Talk:Purity test

2007

While I appreciate the documentation of the evolution of purity tests from the apparently original sexual purity test, I'm surprised that there are no references here to the purity tests conducted by would-be manufacturers of PC clones. You know, the meetings with a technically savvy inquisitor asking the potential recruit about any exposure to the original IBM BIOS, with a lawyer present for liability reasons.

I'll research for a section about these purity tests. Is anyone reading this? If so, who might know the canonical name for this type of purity test? --Brad Eleven 13:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Not only is this information unsourced, it appears to be almost completely made up and wrong. If nobody objects I'm probably going to stubbify this article and replace it by what little I can source. As far as /I/ know purity tests first became popular as one of the very first Inetnet memes via usenet in the early to mid 1980s. They flew from newsgroup to newsgroup, email box to email box, in various ever expanding versions. They were never indended or used seriously, and despite the test's claims they were usually taken alone or discussed in small private settings rather than as a parlor game or a serious attempt to assess anything. The statement that one tries to achieve a score of 70% seems random. Wikidemo (talk) 09:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem

One more problem with these so-called purity tests is that they ar not clear on whether marriage makes you "impure", that is, if you did some of these "activities" within marraige, are you supposed to answer "yes" or "no". For example, one question commonly asked is "Have you ever been completely undressed by a man?". In my case, the anwser is technically "yes", but the only man who does it to me is my husband. I certainly don't feel anything "impure" or "wrong" about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.99.104.0 (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The correct answer in your question would be 'yes'. Purity (or Impurity) in the context of these tests is without regard to marriage. You've been undressed by a man, and someone else taking the test may not have; therefore a lower Purity score. Ghoti (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That is the whole point. You are supposed to answer with the truth. Not try and get a low score. If there are 2000 questions it also indicates there are questions that cross reference to other questions and try to catch you out. Also that question is odd because 'ever' includes when you were a child. And many children are dressed and undressed by their parents at some point. 194.207.86.26 (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit request: External link suggestion

Hello! I’m associated with https://ricepuritytes.com/. I would like to suggest this site as an external link because it provides an online, interactive version of the Rice Purity Test that some readers may be looking for. Please include it if it meets Wikipedia’s external link guidelines. Thank you. Asim39 (talk) 12:42, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Not done: I'm considering this as slightly promotional as the goal of this seems to be getting users to the rice purity test. The URL also appears to be incorrect as I assumed it was ricepuritytest.com not ricepuritytes.com, so out of the promo and concerns regarding the potentially typo'd URL I'm going to decline this request. Encoded  Talk 💬 21:11, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Recent disagreement

@Sardar Ummer22 Hello. You said about Rice Purity Test Online that "This is the complete in depth research".

No it's not, it's a link to some online webtest. It has no value beyond WP:ABOUTSELF, and the linked page did not support the text you added. Ping to @MrOllie if you wish to comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:46, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

The cited example was provided as evidence of a modern implementation of the concept, not as sole authority for the terminology itself. If there are concerns regarding wording, sourcing quality, or due weight, those issues can be addressed constructively through rephrasing or additional independent references. Labeling the contribution as “spam” is inaccurate, as the material was research-oriented. Sardar Ummer22 (talk) 09:48, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

The wording you added,

"Modern digital adaptations of the 100-question test allow users to interactively check off experiences, with an algorithm automatically calculating and generating a final purity score out of 100"

is not supported by the link to a specific online-test, it's only talking about itself. For WP-purposes, that startpage has no use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:56, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

And now we're WP:EW-ing. Great. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:57, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Fair point regarding the sourcing. The intention was to describe the existence of online implementations of the test format, not to establish novel terminology or rely on a self-published source for broader claims. I agree that the wording may have overstated what the cited source could verify.

