Talk:Shakespeare's signet ring

This article's title should not be claiming this to be Shakespeare's ring

The sources used in this article do not go that far — they say it "may be", or that it's "possible". There is a lack of evidence and scholarly consensus to support the title. The title represents a theory or hypothesis that it may have belonged to Shakespeare. The theory is reasonable, and supported by evidence (including, for example, that the ring was found in Stratford). It is similar to other theories, such as the authorship question, or the idea that Shakespeare was murdered. If Wikipedia ever has an article on that last topic, it would definitely be misleading to title it Shakespeare's murder. The title draws the reader to think the ring is actually Shakespeare's signet ring, but the first sentence in the lead contradicts the title by saying that the ring is merely "purported". However, the use of the word "purported" here appears to be a fiction. Purport is defined (by Lexico) as "to claim to be something, especially falsely" or (by Oxford) "to claim to be something, when this may not be true" — but the article does not identify any reliable source that actually "purports" that it was Shakespeare’s — because it seems to be widely accepted that there is not enough evidence. I suggest a solution would be to change the title to "Shakespeare’s signet ring theory" (or "hypothesis") — following other WP titles, such as Critical theory Color theory or Zoo hypothesis. - GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

IMO, your suggestion is not an improvement. "to claim to be something, when this may not be true" seems close enough, and "Said by some people to be real or true or to have happened, although this may not be so" is also on the list. There are other possible words, putative, suggested etc. "Supposed" is fine, I guess. The article is about the speculated object, and the speculation is part of the topic.

For WP-purposes, WP:COMMONNAME matters here. What is this thing generally called in reliable sources? Sources like [1][2] call it "Shakespeare's signet ring", which fits WP:CRITERIA pretty well, compare Mask of Agamemnon, Priam's Treasure or Mona Lisa. @AleatoryPonderings, @MarnetteD, do you have an opinion? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

"Shakespeare's signet ring" is just what it's called: [3], [4], [5], [6]. Article titles should be attested in the sources, and this one is. It's the object that's notable, not the theory or hypothesis about it, and the name of the object is "Shakespeare's signet ring". AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree that the current title is correct as it meets the WikiP guidelines. IMO using the word theory or hypothesis in the article title would not be an improvement. MarnetteD|Talk 15:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the responses (there is a lot I agree with) and the links provided. Those sources that are linked to don’t "purport" or "claim" (as in Gråbergs Gråa Sång wording: "claim to be something, when this may not be true" that this ring was indeed Shakespeare’s ring. Instead they say things like: " if " — as in (to quote Gråbergs Gråa Sång’s second link "…if the W. S. does stand for William Shakespeare, did he use this himself or did he give it to another? … The ring’s provenance is doubtful … and further complicated by the fact that the actor David Garrick displayed a similar one…"). Which seems fine, and I think we call all agree that in that link that’s the way the ring should be reported. The links (the ones I could access — The Telegraph newspaper requires you to subscribe) are not all reliable sources though, a couple of them lead to an anonymously written government blog-like site. But still they do support the point that nobody is claiming or "purporting" that it was in fact Shakespeare’s ring, (which I said in my first sentence above). If nobody’s "purporting" or "falsely claiming" then Wikipedia shouldn’t suggest otherwise, (as the article does with its first sentence). I think it would be accurate for the first sentence in the lead to say "A gold signet ring with the initials WS, which was found in Stratford-upon-Avon, is thought to possibly have belonged to Shakespeare."

Gråbergs Gråa Sång suggests the phrase "to claim to be something, when this may not be true" — but the problem is that none of the article’s sources make such a false claim.

The comparison (above) of this ring to the Mona Lisa (or their Wikipedia article titles) — doesn’t really fit. It might fit better if the Wikipedia title were something like "Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa", and also if there were not quite enough evidence connecting it with Leonardo da Vinci.

