intentional misrepresentation, see below -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC))
• Re:"undue focus on the 1980s hoax that is the Priory of Sion, the Holy Grail and the long discredited book Holy Blood and Holy Grail" and other similar comments: A Wikipedia article should reflect what is written out there in the real world, reflecting the real-word balance of commentary, and should NOT attempt to judge between opposing ideas, whether discredited, supported by academics, or whatever. "The Holy Blood..." might be complete nonsense, but if it gets wide coverage in relation to this topic, that's what this article should reflect. As for Mr Morton's theory, that should also be included, but its coverage should be weighted in accordance with its notability out in the real world (ie as a reflection of how much other sources are talking about it), and NOT based on any judgment on whether or not it is factually correct. So if you want to present it in the lead, as a leading theory, what you need to find is sufficient independent sources that discuss Mr Morton's theory in a way that shows it is more notable than any of the other theories. If you want it to be given equal billing with "Holy Blood", you need to be able to demonstrate it gets the same level of coverage. (The same goes for "Holy Blood" too - that also needs sufficient coverage to justify its inclusion in the lead).
• Finally, please note I have no opinion on the actual content here, as I'd only vaguely heard of the Shugborough Inscription before I happened upon this dispute, so I am acting purely in an uninvolved admin capacity and do not take any sides. What I hope will happen is that the participants here will STOP personalizing this and stop attacking each other, and will not make any further changes, even after the current protection is lifted, until a consensus has been reached here. There will inevitably be further protections and accounts will be blocked if this disagreement is not pursued in a civil manner according to WP:DR.

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I shall stop right here. However, I do retain the right to have the opinion that Pseudo-history has no place here. I'm sorry you disagree, but you have a right to that view. I should not have voiced my own so loudly, I agree. 85.179.76.167 (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you certainly do have your right to have such an opinion, and I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your opinion on content - it's all a constructive part of building an encylopedia, and is very welcome. All I ask is that you express it in a collegial manner, criticize content (eg "Pseudo-history") rather than people (eg "Pseudo-historians"), and discuss it in accordance with Wikipedia's policies as an encyclopedia. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

And again, fair enough. I hope reason and sense prevails. I'm done. Thank you, honestly, for finally intervening on this discussion. As you can see, it's been EW and me with no mediation for too long. Also, you should know that I did not intentionally misrepresent you. You said "I see Elephantwood has blanked the edit-war warning and the AN/I notification" and I took that as a criticism about his conduct. I shall end here. 85.179.139.152 (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I certainly understand how frustration can set in when there's no mediation forthcoming, and I thank you for understanding. And yes, fair enough about the "misrepresentation" thing - I accept you did not intentionally do so (and I'll strike that part of my comment above). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I apologise unreservedly for my own involvement in this, and I thank you for taking the time to explain all this to me (and for restructuring the debate into non-emotional phraseology). I'd like to point out that the Shugborough Inscription features only a little in the Holy Blood and Holy Grail, and seems only to be perpetuated these days on pseudo-history internet forums. Therefore coverage of the Inscription in that book (less than a page!) is far less than the coverage in the press of the Morton Solution. Since the Holy Blood Holy Grail hoax has been exposed for years, it seems sensible to alter the thrust of the article (i.e. it just needs updated).

At the moment, the introduction to the topic reads: "The inscription became widely known as a result of its mention in the 1982 pseudohistorical book". It got a mention in a long-discredited pseudo-historical book thirty years ago. Yet the book, which is still being sold, has been plugged regardless of academic condemnation.

I do not regret the things I have said to Elephantwood, or about Elephantwood, but I do regret saying them here (in violation of wiki policy - which now that I'm relaxed and you've outlined it to me looks very sensible indeed!) :D 85.179.139.152 (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Since a large proportion of 85's work here has involved taking swipes at me, it's not clear to me what he's actually apologising for. I would of course accept an apology for what he's written to and about me. But let's leave that issue alone now and try to discuss what the article should look like.

I would like to suggest that three questions arise regarding this article, and that we should deal with them separately. It is extremely easy to separate 1 from 2-3; it is not so easy to separate 2 and 3.

