Talk:Wedding ring/Archive 1

Holocaust picture in poor taste?
I am a bit horified by the picture of wedding rings confiscated at the concentration camp. To go from "warm fuzzies" thinking about marriage to suddenly imagining so many marriages torn apart by that horrific event... Yikes.

Could we find a better picture? Jerde 06:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Very poor taste. I have removed the image. --Jens Schriver 23:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Citation needed
I note citation needed tag after the comment that making sexual advances to someone wearing a wedding or engagement ring is frowned upon. The original comment may be too blindingly self obvious to be worthy of inculsion in the article, but I don't think this needs citation unless the reader is from a different planet, (sorry peronal gripe about random insertions demanding citations to prove the least questionable bits of articles). AS much as I'm tempted to footnote see most of western culture, that would probably be inappropriate - would the person who asked for the citation care to justify why, or if there is no response I intend to delete it :-). Winstonwolfe 03:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Another Interesting Article
There is another interesting article on wedding ring history @ http://www.oldandsold.com/articles/article115.shtml

Might provide a few more bits of info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smithville (talk • contribs).


 * It seems like a fairly poor quality, short essay thrown on to a commercial site. I don't see how it serves our readers to include it.  --Siobhan Hansa 04:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Cultural question
Given that the male ring was an american and very recent invention, I'm not sure how much more international this can be made....Bridesmill 23:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Unsafe practice removed
" Tungsten rings cannot be cut with these tools but can be removed by breaking them with a common plumber's wrench known as "mole grips".

I removed this piece because a. ring removal tools with a diamond cutter will remove basically anything, though it's going to be timeconsuming to do so, and b. using a vicegrip to remove a stuck tungsten ring???WITHOUT doing serious injury to the patient? Definitely not a recommended course of action (speaking with my firefighter hat and my silversmith hat on)Bridesmill 23:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds special - but is it??
"To make wedding rings, jewellers most commonly use a precious yellow alloy of gold, " sound like wedding rings use a special alloy, different form other jewelry - can we reword this to reflect that wdding bands in general use the same materials as any other jewelry? Bridesmill 23:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Wedding ring cushion
Is any information at Wedding ring cushion usable here? --Moglex 18:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"Traditionalist" Catholic
I removed the "traditionalist Catholic" ring formula. It lacks a citation, and a quick Google search shows that it was taken from a 1549 liturgical book, with the main distinguishing characteristic of the mention of gold and silver having been removed from 1552 on. Since at least 1928, the form that the "Tridentine" missal has used has been virtually identical to that in the ordinary form of the Mass. No traditionalists today use 1549 liturgical books, and if it provided for the sake of history there are probably texts that could be found which go back even further. The 1962 Missal, which is what traditionalist Catholics would use today, has this: "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Take and wear this ring as a sign of our marriage vows." (http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/TextContents/Index/4/SubIndex/66/TextIndex/12) Since this is virtually identical to current Missal, I see no point in listing it. MikeND05 03:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Titanium rings and amputation
"Many people have had to amputate their fingers due to titanium ring incidents." This seems to be an urban legend. Can we get some sort of reference to this point, if it is indeed true?

Frure (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wearing ring on right hand.
I removed Norway from this part, because I know it's worn on the left there. I also doubt it's worn on the right in Germany, though I can't confirm this. Of Chile I have no idea.

How do you know this? I'm norwegian and everyone I know wear there ring on the right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.27.97 (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

17-Jan-08 Hi! I am Elias Medina, I live in Chile and I am pleased to let you know guys that wedding ring is used in left hand, so I edited the information on the main page editing it as it should.

In Germany the wedding ring is traditionally worn on the right hand by both common confessions (Chatholics and Protestants). However I always had the impression that the question on which hand the ring belongs had something to do with the predominant confession in a country. Protestants seem more likely to wear the ring left and Catholics more likely to wear it right. There must me some way to find out where this habits come from. Does noone have an idea?

