Talk:Temple garment/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Photos and illustrations of the garment

I knew we would eventually have to have this conversation. Some time ago, someone introduced a photo of a couple wearing garments, and an illustration of how the garment has changed over time. These were eventually deleted, however. I partially reverted, retaining the illustration, because it's an illustration containing valid information, and I can see no reason why it should be excluded. I can't refute the argument that there ought to be an illustration of what they look like, and how they have changed over time. I'm not sure, however, about the photo. It's a sensitive issue, and I think that an illustration is much better and more dignified for an encyclopedia. One thing I'm not sure about, however, is where the illustration came from. I've seen it before, but I don't know what the source is, and it should be credited. COGDEN 22:24, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I've forgotten which anti-Mormon book it is from. Sorry. I don't mind the link staying in the article (to either one), but would rather not have either image hosted by Wikipedia. It is my opinion that it would create edit wars and would be considered too controversial to include at this time. The trouble it would cause outweighs its educational benefit, IMHO. I agree that a drawing is preferred, if we have to go down this path. I'm not sure that I'd vote against or abstain such a move to include at this point. Need more discussion first. -Visorstuff 23:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
The LDS people do hold the garment to be sacred and WIKI should be respectful of this position. However, I personally am not offended by actual pictures of garments being linked. When I go to a gym to work out my garments are readily seen by all who are in the locker room. We do not attempt to prevent others from seeing them; for others it is just underwear. However, I appreciate when others afford a modicum of respect for whatever others hold sacred. I treat the Quran with respect because I know my muslim friends treat it reverently. Yes, this is a very sensitive subject, but we might be a little too sensitive on this point. This article is already far more explicit than comfort for LDS's directs. I would let it slide. Storm Rider 23:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia purports to be an encyclopaedia, mere simulacrum though it may be, and as such there is no reason why anyone should remove perfectly valid information because mormons happen to disagree with the publishing of it, or because it offends their beliefs. If they cannot understand that, why would they even patronize this altruistic venture?
Should wikipedia show cartoons of Mohamad? This article is more offensive to Mormons than showing cartoons of Hohamad is to muslems. I would like to delete this article, because we hold this to be very sacred, but if I delete the article, you will miss my argument. If I come back tomorow, and their are no cartoons of Mohamad, I will consider you hypocries, and I will delete this article. myclob 03:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
"If I come back tomorow, and their are no cartoons of Mohamad, I will consider you hypocries [sic], and I will delete this article". I hope that all editors are paying attention to the above post by myclob. :) Duke53 | Talk 03:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. If we had to worry about someone being offended by information that is posted in Wikipedia, we would never get anything posted around here. It seems that the Wikipedia policies agree as well. See Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer. I see no reason why I should have to look elsewhere in order to see a picture of the described garment if we have a picture that can be placed on the page. If you are offended by the article, don't read it. -GamblinMonkey 03:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
GamblinMonkey, if that is what you believe, then I want to see cartoons of mohamad. I can't imagine what a cartoon of mohamad looks like, so I NEED to see a cartoon of him. myclob 03:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
" ... I NEED to see a cartoon of him" Then by all means find a licensed copy of one; there's a big world-wide web out there ... knock yourself out. I guarantee you that I won't attempt to practice censorship by deleting it. Duke53 | Talk 03:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking out the picture of lingerie that was up as of Dec 18. I don't know who in there right mind thought it was temple clothing. Epachamo 07:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if you visit the Muhammad you'll see that there's still quite a debate about what exactly is proper to add into Wikipedia about religiously sensitive subjects. Note it's been locked from changes in the form WITHOUT a picture of Muhammad on it at the moment.--Gillespee 16:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually that proves my point. Remove the picture, until there are cartoons of mohamed.myclob 03:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That may be the case, but please remember that page protection is not an endorsement of version or correctness.

The photo in question was simple vandalism. In the same manner, this would be like adding a picture of President Bush to the Muhammad page and saying it was a photo of Muhammad. In this case it was not only insensitive, but grossly inaccurate and offensive - because the image was lingerie, rather than sacred clothing. Sexual versus sacred. It simply was not a photo of Garments.

This is the photo in question: [1]

I don't think anyone would see the need of keeping it as it is irrelevant and offensive. -Visorstuff 16:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't have any problem with that image being removed.  :) I was speaking generally, sorry if I came across as wanting that image back (I don't.) Some people (myself included) see any pictures of garments in the same light as many Muslims see pictures of Muhammad - simply added to Wikipedia to antagonize people for their belifs.

I didn't know that about protection, so thanks for the info. Basically, you can put me in the camp of not wanting a picture or illustration of, or a link to pictures of garments. It's incredibly offensive to me. Do I at least make more sense now?--Gillespee 06:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This article needs to have some sort of illustration. Wikipedia is not censored. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 00:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If nothing else, it needs to somehow be made clear right off the bat why these images have not been added (yet). Beginning 23:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Whether one is needed or not (I come out on the not side) - the current problem is that there is no properly licensed one. --Trödel 03:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
We have a licensed one now. Remember, Wikipedia does not allow censoring; I would dare guess that this photo denotes nothing sacred to the majority of WP usersDuke53 | Talk 03:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree the pictures should say. Wanted to add something about comparisons viz a viz Muhammad. While I've never taken part in the debate and don't know for sure which way I feel I don't think the situations are really comparable. The simple fact is, Muhammad was a person who lived in 6 - 7 AD. We have descriptions of him but no real way of knowing what he looked like. All we have are artists impressions.
(May have gotten a bit carried away here). Also, I would argue there isn't a great deal of relevance to the average reader. I grew up in a Muslim country (Malaysia) but have lived in New Zealand for several years. But before today, I'd never AFAIK seen a depiction of Muhammad. I used to be a Christian (now agnostic) and as with many people, I've seen countless depictions of Jesus Christ and have an idea of the quitensential image of what he looks like (which IMHO isn't very accurate but I digress). I've also seen countless depictions of Buddha and also have an idea of the quitensential image of what he looked like (which probably also isn't very accurate). But for many people including a many Muslims this isn't true when to Muhammad and the number of depictions of him, especially ones intended to be positive is probably much, much smaller then of Jesus Christ. Indeed I suspect many Muslims don't really have any clear image in their head of what he looked like. I also note that the earliest depiction we have of JC is from 3 AD (~ 0 AD life) but of Muhammad its something like 14 AD (6-7 AD life). So really So IMHO, depictions of Muhammad aren't of that great relevance or significance (except perhaps that it's a very controversial area). Our current policies of having a seperate Depictions of Muhammad article may be the best solution (although I haven't thought about that great a deal).
But when it comes to this article it's IMHO of very great interest to the average reader to know what garments look like. These are accurate depictions of a current day thing. & most LDS members & other Mormons would know what they look like even if they find the image/depiction offensive. Nil Einne 17:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the illustration is fine and informative. I can't imagine it being hard for someone to draw their own illustration and release it free and clear. I don't like the photo, not because it is offensive religiously, but more because it is just a bit tacky having a couple standing there in their underwear. I would rather see them on a maniquin. Not to mention, that I assume these people in the photo are not LDS, and therefore, they are wearing someone else's underwear which is just a little creepy. Bytebear 09:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Stop removing the photo! No one has given any hint of a valid reason for it not to be there, and it's obviously relevant. Friday (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Friday, are you attached to this ‘’’specific photo’’’ or are you just resistant to anyone ever disagreeing with display of any information? As you can see from my above edits, at the end of the day it is not worth throwing down a gauntlet over the display of this picture.

It is obvious that the presence of the photo is distressing to some members of the LDS church. In a civilized society should we respect things held sacred by others? The question only really comes to a head when it is something we personally hold sacred! Do we owe anything to our fellow humans or do free to act and say in whatever way we choose. You might want to attend some “sensitivity” training seminars to understand how shaky that philosophical ground is in today’s society. How should we on WIKI act?

One option already discussed is to find a picture solely of a pair of garments. I do find it prurient to have the garment displayed by live models. Interestingly, I do not find it prurient when observing the display of a nude body; so please do not assume that everyone else is just prudish. The wearing of a garment is held sacred because of the covenants it represents; that is the basic problem for many. That number would grow exponentially if more people knew of it.

The worst thing in world is for a human to hear that there is something sacred and thus, not often shared or open to all. It would obviously seem that everyone must get a gander of Mormon garments. Of course, after seeing them it must be a little anticlimactic. To most they would appear as simply a very modest form of undergarment.

Curious in your thoughts. Storm Rider (talk) 03:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If we have to have a photo, I'd be in favor of replacing this photo with one of garments not on live models. This particular picture makes me cringe every time I see it, not just because I'm LDS, but also because:
4. The present photo will create unavoidable edit wars. No way around it.
3. The garments shown are in the older styles and ickier fabrics.
2. The garments are slightly see-through.
1. Number one reason: What's up with them tucking their tops into their bottoms?
COGDEN 06:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
4. "The present photo will create unavoidable edit wars. No way around it". We could ask for protection for the article.
3. "The garments shown are in the older styles and ickier fabrics". It's the best I could come up with; do you wish to supply a picture with the newer style depicted?
2. "The garments are slightly see-through". Isn't this an image of authentic garments?
1. Number one reason: "What's up with them tucking their tops into their bottoms"? Is there an official way that people are supposed to wear the garments? I would guess that this is just a matter of personal taste, like people wearing black socks with sandals.
I would insist that any replacement image have at least the same resolution and clarity as this one; having a drawing or sketch simply wouldn't do ... it would be a step backward. Duke53 | Talk 06:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The frustration I was expressing above was mainly aimed at people who keep doing drive-by removals of the pic with no justification. I have no particular attachment to that specific picture, other than it's the one we have right now today. The objections above are partially sensible- but some of them just seem to be objecting to the garments themselves on aesthetic grounds, which is purely irrelevant. The worst thing about the pic is of course the edit warring over it, but as pointed out, we have ways to deal with this. I can't believe anyone could consider this picture "prurient" in the least, but of course this is just personal opinion. Nothing in the photo indicates to me any attempt to be remotely sexy- it's people standing there in slightly odd clothing. I'll admit I jumped to a bad conclusion with the repeated removal of this picture- I assumed (and still assume) that whoever is doing this is probably driven by a religiously inspired desire for censorship. I suppose it could be simple troublemaking for the sake of troublemaking, and either way the result is disruptive. I'll admit I'm as unable to see things from the LDS perspective as a member is unable to see things from a non-LDS perspective, but I've still seen no hint of a valid reason for removal. I understand that it's hard to keep religious secrets in this information age- this might be a problem for LDS, but it's not remotely a problem for Wikipedia. If a given religion uses a unique form of clothing, they have to deal with the fact that other people will sometimes be curious about this clothing. I completely understand "sacred, not secret" and I completely understand that the LDS would never put a picture of such a thing up for public viewing. But, these things exist, and pictures of them exist- the cat is already out of the bag. We're not here to enforce LDS standards of propriety, we're here to be an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Well said. There is no information or image about any religion that is suppressed on Wikipedia. If the information is encyclopaedic, it belongs here regardless of how squeamish one group of people may feel about it. pschemp | talk 17:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like to offer what I think is a valid explanation for why some have objected to the picture of temple garments on Wikipedia. Prior to going through the endowment, members who are to be endowed sit down with ecclesiastical leaders and discuss the sacredness of the ordinance as well as the sacredness of the temple garment. The symbols are explained as are the reasons for wearing the garment. Afterward, the garments are worn night and day. They are also treated differntly than ordinary items of clothing (i.e. they aren't thrown on the floor, etc). In short, they are treated with respect as a symbol of the ordinance which has been performed.
The best way to describe the feelings many LDS people have about the garment is found in Matthew 7:6 which says, "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again, and rend you." This DOES NOT mean that all people who are not endowed members of the LDS Church are swine or dogs. Please don't take my words as making that implication. The fact that this discussion is taking place indicates that you all understand, at least to a certain degree, what we, as Mormons, consider sacred and holy about the garments. It's just that not everyone has that same level of respect or at least a willingness to understand things that may seem a little wierd.
It is true that if someone wants to find out what LDS temple garments look like, there are numerous webpages, books, and other publications which can be consulted. As such, I guess if people are going to look for a picture of garments it should be one which displays them in a neutral, respectful, and even encyclopedic fashion as this one does, not in a degrading way as may happen on other sites. That said, I would prefer that people not publicly display any picture of individuals wearing the temple garment.
I know that this battle will not end with my viewpoint prevailing and that a lot of you object to the idea of changing things simply for feelings or beliefs, but really, what is religion but feelings and beliefs. I guess we can only hope to explain our viewpoint and hope that we can convince others that it has some merit. Df008 20:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC) (talk)
Since this is the discussion page for Temple garment we should not stray into whether this photo is appropriate on other pages besides this one. I think the picture is an important addition to this page. I would happy to see someone who considers the garment sacred offer a photograph with all of the encyclopedic qualities needed to illustrate this article while treating the subject respectfully. It is immossible for an athesist, a baptist, etc. to treat the subject with as much respect as someone who truly believes it sacred. In any event it is inappropiate to remove these pictures as you did. For those that are unhappy with the photos, please develop an alternative and gain consensus to replace the current images. Removing these without consensus will be quickly reverted and accomplishes nothing but to create hostility on this talk page. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
You're suggesting something that skirts the point being made by those who find it sacred. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to prepare an image that is both accurate and acceptable--for it is the public display of such an image that is in itself offensive. Yes, there could be a better picture; but, it sorrows me that something sacred must be held up for such public display. The article text attempts to approach a delicate subject in a respectful manner. The inclusion of an image--this one in particular, as it's used commonly on anti-Mormon sites and brings that association with it--goes counter to a respectful treatment. Respect is not the same as censorship. TAGregory 17:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
We have no obligation to respect the perceived sanctity of these garments. Is the photograph an accurate depiction? shotwell 18:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I am confused. You say it is likely "impossible, to prepare an image that is both accurate and acceptable" and then "Respect is not the same as censorship." If by "acceptable" you mean respectful then in this case the respect you are asking for would amount to censorship. Censorship is not acceptable. Short of that if there are more respectful alternative photographs you would like to discuss please do so. If your goal is to have all public displays removed; I am afraid you are wasting your time.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The difference between respect and censorship is not based on "acceptability." One is being told not to say something; the other is demonstrating careful consideration of the consequences, and perhaps in that consideration, concluding the benefit of such speech is overshadowed by its detriment. I suggested the difference as the word "censorship" is being thrown around in a sound-byte sort of way that is less useful to constructive debate. You disagree with my comment, but have done so in a respectful way. Not all editors have been as circumspect; some have used the word "censor" as a sharp sword to get their way. TAGregory 21:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I think wikipedia does have an obligation of respect - and we do self-censor quite a bit. We can show self-restraint and respect and yet show the community what they want to see - such as photos of the garments. There are no nude or semi-nude photos on other religious articles, why start here? If a photo needs to be shared, let it be current and without a live model, or at least a model with a face (why are they so ashamed to have their faces in the photos?) eBay and Flickr more have up to date photos, not these from the 80s or 90s. This is completely offensive to the bulk of LDS readers on wikipedia - protecting the page is not the answer to keeping an image on it, rather lets find something that the community can agree on, and this current version it not it, and undoubtedly, as COGDEN stated end up with continuous vandalism of the page. -Visorstuff 18:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
If you have an alternate photo under a free license please show it on this talk page. I am certainly willing to accept an alternative that has the encylopedic value needed. I know of no other photo that can replace this one. No one has offered any alternative photos but have merely removed the current one. That removal is unacceptable.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I think my last comment was rather strong. If a suitable and less offensive replacement can be found, then we should replace the current photo. I don't feel that we have an obligation of respect, but common sense dictates that we shouldn't offend people unnecessarily. shotwell 19:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sprotect