Question 1is the simplest question: how much space should we give to Morton's theory relative to the other acrostic theories? My proposal is that it should be given the same amount of space as each of the others, and that when we mention his theory we should include a statement of what 8-word phrase he believes that 'OUOSVAVV' stands for - as should also apply to the other theories. See my suggestion above for how exactly we might do this. That's just a minor tweak to the present version of the article.

Question 2 is how to deal with theories involving the 'Holy Grail'? We are quite lucky here, in that none of the 'Holy Grail' speculation has given rise to an acrostic theory, as far as I'm aware. I think it's obvious that 'Holy Grail' speculation should be mentioned. And personally I'm happy with the reference to 'pseudo-history' in the lede as it stands, and I don't believe we need to keep banging on this drum throughout the rest of the article. It would, however, be a good idea to mention the promotional campaign by the Shugborough Estate with regard to the Holy Grail theory. I'm not aware of anyone saying the Holy Grail might be at Shugborough until the officials in charge of the estate said so in their publicity campaign. Again, corrections would be welcome. But that campaign (2004) was basically a spin-off from Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code (2003). There is no 'Holy Grail at Shugborough' material dating back to 1982. Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln did not claim that the Holy Grail was ever at Shugborough or speculate that it might have been. This leads to question 3.

Question 3 is how to deal with all the other speculation, some of which is certainly pseudohistorical for want of a better term. Anyone who has read The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail (which is nonfiction in the standard meaning of the word) will know that it does not focus on the Holy Grail as a physical item. Most of the published material tying the Priory of Sion myth together with the idea that the 'Holy Grail' is a physical item has been very much influenced by Dan Brown's 2003 book (which is fiction, again in the standard meaning of the word). That's not the whole of the story of course. There is mystical material regarding Shugborough that predates 2003. This started coming out in 1982, as a result of the book by Baigent et al. Since then, many connections have been speculated about, noticed, raised, dwelt upon, or invented. These include supposed connections with the Priory of Sion. They also include Thomas Anson's known association with Francis Dashwood, for example, of Hellfire Club fame. Need I mention Poussin? The correct interpretation of the inscription, if anyone ever properly establishes it, may quite possibly turn out to involve mystical beliefs and areas of discourse that might be termed 'weird' and 'wacky'. My point is that the article should attempt to distinguish the 'Holy Grail at Shugborough' material (2004 onwards) from the 'unorthodox symbolic, cultural and religious links to Shugborough (which often involve Poussin, the painter on whose picture the carving above 'OUOSVAVV' is based). The latter is older (1982 onwards) and very much broader - as shown by numerous websites publishing such material, which continues to grow.

This really my last contribution here! I hope future editors find the above consideration of some use. I remain strongly of the opinion that 85 will not establish reaonable grounds for giving hugely more importance to Morton's theory as compared to all the others, as if his theory is the 'solution' and every other theory is just pseudohistory or Grail-themed nonsense. And I would say it would be patently obviously totally unjustified to believe that his theory gives any reasonable person a sense of closure, as 85 says it does. But we shall see whether he is able to come up with a valid case - which he should, of course, do here, on this talk page, before editing the article accordingly.Elephantwood (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I rest my case. 85.179.139.152 (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

See my comments in the section below - I'll come back here and try to answer your individual points as soon as I have the time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

A Logical and Clear Debate about the Morton Solution

It seems reasonable to me (though you may disagree) that the Morton Solution is the most feasible explanation ever given for this so-called "mystery". The first four letters (O.U.O.S) appear to represent the landed possessions of the last four letters (V.A.V.V.). What is not disputed is that Viscount Anson and Vernon-Venables were residents of Shugborough when the first genuine reference to the "code" was made. What is also not disputed is that the united hamlets of Overly and Orgrave are the names of their ancestral lands. That someone seems to have "solved" it after all these years is also not disputed. The world's press reported that Morton had "solved" the code, so the event is notable.