I (rrw) readded the Germany to the list of right-hand countries. I also added Poland, since I am Polish and I should know better ;) As for Germany, I just had a conversation with coworkers from Germany couple of days ago, exactly about wedding ring wearing habits and I know for a fact, that in whole Germany it's worn on right hand.

As an American, I am unfamiliar with some of the details in the article. Some references would be nice for: Some details that I disagree with:
 * The rubber bands on ship-board.
 * "[C]orroding metals are never used because they stain the skin."
 * The rings made with sets of birth stones
 * "Stainless steel is so cheap that many consider it insulting." (www.diamondtalk.com and www.tradeshop.com have counter-examples)
 * Sizes of stones. 1/2 carat diamond rings are quite common in the United States; 2 carat diamond rings are unusual in the United States.  (Per www.diamondtalk.com, www.pricescope.com, www.niceice.com)

-- Jasper 21:30 September 6, 2003 (UTC)

This entire article reads like a brochure from a mom & pop jewelry store. I question the accuracy of many of the statements on the page, as they seem to attribute a single person's experience and opinions on the subject to worldwide tradition. -- CyborgTosser

I dispute the accuracy of the description of the three interlocking rings. These are a Russian tradition, and usually represent the three persons of the Trinity.

This is a tricky article to write as it deals with sensitive emotional issues - expectations and experiences differ and are very important to individuals. Good effort so far by all involved I'd say. --/Mat 10:51, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"It is common for chaste married people, especially men, to fail to wear a ring" - surely the reverse is more true? ie unchaste parties. Not sure about "common" either. I'll leave the changing to someone more familiar with the facts. --/Mat 10:51, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Neither my father nor most of the adult men I knew as a child wore wedding bands (generations now in their 60s and beyond). In my generation and beyond, wedding bands seem to be common for men. I don't know whether it's different in different parts of the U.S., for different generations, or what. Elf | Talk 23:02, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

I did some editing but still more could be done. Tried to do more of the "some people believe" strategy. E.g., etiquette & wedding & jewelers books & literature I've read say that the wedding band goes closest to the heart, below the engagement ring--but whoever wrote the article originally stated the opposite. I removed latter but stated former as "one tradition..." or something like that. I moved the engagement & promise ring discussions to their own articles and edited those some, too. I think it's probably true that if a man buys an engagement ring that's visibly below his means and not merely because that's what the woman wants that he might be viewed as cheap in many cases. Oh, well. Elf | Talk 22:43, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

I've never heard of a wedding ring worn on the right hand in Sweden either. The information sounds strange. | 84.217.133.101 20:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe interesting (explaining why orthodox people use the right hand): http://www.antiochian.org/1286

History of the Wedding Ring
When were they first worn?

Please sign your comments. Who knows? As the article alludes, there are 'hints' at the history, but there is 'no' agreed upon origin; pictures start showing up in the renaissance, rings and other betrothat items are referred to well before then, but it cannot be definitively stated that it was a widespread tradition - to make any assertion as to origin in this article would be original research. I believe the article is already as precise as it can be re the origin of men's wedding rings; perhaps we need to state this more explicitly, will add it to my todo list...Bridesmill 23:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've seen quotes that the wedding ring can be documented all the way back to early egypt 4700 BC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.212.191 (talk • contribs)
 * Do you have a source for that? It would be great to include it in the article if we can verify it.  -- SiobhanHansa 11:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There's this article, but I don't know if it counts as a reliable source. Akatari (talk) 13:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ugly Ring
Man that first picture, of the messy yellow gold monstrosity is one ugly, ugly ring. -- Brideshead (leave a message) 18:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Different tastes! The photo did seem to be more about the engagement ring though - so I moved it down to a section that talks about wearing both rings together.  Now the first image is of a classic gold band on its own, which some others might think is ugly(!), but is at least more focused on the wedding ring. -- SiobhanHansa 20:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Clean-up
I did quite a lot of clean-up: too many cooks makes an overabundance of wikilinks. Also, there were many extraneous parentheses that I removed. I also uniformized the spellings throughout.