We have an IP hopping vandal who keeps removing the picture. Since Trodel insists this is a good faith action, rather than blocking them, I have semi protected the page so they can come here and comment and Trodel can welcome them. Enjoy. pschemp | talk 23:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

While I support the action in this case, it is not a good long-term solution. We need to find something that is appropriate for the entire community. -Visorstuff 23:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course not. This isn't George Bush. Yet. This will at least give you a chance to think about what to do in the meantime. pschemp | talk 23:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I also think this is a good idea; however, I hold out little hope that this kind of thing will stop after a short period of protection, unless a more suitable image is found. --Trödel 23:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The image issue is a bit of a dilemma. We have a photograph, taken from an ex-Mormon website that many LDS would find offensive. On the other hand, many LDS will find any depiction of the garment to be offensive, and we would always have the problem of vandalism. But very few who own the garments would be willing to allow them to be photographed in a more neutral way for the Wikipedia. I certainly wouldn't. Even if we could produce a new photograph or drawing, I can't think of any compromise that would leave the article relatively free of vandalism. Maybe sprotection has to be a long-term solution. COGDEN 01:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

COGDEN, we are in a bit of a pickle. The picture now being used is off an anti-Mormon website and is offensive, but no Mormons will produce or offer an alternative. I don't see an alternative but to keep the offensive photo. I can't imagine that all of Wikipedia's editors will suddenly grow an higher degree of respect; particularly when respect is confused with censorship. My mom often talked about proper breeding and instruction, but that topic would certainly be inappropriate when working with the public where everything must, apparently, go to the lowest common denominator.
On the positive side of things, we must also understand that what is being depicted is two individuals wearing a T-shirt and very long boxer shorts; a very modest and unappealing ensemble to say the least. That is all the public will every see and they will necessarily fail to understand or recognize their true significance or sacredness. Let's move on and leave the protect in place for a good long while. Storm Rider (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is a drawing less desireable? Duke seems to think that a decision of no drawing has reached consensus, but I don't see any comments, rather than his about it. I think Mormons would be more favorable to a drawing than a photograph.

The idea that this photo comes from an Anti web site is not a strike in its favor, but an image is fine, if done tastfully. This photo of a hidden couple parading the garments, is offensive, and I think most who would see the image would find it that way if they understand how sacred the garment is. For anyone to say contrary shows their lack of tolerance to religion in general, let alone Mormonism. Lets do something that we can all find tasteful, not parading and hidden.

Interestingly enough garments given to adam and eve were to cover their nakedness so they were not ashamed. Interesting that the people in the photo are ashamed to be associated with wearing them - as their faces are hidden. -Visorstuff 16:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between tolerating a religion, and tolerating members of that religion trying to change an article from neutral point of view to LDS point of view. As much as some might like it otherwise, our LDS-related articles are not meant to be presented from an LDS point of view. LDS can give their point of view in their own publications- here we're trying to be an encyclopedia. I don't see how this has much to do with tolerance at all- it has everything to do with making encyclopedia articles. NPOV requires no special deference to any religion. Friday (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Since a sketch or drawing is simply an artist's depiction or interpretation of an object then it would be a step backward; we have an available licensed image of the actual garments available ... I will never allow it to be replaced by an inferior substitute. " Interesting that the people in the photo are ashamed to be associated with wearing them". Interesting that you think that they are ashamed; my thought is that they wanted to protect themselves from possible attacks or maliciousness from LDS members. Duke53 | Talk 20:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, folks who are Anti-Mormon are not scared of showing it. Look at those who wiped themselves with and defacated on temple garments at the conference center a few years ago that led to the city placing speech zones in place at conference time. you can find flickr pages full of people in temple clothes, etc. Duke, one issue with the image is that the image is about ten years or more old, and shows an out of date image of garments. The drawings on packham's site, or the tanners site is more accurate, as it shows the pattern and marks associated with Garments, while this shows a style that is no longer readily available. The image doesn't show the marks of the garments, which should be what people are interested in, rather than an outdated style. It's like showing a photo of 1940s bloomers and saying that americans wear those type of underwear depicted in the photo. Its not completely accurate. Rather a drawing of current garments, or a drawing of a pattern with marks that is recognizable, or an up-to-date photo would be the ideal - as long as they show the parts of the garments that are essential (which the current photo doesn't). What shows now is just a pair of see through short union suits - which is hardly an issue. An up-to-date photo will still be controversial, and if religious tolerance is practiced, a drawing will suffice. If not and the community chooses to hold something sacred as common, then that is another issue. A sketch would not be a step back but a step forward to the long-term preservation of an image in this article. As it stands now, this will continue to be controversial until long after you and I are gone from Wikipedia. Most of the images at in the Category:Underwear are sketches, not photos. Those that are photos are often done without live people wearing them, such as Granny panties.

And, as an admin, I must warn you that statements such as "I will never allow it to be replaced by an inferior substitute" are not condusive to the wikipedia spirit or guidelines. You do not own wikipedia and the community will decide the consensus - not you.

Perhaps we should open the debate at the village pump? -Visorstuff 23:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  • "Duke, one issue with the image is that the image is about ten years or more old". Be bold. Put a newer version up. Ball's in your court.
  • "The image doesn't show the marks of the garments, which should be what people are interested in ...". 'Should' and 'are' are entirely different things; the people who I have been in contact with want to see 'garments'.
  • "religious tolerance is practiced, a drawing will suffice". Strawman. This has nothing to do with 'religious tolerance'; it has to do with Wikipedia policy ... this image fits under that policy.
  • "A sketch would not be a step back but a step forward to the long-term preservation of an image in this article" This is nonsense ... a sketch is an idealization ... we already have an actual image of the garment.
  • "And, as an admin ... "And, as a non-administrator, I will not be intimidated by that talk.
  • "Perhaps we should open the debate at the village pump"? Feel free to do whatever you choose; I will continue to discuss this here, the appropriate page for discussing the image. Have fun. Duke53 | Talk 23:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Visorstuff, can you point me to the flickr pages? shotwell 23:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's the page with the search results at flickr.com for 'temple garments': [2]; two 'artists' and scads of pictures of garments. Hope this helps. Duke53 | Talk 08:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You can do a search for the tags "mormon garments" and one or two main authors will come up, which have multiple photos. I actually suggest an evolution of the garment sketch would be the more ideal, academic and will result in less reverts than the current image.

Duke, you misunderstand. I am not trying to intimidate, but rather remind you that you are an equal in this community. Part of my job as an administrator is to remind people of policy and guidelines and one of those is that no-one "owns" an article or content. You seem to have a history of doing this - and not just on Mormonism-related pages. i'm just reminding you to follow policy and not to make threats like you did. I'd rather link to the tanner's site for images rather than this photo. I'll trust you have copyright permission as stated, as I assume good faith, but somthing more accurate is needed.

