Talk:Purity ring

Pop references
Since the whole Disney Channel thing I heard a lot about purity rings in the media. I was wondering whether we should include any pop references - for example, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3OO5QTox-A. i heard Ryan Seacrest also did one too. ChasiseGirl (talk) 10:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

History
What is the history of the term? Or it is simply a modern marketing ploy? mikka (t) 17:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Really?!! Am I mistaken, or is this a very recent phenomenon, restricted to some American Christians? Shouldn't there be something in the article that explains how widespread this is, how long it has been going on, who is doing it? The first line says that they are a "symbol of virginity in religious cultures". Is that really an accurate statement?

Steve Lowther 09:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I ran around and checked a lot of the related articles and came up with some answers to the obvious questions. I tweaked the language a bit too, just to make it sound a little more encyclopedic.

Steve Lowther 06:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't edit myself... don't have the time... but some eager soul might find this useful:

From: http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/8-19-2005-75134.asp

When one thinks of a promise ring it is common to think of a small, inexpensive ring given to a woman as a promise of marriage in the future; however, this is not always the case. A promise ring has several other purposes besides being a pre-engagement ring. A promise ring can be given or used for any sign of commitment. The following are some other common uses for a promise ring.

A Non-Romantic Promise Between Friends

A promise ring can be given as a sign of a promise between two friends. Such a ring can be given to a special friend, to a friend who is moving far away, or even to a friend who you will not see for awhile. A friendship promise ring is very common with young girls who get matching rings that say "best friends forever." A promise ring between two friends is a way of showing that a certain friendship is something very special to you.

A Promise of To Be Chaste

Also called a purity ring, this type of promise ring is worn as a reminder to be chaste. This can be given by a boyfriend or a girlfriend but is also frequently given by parents to a child. It is meant to keep one sexually pure until true love and marriage is found. This type of promise ring is a constant reminder to the wearer to remain abstinent until marriage.

A Promise of Substance Abstinence

A promise ring can also be used by those who are looking to stay free from alcohol or other harmful substances. This ring can be given to oneself or by someone else as a constant reminder to stay free from drugs and other substances that are harmful to the body.

A Promise to Remain Free of an Addiction

While a promise ring can be a promise to remain free from a drug addiction, it can also be a promise to remain free from other additions as well. This would include addictions such as gambling or pornography. It can also be a promise not to take an activity into access such as eating or even video games.

A Promise of Monogamy

When a couple does not to get civilly married they often wear promise rings as a symbol of their commitment to each other. These promise rings have a very strong meaning to the couple and is a way of them expressing their desire to be joined with that person forever.

A Promise of Silence

In ancient times, a ring would be given as a symbol of silence. It was used as a remembrance of the importance of keeping a particular secret. On occasion, a curse was engraved on the inside of what would occur if the secret was revealed.

A Promise of Spiritual Commitment

In the days of old it was common for prominent church leaders to wear a ring as a symbol of their commitment to the church. Even today many faiths wear rings as a reminder of their spiritual commitment.

A promise ring is not limited for the use of a pre-engagement ring, but can represent a promise between non-romantic friends, a promise to be chaste, a promise of substance abstinence, a promise to remain free from an addiction, a promise of monogamy, silence, spiritual commitment, and much more. One should not keep such a limited view of the promise ring as just being a pre-engagement ring, but see the potential of its other purposes as well. As seen, a promise can symbolize any promise that is made between to individuals or even a promise made to oneself. A promise ring is simply a physical sign of a commitment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.164.30 (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Tribune

 * According to the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, the federal budget in 2005 allocates $168 million to abstinence-only education. President Bush is seeking $206 million for 2006.


 * "While proponents of abstinence-only education claim that virginity pledges help to fight teen pregnancy, many researchers are skeptical. Cynthia Dailard, a senior public policy associate at the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization focused on reproductive health, says that there is no reliable evidence that abstinence-only programs reduce teen pregnancy or the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.