I can’t at all agree with AleatoryPonderings suggestion that the idea that it might have been Shakespeare’s ring is not what makes this ring notable — the title as it stands now isn’t just “A signet ring”, the title also includes the theory that it was Shakespeare’s. MarnetteD thinks the title is "correct" but it’s not clear whether or not MarnetteD is claiming the ring certainly belonged to Shakespeare according to sources.

So the suggestion I made above (that this article's title should not be claiming this to be Shakespeare's ring, and that the sources do not go that far, and that there is a lack of evidence and scholarly consensus to support the title as it stands now) still seems to hold. I think claiming (falsely) in the title that the ring was indeed Shakespeare’s might be attractive because it lures readers to think it’s more amazing and incredible than saying "possibly".

The current title is not correct or accurate, and it doesn’t meet the WP guidelines — see WP:COMMONNAME where it says: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided” and WP:CRITERIA where it suggests: "The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject". In fact, this particular Wikipedia article actually contradicts the false claim of its own title. - GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

If you would like to move this page to a different title, I suggest listing at WP:RM. As it stands, the local consensus favours the current title. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, AleatoryPonderings. An alternative title could be something like "A signet ring – possibly Shakespeare's", or "Shakespeare’s signet ring theory", or "Shakespeare's ring (possibly)". Whatever it is, I don't think the title should claim, or seem to claim that the ring was Shakespeare's, since none of the sources go that far. - GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 12:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Alloy

GümsGrammatiçus, you made this change:source doesn't claim that the rings are "made with the same gold alloy as the original" -- they claim they claim they are the same as the alloy of the day -- and don't explain what that might mean to them.

Sources:

"And the Pragnell family – whose premises are in a series of Tudor cottages built by a friend of Shakespeare’s in 1585 – have gone to extraordinary lengths to honour the original, right down to recreating exactly the composition of gold; a typically Elizabethan mix of gold, silver, and copper to form a gleaming 20-karats."

"What I like about this is that we have recreated the gold alloy precisely so to have it resized you have to return to Stratford."

This supports the previous wording, so I'm reinserting it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The first citation in the “Merchandising” about the reproduction being offered for sale says only that it is “made of the exact metal composition of the day”. The two quotes reproduced (above) don’t contradict that, I don’t quite see how they can be interpreted as supporting the (false) idea that the reproductions “were made with the same gold alloy as the original”. Another source in the article, (Shakespeare Birthplace Trust — “The Mystery of the Ring”) says the ring is “solid gold”, which suggests that it is not combined with other metals.

Also, the reason I deleted the claim in the “Discovery” section that nitrous acid removed the ring’s “patina” is because none of the article’s sources say the ring had a patina. Also, gold is a metal that (unlike silver or copper) is not known to have a patina, and gold is not known to react with nitrous acid. I see that you’ve restored the “patina”, but I think you should reconsider this. - GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, cited source mentions patina. Also, solid =/= pure, see for example [7]. Pretty much no jewellery is made from pure gold, too impractical. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

An article should be written from a neutral point of view and represent without editorial bias all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources. If one source claims the ring had a patina — and other sources contradict that — the other sources shouldn't be excluded or ignored. For example this article's "Mystery of the Ring" source (published by Shakespeare Birthplace Trust) says nothing about a patina, and that the ring was merely "dirty". Another example: If a source says the patina was dissolved or removed by nitric acid — there are other sources that contradict that: The article’s "Mystery of the Ring" source says: "Luckily the ring was made of gold and not silver, otherwise the ring would have dissolved" in nitric acid. Multiple sources say that nitric acid is used to clean silver — not gold, and also that gold does not develop a patina.