I'm still worried that this article has a heteronormative and Eurocentric bent; someone who knows should include gay married couples' traditions as well as traditions from non-western cultures. The roundness of the ring also symbolizes eternity; this is not mentioned anywhere in the article. Telestylo 21:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the comment about gay weddings/ceremonies. "Commitment band" redirects here from a couple of gay-related articles but there's nothing here about gay ceremonies or alternative "commitment" rings. Graymornings (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

On the finger vs. on a necklace
"Either partner may also wear a wedding ring on a chain around the neck, thus conveying the socially equivalent message to wearing it on a finger."

...not really. The reason it's a social message to wear it on ones finger is because it's obvious to anyone, very clearly, that they're betrothed. When it's on a chain around the neck you have no way of knowing.

I'd appreciate it if someone associated with this article could change that sentence. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.97.108 (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Chinese Tradition
Anyone know of engagement and wedding ring traditions in China? Is it a tradition imported from the West? I don't think I ever see Chinese men wearing wedding rings, not so sure about Women though.

Wedding rings in china are sold in pairs of his and her rings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.92.122 (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Eternity Ring redirect
Okay folks, I arrived this page from a redirect which suggests that a Eternity Ring is equal to Wedding Ring My understanding is that it is not. I have a colleague who pointedly told me that an eternity ring is given on the birth of the first child... but I have no verifable sources to back this up. Anyone able to provide enough sources to remove the redirect and create a new article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Govworker (talk • contribs) 15:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That's because there is no set tradition for eternity rings. They can be given for the birth of a first child, an anniversary of significant years, renewal of vows or any occasion whereby the giver wants to signify that (usually) he is recommitting for eternity. The closest tradition is that it is only given in a long-standing, usually married, committed relationship (but even that people break: my mother got all of us daughters, and herself, silver eternity rings with our birthstones to tell them apart, for our right hand to signify that we will be family and friends for eternity, no matter what happens with family and romantic relationships. Traditions are both made to be kept and made to be broken.).--99.246.88.31 (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Double-ring ceremony -- cultural significance
The article notes correctly that (in the U.S. at least) before the mid-20th century, wedding rings were worn by married women but rarely by married men, whereas by the late 20th century both spouses typically wore wedding rings. The article attributes this to jewelers seeing an opportunity to sell more rings, but I think a more important reason, or at least a more important consequence, is the growing belief in equality between the sexes in marriage. The pre-feminist perspective was, crudely speaking, that married women needed to be designated as belonging to their husbands, by wearing a wedding ring and being called Mrs. Richard Roe instead of Miss Jane Doe; whereas married men neither needed nor wanted any such indicators of their married status. Now that most married men wear wedding rings, it is harder for men to conceal their married status, and it is considered somewhat dishonorable for them to expect to. The cultural change is evident in the facetious Air Force slogan "wheels up -- rings off," which expresses a foot-dragging accommodation to the new attitudes: once the airplane had taken off, the men on board would supposedly remove their wedding rings and pretend to be single. If they still thought like typical 19th century men, they would not have consented to wear wedding rings in the first place, nor felt guilty about their away-from-home infidelities.CharlesHBennett (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * citation? Also remember rings were quite common displays of status and history but would often need to be removed for safety reasons (rings get hot and can increase the likelihood of burns, for example. Also, if chemicals were in use, interaction with the metals...). Unless you can show articles or, at the very least, literature at the time discussing that, the safety reason is of equal validity for that slogan (FYI, my Grandfather was a civilian pilot in Hungary just post-WWII and removed many items off his person prior to flight).--99.246.88.31 (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Since I judge this to be a rather important cultural fact about wedding rings, which as the introduction rightly says are first and foremost a sign that the wearer is married, I added a brief mention of the change from wives-only to both-spouses in the introduction, along with the fact that unlike other jewelry wedding rings are rarely removed.CharlesHBennett (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Muslim Quote
Took out "Muslim" quote because it's not said, in fact, Muslims don't even exchange rings... &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.178.64.161 (talk &bull; contribs).
 * The quote in question is
 * "I offer you myself in marriage in accordance with the Holy Qur'an and Holy Prophet, peace and blessing be upon Him. I pledge to be your obedient and faithful wife." Said by the wife at a Muslim wedding
 * Does anyone know the source or can verify the accuracy of the quote? Thanks, --Hansnesse 05:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have seen Muslim men wear wedding rings though, and not only those married to Christians, but also those married to Muslim brides. They shouldn't be gold ("haram" or impure) for men. I was told (by a Saudi coworker and confirmed by an Omani one too) that the male wears the ring when he think he has enough wives (which goes in line with a man wearing a ring meaning "not available") --Alferez jan 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 09:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC).