 * In a 2001 study published in the American Journal of Sociology, Peter Bearman, a professor of sociology at Columbia University, found that only 12 percent of the more than 2.5 million adolescents who had made a virginity pledge by 1995 remained abstinent until marriage. Abstinence pledges do delay sex for an average of 18 months, Bearman found, but those who break their pledges are a third less likely to use protection.


 * Pledgers are less likely to be prepared for an experience that they have promised to forgo, the study found."


 * I don't know who posted that, but I'd say the above would be more appropriate for the Abstinence-only sex education article.

Steve Lowther 06:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Bush administration
The comment about the Bush administration seems either irrelevant or very partisan. JEmfinger 22:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Some one must have removed it a while ago. I never saw it.

Steve Lowther 06:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced quote
From the article:

The Chicago Tribune wrote:
 * "Under the Bush administration, organizations that promote abstinence and encourage teens to sign virginity pledges or wear purity rings have received federal grants. The Silver Ring Thing, a subsidiary of a Pennsylvania Evangelical Church, has received more than $1 million from the government to promote abstinence and to sell its rings in the United States and abroad."

When? Cite, please. -- The Anome 02:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Deletion restored. In such cases, pieces are not deleted, but marked with .  It was an article by David Bario posted at several websites. It is still hanging around in several places, like here or here.  I copied the quotation from "Chicago Tribune" site. Sorry I didn't think to copy the date. You may ask him yourself.  dab2107@columbia.edu mikka (t) 17:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd say that would be more appropriate for the Silver Ring Thing article.

Steve Lowther 06:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I propose merging Promise ring into this article; it is a very short, minor article which is closely related (almost identical) to this one. Simply adding the information from Promise ring as a section in this article would be more appropriate. Cheers! =David ( talk )( contribs ) 07:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * TTotally different concepts. There may be much more written about promise rings, somply no one cares. `'Míkka 03:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Entirely disagree, David. Purity rings are a subset of promise rings, not the other way around; if you must merge the articles, please do it in the other direction. - Etherjammer 12:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed the merge tags, as I don't want that to hold up consensus on this. How's that?  Thanks for your input, Etherjammer.  =David ( talk )( contribs ) 15:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In the present state or article, the merge in this direction is out of question. Purity ring is a well-referenced article, about very specific topic. "Promise ring" is a vague unreferenced speculation, most of each I deleted. `'Míkka 16:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What about changing the lead sentence to read "Purity rings (also called chastity rings or promise rings..." and then prodding the other for deletion? Because you're right, and that's why I wanted to merge them.  =David ( talk )( contribs ) 16:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not a deletionist, despite the appearance, and IMO it is possible that the second article may survive, since there are a whooping 701,000 google hits. Of course, most of them are from websites peddling diamonds and stuff, so all their texts are most probably marketing bullshit. Therefore it will require quite some time to dig some reputable, independent references. `'Míkka 16:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"Purity Rings" are religious in nature, while one can argue that a 'Promise Ring' is not. Please do not merge or delte. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.84.66.34 (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not a religious person at all. I wear a promise ring, not a purity ring. These two topics should not be combined. A promise ring is a promise to stay with one person and to promise to marry in the future. A Purity ring is very different from that, at least I think so. Please don't combine or delete it. Lavender333 05:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Purity rings are NOT also called promise rings. Promise ring is a wide term referring to a ring given to somebody, representing a promise. Whether that promise be marriage, engagement, commitment, chastity or to wash the dog every Wednesday. Nobody is suggesting to merge engagement rings with purity rings, they are simply not the same. EsocksLAMB 01:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The only similarity between promise rings and purity rings is that they're both rings. A promise ring represents a promise to another person... a purity ring represents a promise to one's self (usually on a religious basis). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.164.30 (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