The presence of Vernon-Venables at Shugborough from 1763 onwards suggests that the double-Vs do not indicate the Grail, or any of the other alternatives offered in the article. Likewise, the presence of Viscount Anson suggests that the V.A. has nothing to do with vales or vanity. Again, the fact that Anson and Venables owned the united hamlets of Overly and Orgrave, suggests that the two Os are not latin, and are not related to the Holy Grail. Of course, all previous solutions deserve to be mentioned, but most if not all have been discredited in various books, by various authors and by other reputable publications in the past.

I won't argue the reasons why a 1982 hoax should be sidelined. It has too many followers and there's too much emotion (from both sides) involved. In the meantime, I draw your attention to the Holy Blood Holy Grail wiki entry (scroll down to the criticisms section).

The question is:

Should the Morton Solution be given the least coverage, as dictated by the latest edits, given that it seems indisputably correct? Should the Morton Solution be restricted to about 16 words, while Grail theories make up a large portion of the text? If you think the Morton Solution should be given the least coverage, please explain your reasons why.

If you think it should be given more coverage, as dictated by Paul Barlow's edit, please explain why.

P.S. Howzat Boing? I'm young but willing to learn! :D 85.179.139.152 (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Much better approach, thanks :-) I don't really have time now to go through either these or Elephantwood's points above in any detail at the moment, but I'd just like to highlight a point that I think you might both be partly missing.

As an encyclopedia, what Wikipedia does is reflect what other notable sources say about a subject - an encyclopedia does not do any comparative analysis or draw any conclusions of its own. A Wikipedia article should reflect the balance of notability (WP:N) as attested to by reliable source (WP:RS). It might sound strange, but Wikipedia is not interested in establishing the truth (or even the likelihood of the truth) - have a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability.

So when we decide how much space to give to Holy Blood, to Morton, or to any of the others, we'll need to do so based not on our own judgments of which is more likely to be accurate, or which deserves the most coverage, but on the quantity and quality of actual coverage of the sources that exists out there in the real world. So if, for example, someone tomorrow came up with the best theory yet, with a very compelling argument, we couldn't mention it in this article until after reliable independent sources had written about it, and we could give it no more weight than that supported by those sources. And even if, say, the authors of "Holy Blood" came out tomorrow and said it's all a fake, we could not remove it from the article if we really do have sources that say the book helped bring the inscription to public attention.

Basically, we are not here to decide which is the best theory. The crux is coverage by independent sources - so, what sources can people provide to cover the various theories/suggestions/ideas, so we can gauge their relative notability?

I'll come back as soon as I can and try to reply to specific points from both of you -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that Boing. For independent coverage and notability of the Morton Solution see here, and for quality of original source see here. I did try, but I cannot find the same amount of independent press reports for each of the other theories. It seems, and I did not realise this at first, that the Morton Solution has had more individual press coverage than all the others. No single theory has been so widely spread and reported on independently. 85.179.139.152 (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Rubbish. And it's noted that you link to A J Morton's links to the pages rather than to the pages themselves. You've put considerable effort into bigging up Morton here. May I ask why you don't research his notability independently of his own self-promotion efforts? If we are going to try to improve the article, should everything really focus on the question of whether A J Morton's theory (namely that 'Orgreave United with Overley and Shugborough, Viscount Anson Venables Vernon' is the answer) is not only the undisputed winner in the likelihood stakes, but also the number-one in the independently-reported notability stakes too? I won't comment on the first claim here, but Morton's theory obviously isn't the second thing either. Like it or hate it, but the Holy Grail 'theory' has been much more widely reported. Don't just look at what's been in the news in the last week or so. Compare this with this. And that's just looking at news sources, which are by no means the only relevant sources here.Elephantwood (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Elephantwood, will you please tone it down and stick to discussing this in a civil and collegial manner! We've had enough of the personal bickering here and the failure to assume good faith on the part of others, and I'm telling you straight - if you don't stop it of your own accords, you will be made to stop (and that goes for all parties in the dispute). Just provide your own sources, leave other people to provide theirs, and we'll see what consensus we can get - we can ask for further outside help as and when we need it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I always start off by assuming good faith, but I can't agree to stay in this discussion and not voice my suspicion (which I think is proved at the 99% confidence level) that the main person bigging up A J Morton's theory here is A J Morton himself. It is my opinion that everybody reading this will agree with me, but they are holding their tongues because they wish to play by the site owners' rules. So since I cannot be true to myself and play by those rules, I will cease participating. (I know I've said that before, but this time I mean it). But please keep an eye on this page...just in case anyone tries to use it for self-promotional reasons. Cheerio and good luck!Elephantwood (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you don't feel you can participate in a civil manner and focus on the content rather than attacking the other person involved, then that's a shame - but it's your choice. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Notability is not in dispute. Nor is my identity, which I am now verifying with the admins. These matters are not related to the fact that my only crime re the article is a roll-back to Paul Barlow's edit (i.e. replacing what Elephant deleted). I agree (now) that this is the only thing that we need to discuss. Do let's stick to that.