To return to the alloy (the topic of this talk-page section): In the "Merchandising" section one source (Stratford-upon-Avon Herald) says the ring that's for sale is "made of the exact metal composition of the day" — another source (according to by Gråbergs Gråa Sång's quotation above) says (basically) the same thing: that the ring's metal is "exactly the composition of gold; a typically Elizabethan mix", that doesn’t support the article’s (false) claim that the the rings being offered for sale "were made with the same gold alloy as the original". - GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

As can be seen in the Nine Lives of William Shakespeare book, patina is the word Wheler used. Perhaps he used it mistakenly or figuratively, but that is WP:OR. Another WP:OR is that though gold generally doesn't get a patina, perhaps this case is not "general" enough. I note also that according to WP, patina includes "any similar acquired change of a surface through age and exposure.", so the word fits. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

On the alloy, my reading of have gone to extraordinary lengths to honour the original, right down to recreating exactly the composition of gold; a typically Elizabethan mix of gold, silver, and copper to form a gleaming 20-karats is that "recreating exactly the composition of gold" refers to the original ring, not the time period. They could have chosen another typically Elizabethan mix if they wanted. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Gråbergs Gråa Sång: in my experience "patina" is often used of old objects (metallic and otherwise) to refer to any surface film that has built up on an object; this can include (but is not limited to) mineral deposits (such as calcium carbonate from 'hard water'), human skin oils, dead cells etc., and other "dirt", often in combination. It does not solely mean an oxidation layer of the object's metal material. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.206.74.27 (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not see the contradiction between the sources that GümsGrammatiçus sees; as far as I see they are all consistent with a single narrative. The formulation "a typically Elizabethan mix of gold, silver, and copper to form a gleaming 20-karats" establishes beyond a doubt that we are dealing with alloys. The formulation "we have recreated the gold alloy precisely" establishes beyond a doubt that that the jewellers (claim to) have approximated the alloy of the original for their replicas to a high degree of precision, and not just any other "typically Elizabethan mix". As long as we ascribe the patina-removal statement to Wheler (the only source) and the claim of precise alloy recreation to the jewellers, we can just use the sources. Wheler's lengthy and verbose account is presented in toto in the book Nine Lives of William Shakespeare.^[8]  --Lambiam 12:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

An interesting paper on Jewellery Alloys includes a section on 'The more recent past' on p. 3 where the composition of the Elizabethan Cheapside Hoard is considered. Table 1 lists the variations in the fineness of gold since 1300. There would seem to be plenty of "typically Elizabethan" mixes. Elizabeth I r. 1558–1603. According to the newspaper report above, the modern recreations are of approximately 833 fineness (83.66 per cent gold; 9.73 per cent silver and 6.61 per cent copper). Shakespeare was married in 1582 aged 18. Has the ring ever been assayed? Is the ring hallmarked? If not, why? MinorProphet (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a hallmark on any of the pics at [9], but I don't know what one would look like or if one is to be expected. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

In England, hallmarking was only required (from 1300) on silver objects; rings, etc., made (predominently) of gold would not usually be hallmarked (even though the assaying and marking was carried out by the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.206.74.27 (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