To avoid WP:SYNTH and undue weight concerns, I’m fine with either rephrasing the sentence more narrowly or omitting it unless stronger independent secondary sourcing can be found. My concern was primarily with the characterization as “spam,” since the edit was made in good faith. Sardar Ummer22 (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

More narrow phrasing would just be saying something WP:ABOUTSELF about that particular test. For WP-purposes, look for independent WP:RS about purity tests. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for raising these valid points about source reliability. I appreciate the constructive feedback. Here's how I'd like to proceed:

Proposed Resolution:

Option 1: Narrow the Claim Rather than describing online implementations in detail, we could simply state:

1: "The test has been adapted into digital formats" (a more general, defensible statement)

2: Remove the specific algorithmic claims that require stronger sources

Option 2: Strengthen Sources

1: If we want to keep the detailed wording, we should find independent, reliable secondary sources (news articles, academic papers, or published analyses) that document how modern versions work

2: Self-published sources can support basic facts about themselves, not broader claims about the category

Option 3: Reword for Accuracy "Online versions exist, including digital adaptations that calculate purity scores" – this stays closer to what the source can verify about itself. Sardar Ummer22 (talk) 10:13, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm still at "that particular source is of no use to us", and it says nothing about algorithms or things in general. That online versions exist is noted in the article already ("viral"), and pretty much a given in these times. What is lacking is decent secondary sources about the "modern" stuff, but there might be some more non-awful WP:RSSM out there.

According to "your" about page, "Today, the Rice Purity Test is one of the most recognized self-assessment quizzes on the internet, with an estimated 50+ million tests taken worldwide." That may or may not be right, but per WP:ABOUTSELF it's useless for WP-purposes. Also, they can't be arsed to tell us who "they" are.

I was going to use this source [1] but I sense satire. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, examples are not citations. The about page is pretty clearly AI-generated, as are some of Sardar Ummer22's talk page posts here. FYI, Sardar, using an AI on a Wikipedia talkpage is considered frightfully rude - write in your own words or not at all.

I stand by my initial assessment of this source: it is clearly a spam link. MrOllie (talk) 11:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

No. Let's be clear about what's actually happening here.

First, you're making accusations without evidence. "Pretty clearly AI-generated" that's not an argument, that's an assertion. If you have specific sentences you believe are AI-written, cite them. Otherwise, this is just hand-waving.

Secondly, I didn't use AI to write the article. The content comes from research and sources. You disagreeing with my writing style doesn't make it AI-generated. That's not how this works.

Thirdly, calling a source a "spam link" without explanation is meaningless. What makes it spam? Is it unreliable? Unrelated? You haven't said. Just throwing labels around doesn't constitute a valid objection.

And finally accusing me of "being rude" by using AI on a talk page, then immediately being dismissive and accusatory yourself, is the definition of bad faith. If you want to engage seriously, do that. If not, don't waste both our time with vague accusations.

I'm here to improve the article. But that requires actual criticism, not just name calling. Cite specific problems and I'll address them. Otherwise, this conversation isn't productive. Sardar Ummer22 (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

and one more thing if you have better source then let me know to add them. Instead of playing a blame game lets have some productive work. Sardar Ummer22 (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Secondly, I didn't use AI to write the article. No one said you used it to write the article.

I said you used AI to write the above talk page messages, and I'll note that you haven't actually denied that.

If you have specific sentences you believe are AI-written, cite them - All of the above sentences.

What makes it spam? - What makes it spam is that you are trying to force a clearly inappropriate link into the article. Spamming is a behavior, and you are engaging in it.

doesn't constitute a valid objection. - You don't get to decide what is a 'valid objection' or not. I am not required to disagree with you in precisely the manner you would prefer.

I also said that it looks like the about page of the site in question was written by AI. Did you write that about page? How do you know if it was written by AI or not? MrOllie (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

See also the https://ricepuritytestonline.net/disclaimer page. There is nothing research/algorithm etc about this. It's just a for-fun questionnaire with a little web-design. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Noting for the talk page archives that Sardar Ummer22 has been blocked as a sock account belonging to a spam farm. MrOllie (talk) 11:24, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh well, keep AGF:ing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@MrOllie More link-spamming might be incoming: [2] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:43, 10 June 2026 (UTC)