Christianity and Discussion
Why do wedding or engagement ring discussion pages have Christian wiki projects attached? What does Christianity have to do with rings? It’s almost a little insulting to people of non-religious views that use rings. Not that I am saying it should be changed, but I'm just giving a little challenge to why those are linked. Andrew Colvin (talk) 07:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe because wedding rings are Sacramentals (?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alferez (talk • contribs) 09:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Wedding rings apparently predate Christianity and are used in non-Christian countries. However, wedding rings were mentioned by St. Augustine and are part of the wedding ceremony in many Christian denominations, e.g., With thys ryng I the wedde and tys gold and silver I the geue and wyth my body I te worscype and wyth all my wordly catell I the honore. Zyxwv99 (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Image
I've changed the previous image for a new one which I believe illustrates the subject matter better for two reasons: CLW 02:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In the previous image, the wedding ring was smaller than the engagement ring, so the engagement ring was the main focus of the image. Now, there's just a wedding ring.
 * The newer photo shows more clearly which finger a wedding ring is traditionally worn on.
 * Why does the first picture of a wedding ring have to include a super fat hand that looks like it belongs in the pages of a medical dictionary? Find a better picture!!! User:Dikteren 13:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. First thing I noticed was whoever is in the leading pic is overweight 70.162.254.253 (talk) 04:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Wedding thimble section--deleted because of unreliable sources
I looked at the sources for the section on Puritan and Quaker wedding thimbles, and I don't think it should be there at all unless better sources can be found. I looked at both and neither one meets RS criteria.

Thought Catalog is a user-generated site. We're allowed to use those things as sources if the content is attributed to a specific person whose expert credentials are listed, but the author of this source is listed as a "writer and teacher of writing," not a historian or expert on jewelry.

The Blogspot source is a blog, which we're allowed to use if the blogger is an established expert, but she, Deborah Swift, is listed as a "writer of thought-provoking historical fiction." She does not cite any history degrees or other expert credentials. Swift, says, "...when I was writing my novel [...] I read that the Quakers and Puritans [made wedding thimbles]" and "loving a good story, I like to think..." and she includes a link to arguments refuting the idea, so we can infer that even she isn't confident that it's true. Even we were to find that Swift was an expert on non-fictional history (and that is not impossible), her expert opinion is best summarized not as "Puritans made wedding thimbles" but as "There are stories saying that Puritans made wedding thimbles."

If we can track down the book that Swift read for her novel, then that might be a good source. If anyone feels the need to retain this section, contacting her to ask where she read the information would be a good way to start. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite?
I suggest a complete rewrite of this entry; many of the criticisms below from as far back as 2004 are still true of this page in 2014. It is excessively Christian, contains a large amount of unsupported claims, and much of the text is grammatically suspect. 71.241.246.66 (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Anon
 * It's fine as of this date.173.24.154.19 (talk) 10:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Mennonites
I removed the following sentence:

" At the time of engagement, a Mennonite man often gifts his bride-to-be "a special clock as a token of their relationship". "

I am a conservative Mennonite minister and have never heard of this. It's probable that this takes place in certain circles, but it's certainly not representative of the majority of Mennonites as far as I know.