New Proposal
All right, how about merging purity rings as a subsection of promise rings? Not the same thing (that is, promise rings are not all purity rings) but a subset (that is, all purity rings are promise rings)? =David ( talk )( contribs ) 18:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia works exactly in the oppisite way: each independent topic deserves its own article. `'Míkka 15:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In my experience, it's not so much. Be that as it may, consensus was pretty overwhelming.  =David ( talk )( contribs ) 04:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Promise rings can also be given prior to engagement and have nothing to do with purity.. It makes sense if for example your girlfriend is in law school for 3 years and engagement is more appropriate when you can actually live together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.185.7 (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed the tag. While I don't agree, that's some pretty overwhelming consensus.  But I would very much like to see some fleshing out so that they don't remain stubs for long.  I've added cleanup tags.  =David ( talk )( contribs ) 04:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Miss Manners?
Why is her opinion on the ring on this page? I've never even heard of her. Her criticism is rather weak anyway. It's impolite to wear one? Who is going to look this page up and care at all about whether the ring is polite or not (in her opinion)? 122.104.164.28 (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never even heard of her. Not to be too trite, but the number of things you (or anyone else) haven't heard of would probably fill a Wikipedia. Using I've never heard of... as the reasoning to include or exclude anything is quite specious. Safety Cap (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The reference to Miss Manners is utterly non-notable and should be removed. Alboran (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Miss Manners'" comment has been removed, I'm sure thinking women of the world in control of their own bodies are ever grateful for removal of this disgustingly biased comment of no relevance to the subject. I could just as soon quote George Orwell's "Junior anti-sex league" from 1984 on this article and it would have been as relevant. Or maybe Faulkner? "It was men invented virginity." Regardless, if this "Miss Manners" person has a notable influence on the purity ring, then please include why and how.  Otherwise, it doesn't belong here.  The talk about abstinence only education barely applies as well.  Also, did Miss Manners seriously suggest we should start publicly checking women's hymens again? "Unless publicly proven otherwise" I think it said? There was only one thing in life I've ritually burned, and that was my abstinence pledge when I left the Evangelical church that raped a dozen boys. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 09:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear that you understand what she said. She said that in polite society, a girl is presumed chaste unless publicly proven otherwise. How on earth did you get checking hymens out of that? She means by the girl stating otherwise or, in this age, something like a video showing up. For example, Paris Hilton, as an unmarried woman, would be presumed chaste except that she has publicly proven she is not. Martin is warning that people might not recognize it as a chastity ring because they don't see a need to advertise their status. But I agiree, it is trivial to the the article and doesn't really belong. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The most common and socially acceptable way that a girl proves herself to be no longer chaste is for her to get married and get pregnant.Wufusk (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am a feminist, and I have to say that the quote from Miss Manners was not biased and it was the exact opposite of disgusting. Bloomingdedalus doesn't seem to undertand what etiquette is all about - Miss Manners is saying that polite people do not discuss whether or not a girl is chaste, because that is her own business and should not be up for public discussion ... and to wear a chastidy ring is bringing up that subject for public discussion, so therefore it is not polite. Wufusk (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I told you that at least one editor completely misdunderstood the quote and you told me that I was being insulting. Guess I wasn't, huh? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, mea culpa on that one, Niteshift36. Wufusk (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I do, however, fail to see the reasoning for removing the quotation because that one person misunderstood it. After all, you, yourself, agree that this one person jumped to a totally unreasonable conclusion, so if you are to remove everything on wikipedia that such a person would misunderstand, you might as well shut down the site. Or should we just dumb down every article to the lowest common denominator?  The other reasons people have suggested for removing the quote were that 1) they don't know who she is (and that was well responded to above), and 2) it was not notable and was trivial (to which I have responded below.) Wufusk (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a sad comment on today's society that people are not interested in proper etiquette, and that it is considered trivial. An article on Purity Rings should cover what they are and their history in society. Therefore a comment on the subject from a notable expert on social convention in today's society explaining what is considered to be etiquettely correct by societal norms is certainly a worthy addition to this page. If you do not know who Judith Martin (aka Miss Manners) is, the comment stated her title and linked to her Wikipedia page so that people could read about her qualifications. Wufusk (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again, you miss the point. I know who Martin is. Any who don't can read her bio. Her notability isn't in question. What IS in question is the relevance of her opinion to the article. As I mentioned before, just because a notable person says something, that doesn't mean it needs to be in the article. As I said before, just because someone like Michael Jordan says he likes chocolate cake doesn't mean we need to put that in the article about chocolate. Thus far, a number of editors (ones who have edited more than 2 articles), have agreed her opinion on the matter is trivial and not notable. On the other hand, you've engaged in an edit war, continually reinserting it and FINALLY, after all that warring, decide to discuss it. Please confine your "discussion" to the actual issue, not your commentary on how sad society has become. That is not the purpose of the talk pages. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again, YOU miss the point.
 * 1. When I said "if you do not know who (she) is", I was not talking to you. I was making my point to all who are reading this page ... don't take everything so personally.
 * 2. Michael Jordan is not an expert on chocolate cake. Judith Martin is an expert on social convention, and an article on something such as Purity Rings (the wearing of which is entirely socially driven) should contain information about whether or not said subject is socially acceptable.
 * 3. As I mentioned in my last comment to you (which I put on our pages, not this one, because it was in regard to our discussion and not to this subject, and therefore did not belong here), I did not know about this Discussion Page until you told me about it, but once I knew it existed, I came here and have updated it. A bit late for the party, I know, but as I said, this site is not only for wiki-geeks who spend mucho time reading/updating these pages, it is also for people such as me who have knowledge and information about the subjects being discussed, but who might just be learning to use the site.
 * 4. The issue being discussed is etiquette and people's opinions on whether or not it is trivial or relevant, and therefore my comment is perfectly valid.
 * Wufusk (talk) 01:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * She's an advice columnist, not an expert.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Martin is an advice columnist on etiquette. That doesn't make her an expert on the rings or things related to them. Further, your comments like "It is a sad comment on today's society that people are not interested in proper etiquette" is NOT relevant. The topic here is NOT etiquette. The topic is NOT society's lack of interest in etiquette. The topic is purity rings. Period. BTW, some might find "wiki-geek", a term you've used more than once, to be insulting. Since you're so concerned about etiquette, you might want to stop using it. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. I apologize if I offended anyone with the term "wiki-geek" ... it was not meant as an insult, since the current social attitude toward the term "geek" is a positive one. I used that term once in our earlier discussion, and repeated it here only in repeating what I said to you in that earlier discussion, since it appears you deleted it without first reading it.
 * 2. According to Wikipedia, an expert "is a person with extensive knowledge or ability based on research, experience, or occupation and in a particular area of study." "Judith Martin (née Perlman, born September 13, 1938[1]), better known by the pen name Miss Manners, is an American journalist, author, and etiquette authority." She is not merely an up-and-coming advice columnist, she has been writing about the subject for years (books, as well as columns), and she is considered an authority on the subject and is often invited to speak on the subject. If you would read my earlier comments again, you will see that I did not say she was an expert on rings, but I have explained why an article on Purity Rings should contain information about their place in societal views.
 * 3. You did not chastise Bloomingdedalus on his/her mention of burning the abstinence pledge, but since you have a grudge against me you insist on criticising every tiny thing, which shows your lack of objectiveness. The topic of the Subject page is purity rings. The topic of this particular discussion, however, is whether or not a comment about the etiquette of wearing a purity ring is appropriate for the Subject page.