According to the ArcheoSciences article "Ancient gold patinas: experimental reconstruction", "Rarely, in particular conditions related to the position in which the object is deposited, alterations to the gold itself can also be verified, caused by the formation of gold cyanide or complex compounds with chlorine, (Grimwade, 1999; Mazzeo, 2005) which result in an orangey-brown patina." Clarityfiend (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Lambiam, there's also p269 in this book [10], "patina" is as good a word as any IMO, but if someone wants to change it to "encrustation" with this as ref I don't mind. You have a point that everybody is (probably) reporting what Wheler said, but I haven't seen anybody doubting his account of events. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I have no issue with the term. If we do not believe Wheler, we have no reason to believe sources parroting what he said. If we do believe Wheler, we know he is the sole source for the statement that the ring was found with patina that was subsequently removed. It is not clear from his account how he knew of the patina and its removal, the same day the ring was allegedly found, by immersion in aquafortis at a silver-smith's shop; while presenting this as a factual statement, he himself must have been reporting what he learned from others. But even if Wheler apparently trusted these reports, should we? They may have been part of a ruse to drive up the ring's perceived worth. Also, Wheler may have had an interest in making the ring be considered authentic, since he was the owner.^[11] I think we cannot consider Wheler a "reliable source"; sources that mimic his report, even if to be considered reliable in the Wikipedia sense, do not more than confirm this was reported, not that the report is true. Most make clear anyway that Wheler's account is the source of the information.  --Lambiam 15:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The term 'encrustation' seems a bit fanciful. The account which Lambiam posted above^[12] simply says "Undoubtedly it had been lost a great many years, being nearly black; ... time to destroy the precious patina ... which consequently restored its original colour." It sounds to me as if it was merely very discoloured - I would describe the medallion in this photo^[13] as being encrusted. Here a some photos of a buried 400-year old gold ring,^[14] the second photo shows what I would call patina. I would tend to think that Wheler got the information from the woman who found it, or the jeweller, but we have only his description. If had been just any old ring, there would be little reason to disbelieve it - but the claim that it belonged to Shakespeare necessarily puts everything under the microscope. MinorProphet (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I think I can offer a couple of corrections here and to the article — after I found a facsimile of Wheler’s book, A Guide to Stratford-upon-Avon, (1814). I don’t find Wheler using the word "patina", instead he uses the word "aerugo", which is defined (Wiktionary) as: "metallic rust, particularly of brass or copper; verdigris", with the etymology: Borrowed from Latin aerūgō, from aes ("copper, bronze, brass"). The word is specific — it may be thought of as a kind of "patina", but "patina" is not a perfect fit since aerūgo specifically refers to metallic rust or verdigris. Patina could be misleading if anyone is led to think of it as an "encrustation" (as is suggested above). Lambiam and MinorProphet — considering the suggestions about whether we believe Wheler — I think we can report what's said in this case, but the article needs to say something like "according to Wheler". (Or, if needed in other cases "according to whoever else".)

A correction to this article: The article says Mrs. Martin had the ring "cleaned with nitric acid first and removed the patina." Wheler does not say that she "had it cleaned" or that she "removed the patina". Wheler says she had the ring "immersed in aquafortis to ascertain and prove the metal at a silversmith's shop" (proving is different from cleaning), and that that immersion "consequently restored its original color." The article says that Mrs. Martin was "was working in a field" — Wheler doesn’t say that. I will try to edit to correct the article on these points. - GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

In Wheler's account that is reprinted in the book Nine Lives of William Shakespeare linked to and quoted above, he does use the term patina, even calling it precious patina.  --Lambiam 21:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The facsimile alluded to above is at [15]. Wheler mentions an even earlier description in The Gentleman's Magazine for October 1810, which is on p. 322 [pdf 368],^[16] with illustrations (Fig. 1) on p. 312 [358]. The monthly title page is p. 297 [337]. [Later edit:Also at Google books^[17]] The page scan is a bit dodgy. "Although I purchased it the same day, the woman had sufficient time to destroy the "precious aerugo" by consenting to have it unnecessarily immersed in aqua-fortis to prove the metal, which consequently restored the original colour".(p. 322) There is no mention of the jeweller's shop.

Wheler encloses the "precious aerugo" in double quotes, which is apparently a reference to Alexander Pope's satirical Memoirs of the extraordinary life, works, and discoveries of Martinus Scriblerus^[18]

               "Behold then my Child, but first behold
               the Shield: Behold this Rust,—or
               rather let me call it this precious Aerugo,—behold
               this beautiful Varnish of
               Time,—this venerable Verdure of
               so many Ages—"

This has evidently morphed in Wheler's later accounts into 'the precious patina'. MinorProphet (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Wedding ring?