All: In the interest of striving for a featured article that is stable and unprotected, would the community involved be willing to try out how many reverts a day we get with the current photo, versus how many reverts we get with a drawing, such as this one [3]. We could designate the same day on two seperate weeks, and let Duke53 or other non-LDS (so their is no accusation of conspiracy) choose the order. I would venture that a drawing is not only less offensive (and would get less reverts) but is more educational in nature to the community. Thoughts? -Visorstuff 00:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"would the community involved be willing to try out how many reverts a day we get with the current photo, versus how many reverts we get with a drawing. How scientific; think about this for a minute and explain how this could possibly be fair ... with all the 'new' editors deleting it anonymously and the way pro-Mormon editors outnumber others here. Feh. Very cool ... setting something up for a revert war. Duke53 | Talk 01:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC) p.s. Feel free to E-Mail the owner of the photo to see if he has given permission for its use.
Although I agree that in anomyous collaborations like Wikipedia, these sorts of tests are useless. I think you need to calm down and tone down your remarks. You are not helping the situation. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 01:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The point isn't to design an encylopedia that does not attract vandals. The point is to design a neutral comprehensive encyclopedia. I don't think that image is an acceptable substitute for the current illustration (although an illustration of evolving designs would be an interesting addition). Also I don't know that it is a free license. Do you have any other freely licensed illustrations to offer as a substitute? --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 01:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The point is to design an encyclopedia that people want to read and participate in. If you offend an entire ethnic segment by the use of an image, you remove their viewpoint from an encyclopedia and end up with mis-information. At one point, there was a move for Wikipedia:Stable version, which was replaced with featured status. The goal is to have an encyclopedia that anyone can edit - and sprotecting a page doesn't do that. A neutral open page does.
I can request Sandra tanner to let me use one of her academic drawings. Interesting that she uses drawings and not photographs in her work. But no mormon will place an image of them here, as we consider them too sacred, and an extension of our bodies. How many of you would expose your body for wikipedia? granted some do. I consider my garments as sacred as other parts of my body I don't show to others.
Duke53, you read too much into others edits. I said I trusted your copyright statement, I wanted to make it clear that I do. In any case, we are counting the amount of removals of both images (which most mormons will find either offensive) to see which is the least offensive. I may be suprised.
I am against the idea of page protection as a long-term answer to any article on wikipedia. Is it worth a shot for ya'll? -Visorstuff 01:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
"In any case, we are counting the amount of removals of both images. You can't see the flaws with that, considering how many more pro-LDS editors come here? They obviously will pick an image with less detail when faced with an 'either / or' decision, since they don't want it shown anyway.Duke53 | Talk 02:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Duke53, you have no idea about mormonism, do you? I'm actually suggesting to replace a current image which some of us find offensive as it shows people in underwear and is semi-see through (showing the body), with one that shows specific marks on a garment. Which is more offensive to Mormon doctrines? The marks. However, I think that more in the community (both mormon and not) will want something less of a underwear fetish with and more doctirnally-founded and academic. However, since you seem to like the former, fine. But if you are here to offend mormons, I'd think you'd go with the second. One is educational about garments, the other is simply an outdated style satisfying a fetish and provides little educational value as to what garments currently look like. -Visorstuff 18:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Duke53, you have no idea about mormonism, do you?" It's getting rather tiring with you telling me what I understand.
What I do understand is the way some pro-LDS editors are behaving here. Post a newer, better image here (talk page) and let us discuss that. For all this talk about the ease of finding such images we haven't seen anything better as of yet. The flickr.com search you suggested wasn't exactly as you portrayed it to be; if you want a comparison then put up something here for us to compare. Duke53 | Talk 08:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The comment above proves my point. If you understood anything about mormonism, you'd know that no Mormon would put up an alternative image. As for Flickr - there are other pages that show garments, but the above are readily accessible via the search provided. I never said that images of garments or temples clothes are easy to find, but that there are multiple pages full of them - which there are. -Visorstuff 20:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't prove a thing except that there are a lot of people whining about the present photo, but not willing (or able) to present a 'better' one. The flickr search was / is a farce, it shows six photos loosely related to temple garments. Where are these 'multiple pages' you mention? Duke53 | Talk 21:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I recieved this comment, for removing the photo

"This is your one warning. You've already posted on the talk page so you know what the consensus is. Remove the picture again and you will be blocked. "

I did not see a "consensus". How do you see a consensus? Did anyone respond to my assertion that the garmet is just as offensive to Mormons as cartoons of mohamed are to muslims? I like how you threaten to kick me off, without even responding to my argument. Are you going to kick me off for disagreeing with you?

"This is your one warning. You've already posted on the talk page so you know what the consensus is. Remove the picture again and you will be blocked."

No, "I'm sorry you are offended but this is important to keep this here for these reasons..." No responce to my argument... just a threat... myclob 03:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) There really is no concensus to keep the picture. Even though some agree that an image would be appropriate if it is used thoughtfully, the current picture is being used is particularly offensive. Additionally, its being used under as a Copyrighted image in which the artist has irrevocably released all rights to it; however, the poster originally quoted the artist as allowing it for only non-commercial use - a license that is not compliant with Wikipedia policies.

There have been claims that consensus is to keep the image, but that isn't what the concensus above indicates. The consensus is to use an appropirate image, not this one The dilemma is - how do we find one? --Trödel 03:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

And in the mean time, this one stays. Personally I think this one is appropriate, but I wouldn't object to a different one. pschemp | talk 03:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The consensus actually is that there will be an image (and a sketch isn't going to work) of these garments on this article page; this one fills that need. I don't see a mad rush to the door by anyone willing to furnish a different one; that's not my fault. I will remind the other editors that I would insist that any alternative image must have at least the same resolution and clarity as the one being used now. Live with this one or come up with a suitable replacement; Wikipedia does not allow censorship. Duke53 | Talk 04:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I spent a good portion of my evening fruitlessly searching for a suitable and free replacement. I can't even find a poor replacement. Someone said that flickr had photos of this, so perhaps I'm searching for the wrong tags? I spent a ridiculous amount of time tediously shifting through page after page of photos tagged with combinations of 'Mormonism', 'LDS', 'Mormon', 'underwear', 'garments' (and other such words). I never searched on ebay (as someone suggested) because I doubt that I'd find a free image. Surely I'm doing something wrong here? At any rate, I'm done searching and I agree that the current photo should stay if a replacement meeting Duke53's standards cannot be found. I don't understand why this photograph is so offensive. I get the feeling that any photograph would be considered offensive by someone.
I also reject the argument that this photograph is similar to a depiction of Muhammad. Has the LDS church made some decree concerning photographs of the temple garments? Is it a grave sin to photograph the temple garments on live models? Are we potentially inciting violence? The Bahá'u'lláh article had some controversy over the inclusion of a photograph of Bahá'u'lláh and a very amicable compromise seems to have been found. I wish we could operate in a similar spirit here. shotwell 13:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to pop you bubble, but would you please show me where a majority of editors voted that we need to meet Duke53's standards on articles. If you can't demonstrate that he was voted WIKI God, I suggest it does not matter a hill of beans what Duke53 wants. We write articles according to Wiki policies; after that there is no standard; certainly not a DUKY standard we have to live by. I suggest you keep those delusions of grandeur for your own blog and off Wiki pages. Storm Rider (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you keep your personal attacks off Wiki pages. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Jp, you and I have a difference of opinion on the meaning of a personal attack. Would you please explain why you would accuse me of such an action. Duke, not once, but several times has stated that everyone must meet his specific desires for quality, type, and resolution. Further, he has gone so far as to insist that we meet his personal objectives. I have never once, before this date, heard another editor set himself/herself up as king and god of Wiki, but I reject all pretense of such a position or action. I await your enlightened explanation of how my statement was a personal attack. Storm Rider (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Referring to another editor as having "delusions of grandeur" is a personal attack as would be accusations of any sort of psychopathology, as does your references to "king and god of Wiki". Feel free to attack the position; do not attack the person. It doesn't matter that you think it is justified. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
As in that wonderful show Forest Gump, "stupid is as stupid does". The behavior demonstrated by demanding, insisting, and requiring others to meet an individual's personal standard is not acceptable on Wikipedia. If my comments were interpreted to be a pesonal attack, I deeply apologize. However, those actions and statements, those of acting as if one had been recognized as a king or god, are not acceptable nor will they be respected. In fact, they should be bluntly ignored by all editors.
Each editor is worthy of respect. We gain additional respect by demonstrating expertise and objectivity in editing. Conversely, respect is lost by demonstrating a lack of expertise and subjectivity in editing. I hope to never see anyone insist their standard is the standard for the rest of us to meet again. Storm Rider (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, the classic non-apology apology. "If someone was offended, I'm sorry." How can you possibly reconcile "each editor is worthy of respect" with "they should be bluntly ignored by all editors"? Duke53 was perhaps speaking too strongly -- expressions like "I insist" tend to cause negative reactions; I'd have expressed the same thought simply by citing the relevant Wikipedia policies, and asserting the intention to make sure the article adheres to them, without personalizing it. But his point is correct. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
jpgordon, since I do not accept the pro-Mormon POV here at Wikipedia, Storm Rider seems to have a big axe to grind with me most of the time; his idea of 'getting to me' also include false allegations, such as using sockpuppets and committing 3RR violations, each of which he has done recently. I am letting him build a trail of such behavior before I do something about it officially. (Funny that nobody has even mentioned that some user may be using a sockpuppet on this very page; at least there is some appearance of it) Duke53 | Talk 20:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know and I don't care about the past history; all I know is what I see here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
That is what you are seeing here ... more personal attacks. Duke53 | Talk 20:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, did my comment spawn all this? I could have repeated the same thing Duke53 wrote, but it was easier to write "Duke53's standards". I see why it was taken the wrong way and perhaps I should have chosen my words more carefully. shotwell 21:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"Hmmm, did my comment spawn all this"? shotwell, your comment did not start this, it is just another in a line of attacks against me by certain editors. Duke53 | Talk 22:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Let's move this along. "Something officially" sounds ominous; makes me want to run for the hills for safety! At least it is an appeal to higher powers so a change is apparent and acknowledged. Let's move on. Storm Rider (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Unlike other editors, when I make an official complaint about someone breaking the rules I won't have to lie about the circumstances. :) Duke53 | Talk 22:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Duke, you get to do anything you choose, but lie. First, this has nothing to do with this article and you repeatedly attempt to bring up irrelevant issues on a multitude of articles. Please focus on the just the article and topic at hand. Second, mendacious statements does not aggrandize an individual's position, rather it blatantly exposes one's behavior. Please learn to state the truth about matters; particularly when it is so easy to demonstrate the truth of the matter.[4] Third, do not take things so personally. You are an editor; no more and no less. You are but one among thousands. If your behavior garners you corrective action from others, the first thing to do is stop doing what you are doing. It is your behavior that is the problem. It is not you as a person. I hope you have many more happy days editing Wikipedia. We need a diverse group of editors to maintain neutral articles. Cheers. Storm Rider (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It would have helped if you knew exactly what 3RR consisted of before you made your 'report'. In your eagerness to malign me, you screwed it up. You cannot change the definition of 3RR. Nice try. Funny that you should link to proof that I didn't violate 3RR, but that another editor involved did. :) You were told so on that page; your insistence still that I did violate 3RR then shows your true intentions. The only lie there was yours.
I did not use sockpuppets, even though you desperately wanted to believe that I did. Another nice try. You exposed yourself for exactly what you are ... you are the one who lied; my behavior has been much more honorable than yours. I have never been the subject of 'corrective' actions; have you?
You can attempt to cram LDS 'truth' down anybody's throat that you choose ... it simply will not work with me. I would suggest that if you decide to report me again that this time you do it with factual evidence, not with distortion and innuendo that is not even close to being true. Grind your axe as much as you choose; I don't have to take that behavior without commenting on it. Duke53 | Talk 22:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

These accusations need to stop.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 01:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me that there is enough question that we should remove this picture. Potential copyright violations, tacky picture, highly offensive to mormons, sacred religious clothing that Mormons believe should not be shown publicly, etc. Futher, I don't believe that a photograph showing the underwear significantly enhances the usability of this article. Why do people care what the underwear looks like?? The explanations are sufficient. (Richman9)

Discussion started by user:Myclob

Motivations

Of those who want to keep the image and the article

(All these motivations will not apply to everyone who wants to keep the article, but we should be honest that some of the motivations apply to some of the people who want to keep it). myclob 18:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  1. To educate those who know nothing about Mormon Underwear. myclob 18:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. To humiliate Mormons by showing pictures of Mormons in their underwear. myclob 18:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. To make Mormons seem ridiculous by showing a picture, that has no context. myclob 18:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC) You have to admit that those who do not like the Mormon church would be drawn to this article. I'm not saying that everyone who is editing this article is anti-mormon, but the most highley motived editors would tent to be anti-mormonmyclob 18:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. To exemplify the fact that Wikipedia is not censored. Some highly motivated editors simply have a strong moral belief that information should be free and available regardless (not because of) of the offense caused to others. Please remove/strike the above statements that some motivations are to humiliate Mormons or make them seem ridiculous. Attributions of those sorts of motives have no place in Wikipedia.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • You've actually stated two different reasons here, but it does not diminish the fact that there are those (not necessarily on this talk page) who hold the above motivations. I know a handful of contributers who, in real life, devote a significant amount of time to identifying the flaws they perceive in Mormonism, creating and distributing anti-Mormon literature, etc., based on their own religious beliefs. It is their right to do so. In similar discussions, the points they raise are nearly identical to those above contending the photo should be displayed. You can see then, why it is difficult to differentiate between those honestly seeking the publication of knowledge for its own sake, and those with significant personal bias. Also understand that outside of Wikipedia I have never seen a public portrayal of the garment where the intent was not humiliation or ridicule. Given the nature of the topic, the attribution of such motives is certainly appropriate. More importantly, whether users on this page have such motivations or not, some on the other side of the argument will perceive them to be so. Ignoring such a perception removes context from the debate. We cannot understand why others respond the way they do until we understand their motivations, expectations, and perceptions. TAGregory 20:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Eh. Their motivations etc. are irrelevant. How's this: I have no anti-Mormon motivations. ("Some of my best friends"; and since I live in Nevada, I know a fair number of them.) In my opinion, the only difference between LDS and most any other religion is that LDS was invented/revealed more recently than most, and we know by whom, when, and where. If there are not other sites where the garments are portrayed without anti-Mormon intent, then all the more reason to picture them here, where people will be able to learn the pure fact of the matter (what the things look like) without any argumentation or rhetoric about them or Mormonism. I do wonder why the historical drawings we link to don't suffice; perhaps we could get a release for those and include them in the article? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) Regardless of what you have experienced outside Wikipedia. Attributions of those sorts of motives are inappropriate and unacceptable here. If you wish to understand others' motivations etc. I suggest you ask them. That is the only way to truly understand them; through dialouge. If you insist on assigning others' motivations on your own, Wikipedia strictly limits you to assuming good faith motivations. The above statements are prohibted by Wikipedia policy and they do not help this issue whatsoever.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 21:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
re "Their motivations etc. are irrelevan" You obviously know nothing about conflict resolution. I'm not an expert, but took a 400 level class in college. The essence is that you discuss interest (motivation) not positions. That is the only way you can come to (yes I know it is a cliche) win-win solution. Once you know the interest of everyone partisipating (common interest and apposing interest) then you can find a solution that meets everyones interest. Other wise you are arguing over conclusions, and there is no way to compromise. I shouldn't have to prove that I know more than you. Look up conflict resolution, and you will see that I am right. This is the only way to find a solution. Brigitte. Me thinks though doest protest to much. I did not accuse anyone of any specific motivation. My goal is to brain storm the motivations of those on BOTH SIDES of the issue. Please help me by putting those motivations you believe to be most valid towardst the top of each list. I want to find the probable motivations (interest) of those on both sides of the issue.myclob 04:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