Please scroll up to the A Logical and Clear Debate about the Morton Solution heading above to get a clear idea of the debate and relevant questions. 85.179.139.152 (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE JUST STOP the personal bickering, both of you! If you have personal issues, take them elsewhere - this page is for discussing the article and its contents only. There's absolutely no point arguing against each other, as it is clear that neither of you will convince the other. So please just stick to presenting your case about the content as if you were addressing a neutral jury. People will only help you by offering their outside opinions if they see clear in-policy attempts to reach a solution (and in due course I'll try to get others to help, if needed). But if people just see petty bickering, with both sides just slagging each other off with wall-of-text tit-for-tat arguments, they're not going to be bothered. And that goes for me as well. If you're not prepared to start acting like grownups, then I'm out of here too and I won't try to help any further - I'll just leave you to slug it out and we'll just keep escalating the page protection and blocking. Please decide how you want this to go, so I can decide whether or not I'm wasting my time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Stopped! I have edited and merged my last messages. 85.179.139.152 (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick message to all. After a little nudge I have removed a number of inflammatory remarks (from me) and tidied up behind me. I made sure the coherence of the conversation remained untouched. I also removed a few doubled up quotes, occasions when I quoted long streams of my own words. Not necessary. The only liberty I took was in the renaming of some of the subheadings. A couple were inflammatory and vague. If you see any problems feel free to edit. 85.179.139.152 (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Identity

85.179.139.152 has been in touch with me off-wiki, and has provided information that pretty much conclusively demonstrates that they are not A J Morton, so let's stop with those accusations please. Also, please note that 85.179.139.152 has gone back and, in good faith, has cleaned up their comments above to remove all the personal stuff. I have a busy few hours now, so I'll come back to this later and look over the comments above -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts

OK, I've gone through some of the comments made here in the past day or so, and here are some thoughts...

• Re: "how much space should we give to Morton's theory relative to the other acrostic theories?" (Elephantwood): The amount of space given should reflect the notability of each of the theories. What coverage is there of the various theories? Is there any evidence that the academic world currently favours any one over the others? If there is evidence that, say, older theories are discredited and newer ones considered more likely, the article should reflect that (I've no idea if that is or is not the case - I'm just suggesting that's a way to decide). So I'd suggest that if someone wants to highlight one theory over the others, they need to show sources to demonstrate that it is more notable.
• Re: "It seems reasonable to me (though you may disagree) that the Morton Solution is the most feasible explanation ever given for this so-called "mystery"" (85.179.139.152): We cannot and should not try to judge which is the most feasible, as we must not include any of our own analysis and opinion in the article - the article is absolutely not about trying to uncover the truth. But if it can be sourced properly, we could say something like, for example, "It is considered by many academics to be the most likely explanation". So are there any reliable sources that support a general academic opinion that Morton's theory is the most feasible?
• Re: "Holy Blood/Grail..." (both): The pseudo-historical and fictional nature of "Holy Blood..." and "The Da Vinci Code" respectively are not relevant to their inclusion in this article, as Wikipedia is not a historical or research journal. The article should not (and does not) suggest any Grail connection is correct, but if either of these two books played a part in the notability of the inscription, then they should be covered in proportion to their part in that notability. It depends on sources, and if the sources suggest the Blood/Grail tales lent a large amount of notability to the inscription, they should be get proportional coverage. (Also, no, I can't see any evidence of any Grail theory producing an acrostic solution, so I see no support for suggestion it can solve that question).
• Re: "I won't argue the reasons why a 1982 hoax should be sidelined." (85.179.139.152): Even if it's a hoax, if it was a notable one and played a part in the notability of the inscription, it should be covered. Again, it depends on what sources attest to its notability (I haven't searched for any myself).
• Re: "For independent coverage and notability of the Morton Solution see here, and for quality of original source see here." (85.179.139.152): OK, that's a start, but those links are both to Morton Research's own site. For independent coverage, we need to track down the original sources themselves to see exactly what they said and how much coverage they gave. So far what I've managed to track down is The Sunday Mercury, The Irvine Times (both local newpapers), The Daily Mail (a somewhat sensationalist national tabloid), and The Telegraph (national, generally considered decent quality) - but all seem to be reporting pretty much exactly the same story without any editorial input. And there's Staffordshire Newsletter (local) arguing that Morton is wrong.
• Re: Other theories (both): We have some sources for them, but do we have any reliable sources arguing for or against their correctness? (Again, I have not searched)