- Geekosaurus(talk) 02:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

widows
The e2 node on "Ring finger" states: "there is a tradition of etiquette that a widow may continue to wear the wedding ring on the third finger of the left hand, but should move it to the third finger of the right hand if she remarries."

Can anyone verify this? --NeuronExMachina 08:21, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Moving article
I will shortly be moving this article to "Wedding ring" as "Wedding band" is a very rarely used term. If anyone would like to comment beforehand, please do so below. Nicholas 11:32, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't bother. It has a nice old-fashioned air, and I think 'wedding band' is still used in the related industries.  I don't feel strongly about this, however, so if you do, go to.  Just remember to fix all the links at 'what links here'.  Quill 21:12, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of Men’s wedding rings in the UK?
It’s a quite modern practice for men to wear wedding rings in the U.K. They did not become common amongst British men until after the Second World War with the origins of the changing fashion coming from American influence. The words used in Anglican Church Weddings were adapted with an option for both to give rings but the original text was only for a man to give a ring to the woman.

Many married men in U.K. do not wear one and did not receive one during their wedding ceremony. There are a few typical reasons given. One is tradition, with some men regarding them as being male jewellery which has historically being regarded as inappropriate amongst the middle and upper classes and only a wristwatch and sometimes a signet ring being preferred. Amongst all classes, it is quite common that their Father, Grandfather and other male members of the family/ancestors will not have owned one. Another reason often given is safety, with men typically involved in more manual labour related occupations choosing to avoid them to prevent de-gloving and other finger injuries caused by rings. Other reasons given are to avoid loss or damage to the ring, comfort over decoration and prioritising the money spent on the Wedding and Engagement Rings given to their partner (a man’s wedding ring often has considerably more weight of precious metal than a woman's and thus costs more).

Sometimes the traditional aspect of U.K. men not wearing them have been questioned in the international press. One example being the interest in the U.S. when Prince William did not receive one during his wedding ceremony. Some commentators criticised this as a lack of commitment as they assumed they were universal as they might be in their culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NBHP (talk • contribs) 15:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian wedding rings
The article as it stands begins the "history" section by claiming that there are ancient Egyptian wedding rings going back 6000 years (i.e., 4,000 BC, or in the middle of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amratian_culture, very early in Egyptian prehistory.)

Its only source for this is one article, Hort (1919), "Some Traditions about Wedding Bands", in "The Irish Monthly". This is a very general, very secondary source, which does not contain the claim that there were ancient Egyptian wedding rings. The author only repeats some (unevidenced) assertions about the prevalence of scarab rings among ancient Egyptian soldiers (pp. 649-650), and says nothing about their date.

Given that the assertion about wedding rings is made here without any evidence, and that the ancient Egyptians had no formal wedding ceremony or term for "marriage" per se (see, e.g., Donker van Heel, "Djekhy and Son" (2012), p. 46 for a description of an Egyptian wedding in the Late Period), I will delete this assertion. I strongly recommend a better source be used on the history of wedding rings, more generally. 82.75.191.121 (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Nefertum

Wedding Ring on a Chain?
In the Caribbean, this has come to mean that the marriage is bumpy but their is still hope. When the woman removes her wedding ring and does not wear it on the finger or around her neck on a chain this can signify that the marriage is on the rocks. If the man removes it and wears it about his neck, it may signify that he is unhappy but still married.
 * Can anyone verify this? — GraceWalker2 (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Why tell everyone that one is married?
Not included in the article is why someone would want to tell other people they are married? It seems to me it is none of their business if someone is married or not. Are ring wearers bragging someone married them? Desertphile (talk) 03:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Mehr Ring Marriage Ring.jpg

“image below” of the Byzantine ring
The image below is really far below, to the point where I had difficulty finding it. Is there a way to reword this? Duckduckgoop (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)