Talk:Temple garment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject, an attempt to provide comprehensive and detailed information about the Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism on Wikipedia. To participate in the project, edit this article, visit the List of articles about the Latter Day Saint movement, the project page, and/or join the discussion. For writing guidelines about contributing to the project, you may want to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Archives: Archive 1, Archive 2

Contents

[edit] Tags

I recently added several tags to the article, as a lot of text is not supported by a source, relies too heavily on one source, or is not supported by the sources listed. I hope that these issues can be resolved, discussed here, or the applicable text removed. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the two tags that are meant to be used for entire articles or sections as you had them placed for only a paragraph or two. Please go ahead and use inline tags for where you have concerns but those "section" tags were not really appropriate for that sort of usage.--BirgitteSB 16:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the section tags are appropriate because they address the section of information below them. Plus, I am unaware of inline tags that address these specific issues, so I will undo your changes for now, but if you can find applicable inline tags, please either make me aware or put them in. Thank you! --Eustress (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that there is nothing wrong with having parts of an article rely on a single source. It's necessary to have multiple sources for an article, and desirable to have multiple sources for each section, but it isn't mandatory to have multiple sources for every statement or section.Kww (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not ideal to utilze a single source for controversial things, but when doing so it is vital that the source is highly reputable and meets all the standards of a reputable source. When those standards are questionable, I don't think anyone can argue that the single source causes a significant problem. Does the source meet the standards of reputability? --Storm Rider (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate everyone's comments and insights. Regarding the source's reliability, from what I've been able to find, the back cover of the book indicates that the author works as "a freelance business and financial writer for computer technology magazines and companies."[1] Thus, I don't think the source would meet Wiki's scholarship criteria. Moreover, the policy states that "individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution."[2] I think relying so heavily on one source, especially one that may lack reliability, would be incorrect. I would appreciate anyone else's insight into the credibility of the source and the need for multiple sources. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Buerger's work is very academic and neutral, and he is cited by respected scholars in the field. His work is really the first detailed treatment on the history of the LDS endowment ceremony that is not an exposé. It's also the most complete, neutral, and comprehensive source thus far on the subject. There are other sources, but they are mainly polemical works from disaffected ex-Mormons. Buerger cites some of the more useful of these polemical works, but mainly takes his sources from church archival materials and primary sources. As of now, Buerger is the seminal work on the temple ceremonies, including the garment. COGDEN 01:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
But isn't Buerger a disaffected ex-Mormon too? In 1992, he had his name removed from Church records.[3] --Eustress (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there some reason that you believe disaffected ex-Mormons make unreliable sources? Given the church's traditions of keeping information that it considers to be sacred available only to church members, disaffected Mormons are the only reliable source of information at all.Kww (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I dont' think an individual's religious relationship matters on this topic or any other. However, if someone becomes extremists in their approach or review, then they should be discounted as outlined above by policy. What we are seeking are reputable sources. I would take COgden's word that Brerger's work is the "goto" source for this topic, but I will leave it to others to agree or disagree. I have not read this text so I can't offer a personal review.--Storm Rider (talk) 05:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If there isn't a good inline tag for what you want, you can make one. Or better yet find more references. The two tags I removed are being used inappropriately. Please remove them and address your concerns in a more appropriate way. You do not have to have a tag on an article to take ask for a ruling on a source at WP:RSN or start a discussion on a talk page. Either of those actions are much more likely to resolve your concerns than misusing these tags.--BirgitteSB 00:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Affront v Offend

Reverted because "affront" (see dictionary.com definition) is the more precise word. Precise word choice trumps imprecise words. AuntieMormom (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC) (who made reversion under someone else's login. Sorry.)

The phrase in question is as follows: "Adherents consider them to be sacred and may be affronted by public discussion of the garments."