Overall, if we wish to suggest anyone has the correct solution and give it higher billing, I think we would need to find some independent sources (ideally including some academic ones) actually analyzing and comparing them, but so far all I can see are sources that just describe the theories. And we cannot do our own analysis. So at this time, based on the sources I can see, I don't see any justification for promoting one acrostic theory over the others - maybe there will be better and more academic sources later, and maybe it is too soon to expect any independent analysis of Morton's theory? Having said that, I do think we have enough to flesh out the description of Morton's theory a bit - to more than just the single sentence we currently have. So, what we need now is further opinions, and even more and better sources if anyone can find them. Over to you (but please remember to keep it civil). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm content with that. You've found a good balance I'd say. The Holy Blood Holy Grail did help make the code famous in recent times, and added to its notability, so this should not be removed. I'm having a hard time tracking down all these newspaper sources too, and found pretty much what you found so we'll see how that pans out (not that I am for one second implying that Morton has made them up - it's just clearly not a fringe theory).

I note he does not have an academic endorsement of his solution on this page yet, and though a quick google check does confirm that Viscount Anson and Venables-Vernon (V.A.V.V.) were residents of Shugborough in the late 18th and 19th centuries, we should try to find a notable expert view of the matter.

I agree with Boing, the Morton entry needs expanded, but probably only a little bit. If it's wrong I'm sure an academic will say so sooner or later (I won't hold my breath).

The Staffordshire Newsletter story by Andrew Baker does indeed argue that Morton is wrong. As a counter-claim, it was reported only locally near Shugborough. It focused on the poem again, and was written by someone who admits contributing to the Prioy of Sion hoax/era. It also looks like it's just a letter, a letter printed in a local newspaper and nowhere else, so probably shouldn't be overemphasised when weighing up the veracity of the history or the historian.

It's worth noting that the newspapers don't just say he offered a possible solution, they say he solved it. The story was that a solution had been found, nor that another theory had been offered. "Da Vinci Code riddle at Shugborough Hall is solved" and "Historian Cracks Shugborough Code" are not the same as "code stumps experts" or "code-breakers ponder Holy Grail" or even "Has the mystery of the Holy Grail been solved?". The story was that he had solved it. The article may need to reflect this somehow in the future.

Thanks for all your help (and time!) Boing. A good and thoughtful mediation. 85.179.36.132 (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Boing. I agree with 85 that your contribution has been very helpful. This is just to say that no sources have yet been cited that would justify answering in the affirmative to your question, "So are there any reliable sources that support a general academic opinion that Morton's theory is the most feasible?", nor for giving Morton's theory greater billing than any of the other acrostic theories. That was previously the main area of contention, but now will hopefully be considered to have been resolved. I do agree, however, that we should state what Morton's theory is, i.e. what he thinks the 8 letters stand for, in the same way that we describe the other acrostic theories.

Nor do there appear to be any reliable academic sources for describing Morton's theory as anything other than a theory. Certainly it is a suggested solution, but so are the other theories. "Theory" here is a very neutral and therefore appropriate word. The article is now unprotected, so if anybody can cite sources which would undermine what I've said in this paragraph, please do so here before editing, so that we can discuss any issues as to notability, reliability, or relevance.