re: "Please remove/strike the above statements that some motivations are to humiliate Mormons or make them seem ridiculous" You want to silence the belief that anyone could be using wikipedia to further their political perspective, or world view? To assume that no one who edits wikipedia has any motivation (interest) besides forwarding the truth is niave. And you have not responded to any of the arguments that point out that all truth does not need to be explored. If you want to live in a black and white world, were all truth needs to be shouted from the mountain tops, no matter who it harms, you will live in a very violent world. Should you use wikipedia to expose those whom you know that have elicite affairs? Should we show pornography? Pornography accuratly shows what it is looks like for people to engage in certain activities. To make over simplistic statements like we are just trying to find the truth, or expose the truth sounds fine, but the world is more complicated than that. People have a right to privacy. What type of underwear someone wears fits within that right, especially when they view that garment as a simbal of their religious commitments.myclob 05:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith: criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. I will not respond to any of your arguments while you continue to include the assumptions that some editors wish to humiliate Mormons, etc. I do understand what you are trying to do. However it is not the way Wikipedia does things. It is not the way dispute resolution is done on Wikipedia. Assuming bad faith motivations is not acceptable here.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 13:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Of those who want to get red of the image and the article

(All these motivations will not apply to everyone who wants to keep the article, but we should be honest that some of the motivations apply to some of the people who want to keep it). myclob 18:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  1. To hide the truth myclob 18:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Look Bridget, I'm being fair. I'm trying to show both sides.myclob 05:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. To maintain reverence for something considered sacred. -- TAGregory
  3. The current photo subtly connotes an association with anti-Mormon websites, where it is commonly used. This is counter to the neutral PoV goals of Wikipedia. -- TAGregory

Comparisons to Mohamed Cartoons

Similarities

  1. Cartoons of Mohamed and photos of Mormon Garments are only offensive to Muslims and Mormons respectively. myclob 18:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Cartoons often ridicule the individual in the cartoon. Photos of people in their underwear, are embarising, and would be displayed to also ridicule.myclob 18:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Differences

  1. Severity of the response, between Muslims and Mormons.myclob 18:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Comparisons to Pornography

Similarities

  1. Photos of sex, show what it looks like to have sex. Photos of Garments show what Garments look like. You could say these are educational, however they illicit an emotional response (by some). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.87.160 (talk • contribs)
  2. Photos of sex, and photos of Garments are not necessary on an encyclopedia. You could imagine what they look like (people having sex or Mormon Garments) and because some people find them offensive, we should not show them (this is my opinion. Please do not erase. I have given you an organized format for sharing your opinion also).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.87.160 (talk • contribs)
Note - when people look up sexual acts on wikipedia, they know what they are looking for. When people come here to look for info about temple garments and see the attached, they will be suprised. It doesnt' meet the standards set by the florida case a few years ago. -Visorstuff 01:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Differences

  1. More people think photos of sex are offensive. Only a minority of people (Mormons) think photos of Mormon Garments are offensive.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.87.160 (talk • contribs)

Examples of other places were wikipedia does not show images, because some people find them offensive.

(With each of these someone could make the same argument. "Your just sensoring the truth". If I want to see what blank looks like, I should have that right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.87.160 (talk • contribs)

  1. Goatse, a common pop-culture reference in the tech community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TAGregory (talk • contribs)
  2. The cartoons of Mohamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.87.160 (talk • contribs)
  3. Pictures of every sex act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.87.160 (talk • contribs)
Umm...
    • Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
    • This does not compare because we would accept a picture of the garments on a manquin and not live people, and there are plenty of artistic depitions of sex that are actually clearer than a photgraph would be. Not line drawing but life-like fully depicted artwork. These pieces of art are better illustrations then a photogragh would be, due the difficulty in getting an angle that depicts sex in real life.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 14:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
My point wasn't to show that they are exactly the same. My point was to show that we sensor ourselves on other issues when people are offended, even though some people do not find these items to be offensive. It is called respect. People who edit this article might want to read about it. [Myclob]

The essential problem

Is it fair to say that the essential problem is that encyclopedic treatment of this particular subject is going probably going to be automatically offensive to many LDS members? I realize this is a sensitive topic to LDS folks, and encyclopedias aren't sensitive. They're rather cold and factual instead, and this is by design. Unless we're going to not have an article on this topic at all, I don't see a way around this. Religious people are frequently not going to like seeing their faith covered from an encyclopedic perspective- it's not very compatible with the "believer's perspective". Can anyone deny that having a photo of this object is simply a desirable part of encyclopedic coverage, same as it would be on many many other topics? I feel like we've veered off into "you're not understanding why we don't like this" land, and that's not relevant to producing an encyclopedia. We're not writing from the faithful, reverant LDS perspective- this is an encyclopedia so we're just trying to be bland and neutral here. The only way to give due respect to the LDS perspective would be to have no article on this subject at all, and I simply don't see that happening. Friday (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Exactly. Scientologists don't like that we have an article about Xenu, but it's hard to honestly write about Scientology without it. Same thing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
We don't like an article about garments, as much as they do about Xenu, but you've taken it one step farther by including an image.
Friday, i disagree. I think factual encyclopedia articles are not offensive and neutral enough to be agreed upon. It is when something of controversy is added - which is typcially not done in today's encyclopedias - execpt wikipedia. -Visorstuff 01:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand you. Are you seriously suggesting that controversial content should be removed because it's controversial? Such a suggestion is preposterous. Plenty of information here are things that certain people would prefer not be here, but we don't use that as grounds for removal of information. This is an encyclopedia -it would not be possible for the project to operate under such conditions. I hope I've misunderstood and you're saying something else, but I can't figure out what that something else would be. Friday (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't take this personally...

You may not be a Mormon hater, but there are mormon haters, and this is were they would hang out...So what is desided by the people who edit this page, may not be very fair to Mormons [User:Myclob]

Wow, this is just offensive. If wikipedia's job is to fuel religious hatred and bigotry then they have done a good job with this article. Every bigoted anti-religious website between here and hell has picked this up. There are a few editors who can use some training in tolerance and responsible article writing. As a historical note the Nazis published pictures of "sacred" Jewish clothes and symbols to ridicule them. I am sure it was for "educational" purposes too! Heil Bigotry! 64.234.26.109

Please stop with the personal attacks. Comparing the actions of editors to the actions of Nazis is obviously never acceptable. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of that activity by Nazis. What an interesting activity. Does anyone have a reference for that? I don't think it would be appropriate for this article, but it would be a valid addition to other articles. It is funny when standing back from an issue that comprable actions are seen.
As I have stated multiple times, I am not against this specific picture being used though I do find it offensive. If an alternative could be found that woud be accepted by the majority of editors, I would support using it. Wikipedia is a source of information and it may be too much to ask to respect the standards of other people regardless of beliefs or religion. Granted, it is easier to abuse minorities, but respect may not be an issue or concern appropriate for Wikipedia. This slope is slippery and decency quickly becomes the victim of this all-consuming drive to ensure we are not censoring anything. Storm Rider (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Is the humans being shown immodestly in their underclothes that is the offense? Would it be acceptable if, say, they were on mannikins? Or laid out flat? Would a photograph ever be acceptable? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
"Would a photograph ever be acceptable"? Well, here's a little clue as to what we're up against: " If an alternative could be found that woud [sic] be accepted by the majority of editors ...". Some Wikipedia editors have been known to go to other editor's talk pages and solicit votes on issues like this. Duke53 | Talk 04:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Jp, thank you for the question. I speak for myself only, but I suspect in reality a picture of the temple garment would never be found appropriate by Latter-day Saints. The acutal garment represents covenants made between an individual and God. It may be difficult for others to grasp, and it has been said so many times it may sound trite, but it is very sacred.
One of the reasons that I am not adamantly opposed to the picture is because non-Mormons will only see underwear when they see the garment; the sacredness of the garment can not be represented in a picture. I wonder what is achieved by a picture that is not accomplished by a description? I do acknowledge that we have become a visual society, but sometimes I think it is not the worst thing in the world to show respect to the beliefs of others. I do not have to believe in something before I show respect. Sometimes, as individuals, it is okay to have a higher standard than the lowest common denominator of the society at large. A picture will always be painful to LDS is the bottom line. Thanks again for your kind question. Storm Rider (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is time for everyone to give three cheers for Duke53. What a wonderful job he is doing at being helpful. Everyone clap your hands and sing praises to him for his helfpulness and cooperative efforts. Yeah! Duke; he's our man, if he can't do it, no one can. Storm Rider (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Everyone knock off with the sniping and snarking, OK? It doesn't help a damn thing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The more I consider this, the more I think that the current photograph (which, by the way, showed on one of my favorite blogs this morning) isn't helpful. All it is is a picture of two headless people in slightly unusual, somewhat old-fashioned undies; there's nothing that actually distinguishes between "mormon underwear" and any other sort, given that the actual acceptable style of the garment has changed over the years. Is the shape of the garment something special, other than "highly modest"? Or is the actual special part of the garments the marks on the chest etc.? If the latter, it seems to me that a drawing would actually better portray the garments - I'm rather fond of the historic series we link to, as they show (a) we really are just talking underwear here; and (b) they clearly show how the marks are the things that distinguish them from plain ordinary dainties. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree that the picture isn't great. But it's what we have today. A photo or drawing of the symbols on it would be helpful too. As for what distinguishes them- to me it's more about how they're seen by their owners than any of their physical attributes, but I suppose this is arguable and it's just my (non-verifiable) opinion. Friday (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I am open-minded about non-photographic illustrations. However I haven't yet seen one I think is suitable as a replacement. But please show us alternatives here that we can discuss instead of talking about hypothetical illustrations. I am sure there a hundreds of alternatives possible that everyone would find better than the current photogragh. But is a waste of time to talk of the bad qualties of the current photo until these alternatives are availble. Wikipedia always prefers poor quality freely licensed illustrations over high-quality copyrighted ones, this is nothing particular to this article.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Honestly it doesn't look like any "normal" undergarments I've ever seen and is quite distinctive. Since there isn't any replacement forthcoming, I don't see the point about arguing about it. It shows no body parts, protects the identities of the wearers and has a very high cloth to skin ratio. Btw, we don't have a picture of Xenu because its hard to take pictures of space aliens, but for scientologists, the mere mention of the name in print is pure sacrilege of the highest order. They've been know to hunt down people who mention it and threaten them with bodily harm. The Mormon underwear is tame compared to that. pschemp | talk 17:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No offense pschemp, but just walking though mervyns the other day, I saw quite a few pair of underwear that look like mormon garments. The top for men is a typical undershirt, for women a typical camisole. The bottoms are the style of boxer briefs (in fact, that's the syle I last purchased) looks like a common google search for underwear comes up with a site that has nearly identical non-Mormon underwear - here's the top site examples for men [5] [6] [7] [8] and women: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14].