 * "since it appears you deleted it without first reading it" Why does it appear that way? Since I know you used it before, I clearly DID read it. AGAIN, her expertise isn't the issue here. whether or not her opinion is relevant is the issue. As for your crap (yes, crap) about my objectivity or some imagined grudge.....it's not worth the time to address properly. So far, consensus is very against you and consensus is what really runs Wikipedia. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, I guess you did read it since you said I used the word twice .. you got me there. The reason I thought it appeared that you had not read it was because you said that I used that word more than once, when in fact the second time was merely to say that "this is what I said earlier". Also because you did not seem to have read what I had told you earlier about not knowing this discussion page was here. Your use of YELLING and angry words is again, evidence of lack of objectivity. Wufusk (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2011
 * Obviously I was arguing her expertise in response to earlier comments by you and Kww saying that she was not an authority. And the reason her opinion is relevant is because an article on something such as Purity Rings (the wearing of which is entirely socially driven) should contain information about whether or not said subject is socially acceptable.(UTC) Wufusk (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Putting a single word into caps isn't really yelling, it's emphasis. However, even if it were yelling, that has exactly jack-shit to do with objectivity. And yes, I read that you claimed you couldn't find the talk page. Please don't bring that up because it really tempts me to say some unkind things. Bottom line: You hold the opinion that the quote is relevent. Numerous editors, most of them with a lot more policy experience, disagree. There is a consensus that the quote should not be included. That (I used bold so you won't confuse it with yelling) is what ultimately decides the issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right that this site is ruled by consensus, and though history proves that consensus often does not make good decisions, it is the best we have, so we have to go with that. You have not, nor has anybody else here, bothered to actually argue against my contention of exactly why the quote it relevant. Everyone else's arguments have been effectively negated, and you seem to want to use childish language and argue that you are objective, when you don't even realize that an inability to speak calmly and without emotion during a debate is very much a sign that objectivity is lacking. The more you write, the more you prove my point. Feel free to say all the unkind things about me you want, because you know nothing about me. Being a new user and not knowing where all the pages are on wikipediea does not show a lack of intellegence about things that matter in life, whereas the lack of an ability to argue your point without getting irrationably angry at a total stranger certainly does. Wufusk (talk) 14:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "You have not, nor has anybody else here, bothered to actually argue against my contention of exactly why the quote it relevant." I have explained why. I'm sorry that you missed it. I won't bother to repeat it because you clearly don't care.
 * "Everyone else's arguments have been effectively negated" No they haven't.
 * "and you seem to want to use childish language and argue that you are objective, when you don't even realize that an inability to speak calmly and without emotion during a debate is very much a sign that objectivity is lacking" First, you fail to grasp that we are here to discuss the article, not my alleged conduct. Discuss the article, not the editor. Second, your basic premise is wrong. This isn't an objectivity issue at all. It's frustration with repeating myself over and over to a person who is either unwilling to listen or simply incapable. For example, you claimed you didn't know where the talk page was (something I still find difficult to believe). A reasonable person would have asked where it was after being told that it needed discussed on the talk page multiple times. Instead, you ignored that invitation and forced that quote into the article over and over. But if one becomes frustrated with a person who has repeatedly ignored what they were told, edit warred with multiple editors and has an amazing case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, then they must lack objectivity. Thanks for that does of hypocrisy. Your edit history is almost solely related to this quote in this article. That is a strong indicator of a lack of objectivity. You are looking like a WP:SPA. Lastly, you haven't managed to get me angry. I'd have to actually care enough about the issue or you and frankly, I don't care enough about either. You overestimate you abilities sunshine. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. As I said earlier, I have accepted the fact that my opinion is against consensus on this page, I only continue to respond to address your direct allegations.
 * 2. Don't curse at people if you don't want to be called on it.