We now have three differing—and increasingly speculative—accounts by Wheler (1785-1857) of the ring discovered in March 1810: the Gentleman's Magazine of October 1810^[19] - call it (A); the Guide to Stratford-upon-Avon of 1814^[20] (B); and the version published in the Catalogue of Manuscripts... in 1910, reproduced in Nine Lives by Holderness.^[21] (C). On the previous page Holderness says that this final account was found in an "interleaved and annotated copy" of Wheler's 1814 Guide to Stratford". At the end of (A), Wheler acknowledges that he "possesses no positive proof whatever; the foregoing circumstances, it will be immediately observed, are merely relative." As he says, only a contemporary seal made from the ring [attached to a relevant document, even] would be positive proof that the ring would have belonged to WS. As far as I can see, nothing has changed in the meantime; and most of the other sources quoted in the article in reference to the ring must be (as Lambian points out) merely embellishments of Wheler—if we believe him—especially (C). In (B), Wheler contends that there were no other people living in Stratford likely to have owned such an object, despite his extensive researches. This should be made plain in the article. The idea that it was a wedding ring doesn't appear in (A) or (B) at all.

The concept that it was WS's wedding ring only occurs in (C). As I mentioned earlier, the illustrious bard, aged 18, married AH in 1582. Who, then, might have paid for the ring? Wheler doesn't elucidate further. It is perhaps unlikely to have been the swan himself at that tender age. His father, John Shakespeare had already fallen on hard times, having retired from public life for over ten years from the late 1570s to the early 1590s: his own indebtedness and ill-judged bad loans seem to have been the principal reasons. There are several other people who might have given a still-undistinguished teenager such an expensive present: but we are reduced to flights of fancy.

I would tend to suggest that the article should emphasise the differences between Wheler's various versions of the tale, and their generally un-sourced speculative nature. In my view, Lambiam is certainly justified to think Wheler to be non-RS. I would personally go along with with (A) as the simplest, least embellished account, which I would place as the very first reference: the article should emphasise the almost entirely speculatory nature of its later 'encrustations'. The phrase "according to Wheler", suggested by GümsGrammatiçus should prepend many of the statements in the article. In my previous posts I confused the original 'silver-smith' with 'jeweller'. Sorry.

By a happy coincidence, I happen to live a few miles from Stratford, and I would be glad to carry out some further research there if anyone has any suggestions. I am already a registered user at the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust's Reading Room.^[22] MinorProphet (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if the fine nuances of Wheler's thinking are that interesting, we are meant to summarize after all, but whatever you feel should be added per sources. If you are able to get a better pic, that would be great. My reading of the non-Whelers are a general "Sure, clearly possible it could have been Will's (place and and letters fit, object seems right age, Will was rich, and Will's will), but also clear that it's unknowable without a receipt or something."

Well, we haven't yet heard from anyone from the Sir Francis Bacon et al. camp... I would contend that Will wasn't rich when he got married aged 18, if it was his wedding ring as Wheler contends. What are your feelings? MinorProphet (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I have not yet found someone who noted "Of course, it could have been dropped by someone passing through Stratford but didn't live there." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, you said it yourself: but that's OR unless we can find a source... ;) MinorProphet (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

As regards the paper which Clarityfiend cited[^[23]: the samples (of 900, 925 and 950 fineness) were subjected to fairly brutal and heavy-duty accelerated treatment for 30 days: the tables detailing the micro-analysis indicate that considerable chemical changes occurred in these relatively pure samples, even in this short space of time. Two possibilities occur to me, both probably expensive: 1) have the ring assayed by modern X-ray technology (if this hasn't already been done) in order to ascertain its true composition, versus the modern recreation of a "typical Elizabethan mix." 2) Find a soil sample from the place where the ring was found, and attempt to ascertain whether it is likely to have hastened the decay of a ring of increasingly impure composition. The finer the gold, the more it resists chemical change. According to (B), p. 153, it was found "upon the surface of the mill close, adjoining Stratford church yard, being the exact spot whereon Mr. Oldaker since erected his present residence." If the ring was indeed "nearly black" when it was found, what would its composition have to be (and/or the soil in which it was buried for a maximum of only 220 years or so - 1582 to 1810) in order to undergo such a change? MinorProphet (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@MinorProphet, per WP:INTERPOLATE, please don't insert your comment in my comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