You see, Mormon garments are in made in the style of current longer undergarment styles. I can buy boxer briefs, boxer style, and support briefs. My wife buys similar women's styles. The current photo just shows the "longer" underwear style of ten or more years ago. The current photo shows an out of date style, and doesn't provide any educational value on what garments are. If we showed garments from the 1950s they'd resemble longer bloomers or once-peice union jack suits popular back then. Growing up, i had many friends who wore the above type of underwear before going through the temple, so they could get used to a different underwear style they'd be wearing after they recieved their garments. The current photo is old and is used only to satisfy a fetish - it provides no educational value. -Visorstuff 18:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The current photo is being used to illustrate the article. Period. It is the only freely licensed illustration available, therefore it is used in spite of whatever drawsbacks it has in quality. I am sure Image:NSRW Africa Hadendoa.png is an out of date depition of person of the Hadendoa ethnic group and that they no longer wear their hair in such a fashion. However it is the only freely licensed illustration we have so it is illustrating the article despite these flaws. The same is true in this case.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, using something useless rather than nothing at all is a rather questionable approach. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
It isn't useless. If it isn't current then label the time period which it represents in the caption Easy. It would be great to have different pictures showing the different styles though the years, but this is all we have. Give it a true label then, but it is not useless. pschemp | talk 07:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
No, it's useless. There's nothing that indicates that it's a temple garment rather than two people in undies (I'm glad at least we're using the cropped version of that pic.) The website that image comes from does have a slightly more useful pic -- a Barbie in garments, with closeups of the marks. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
We describe these things as they exist. If the garment makers don't care to make them visually distinct from normal underwear, this is not our concern. (But, to me they're very distinct from what I consider typical underwear.) Unless you're suggesting that what's shown in the picture are not in fact temple garments, I don't understand your concern. Friday (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The garment makers do make them physically distinct. The photograph does not show the distinction (though, I note if I look way closely, I can barely make out the mark on one knee.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe we're all already in agreement (except those who object to any picture on religious grounds) that a better picture would be, well, better. When the day comes that we have a better one, we can use it. Until then, what is there to talk about? Friday (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The fact that people seem to think that something useless is better than nothing? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Friday, respectfully I think you are stating facts not in evidence. Could you please share your opinion of the value of the picture? No one has yet stated why the picture enhances the article and what it provides that is not provided by other means. Forget about the numerous and varied reasons that have been provided for not including. I think it may be time to actually understand why including a picture of something so trivial and inaccurate improves the article. Storm Rider (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Because it shows one version of the garment. And pictures are useful additions to articles. Text cannot do the same thing a picture does. It isn't trivial, its the *only* illustration in the whole article. It does improve the article because it shows what garment from that time period look like. This "useless" crap is a sneaky way to get around the fact that you are trying to censor the picture. I personally find the picture very informative and so do others. Now, I suggest you find a replacement you consider more suitable, because until you do, this is the *only* hint of what the garments look like that we have and it will stay in the article. pschemp | talk 23:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
It serves the same purpose that any other picture in any other article serves: to illustrate the topic. How can this possibly be a matter of disagreement? Why do you say it's inaccurate, unless you're suggesting it's a picture of something other than temple garments? I don't see that I've stated any facts not in evidence, but I do note that most of the people objecting also self-identify as LDS members, and I really don't think this is coincidence. I would suggest that members need to take extra care to ensure that their religious beliefs are not interfering with their judgment as editors. I think we all agree it's not a great picture, but it's the picture we have today and it's free. Perfection is not required. The "numerous and varied" reasons for not including it have all been answered, have they not? The only vaguely sensible one I remember hearing is that it's not current, but the answer there is obvious: if we know when these garments are from, we say so in the caption. Friday (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, pschemp, I'm the only one using the word "useless", and suggesting I want to "censor" the article is kinda silly if you consider what I'm actually saying: I very much want a picture of the temple garments in the article, and I want it to be one that actually displays the aspects of the temple garments that are interesting: not that it's old-fashioned underwear (lots of religions have garment rules or preferences that harken to older time), but that it bears ritual markings that denote the covenant subscribed to by the wearer. A line drawing such as those we link to the page ("pictures of the garment over the years") is more informative; that it happens to have the side effect of being less offensive to those sensitive about it isn't a bad thing, but I don't really care much about that. The Barbie doll picture here is also more informative, albeit quite silly (though not in a bad way.) Note also that I'm not removing the picture from the article, and I'll quickly revert anyone who removes it without consensus. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
If you want a more information about the marks on the garments in the illustration, I am sure you could find some method of highlighting where they appear in photoshop. This is the beauty of a free license, the work can be improved to be even more useful by anyone with the ability. Even a low quality illustration gives a great deal of information instantly that is difficult to piece together from the text. I find the usefullness of the illustration so obvious that I do not know how to respond to your statement otherwise. I think that we will just have to disagree on this point. I find it useful and informative, despite the low quality. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Jpgordon makes an important point above- he's saying this picture is so bad as to be worse than no pics at all. Maybe I just don't have the artistic eye of a photographer, but to me it's nowhere near that bad. It's not great, but it's what we have today and it's IMO certainly better than nothing. The objections of those who want no picture at all, on the other hand, can IMO easily be dismissed at this point as being religiously-motivated, not motivated by a desire to improve the encyclopedia. And while I completely understand such personal biases, they have no place here on the project. Anyone who can't take off their "true believer" hat long enough to function as an encyclopedia editor should probably just stay clear of articles where this is a problem. Friday (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Friday, I think you misunderstand Jpgordon's point. None of the group involved in this discussion will remove the photo on the LDS side once the page is unprotected - on the contrary, we'll revert it back when we see vandalism, as we are supportive of the wikipedia process.

That said, the photo is like showing this photo [15] and stating that all american women wear this type of underwear. While it is true that women wear them, the style of bloomers has changed to this [16]. They are both bloomers, but which looks like is worn? The style in the current photo is out of date.

I think our point is that we want to go on record that this is offensive to a segment of people, and there should be some warning of such on the page. -Visorstuff 18:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Pardon my laughter but the pictures on Penis are offensive to a segment of people and there is no warning on that page. There is no precedent for your suggestion. We are not here to "warn" the members of one religious group. Plus it doesn't matter if its out of date, provided it is labelled as such. That's called "history". pschemp | talk 04:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
For better or worse, there is a warning at Bahá'u'lláh. The warning has helped stop the drive-by removals and it appears to be the result of lengthy discussion. Members of the Bahá'í Faith are not permitted to view the picture; they believe it is a serious sin. This is quite different than what's going on here because there is no such restriction in the LDS church. Nonetheless, the Bahá'u'lláh discussions might be relevant or helpful to us. I particularly appreciate how the Bahá'í there accept that wikipedia is not bound to follow their religious norms. shotwell 19:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
There is a note, I wouldn't describe that as a warning. It says: Note: A photograph of Bahá'u'lláh can be found at the end of this article. I expected a warning to be like  ! This article contains pictures of human nudity, do not edit the article to censor images, see wikipedia disclaimer for detials. The preceding warning was once put on the circumsicion article. I find it unacceptable for the self-references. I am not sure why a note similar to the Bahá'u'lláh would help in this case.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't really distinguish between "note" and "warning", but I see the distinction now that you've pointed it out. I agree with you about including a note. One would (or should) have the reasonable expectation of seeing a photo of temple garments in the temple garment article. I just figured that it'd be helpful to point at that discussion. shotwell 19:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Another difference is that the Bahai apparently just don't want to see the picture themselves, while the anti-garment-photo faction doesn't want anyone to see it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
That would not be a correct description of my position or, I suspect, any other Latter-day Saint. Our concern is not that others will see the garment. Were that true you would not find LDS going to a gym and changing their clothes. Those are common occurences on a daily basis. Some would say their concern is that it is simply unnecessary to show a picture of something they hold sacred. For readers capable of reading the article one immediately is capable of understanding what a garment looks like. Other editors have stated it may not be accurate; I think this is not completely true. The picture is close enough for for this purpose. There are many styles and they also come in colors appropriate for military attire, i.e. they are not always white. Others have a higher sense of decency and would simply respect a religion's tenants; not because they believe, but out of respect. Others, would say the picture does not improve the article. I suspect you would also find other reasons, but none of them would say they want no one to see the garment. Please be careful about how you charaterize the issue; it most certainly is not between a religion and censorship. Storm Rider (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, I stand corrected. However, re "higher sense of decency" -- WP:NPA prohibits me from giving that the response it truly deserves. Please be careful about how you characterize other editors. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Look Jpgordon, we can bounce around some more, but many of your comments about my editing are just as applicable to your won edits. You reduced every editors comments who were against adding the picture to a rather silly, odd, incorrect religious position. It smacked of smug elitism and I have had quit enough of that on this page. When you point a finger at another, please remember that there is often at least three fingers pointing back at yourself.

A higher sense of decency was not intended to be a personal evaluation or a critisim per se. This is a public interactive forum. You must admit that some editors have different codes of conduct. For some, all religion is respected. For others, it is despised and viewed as a scourge to humanity. Others think just their personal relgion is perfect and all others should be held in disdain. For some, crass vocabulary is acceptable and for others it is not. When we want to interpret policy strictly, everything is open to fair play and all things will be allowed given the proper context. A higher sense of decency on wiki may neither be right or wrong, just different and both are obviously perfectly acceptable; in fact, there is not right or wrong in the conversation. Thus understood, it is a question of diveristy of opinion and thought and not a negative characterization. Don't ever feel like you need to hold back; just email me. I would find it an interesting conversation. Storm Rider (talk) 03:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Everyone needs to be very careful about how they characterize the other position here. First off, it is foolishness to try and sum up the beliefs of every editor in the opposing position. That said I have seen some supporters of picture removal say they would find any photo offensive (i.e. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to prepare an image that is both accurate and acceptable--for it is the public display of such an image that is in itself offensive. Yes, there could be a better picture; but, it sorrows me that something sacred must be held up for such public display.) If some feel differently, that is fine, but it is known position of some editors. On the other hand, I have not seen any supporter of retention of the photo say that they despise religion or that they find it a "scourge to humanity." I have not seen anyone claim they hold everyone of different religous beliefs in disdain. I find those statements to be rather strong. Perhaps you have had outside .conversations I am not party to, but I have not seen those opinions expressed here. Regarding a higher sense of decency, I think you would be better understood by saying a higher standard of decorum. Dencency can be defined in regard to general qualities such as suitable; appropriate; fair; genourous; respectable; worthy as well as maintaining conservative standards of behaivor. Decorum is much more narrowly defined as regarding standards of behaivor. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 05:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah. I got a little pissed off at the suggestion that somehow I had an inferior sense of decency. Decorum, sure -- decorum isn't necessarily congruent with Wikipedia's goals. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify. Decency does share one definition with decorum. (Think "Can I come in the bathroom? Are you decent yet?") However it also has other definitions which can lead to misunderstanding. I do not think it was an incorrect word to use, rather an imprecise word. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
It may have been better to use decorum in my edit; however, neither really seems to be a bedrock principle of wikipedia. It would appear that the overarching objective is to provide information regardless of any other potential influence or concern. How we individually live our lives is a wholly different matter. For example, personally I find it inappropriate for me to demonstrate disrespect to any religion. On wikipedia it is very possible to offend religious people or any other person as long as the goal is to share information. This would also seem to be your position; correct? Storm Rider (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I never take an action for the purpose of causing offense. However I am certain people can be offended for a number of reasons by things I have done or said. I find this to be unfortunate but unavoidable. As far as Wikipedia goes it, there are a number of policies and guidelines here which help us navigate different cultural norms. I do my best to rely on these as well as precedent here over my own gut instinct of what I find personally acceptable. When WP norms lead to people being offended; I do think we should try to mitigate this as much as this is possible without compromising the core principle of providing free encyclopedic content. In this case little can done unless another freely licensed image is found. I would very much prefer to see these garments on a dress form or manequin rather than live models. Not because the models offend me personally, but because I think live models make the photo more offensive to Mormons without adding anything encyclopedic over the same picture on a dress form. I respect people to make there own choices regarding religion but I cannot say that I personally feel obligated to conform to other's religous standards. I hope that this clarifies my position for you. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 05:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Well said. pschemp | talk 05:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Very. Thanks. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of placing a note in the article stating that a photo of the garments exists at the end of the article and leaving it as that. I think [Penis] is not a relevant comparison, as it is not a religious topic, however, Bahá'u'lláh is good similar comparison, and such a warning would help remove the potential vandalism and help us to move past the sprotect issue. Can we take a straw poll on that? -Visorstuff 16:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I really am not sure what you are asking here. I don't see any need for a poll. If you think a note will help, start a new heading to work out the exact wording. The note has nothing to do with vandalism, however. It would just be there to alert Mormons that if they scroll down they will see a detailed description and a picture so they can decide to leave the article before seeing it (which I guess would alleviate part of the problem). If that is helpful and makes it less offensive I support the idea but would like to see an exact wording agreed on first.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
--Birgitte§β, I appreciate your comments. It may be better if we dropped the term religion or religious and used curlture or cultural. When the subject is relgion people have very emotional responses. However, when discussing cultural norms the tone of the conversation changes immediately. I have lived overseas and I travel extensively, these experiencese may have influenced me to be more sensitive to respecting others. Difference is neither better or worse; it is just different. My actions are modified based upon their perspective not exactly on what I might think is acceptable. I hope Wiki never gets to the point of needing to have policies to govern every little thing; that is far too legalistic and it demeans civil, intellectual society. Again, please accept my appreciation for your well-spoken position. In much we find agreement and walk the same path. I am not sure the best place to draw a line, but I would still seek to be respectful of cultural differences. I think it is time to move on and hope this can be put to bed. Storm Rider (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I want to make two points and then I will leave you all to argue some more. The photo and any similar photo will depict underwear, that looks remarkably simiar to everyday run of the mill underwear. Historical pictures may look different, but underwear looked different back then. If you were at the gym locker room and saw a Mormon changing, you would probably not even notice they were any different, or that maybe the shorts were a little long. That said, what is the point of showing a picture of underwear that the average reader is not going to see as significant? In other words, it does nothing to enhance the article. A typical reader will understand in text what the garment looks like, and you can use a picture of underwear saying they are "similar" to regular underwear. I could run to K-Mart right now and find something similar, take a picture, and few of you would be able to know the difference. Point 2: Historically, those who show pictures of the garment are doing so to mock the church and it's beliefs. The photo in the article is used all over the web for such a purpose. The article talks about protestors defiling the garment. This alone should be enough to warrent removal of the picture. If the artlcle was about "derogatory depictions of the garment" similar to the black face article, then I could see it, but I certainly would not put a picture of a man in black face on the African American article. Bytebear 17:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oversimplifications