The definition according to AuntieMormom's source (dictionary.com) defines affront "to insult intentionally, especially openly." I don't think all public discussion of garments is meant to intentionally insult; hence, adherents may be offended. What does everyone else think? Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
"Offense" has the connotation of an act done with deliberation. "Affront" has the connotation of acts that while offensive, may have been performed with or without intent.
"Affront" also has the advantage of describing the act, without implying a [over?]reaction on the part of the person offended. It is the milder word. It is also the more precise word, and therefore the more accurate word. AuntieMormom (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand...your connotation-driven interpretations completely contradict the dictionary definitions--that's the only reason I commented in the first place. Dictionary says affront is intentional while you say the opposite. I would appreciate a third-party opinion because we're in disagreement. --Eustress (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, this is a fascinating conversation. Suppose, Eustress, I grant you your point. The larger problem with the word "offended" is that it impugnes the character of the victim, rather than the victimizer. When one takes offense, one lacks character. When one is merely affronted, one's character doesn't come into play. For that reason, "offend" violates NPOV.
In any event, here is a list, in ascending order, of correct and common responses to public discussion or mockery of sacred things. Pick the appropriate reaction: disheartened, bothered, affronted, disconcerted, consternated, discomfitted, dismayed, appalled, scandalized, shocked, outraged. I'd probably be content with any of those. AuntieMormom (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
First of all, let me say I don't have a strong opinion on the word used in this article. However, I must disagree with the assertions you make above about the problem with "offend" and the idea it violates NPOV. The last time I felt offended, and described the experience to others as offending me, was a lecture on energy healing. In the lecture she suggests that single mother stricken by cancer healed themselves by their mental determination not to orphan their young children. As I was orphaned when my mother died of cancer, I was extremely offended and had to walk out of lecture before I made a scene by speaking out against that idea. The next morning at breakfast several people asked why I had left the lecture so suddenly and told them how I had found what she said offensive and had to leave. So I cannot agree that the word implies any lack of character in the person offended. I cannot say that I have ever understood any such implication in that word or I would never used the word naturally in that context. Since I don't find your assertions intuitively correct, do you have any sources backing up your understanding of "offend"?--BirgitteSB 03:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If the issue is divisive enough to cause an edit war, it would probably be best to find a source for that statement. And use the terminology of the source. But in any event settle the issue here, on the talk page, rather than continuing to edit back and forth. It would be a rather silly issue to have to request page protection over.--BirgitteSB 13:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
No need for an edit war. I'm perfectly happy to acquiesce to a talk-page-derived consensus. I simply ask for the common courtesy of discussion and consensus before reversion. AuntieMormom (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm ... it looks like you made the change, then 'discussed' it ... are there different rules for you? I also believe that you have the proper definitions reversed. Duke53 | Talk 01:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Check again. I made the change. Eustress rv'ed. I changed it back and began a discussion on the talk page. YOU reverted AGAIN without discussion. The rules are: Once the talk page discussion begins, wait for consensus before reverting. AuntieMormom (talk) 01:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
My point exactly ... you made the change with no discussion ... then reverted ... then discussed. Want to show me where that rule is?Duke53 | Talk 02:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I concur. The original should stand whilst debate continues. I also agree entirely with points made by Eustress regarding actual definitions of words, versus personal intrerpretation of 'connotations'. Doc Tropics 03:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two marking illustrations

(Referring to images Temple garment circa 1879 (GSR 1879) and Illustration of symbols on the temple garment) Are both illustrations of the garment markings necessary? The images seem to portray the same information, and removing one of the images would also free up some much-needed space. What say ye? --Eustress (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think space is an issue. Is there a more compelling reason for removing one of the images?--BirgitteSB 19:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Nope—just trying to avoid redundancy (and save space in the process) if appropriate. --Eustress (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

After four days, no one has yet opposed or supported my idea, so I will take this silence and be bold and remove the Sharpie illustrations, since it is less reliable than the 1879 published illustration. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of contested information

Several things tagged as problamatic were removed reference diff of combined edits

  1. Garment of the Holy Priesthood{{Fact|date=March 2008}}
  2. The garment is thought to symbolize the "coats of skins" which Jehovah (Yahweh) made for Adam and Eve before casting them out of the Garden of Eden ({{sourcetext|source=Bible|version=King James|book=Genesis|chapter=3|verse=21}}){{Or|date=March 2008}}. It is worn, in part, to remind adherents that they have made special oaths and covenants to God. Members of the LDS Church today are commonly clothed in the garments, together with outer temple clothing, for burial.{{Fact|date=March 2008}}
  3. These marks were a reverse-L-shaped symbol on the right breast, a V-shaped symbol on the left breast, and horizontal marks at the navel and over the right knee. These cuts were later replaced by embroidered symbols.{{Fact|date=March 2008}}
  4. The most recent major change took place in 1979, when the Church offered a two-piece garment. While most often white, the garment is also made in brown and sand colors for regulation military use. Today, many styles of garments may be purchased at a church-subsidized cost at a location near each temple or at special distribution centers. One must show the clerk a current temple recommend as part of the transaction. Garments can also now be purchased online from the Church's Distribution Center by members who have to provide the date of their birth, the date of their Endowment ceremony and their membership record number. (marked unreferenced by a general tag)
  5. LDS members use their garments as a standard for what attire they wear to maintain a modest dress standard.(marked unreferenced by a general tag)

Please do not restore any of this information without addressing the concerns listed by a citation.--BirgitteSB 19:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding #3: This information was in the middle of sourced paragraph discussing each symbol in detail. I did not notice this until I saw where it was restored. The fact tag and removal were inappropriate as the information was already sourced. The rest of the tags seem valid to me, (outside of the invalid one that is still on the article).--BirgitteSB 13:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)