Talk:Purity ring

message: 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)
thread_title: Pop references

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

message: :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)
thread_title: Chicago Tribune

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Unreferenced quote 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Wikipedia works exactly in the oppisite way: each independent topic deserves its own article.  `'Míkka 15:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: 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)
replies: text: Wikipedia works exactly in the oppisite way: each independent topic deserves its own article.  `'Míkka 15:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  New Proposal 

message: 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)
replies: text: *Smelled like a sock to me too. I just requested page protection too Niteshift36 (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppetry 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Use 

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: I appreciate that you removed the term, and weighed in here about it. Flyer22 (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:LABEL]] violation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  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 IITalk to my owner:Online 07:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  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 IITalk to my owner:Online 06:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposal Regarding Symbol Denoting Former Supporters