Oversimplifications by those who want to keep the photo:

  • Those who want to keep the photo will say that those who want to get red of the image want to remove "all" controversial content. We of course, only want to remove controversial content that we hold sacred, and no one has any business knowing about (what kind of underwear we wear). So it is an "oversimplification" to accuse us of wanting to remove "all" controversial content.myclob 05:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
"We of course, only want to remove controversial content that we hold sacred". That is all fine and dandy in Mormon publications, but Wikipedia is not a Mormon publication. I would guess that Mormons make up a tiny percentage of Wikipedia users, most of who do not see a thing 'sacred' about these garments or this picture of the garments.
"no one has any business knowing about (what kind of underwear we wear)". It is not up to you to decide what is anybody else's 'business' at Wikipedia. I would suggest that if you are so bothered about this material that you simply stay away from it. I know that I avoid visiting articles that offend or disgust me; maybe you should do the same. Duke53 | Talk 12:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Oversimplifications by those who want to get rid of the photo:

  • I'm sure there are some...

Common Interest

  • Desire to promote better understanding between religion (?)

Apposing Interest

Personally Myclob, I find these attempts at psuedo-straw polls to be quite useless and downright cryptic in the ongoing discussion here. Voting is evil and these have done little but incite more argument (plus I'm not sure what you are asking, you aren't very clear). There are perfectly good discussions going on, why don't you just join one of those? or post a normal question? (btw "opposing" is not spelling "apposing".) There really is no need for all these headers and subheaders just to talk about something. pschemp | talk 14:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's move on

Section removed, as will be any continuing speeches not related to actually improving the article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

So much for being against censorship. I am sure you are doing it for our own good. Someone should read the book "1984". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.153.236 (talk • contribs)

I agree with the removal, however, it is preserved here for interested parties to read -Visorstuff 16:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me that there is enough question that we should remove this picture. Potential copyright violations, tacky picture, highly offensive to mormons, sacred religious clothing that Mormons believe should not be shown publicly, etc. Futher, I don't believe that a photograph showing the underwear significantly enhances the usability of this article. Why do people care what the underwear looks like?? The explanations are sufficient.

There are no questions about the copyright of the image; the owner relinquished all rights. 'Sacred' is only one view concerning these garments and has nothing to do with the image being here. An illustration of any article subject adds to the article. It is not for us to question anybody's reason for any image being here, just that it doesn't break any Wikipedia policy by being here; this one doesn't break any policy. That is the only factor in considering any image for deletion. Wikipedia does not allow censorship. Duke53 | Talk 19:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Without commenting one way or the other on the various issues of whether it applies to this situation. I do want to point out that, it is every Wikipedian's responsibility to questions the suitability for images - that is the editorial discretion that we jointly share in our efforts to build an encyclopedia. In fact, "Please discuss the contents of images used on Wikipedia on the talk page. Images should depict their content well (the object of the image should be clear and central)."WP:IUP#Content (emphasis in original)
Additionally, although not at issue here, (though it applies to this image in another article): "Articles may get ugly and difficult to read if there are too many images crammed onto a page with relatively little text. For this reason, it is often a good idea to temporarily remove the least-important image from an article and queue it up on the article's talk page. Once there is enough text to support the image, any contributor is free to shift the image back into the article."WP:IUP#Image queuing It seems obvious to me that if the editors decide that the text on a specific aspect of a topic should be minimal in comparison to the article as a whole, then an image might not be justified since the use of too many is ugly. --Trödel 21:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Had that editor read the talk page they would have known that the issues ('offensiveness', 'sacredness', etc) have already been discussed numerous times here; the only issue left on the table is the 'quality' of the image. I will prepare a canned response for the next group of editors if that's what it takes. If one person or a thousand give the same arguments it doesn't make them correct in wanting to censor this image. I will repeat again: if someone is so offended by this image they can simply not visit the article; I do that with numerous articles at Wikipedia myself.
As for the other article I would suppose that the talk page over there would be a more appropriate place for discussing it.Duke53 | Talk 22:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually it does make a difference in determining concensus. Even if you think the argument is the same, those seeking to get full concensus through some type of middle ground (rather than the current standoff) can often do so when they understand the motiviations of the different participants. Hopefully someone will think of something innovative and useful. Of course, this is not your way of resolving disputes on Wikipedia so I can understand your need to respond. --Trödel 22:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Anybody can "understand the motiviations [sic] of the different participants" rather easily by reading the entire talk page; if they care enough to get involved they should be willing to do that. I did. The reason I think that the arguments are the same is that they usually contain the words 'offensive' and 'sacred' ... things that hold no weight in this conversation. They are not offensive or sacred to many of us. Wikipedia does not allow censorship. Duke53 | Talk 00:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
It is exactly this kind of productive responses in support of reaching a concensus that all reasonable parties agree is a good soltuion that have inspired me to avoid this page lately. But instead of productive responses we get stuff like that below. All you need is someone who will play your game - then the page is full of comments that do nothing to help resolve the issue but just create even more hard feelings (See last exchange with Storm Rider that was removed by Friday for another example) --Trödel 01:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Can I propose a compromise? I would sugest someone take a photo of run of the mill undies, that resemble the garments layed out on a bed and have the caption "Temple garments are similar to these". I think this will allows those who feel a photo is important without offending LDS who see the actual garments as sacred. Bytebear 22:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow, what an offer: Remove an image of the actual item to replace it with an image of something 'similar'. Duke53 | Talk 00:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Counteroffer: somebody take a new picture of the actual item, upload it here to the talk page and we can discuss whether or not to replace the present image. Duke53 | Talk 00:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I am trying really hard to assume good faith here, but it seems to me that you only want the real item as an effort to antagonize Mormons. What difference does it make to the reader if they see a photo of something that appears very similar if not indestinguisable from the actual artifact? Bytebear 00:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I am trying really to believe you when you say that you think a photo of something 'similiar' to an object is as good as a photo of the actual object. Perhaps you are trying to antagonize non-Mormons or ex-Mormons? Duke53 | Talk 00:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
perhaps you need to look up the definition of "compromise". Bytebear 00:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
No need to; perhaps you should look up the definition of counterproposal. Duke53 | Talk 00:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, gee, since your "counterproposal" has been so successful, let's just continue to discuss it ad nausium. Bytebear 01:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
As successful as your 'compromise'; we're done here. Duke53 | Talk 01:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Considering you are the only one who has commented on it since I proposed it about 3 hours ago, I would hardly call your opinion a consensus. Bytebear 01:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I meant 'you & I' >'here & now'< ... we have some mediation on the horizon anyway. Duke53 | Talk 01:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Bytebear, replacing an actual photo with one of something that is not the real thing is not acceptable. This is an enclyclopedia, we present facts here, not "simulations". Both of you need to stop this nonsense. The argument is adding nothing to discussions. pschemp | talk 03:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I say we need more photos or illustrations, including closeups of the symbols. Please see my thoughts below. - F.A.A.F.A. 08:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving past sprotect

One of Wikipedia's goals is that we want all to edit Wikipedia. As stated before, we need to find a way to move beyond the current protection. As with all religious articles, we expect a certain level of vandalism to occur. That said, lets work to move beyond the protection. I'd like to propose a staw poll to garner official consensus on the following: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Visorstuff (talk • contribs)

Caption Should we include a notice at the top of the article?

  • support -Visorstuff 23:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • support B 23:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • oppose. I think it might draw-in more controversy than it solves. But having a commented-out notice in the text for editors might be a good idea. COGDEN 01:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No need IMO. There's nothing here to offend the non-LDS, and the LDS should know what they're getting into by reading an encyclopedia article on this topic. Friday (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. No need. No need for silly polls either. pschemp | talk 03:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Ditto pschemp. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I see no purpose in a notice, I do see purpose in having a statement, should the picture remain, that the picture should not be removed for any reason to prevent future problems. Storm Rider (talk) 07:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggested note (Feel free to suggest alternatives, as I'm very wordy)

Note: Although considered sacred, a photograph of Temple garments may be found at the end of this article. Due to the sensitive nature of religious topics such as this, reader discretion is advised. The Wikipedia community has come to a consensus that the current image should remain in the article, please do not delete.
Alternative: The Wikipedia community has come to consensus that this picture remain in the article. Storm Rider (talk) 07:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
My problem with the above wording is that we should not reference Wikipedia at all.
I really don't support the polling. A RFC would be a better idea. But an RFC would have to be much more focused than this this to be worthwhile. You should work out the strongest argument you have and present that as an RFC. I honestly don't think it would be useful to argue against the precedents of showing offensive pictures and of using low-quality but free pictures. Probably the best RFC question would be: Is the illustration shown in the article Temple Garment encyclopedic?; ask that has been the objection that has been less answered than others. I think most other objections have been firmly refuted. But I obviously have a different perspective; maybe you want to go a different route. I think it would be a bad idea to ask several questions on a RFC because I think people will be less likely to respond.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

Do you support having the current image in the article?