 * 3. No, you haven't. Your comments about Michael Jordan and chocolate cake was refuted with the explanation that the relevancy is in that her expertise is in the area of social convention and the wearing of a purity ring is entirely socially driven, so anyone wishing to research such a subject would surely be interested to know what societal views are on that subject. (How's that for a run-on sentence?) I am actually no longer interested in your opinion on that subject, I am merely restating it since you apparently missed it above.
 * 4. Yes, they have. First it was that the person had never heard of Miss Manners before, and Safety Cap responded to that. Then it was that the quote is not notable, that Martin is not an expert, and that she was suggesting that women's hymens be publicly checked. All of which have been answered.
 * 5. Frustration and lack of objectivity are two very different things. I simply call them as they present themselves.
 * 6. The first time I heard that a Talk Page existed, I searched for it and found it. (I thought we were supposed to be discussing only the subject at hand ... here again, you are discussing other things every bit as much as I have.)
 * 7. I have acknowledged everyone else's input here, and I have acknowledged that the consensus is against me. No one has actually proven that I am in error, it has simply been proven that more people who view this page disagree with me ... that does not prove that I am wrong, especially since no one has directly disputed my reasoning (see above). A sensible person knows when to agree to disagree, and that I have already done. I agree this discussion has gone on way past the point of interest, but I do have the right to answer when accused, so I will continue to do so.
 * 8. I am not a WP:SPA, I am simply a new user of wikipedia and I lack the time to spend hours upon hours a day on this site, so it will take awhile to hit other subjects. Wufusk (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and "call me" on a word or two profanity. It doesn't really violate any rule. I also have no interest in your uninformed opinion. You really should stop the "I'm a new user" lie. You first put that passage in back in May. You repeatedly re-inserted it under this account and a couple of IP addresses......and added one item to one other article. Months of putting the same info into the same article.That, my friend, is a classic SPA. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Never said your language was against any rule, it's just rude, childish, and unprofessional. Researched chastidy rings after convo with friend way back when, googled it and found article, entered update. Never read another wikipedia article except that one for years(months? really don't know, it was awhile,though), but was curious as to why someone (I thought another user) kept removing it, but I wouldn't call that a user of the site because I never created account or realized what all was there until recently, so yes, I am a new user under the description of such as understood by s/w support. I do have two IP addresses - one at work and one at home. Nothing unusual there. I've explained the new login below. You know nothing about me, so you don't know how off-base your suggestion that my opinion is uninformed is, but who really cares. I'm at least informed enough to know how to actually answer all questions asked, or if not, to not say I did.Wufusk (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I frankly don't care if you think it's rude. You're calling it "childish" is insulting and ironic when coming from a person so concerned about etiquette. Unprofessional? When I start getting paid for this, I'll care about "professionalism". If you define your actions as "professional", then we clearly differ on the meaning of the word. You ARE "uninformed" in terms of Wikipedia, which is the context I used it in. Face it, anyone who couldn't even find the talk page (which I still don't believe) can't claim to be anything but uninformed. Lastly, no matter how much explaining and re-writing of history you do, you're still a SPA. BTW, the first time you put it in under this account was May 19, 2011. (You put it in using an IP even before that and it was removed). The edit from this account was removed the same day by an administrator and you began your long edit war. Now have the last word because you've bored me long enough.Niteshift36 (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2011
 * OK, I will give you that I was (and still am to a very large extent) uninformed about wikipedia ... definitely got me on that one. (I thought you were talking about uninformed on the subject of purity rings and etiquette, sorry.) I could have found the talk page had I known it existed. I have realized one thing - you believe that everyone should understand about talk pages, and maybe everyone who grew up with social media does.  But at the same time, I believed that everyone should understand readily that a pregnant woman is publicly known to no longer be a virgin. So I guess we both incorrectly assume others have the same mindframe as us. Wufusk (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sourced to broken link, possibly original research (synthesis)