Pseudohistory is referred to in the lede, so we don't have to keep banging away at this. The present tone is appropriate. I would suggest that the next version should not be much different from the first version, but that Section 2 ("Theories") should have two subsections: 2.1, entitled "Holy Grail" as it is now, and 2.2, entitled "Acrostic theories".

2.1 should set out a little more rigorously chronologically the line from 1982 (Baigent, Leigh, Lincoln) to 2003 (Dan Brown) to 2004 (Richard Kemp and the promotional campaign at Shugborough), both because all of this is notable and also because we need to put a little bit of distance between Baigent et al and the Holy Grail theory, given that they didn't actually suggest that there was any connection between Shugborough and the Holy Grail, even if others have done so relying partly and usually indirectly on their work, usually in connection with assertion or speculation regarding the Priory of Sion, and with Dan Brown's novel being an important intermediate source. Other suggestions for the title of this subsection would be very welcome, but I don't think another reference to pseudohistory in its content is called for. Readers will learn about the role of Baigent et al's seminal book, Dan Brown's fiction, and of course the promotional campaign, by reading the article, and can form their own opinions. 2.1 should also take on board RedSign's observation regarding Bletchley Park and that particular story, which was part and parcel of the promotional campaign.

2.2 should be as it is now, except in the form of a subsection and with the minor tweak to the Morton reference as suggested above.

It is perhaps fortunate that the theories can be categorised into "acrostic" and "Holy Grail", and that nobody has yet come up with a Holy Grail-themed acrostic theory! If and when such a theory becomes notable, the article will have to be altered.

We have to be clear: this inscription has not been "solved". This doesn't mean that none of the existing theories might not be true. It is not an opinion about the existing theories as a group or any of them taken individually. It means there are no reliable sources to support the truth of any of those theories, including opposed to the others. It might happen that one of the existing theories or a theory that is published in the future might gain such academic support, but this has not happened yet and may never happen.

The reference to the inscription's never having been "satisfactorily explained" should stay (on the basis that in terms of reliable academic sources supporting any particular theory, that statement is certainly both correct and encyclopaedic). I also feel that the sentence stating that No solution has yet been proposed which rests on a solid cryptanalytic footing should also remain (for the same reasons).

So at the end of the day, I'm proposing that no huge changes seem to be required to the article. I would suggest that we might amicably agree that the following should suffice: 1) expanding the Morton mention slightly to put it on the same level as the mentions of the other acrostic theories; 2) giving the "acrostic" theories their own subheading, the same way that the "Holy Grail" material has got one; and 3) tidying the "Holy Grail" section, including to mention the Shugborough promotional campaign and the influence of Dan Brown's book on published speculation about the inscription.

If nobody wishes to suggest in the next week, say, an alternative to this bundle of proposed and not especially major changes, I will start drafting a revised version of the article to implement them, which I will then post here on the Talk page for comments and further discussion. (Since we have not formally reached consensus, the time isn't ripe yet for anyone to do any actual editing). How does that sound, people?Elephantwood (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a lot of effort to get the Morton thing squished, but since you're trying so hard to be sensible...

I've since checked Holy Blood Holy Grail and was myself surprised how little coverage the code gets in the text. It amounts to one short sentence, zero commentary, no allusions or solutions or theories. I'm also not convinced Shugborough is even mentioned in Da Vinci Code. Need to check. There are more words dedicated to this matter in the article (and in the last message from EW) than in the books themselves, so I agree these parts need work. I'll be looking carefully at any edits made to these sections, but I won't be wasting much time discussing them. It's all too ickily young for me. 85.179.37.212 (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Morton Solution

In February 2011 the press reported that the Shugborough Code "has been solved", that the solution is "boring", and that all other attempts (i.e. the various acrostic theories mentioned in the article) had failed. I therefore propose that the "has been solved" aspect (whether true or false) should be reflected in the article somehow.

Trying to brush this part of Shugborough's story under the carpet smacks of sour grapes. It feels 'wrong'. I understand the urge to perpetuate a mystery, to leave it open so to speak, but it's not very rewarding for an encyclopaedia if widely reported "solutions" are just idly (and repeatedly) rewritten (or written out) by those who can tolerate Priory/Grail talk/think for longer durations than most.