  • Undecided. Will decide before Dec. 12 I imagine that there is not a real consensus. I'm planning to post this to the village pump later this week to get outside opinion on whether or not the image is appropriate. I've seen enough non-LDS editors who don't think the image is appropriate to belive that consensus could swing either way. Another issue, but seperate is should this article not show an image that some people find offensive? -Visorstuff 23:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • oppose, but: we shouldn't delete until after we decide on a better image. I can't say I'm thrilled with the present image, but it's inevitable and appropriate under Wikipolicy that there will be some image, and I'm not willing, myself, to make a new one. COGDEN 01:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose (with compromise): I do not feel it adds anything to the article, as the look of the garment is nothing more unusual than contemporary underwear. I have proposed a compromise of showing "similar" garments that will give the reader a sense of what they look like without being offensive to the sacred nature of the actual artifact. Bytebear 01:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia needs to demonstrate respect, and the image fails to do that. Respect doesn't always outweigh other considerations, but in this case it does. To those who support the image or something like it, consider whether you would mind having something personal and private about yourself as the subject matter of a wikipedia article. In the U.S., it is illegal to disclose something private to the public. I consider this image to be highly invasive of my personal privacy, and it's analogous to burning a U.S. flag to spite a U.S. serviceman. B 23:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course the picture should appear - The rules of the Wiki apply here, not the "consensus" of Mormon editors. Nearly all the non-Mormons agree the photo should stay. Again, why are we polling when this has already been established? Is it because perhaps, you didn't like the outcome? pschemp | talk 03:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I hesitate to make this remark since to point out this non-productive discussions is itself unproductive, but I am drawn to say something here:
    • So much of this discussion is unproductive (almost all my own comments included) We should be seeking consensuse amongst ALL the editors regardless of background. The beliefs and feelings of the so-called Mormon editors vary significantly and there is not even concensus amongst a supposedly homogeneous group. --Trödel 04:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
      I have admit I wouldn't have made that response had Visorstuff not made me think about it with his claim that "there is not a real consensus." Um... pschemp | talk 06:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
      Please show me where any concensus in the past was obtained for inclusion of the picture. I have never seen it and it is deceptive to say that it existed! Storm Rider (talk) 07:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
And incidentally, pschemp, non-LDS have also said they feel that the image is not appropriate as well. See comments (some which have been removed) between Duke53 and User:Musical_Linguist on their talk pages, at Talk:Undergarment and other places. This is beginning to gather a lot of attention, and I don't think there is any consensus - even within the Mormon group. I know I've not removed it, nor am I decided on it. In fact, Cogden and I have fought and reverted those who removed links to such an image in the article (although a much more useful image). As was stated otherplaces, its not that seeing garments is wrong, its how its gone about and with what intent. -Visorstuff 17:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
"And incidentally, pschemp, non-LDS have also said they feel that the image is not appropriate as well". And how, pray tell, does one determine if an editor is 'non-LDS'? Duke53 | Talk 17:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
They say so? alanyst /talk/ 18:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I do not see how a picture of underwear, any underwear, improves an article except the underwear article. This really has entered complete absurdity. We are actually voting on seeing underwear and we actually think it is important enough for which to argue! Storm Rider (talk) 07:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Usefulness Does the current image illustrate the article?

  • Oppose. I think there is somewhere an image that can actually illustrate the article. This offers little educational value, and looks like people wearing old-fashoined underwear rather than illustrating unique aspects of Garments. As stated above, they are not recognizable as such. I believe drawing would be better suited in this case. -Visorstuff 23:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • oppose. If I were an uninformed reader who had just heard about Mitt Romney's underwear and wanted to consider this all-important factor before deciding whether to vote for him for President (not that I would, personally—I'm an Obama fan), I'd want to see the symbolic marks. I wouldn't particularly care whether there was a live model inside. If we're talking strictly about the most informative depiction, that would be a drawing, where you could emphasize the symbols (their most significant aspect, and the thing that makes them garments rather than a tee-shirt and boxer-briefs). In real garments, you can't see the symbols without a blowup. COGDEN 01:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Aesthetically, the picture looks odd, and the headlessness implies some kind of shame or anonymity (which is probably true). A manaquin or layed out on a bed seems more appropriate. If you want to show the marks, then I would suggest a drawing, but that will cause another flurry of controversy. Bytebear 01:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The primary interest this image appeals to is a prurient interest, not an educational one. It does little to nothing to educate and far more to offend. B 23:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • comment -- Oh, I don't think there's any shame involved. Here's the original uncropped picture. Question: are the marks considered themselves secret? I mean, we describe them in the article, and they're depicted on the "historic garment" link. Isn't the Nauvoo Endowment openly published? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
      • That looks like a photoshop crop to me. Friday (talk) 02:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Ya think? I was kinda wondering. The faces look goofy; on the other hand, the neck musclature on the woman does seem to match the angle her face is turned, etc. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
          • If you look at the wallpaper behind the heads, the pattern doesn't match up correctly right at the line where the image cuts off - clearly the sign of a cut and paste job. If we do indeed have permission from, or access to the copyright holder (which I still question), shouldn't he/she have the original image? Bytebear 00:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Question is irrelevant until another alternative is produced. WP:Voting is evil. pschemp | talk 03:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Again, it is a pair of underwear. Please tell me that seeing two people wear underwear is not that interesting to readers...and you have to do it with a straight face or I won't believe you. Storm Rider (talk) 07:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability of images

I have given the discussions on this page a lot of thought and something has occurred to me that I haven't seen addressed directly. How do we know the image is really of temple garments? They definitely look like them, but as others have asserted, having a simulated image of garments is not acceptable, so we must be sure they're the real thing, no? The image resolution of the current photo is too poor to show the distinguishing marks, so it seems impossible to verify by inspection alone that they are indeed garments. Is the source of the image a reliable source? Can it be verified that the people in the photo are really wearing temple garments? I could upload an image of people in underwear and claim it's the real deal, or even upload an image that I think shows the real deal but actually doesn't—what mechanism is in place to verify the accuracy of the information conveyed by images on Wikipedia? WP:Verifiability only seems to address textual sources. If Wikipedia is to avoid conveying factual inaccuracies via images, how can we be sure about this or any other image from a non-reliable source? Any links to Wikipedia policy that addresses this would be greatly appreciated. alanyst /talk/ 05:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, zoom into the picture -- you can barely make out the dash on the woman's right knee, another at the man's navel, and if you strain your eyes you can maybe see one of the marks on the man's left breast. But that's what's wrong with the picture, to me -- it's a bad example of temple garments. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    Yeah, it takes some close examination and guesswork to locate some of the markings, but I guess my question is a bit broader, and I'll offer the following hypothetical to clarify it: couldn't the creator of this photo have faked some markings or Photoshopped them? I'm not saying that's what happened here, but how would we know if they did? What gives us the confidence to say that this is an accurate illustration of the article? Do we need to consider the source at all, or are some images verifiable on their face without needing to come from a reliable source? Especially for matters that some people consider sacred or taboo, there's a danger: an antagonistic editor could produce a distorted illustration as a means of provocation, and an adherent could not correct it without violating that taboo. Thus the adherent is the one facing the dilemma even though the antagonist is the one in the wrong. Shouldn't the burden be upon the provider of such an image to positively demonstrate its accuracy, in order to avoid such an inequality? I'm not trying to ask leading questions here, just trying to think this through "out loud". alanyst /talk/ 06:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I suspect that if this wasn't really a picture of temple garments, the LDS editors on this page wouldn't be nearly as offended by them. Admittedly it is an old style and should be labeled as such, but the picture is still illustrative, even if poorly executed. Why don't you all work on getting a suitable replacement? Surely that would be a better use of our time as it would make this picture go away easily. pschemp | talk 06:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Concur with pschemp, who accidently mentioned this subject at the Village Pump. Per a number of variations on WP:NOT, there is no significant chance that this image will be deleted or discounted (questions of credibility notwithstanding). Almost anything would be a better use of time...Doc Tropics 07:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
It appears to be a fact that the picture came from a known anti-Mormon web site. I don’t' know how that affects the reliability of the picture, but it does raise an issue and the fact that it comes from an anti-Mormon is offensive to Mormons. They do appear to be an older style of garment, but I certainly can not vouch for them; all I can say is they have the appearance of garments.
I suspect that a picture of long underwear could easily be presented and labeled as temple garments and the vast majority of the readers would be ignorant of the difference. That might actually be a solution; not even other LDS would know the difference in most circumstances. As far as alternatives, the dilemma is that LDS will not supply a picture and most of those against including the picture are LDS. Further, LDS appear not to be willing, for whatever reason, to supply an alternative. In doing so they place those editors who feel it is an absolute necessity to have a picture of garments to use the one provided.
I will renew my objection that not a single reason has yet been provided for including the picture other than it is exists. I have yet to see any consensus regarding its inclusion. What is probably most concerning is the attack on the motivations of those against the picture. It does not matter if there are religious reasons or not; it does not matter if it is sacred or not; the fact is that many, if not most, do not want the picture. I am not convinced it improves the article and those in favor of the picture have a difficult time attempting to state that a picture of people in underwear is an improvement to the picture. It comes down to taste (i.e. editorial preference); nothing more and nothing less.
I actually would prefer to have this picture than a picture that demonstrates the marks; however, to me it may be six of one and half a dozen of another. The picture is two people in modest underwear; big whoop. What makes them sacred are the covenants LDS make with God and the markings represent those covenants. Without the marks the garment is nothing than cloth and serves no other purpose than as undergarments. I assume most wear underwear, except for those who prefer going commando, so I still remain puzzled by all the fuss and interest. People, it is just underwear! Is Baptist underwear interesting to you? How about a catholic’s underwear? Surely, Jewish underwear must have piqued your curiosity. This so easily become absurd and yet we are actually talking about what underwear. Regardless; please come to a final conclusion and move on. This is tiresome.
I noticed that pschemp stated that voting is evil; I will also say that voting goes on every day on a multitude of articles on Wikipedia. It is obviously a useful tool when conflict is present. I see no reason not to have a vote(s) here on this topic. Storm Rider (talk) 07:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The evil that voting is, is that it isn't getting anyone anywhere, and it is distracting people from working on finding a suitable replacement by instead drawing them back into the same tired arguments. Its worse than useless, its actually counterproductive. pschemp | talk 07:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Since Underwear was mentioned, you might check that article for images. Of course it has them, and they enhance the article. Doc Tropics 07:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I lead a very dull life. I see myself in underwear every day; for kicks I work out and see other men in their underwear. I assure you, seeing people in underwear has lost its appeal. I am intrigued by thongs though; I have yet to understand why some men would ever put them on. Nothing could feel so uncomfortable nor get so nasty as a piece of cloth betwixt one's cheeks. Cheers. Storm Rider (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Accidently mentioned it on village pump??? If that was accidental, I would hate to see what on purpose looks like. I would also like to see a more clear presentation of facts rather than a highly twisted piece of misinformation. Storm Rider (talk) 07:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The "accidental" was an attempt to be humourous. pschemp | talk 14:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I just found this article after reading about 9/11 researcher Steven E. Jones who is a well-known Mormon. I know a lot about Mormons because I went skiing in Park City every year for about 15 years, and even went on the tour of the temple and tabernacle, and I met some Mormon missionaries in Mexico once, and we talked and argued for hours!
This illustration might be good. illustration The article needs closeups of the symbols! How about the claims some Christians make that the symbols on the underwear are related to the occult? see here These people aren't joking! Lookie see here too This article fails to address this? Why? - F.A.A.F.A. 08:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, we don't have rights to that illustration. As far as the "claims", these are the same people who insist on the evil of the old Proctor and Gamble logo; it's significant in the case of P&G, since they actually changed their logo as a result of the harassment; I don't see much need to give undue weight by bringing up their views here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not against anything that improves the article. I do think it may be included on the endowment because in that article the actual words of the endowment are used. In doing so, the claims of this occult accusation are easily addressed. Storm Rider (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Verifiable source