On the wedding-ring-idea, I don't care much unless some decent source commented on it. An editor had an opinion here:[24] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to have interrupted the flow of the conversation. I realised as soon as I had posted my contribution. I should have reverted it. As regards the idea of a wedding ring, I would carefully suggest that some source might be found to place the concept in perspective, otherwise Wheler's unsubstantiated ideas might appear unbalanced. On the other hand, the article still claims that "Martin took the ring to a silversmith's shop," which is evidently not the case. MinorProphet (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

"I don't know if the fine nuances of Wheler's thinking are that interesting". On the contrary, I would say that Wheler is the onlie begetter of this article, and his thoughts are inherently of interest. I just knew there was some Shakespeherian allusion waiting to pop out of the literary undergrowth.

For everyone's holiday amusement, try the following: O, O, O, O, That Shakespeherian Rag: I. Winter - "When Icicles Hang by the Wall"; "That Mysterious Rag" by the American Quartet from 1911; and for the tolerably well-informed, "The Shakespearean Tragedy Rag" by Ray Jessel. MinorProphet (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

MinorProphet the Gentlemen’s Magazine source is a great find. It may be the first written record of the ring. I think it’s fortunate Wheler got involved. The ring could easily have disappeared — as so many things have. But Wheler’s a historian, and he “got it” — the potential connection with Shakespeare. He shared his findings, he even corresponded with the scholar Edmund Malone about this ring, in fact they also met up and discussed it. Wheler’s first and second published accounts of the discovery itself are almost identical — mostly word for word. The second publication (Wheler’s guidebook) leaves out what he paid for the ring, but it’s longer, because Wheler’s done research in the meantime and shares it. I think you’re right, MinorProphet, about later versions by others that have little embellishments (as you say) — like Nine Lives by Holderness. Wheler mentions the lettering — “W”s and “S”s — and compares them with the Elizabethan “W”s and “S”s found on the Clopton tombs in the Holy Trinity Church in Stratford. The “standard” formation of the letter “W” seems to have been actively evolving around Shakespeare’s lifetime. MinorProphet, you might consider seeing if the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust has any examples of the lettering that Wheler saw on the Clopton tomb (that Wheler said resembles the letters on the ring). Shakespeare must have known the Cloptons — he bought a house that was built by the Cloptons, and he lived in it. Also, I wonder if the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust knows any written record of the original ring being tested for its composition. - GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I’ve found an even earlier source written by Wheler that’s dated the very same day of the discovery of the ring — in it Wheler appeals to the readers of the magazine to see if anyone has any letters written by Shakespeare — especially letters with seals attached. I also found the illustrations that Wheler included with his September 1810 letter. I’m going to add these and some of Wheler’s research to the Discovery section. - GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The author of Nine Lives of William Shakespeare introduces his story of the ring as a fiction. It’s a mix of actual sources and fiction. It should not be used as a source here. MinorProphet noticed the discrepancy between Wheler’s account and the account in Nine Lives. - GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

GG, I'm sure you are aware that Nine Lives reproduces Wheler's final version of the tale (C), as found in the annotated copy of (B) preserved at the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust. Whatever Holderness says, Nine Lives is still a valid resource for Wheler's last thoughts. Nevertheless, if you are going to edit the article in this way, you must provide completely accurate references, right down to dates, editions, and page numbers. Your latest additions simply do not do this. I welcome your enthusiasm, but Wikipedia articles need reliable sources. I may have to revert your changes. Some of your edits are certainly useful, taking into account these foregoing discussions: but you have contributed a splurge of ideas with barely a single ref to back up your statements. The immediate question revolves around whether Wheler is a reliable source at all, as Lambiam said earlier, not what Wheler claims. Your additions appear as mostly unreferenced. sensational, and uninformed. I'm sure you are capable of better. Have you read WP:Referencing for beginners? In a historically controversial article, pretty every sentence needs a ref, which you have evidently not provided. MinorProphet (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