I removed the following paragraph: "Critics of purity rings argue that virginity pledges are an unrealistic approach to suppressing teenage sexuality and any consequential outcomes such as pregnancy, STDs, etc. A 2004 review of a number of independent American studies concluded that abstinence programs "show little evidence of sustained impact on attitudes and intentions", and furthermore "show some negative impacts on youth's willingness to use contraception, including condoms, to prevent negative sexual health outcomes related to sexual intercourse"." The source cited was broken at the time I tried to access it, but from the quotation provided, it seems that this paragraph might be a kind of synthesis-style original research, as the quotation mentions virginity pledges in general rather than purity rings in particular. Also, the use of "critics...argue" is weasel wording, as the critics should be identified. Ecto (talk) 07:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could have just littered it with cites needed, having it missing neuters the cultural backlash against the rings as though it never happened. While it might seem "orignial research" and your personal distates for "critics argue" (I am certain it is not weasel words when sources are established) I can't help but think your removal of the paragraph might just be your personal attempt at altering history. Right now, you don't seem to have enough reason for completely removing it.Sanitycult (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This paragraph made it clear why we must follow No original research.
 * About my "personal distates for 'critics argue'" please see Avoid weasel words. Also, there were no "sources established" (unless you count one broken link to information that was not directly related to the article's subject anyway).
 * "I can't help but think your removal of the paragraph might just be your personal attempt at altering history." Actually, it's my personal attempt at improving Wikipedia by bringing its content into line with its policies. By the way, I'm assuming you assume good faith, but I can't help but think you should take a look at Assume good faith, just for your own curiosity's sake.
 * For an explanation why we are under no obligation to keep this unsourced and contentious material, please see Citing sources and Verifiability.Ecto (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I second the opinion of Ecto (however I have to wave a finger: while the link is broken, the info in question is easily findable): the cited texts say nothing about specifically purity rings. If anywhere, they belong to sexual abstinence article. - Altenmann >t 17:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
I have opened a case regarding the identical addition of the Miss Manners quote by multiple accounts. Anyone interested should comment there. Thanks. --Ebyabe (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Smelled like a sock to me too. I just requested page protection too Niteshift36 (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You have suggested that I was guilty of sock puppetry, but I assure you that is not the case. I had previously been updating this site without logging in, but then decided it would be best to create an account, so I did that, and used the new account for my next update. It was an attempt to improve my communications, not to subvert the rules or confuse people. Wufusk (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Use
is it really only Christians who use such rings? It is in each declined the impression I get from the article.--80.161.143.239 (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:LABEL violation
Altenmann, regarding this, the fact that the WP:Reliable source calls that matter controversial does not mean that the text should stay. It is still a WP:LABEL violation. WP:LABEL states that "contentious opinion[s] [...] are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. In some cases, in-text attribution might be a better option." While abstinence-only sex education has been controversial, depending on the context, it is not usually described as controversial. By that, I mean that the term controversial is not usually used when describing that topic, which is also why we currently do not begin the lead of the Abstinence-only sex education article by calling that topic controversial. In the case you reverted me on, in-text attribution is best. Either that, or briefly explaining how the matter is controversial. WP:LABEL is clear that we typically shouldn't simply call a matter controversial; we should explain how it is controversial. Flyer22 (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Removing it was the right call. Just because a RS said it doesn't mean it's now exempt from our desire to be neutral. If I can show a RS that calls Obama a "socialist" or "Muslim", do you think that he should be labelled at such in his bio? Or if a RS calls a restaurant the "best in town", do we now call it the best in the article? In a case like this, where there is a significant split in opinions about the education, calling it controversial would pretty much over-ride the other half of people who think it isn't controversial. If people are interested in the subject, they can click the link and go read about the expanded view. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you removed the term, and weighed in here about it. Flyer22 (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Purity ring. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150402102855/http://lifestyle.msn.com/messageboards/thread.aspx?board=00000065-012b-0000-0000-000000000000&thread=00000065-0000-0000-0850-020000000000 to http://lifestyle.msn.com/messageboards/thread.aspx?board=00000065-012b-0000-0000-000000000000&thread=00000065-0000-0000-0850-020000000000