As Boing said, it's not our job to weigh up the odds, but to edit according to what is out there. The press said Morton had solved it. He clearly has, but my opinion alone is not important. Try here, here, here, here, here, and here. 85.179.37.212 (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for these links, 85. This is a response to what you posted at the bottom of the section above, before you removed it and created a new section entitled "The Morton Solution". Please don't do that, because it makes the discussion harder to follow. Your opinion that Morton has found the "solution" is not relevant to this discussion, as also holds for my own opinion on the matter. The numbers refer to your original links.

1 is sourced to the Telegraph, 2 doesn't say he's solved it (it just reports that he says he's solved it), 3 says "Historian cracks 'Shugborough Code'" in its title, but in the body of the article it just reports that he says he's solved it, 4 is the Telegraph article (in its title it says "Shepherd's Monument 'code' was 19th century graffiti"; in the body text, it reports that he says he's solved it but that others disagree), 5 is a blog article by "Friggin Loon", with the title "Move On, Nothing to Crack Here!", and just reports that he says he's solved it, and 6 is a webpage by Morton himself, referring to various press articles and including quotes from them, which mainly say that he's said he's solved it.

I've read articles 2-5 (1 is sourced to 4 and so is not independent). They all say he thinks he's solved it. 3-5 do say in their headlines that he's solved it, but this isn't supported by any editorial opinion, let alone any academic opinion. To the contrary, all report just that he thinks he has, and that he may have done. I know you believe he has "clearly" solve it, but this does not appear to have been independently and reliably reported in any of sources 2-5, except if you count the headlines (only the headlines!) in 3 and 4. (The headline of 5 could be added to this list if 5 were a reliable source, but it isn't).

There is absolutely nothing in the content of any of these articles to suggest that the headlines reflect editorial opinion. On that basis, we can deduce that the headlines are just to get people to read the articles. In the case of 4 there is a serious error, in that Morton does not allege that the inscription was a graffito.

I have not looked at all the articles referenced on Morton's webpage (your 6th link), but please try to make a case against what I've said on the basis of those sources if you wish to maintain your position (i.e. link to them here and say why they support your case). Thanks again for your contribution!

Last thing - yes, you are absolutely right to say that Shugborough is not mentioned in The Da Vinci Code, although it has been mentioned in various spin-off works which I haven't got to hand. How come that's happened is of course because of what has been said about Shugborough in books that also mention the Priory of Sion, not just The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail but also spin-offs from that work such as material by Lionel Fanthorpe.Elephantwood (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If you spent this much energy criticising the nonsense parts, we might have gotten along. I can't be bothered debating it anymore. The solution is staring you right in the face. Or are you seriously saying that Viscount Anson and Vernon Venables had nothing to do with a code that reads VAVV? 92.231.210.175 (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the place for a discussion as to whether Morton's theory is true or not, and that is not at all the matter I was addressing in my lengthy post.Elephantwood (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I am the unwilling and unwitting subject of this lengthy and intensely annoying discussion, and I am currently receiving advice concerning Mr. Elephant's various public libels and misrepresentations of myself and Morton Research on the talk pages of wikipedia. To every other editor, you can do what you like to this deeply problematic article because I have absolutely no interest in it. 82.16.146.217 (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, Jamie! I hope the trip back was OK. You are correct - individuals' own opinions on how best to deal with their own output don't tend to count for much here, being assumed by and large to be 'pov'. Reliably verifiable notable and relevant facts, of course, tend to be welcome; ditto the removal or editing of material that fails to fall into that category, whether because it constitutes vandalism or for any other reason. But you're wise to leave the editing to others, in my opinion. Have you seen the article that '85' created that was wholly devoted to yourself, by the way? You may also wish to refer to Wikipedia's policy on legal threats.Elephantwood (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Latest edit

