A fact from Shugborough inscription appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 30 November 2008, and was viewed approximately 5,800 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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.
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
We need someone else to comment. 85.179.36.74 ( talk) 10:32, 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)
should be changed to:"A. J. Morton said the letters match the names of the residents of Shugborough in the early 19th century"
"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"
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)
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)
Replying to a couple of points raised above, to take them out of that emotion-laden section...
-- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 13:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
OK, I've gone through some of the comments made here in the past day or so, and here are some thoughts...
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
[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)
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)
A fact from Shugborough inscription appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 30 November 2008, and was viewed approximately 5,800 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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.
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
We need someone else to comment. 85.179.36.74 ( talk) 10:32, 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)
should be changed to:"A. J. Morton said the letters match the names of the residents of Shugborough in the early 19th century"
"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"
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)
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)
Replying to a couple of points raised above, to take them out of that emotion-laden section...
-- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 13:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
OK, I've gone through some of the comments made here in the past day or so, and here are some thoughts...
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
[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)
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)