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Purity ring. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150402102855/http://lifestyle.msn.com/messageboards/thread.aspx?board=00000065-012b-0000-0000-000000000000&thread=00000065-0000-0000-0850-020000000000 to http://lifestyle.msn.com/messageboards/thread.aspx?board=00000065-012b-0000-0000-000000000000&thread=00000065-0000-0000-0850-020000000000

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Trivia
Cerebral726, regarding this an and this, why you are restoring trivia? That content doesn't improve the article in any way. It's hardly any different than noting a variety of celebrities using some new condom brand. That is why I removed the material, which should have been obvious without an edit summary. I use an edit summary 99.9 percent of the time when not reverting problematic edits with WP:Huggle (as WP:Huggle handles the edit summaries for me). And the one time I don't, an editor restores obvious fluff? I also removed unnecessary headings and restored an important part of the initial introduction. And, really, with as small as this article is, it doesn't need even the one section heading I gave it.

I ask that you don't ping me to reply. Since you watch the article, you don't need pinging either. But I pinged you for good measure. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I apologize for overzealously reverting the changes you made and getting rid of fixes that unequivocally improved the article. However, in regard to the celebrities who wore the ring, to me, the phenomenon of several teen idols/Disney stars from the mid-2000's to the mid 2010's wearing and advocating for the ring was a significant part of how purity rings were known and portrayed during that time period, and while that connection may not have been drawn out in the original text, that was my interpretation as to why it was included in the first place. I believe that it would be better to try and find a source about the prevalence of purity rings in pop culture during that time period to expand on why that isn't just "trivia" but an integral part of understanding how purity rings have been perceived and represented, rather than removing that list altogether. I may do some digging and try and find a source. Cerebral726 (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I apologize for getting snippy with you above. I wouldn't strongly oppose a WP:In popular culture or "In the media" section that is presented better than the content I removed. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries. On the surface, my revert was a bit flippant, and I did over-revert! I'll look into finding good sources for that section, and I'm sure you'll see when I add it. Cerebral726 (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In fact, I wouldn't oppose it at all. I wouldn't (and don't) prefer the inclusion in this case, but I'd be more so indifferent to it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Anupam, regarding this, you have the WP:Consensus matter backwards. An editor was WP:Bold and I have validly challenged their bold addition. See WP:ONUS. Also see above. How do you justify retaining that material and reverting all of my changes? Exactly why are all those headings needed? See MOS:Paragraphs. Headings needed for that little bit of material? No. If you are going to argue to retain that celebrity material, I will start a WP:RfC on it, and it will very likely be removed per that RfC. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, the information has been in the article for a long time and it has been properly reverted per WP:BRD. Now, you will have to gain consensus for removing it as you have already been reverted twice. As User:Cerebral726 noted, the fact that many celebrities wore purity rings contributed to their popularity. That being said, as a WP:COMPROMISE, I would be willing to accept your suggestion of moving the statement to an "In popular culture" or "In the media" section? What are your thoughts? With regard to your remark about the headings, my apologies—feel free to remove them; my revert only concerned the removal of the sentence about celebrities who sported purity rings. I hope this helps and look forward to hearing from you. With regards, AnupamTalk 06:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the information was already in the article; I forgot about that. But unnecessary formatting changes that do not improve the article were still made. For example, "purity movement" was noted and bolded in the lead because it redirects here; that format was following MOS:BOLD. And the celebrity material does not improve the article. As it is now, the content is simply trivia. As for Cerebral726, Cerebral726 was clear that "it would be better to try and find a source about the prevalence of purity rings in pop culture during that time period to expand on why that isn't just 'trivia' but an integral part of understanding how purity rings have been perceived and represented, rather than removing that list altogether." In other words, the content does not speak on many celebrities having worn purity rings having contributed to the popularity of purity rings. And titling the section "In popular culture" or "In the media" will not fix the issue. See what WP:In popular culture states. WP:ONUS still stands, and it states, "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content."