For others: I did some further digging about "Mr. Oldaker" earlier this morning; typically, my browser crashed as I clicked 'Publish changes': welcome again to Aargh.com™. I'll attempt to reproduce the essence of my research later, which may not be directly relevant. In a nutshell, William Oldaker, descended from a family of millers, bought Stratford Mill from the 1st Marquess of Hertford in c1790. He seems to have purchased at some point the whole plot of land (Mill Close) immediately between Stratford churchyard and the mill(s) situated beside the weir a few hundred yards south. He built a house on the spot where the ring was found. It seems at least possible that Oldaker owned - at some point - the land where the ring was found. He sold the mills 20 years later in c1810 to co-found a bank in Stratford, which eventually merged into the Midland Bank; his original banking premises are currently occupied by Lloyd's Bank in the centre of Stratford. The descendants of William Oldaker (not the first of that name) made their way to Tasmania and Chicago. MinorProphet (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Whut? Oh. Other GG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

GG, while I haven't tried to check if the new refs [25] support the content, they seem to contain most of the needed cite-info (is this how VisualEditor does refs, maybe?), but please try follow the spirit of WP:REFVAR and make refs the "reftoolbar" style (Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/3). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

MinorProphet, Almost every citation in the article has page numbers indicated, certainly the one or two citations I've added do. The Wheler Gentlemen's Magazine sources are very short -- only a page or two. As you know. So they are quite easy to verify. If you have any specific concerns about page numbers or content, please discuss. We're all here. Regarding Nine lives -- if you click on the link in the footnote it takes you to a page in his book, if you go back a page or two the author introduces his version of the "ring story" -- in that brief intro he states that it is indeed fiction. There's nothing wrong with fiction, and he's upfront about it. I found the quote and here it is from Graham Holderness' Nine lives of William Shakespeare introducing his version of the ring story: "This reconstructive fiction begins with Wheler’s own story, then goes on to incorporate passages from the work of…" etc. GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 13:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The merchandise section — is this appropriate?

Sources in the “merchandising” section contain links that provide Wikipedia users a chance to purchase products like rings and fridge magnets — with prices included. The fridge magnet is being offered here on Wikipedia for £4.50. One source is the jeweler's shop that's selling its version of ring. This section weakens the article–too much salesmanship. It lacks notability and significance, it should be deleted. — GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The secondary sources on the new rings/jeweller are good, I see no reason to remove these or the .gov. I think the webshop cites can be used per WP:ABOUTSELF (Shakespeare Birthplace Trust being the self), one sentence keeps it in proportion. Secondary source would be better, but I haven't found one, that is a valid (but not definte, I think) argument for removal of those souvenirs. I think they are good to mention as "impression" left by the original. Consensus will be what it will be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The suggestion (above) that this article is “about” the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, is not remotely accurate. The article is about a particular ring. And can’t claim support from WP:ABOUTSELF.

The vendor or commerce sites that are anonymously written, and that have no editorial oversight, are the kind of sources that are discouraged and not supported by the the guidelines. (See WP:VENDOR WP:BIASED and WP:SPONSORED.) Those sources are selling products: fridge magnets and non-replica rings. Those vendors might appreciate and benefit from the free advertising that Wikipedia is providing. There’s no evidence that anyone ever bought any of these things — there are only indications of the intent to sell, and offers to sell, which don’t indicate impact, or any kind of impression relevant to an understanding of the topic of the article. The article wants the reader to consider the possibility that the ring once belonged to Shakespeare. For that reason, dubious or questionable sources should be especially avoided, so they don’t taint the article — as though the article is not only selling merchandise, but using salesmanship to persuade the reader of the claims the article makes. - GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF: "about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities". It's their ring in their museum. WP:APPNOTE some more opinions and see what they say, this article doesn't have a lot of views. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)