Discussion seems to have stopped here shortly after 85's departure and A J Morton's brief appearance before he too departed, so I have taken the liberty of posting my latest edit without posting it here first. This includes a slight expansion of the Morton mention to put it on the same level as the coverage of the other acrostic theories. Rather than giving the "acrostic" theories their own subheading, I've separated them off within the "Theories" section. (A new "theory", Peter Oberg's, got included before I did this edit. I've left it in, but if anyone wants to check sources, please do). The "Holy Grail" section is now a "Priory of Sion and Holy Grail" section, referring in chronological fashion to Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln (pseudohistorical non-fiction book, 1982), followed by Brown (fiction book, 2003), followed by Kemp (promotional campaign, 2004), and the Lawns' suggestions are contextualised with reference to Kemp's promotion. I've also added some photographs to put the inscription in the context of other parts of the monument referred to in the article.Elephantwood (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

et ego in arcadia

Article translates et ego in arcadia as "I am, even in Arcadia" (as an alternative translation). I don't know whether this is an accepted translation, but to me it looks like a reference to the great I Am himself, YHWH, which I'm sure wasn't intended. Maybe remove the comma? PiCo (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Did any tryed?

It's from a simple latin game I learned at school when I was little. D-O.U.O.S.V.A.V.V-M can be read like DOM DUO DOM SV VS MAD MVD MVD.

And the finger thing from "Et in Arcadia ego" can lead us to "Et i nar cadia ego"

Try to find some translations to these. Regards, Marian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.122.149 (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Tom Busby's Theory

Shugborough inscription

D.O.U.O.S.V.A.V.V.M

Latin Anagram

A.D.V. Ovum Vos

English:

A.D.V. Egg you

Its old graffiti. Rich peoples prank.

A.D.V.

Look for an old resident or guest with those initials in any order.

Geoffrey Morgan's theory

There has been a solution offered for the inscription on the Shepherds Monument. The clue lies with the letters D and M that stand for Dagobert Merovingian; the French Merovingian King Dagobert 11. The letters, ‘O.U.O.S.V.A.V.V’ are therefore taken to have origin in the French language and may be read as … “Observateur Utiliser Objecter Shugborough Voir Aussi Visa Versa”, broadly translated as ‘Observer Use the Object at Shugborough to See or Understand Also Vice Versa’.

On the Monument, the shepherd's thumb of his left hand is immediately after the 'R' in Arcadia – alphabetically followed by the ‘S’, his index finger is planted on the 'N' in the second word 'IN'. The word 'Ego' is dropped from the end of 'Et In Arcadia Ego' to leave ‘Et IN ARCADIA’. The thumb ‘picks up’ the ‘S’ and the finger overwrites the ‘N’, thus reading ‘ET IS ARCADIA’ – or, ‘Also in Arcadia’. The relief of the monument is to be viewed as the reverse of a transparency; that is, ‘Visa versa’. This can also be seen in the case of the Chinese House, which is located on the west side of the group of monuments. All the monuments are Templar based and tell an intriguing story.

Geoffrey Morgan

Why would "Dagobert Merovingian" appear on an inscription in a 18th century English garden? Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Fernando Jaume's theory

OUOSVAVV

A meaning can be this one: Omnes ultimus offerēbantur spes vadere ad Veram vitam. All hope was offered -or showed- to go to the last real life. All were offered the last hope to go to true life. Dedicated.

MY 2nd Theory: Omnibus unquam-ubiquaque observant spes veritas ad Veram vitam. All hope of ever observe the real truth of life. Dedicated

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.225.126.207 (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC) 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.225.126.207 (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC) 

Can we go in reasoning perspective here, may be - D   ME     E     JEB     XDX

[1] you may check this link if helps to crack the code

What does it mean by ???

D   ME     E     JEB     XDX Kumarfromtoday (talk) 07:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Wrong place

Not sure on the etiquette around this, but can we perhaps remove all the sections here that are just people using the page to posit their own theories? It's simply not what this page is for. Endlesspumpkin (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Chad Burkes Inscription Theory

States that two of the duplicate characters were masked on either side and that it is a dual latin memorial (Ælos Favn) This may be supported, by the above carved busts matching the mythological depictions of these two gods. 2603:7081:4D00:B1F7:E4F6:2BB0:2A0E:B603 (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)