 * Anyway, although this article has been on my watchlist for years, as is clear by the section above, I'm going ahead and removing it. I don't feel the need to invest in this article. I've been reducing my watchlist when I feel I can part from an article. So do with this article what you will. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I am suggesting that the True Love Waits and Silver Ring Thing articles be merged into this Purity ring article. The individual articles as they are are quite small, many of the points of SRT (how purity pledges work, the use of Contemporary Christian Music, etc.) also apply to TLW, many notable purity campaigns are omitted (Eu Escolhi Esperar with millions of social media followers, TrueGirl aka. Secret Keeper Girl, etc.), and critics of abstinence such as John Oliver target multiple purity ring groups. Given this, I believe that one main article is better, to help group everything together. If editors see fit, Eu Escolhi Esperar could receive its own article in Portuguese and English. --LABcrabs (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC) I created a draft for the Eu Escolhi Esperar article. --LABcrabs (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal Regarding Symbol Denoting Former Supporters
The dagger symbol (†) is used in the "supporters" section to denote someone who no longer supports purity rings. Ordinarily, this symbol indicates that the preceding person is deceased. It might be wise to replace it with a more appropriate symbol. Snorri Asagrimm (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * This looks like it's been removed now. I'm not sure how useful the list is, as it seems pretty indiscriminate (but a lot more reduced than previous versions of this article). GnocchiFan (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)