Because of the secret/sacred nature of the details of the subject, the only sources that will describe specifics will be tertiary ones. I see the primary source being the LDS Church who defines what the meaning behind the symbolism is, a secondary source would be an active member of the church. I consider ex-Mormons to be tertiary sources as they tend to have an agenda in revealing these secrets, and although their information may well be accurate, it often times is not (see Ed Decker). I am proposing a warning about this and other articles that involve secrets that cannot be verified by primary sources. Something like "Because of the nature of this topic, some details cannot be verified with primary sources". If anyone can think of better wording, I am up for that. Please do not make this a Mormon/non-Mormon issue, as there are many many articles unrelated to Mormonism to which this suggestion applies. Bytebear 17:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Hmm. Is the Nauvoo Endowment secret? That's where the symbolism is described. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't see a reference to the Nauvoo Endowment on this page? Where is your source? (This is not accusatory, I just don't see it) Bytebear 18:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I am afraid you are misuderstanding the ordinal labeling of sources. I personally hate these labels as they are very commonly misunderstood. Forget about all the "primary" "secondary" etc. that really doesn't apply to images at all. I can't really find any mention of anything at all on verifing illustrations. I suppose the that illustrations should not contradict the information in the text (which should be verified), but honestly I found nothing on this topic. I personally know of no precedent for people asking to have an image verified outside of copyright verification.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 21:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
My oppologies, I am not referring to the image (which is why I started a new heading.) I am referring to the specifics of some of the content that cannot be verified by a primary source. Let me give an example. Xenu, apparently is an alien ruler in Scientology. Scientology has attempted to keep this knowledge confidential. Therefore, any information about Xenu would be from a secondary or tertiary source, either from an ex-scientologist or from someone who heard something from an ex-scientologist. Given their propensity to sue over any confidential documentation, I would assume there is no official documents from Scientology referring to Xenu available to reference. Therefore, the article should have a heading that says that the information comes from secondary sources, by its very nature. Bytebear 00:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Er actually no. The Xenu information comes from documents in L. Ron Hubbard's (the founder of the religion) own handwriting that were published before the community got secretive and copies of the original documents that were smuggled out. If you scrounge around on the internet there are some scans of it available. A perfect primary source, no hearsay involved. The official documents are quite accessable, despite the best efforts of the religion to censor their publication. pschemp | talk 00:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the misunderstanding. Still you have misconceptions about sources. I will try to explain, but it is confusing so bear with me. Let's say we have document such as the 9/11 report; it is not inherently a source of any kind; just a document. But we are going to use it as a source. We can use it in several ways. If we wish to use it as a primary source on the opinions of the 9/11 committee we could go to where they discuss their conclusions and say, "The 9/11 commitee concluded Foobar about the attacks" (ref 9/11 report). That would be using it as a primary source as your are simply attributing an opinon to the authors of the source without analysis (i.e. they concluded correctly or incorrectly would be analysis). If we want to use it as a secondary source about the FBI's work prior to the attacks you could say, "The FBI had knowledge of several relevant pieces of information prior to the attacks, such X, Y, Z. However the FBI did not know of A, B, C." (ref 9/11 report) That would be using the document as a secondary source because you are using it's analysis of other documents (i.e. the FBI memos, interviews, etc.); you are also trusting this analysis and treating it as fact. In other ways the 9/11 report could be used as teriary source although I think this distintion is fuzzy and unimportant. If you would reference a timeline of the attacks from the document, I believe that would be using it a a tertiary source. This is because a timeline is a combination and sumarization of all other sources. In the end a document is a document and is not inherently primary, secondary or even a source. These terms all have to do with what a persons wishes to do with a document. Of course some documents are easier to use in one way or another; sometimes, but rarely, exclusively. I really wish everyone would stop using these terms as they are only occasionally used correctly, or at least only use primary and ignore the other two. However this has nothing to do the person who wrote the document and what connections they may or may not have to the subject of the document.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 14:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Illustration

I've read a lot of comments that a drawing might serve as a better illustration of the garments, so I made a public domain one with Sharpie and put it up. I'm not necessarily advocating the removal of the photo. Personally like to see them both stay up there for a while while they percolate through the community. Now that there is a drawing up, what do you think? -- Norvy (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Despite it being made with a Sharpie, I like the illustration better than the photo. Both are pretty crude (no offense), but the illustration is more informative and less intentionally provocative. COGDEN 08:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I suppose that the sketch could stay up as a companion to the actual image of the garment; I wouldn't consider it a replacement for the current photo though. Duke53 | Talk 12:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Why are you changing the format? Images should just be left at "thumb" because everyone has different screen sizes and can set their own preferences. 255 px looks different in relative size on a 17" moniter and a 25" moniter; thumb does not.[17]--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I was setting it in relationship to the existing image; when they are the same size they are in proportion to each other. 275px = 275px on any monitor at any resolution. Duke53 | Talk 16:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
You are right the size of the display does not matter. The thng about using "thumb" is just about getting the user preferences working correctly. Thanks for removing the forced sizing.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The sketch provides a useful illustration of the markings so I would support it as an addition, but not a replacement. The size should default to "Thumb" for best display. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doc Tropics (talk • contribs) 09:49, 11 December 2006.

As a Mormon i would respectfully like to request that all descriptions of the Garments physical appearance including illustrations and photographs be removed. I'm fine with a description of their purpose and use, but please do not show them or describe them or their symbols. I don't see the need to show such things to the general public. So please respect our religeon. Some things need to remain sacred in order to protect their sanctity. You wouldn't want me splashing you're sacred things all over the internet. 4.179.60.47 20:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

As a non-mormon I find your request to be quite unsettling; Wikipedia does NOT allow censorship. I would suggest that you avoid places where freedom of expression is allowed and that you simply stick with mormon owned, endorsed or controlled sites. Feel free to post whatever you choose, but don't make requests that others not be able to do the same. Duke53 | Talk 22:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I object to the word censorship There is a place for respect of other's feelings. For example, comments that would be thought of as gossip should be avoided by each individual. I did not say that any one be forced in any way to not post such information. If they wish to cause offense that is their perrogotive I only requested that out of respect it be removed in the hope that those who did not know it was offensive to others would do so.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.179.60.47 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC).
I agree with you that censorship is not exactly the right word. However, the goal of Wikipedia is to be a comprehensive neutral compendium of knowledge. Certainly, the vast majority of editors on Wikipedia do not seek to cause offense. At the same time, the consensus here is that we cannot also supress information on the grounds that it may cause offense to some, or we could not have articles on evolution, criticism of Christianity, criticism of Islam, criticism of evolution etc. If you read through the talk page archives, you will see that there has been extensive discussion of these issues.--Kubigula (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Censorship is what it would be, let's not kid ourselves about that. I do not go to mormon owned or controlled sites and ask that they include items that they don't believe; that would be offensive. You should respect Wikipedia's values, or not bother to visit here. I object to you trying to force your values on non-mormons. I find that offensive. Duke53 | Talk 05:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you have misunderstood. I do not intend to suppress free expression of knowledge however I wish you would follow in suit with the editors of the article on LDS Endowments, and excercise similar respect for things we hold sacred. We do not appreciate pictures of such sacred thing to be displayed. It is not an act of censorship, merely a request for respect. If you choose not to follow it that is your choice. I respect that choice. I am not forcing my opinon on anyone. Just asking for respect of our beliefs. Knowing of such things is fine and we as mormons freely talk about the Garments, but certain aspects about them we find too sacred to be treated so lightly. I don't see how asking for respect is forcing my values and that of other mormons on you. Please realise that I don't wish to contentious about this subject, but I would appreciate that you be more ambiguous concerning the symbols on the garments and perhaps refrain from placing photographs of them. Not as an act of censorship but as a act of respect for our beliefs. You may offend me and post you're beliefs. I am not asking that you believe what I believe. Its a free country and internet. I have made the changes that I see fit. Revert them if you wish and you will hear no more from me concerning this. I have made my point, and asked you respectfully. Do what you please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.179.57.219 (talk) 05:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC).
I misunderstood nothing. You have edited here at Wikipedia on EXACTLY ONE TOPIC: Temple garments ... which you obviously would like to censor. There is no doubt about what you intended to do and, in fact, attempted to do. To deny it now is ludicrous. Duke53 | Talk 14:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
You did an admirable job making your request known; thank you. However, as a encyclopedia we are not very good about showing respect. We set up guiding policies that can be carried to extremes, but more importantly ensure an even-handedness with all subject matter. In this instance, some people think that seeing a pair of underwear is far more enlightening than not seeing a pair of underwear. As you continue to edit Wikipedia you will see this type of thing again; it is particularly interesting when another's sacred cow is begins to be gored and how readily they begin to think that policiies should have exceptions. We are seldom very good at living up to principles when they work to our personal displeasure. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Very well do as you will. But just to respond to Duke53, I actually have edited many wikipedia subjects on many occations and infact i have a wikipedia account but It has been a while, and i forgot my password and signin name, thus the lack of apparent history. You shall hear no more from me on the subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.217.206 (talk) 06:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
Yeah, we hear that often; easy to say, but impossible to prove. Perhaps writing down that info might have helped. :) Duke53 | Talk 14:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
See above for an example of NOT ASSUMING GOOD FAITH. Bytebear 06:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

New version of photo

I have altered the original photo and uploaded the new version in its place in hopes of achieving the compromise version that editors on this page have asked for. I doubt this will prevent all drive-by removals of the photo, but hopefully it's less objectionable than the original and still sufficiently illustrative. (You may have to clear your browser cache to see the new version.) alanyst /talk/ 04:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That's an improvement. COGDEN 05:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Nice work. shotwell 06:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see this alteration as being a real 'improvement' on the original; there is not a bit more detail of the 'markings' on the garment, which, from many comments on this page, was the biggest criticism of the original photo. The focus of the 'objection' to the original image seems to have changed yet again. Flooding the image with bright white has simply given this image a cartoonish effect. A photo of a garment with higher resolution and detail should still be our objective; this does not achieve that. Duke53 | Talk 07:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an improvement. Thanks for making the effort; having simply a picture of the garment in the identical resolution as the first one should remove the majority of the motivations from anons to delete the picture. Cheers for a job well done.--Storm Rider (talk) 08:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the effort this is great work! It is amazing how much better the photo looks without the busy wallpaper from before! More impotantly removing edvidence of the people themselves is a very nice gesture to those that are offended. Hopefully the differences will also make it hard to recognize as the same photo from Anti-Mormon websites. This is certainly now the best freely licensed illustration available. And your work is a good example of why it is important to focus on freely licensed images. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 13:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Totally agree with BirgitteSB - especially as it relates to using free images --Trödel 14:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Good change. The picture is still just as bad information-wise, but if it removes an aspect of it tha was unnecessarily causing offense, yay. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, this article got referenced by an outside source. See [18]]. They also used the ugly old version of the photo. Sorry to the offended. Bytebear 23:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

McKay quote

The McKay quote has been unsourced for nearly two years, and had been removed at one point. I've poured over sources, but can't find a source. I think the editor who removed the quote did it righfully - it isn't properly sourced, nor do I think he said it in any referencable forum. User:COGDEN introduced the quote, however, we should remove it or attribute the content to another source. Thoughts? -Visorstuff 19:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I can hardly agree he did it rightfully when he also removed both pictures in the same edit. I am not sure exactly what you mean by "the quote". What exactly would you like to see removed?--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The rightfully part was his explanation of the removal of the quote. I don't think of us here agree the removal of the image was proper. In the editor's edit summary, they wrote "Removed the incorrect citation of David O. McKay." [19]. The editor was right in removing the quote as it is not something McKay said. If you want to attribute to another person, that is fine, but I can't find where McKay said it, and I have a great deal of access to LDS leader quotes. The quote that should be removed reads:
According to McKay, the reverse-L-shaped symbol on the right breast is the "mark of the square", and represents "exactness and honor" in keeping the commandments and covenants of God. The V-shaped symbol on the left breast, according to McKay, is the "mark of the compass", and symbolizes "an undeviating course leading to eternal life; a constant reminder that desires, appetites, and passions are to be kept within the bounds the Lord has set; and that all truth may be circumscribed into one great whole." The horizontal "navel mark," according to McKay, represents "the need of constant nourishment to body and spirit," and the horizontal "knee mark" suggests "that every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is the Christ." [citation needed]
Where he "stated" this is not cited, nor do any reference of him stating such exist. -Visorstuff 21:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
This is from David John Buerger's The Mysteries of Godliness. I don't have access to the book right now to see where Buerger got the information, but I'll be in Utah over the holidays and I'll add it to my list of things to research at the BYU libraries. COGDEN 23:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response - we'll wait until your return.

However, my guess is that he makes an inference that since McKay led the committee that made changes resulting in the 1936 endowment ceremony, he (McKay) was the author. It would be similar to saying McConkie OR Monson wrote all the chapter headings in the current LDS editions of the standard works. It isn't true. It would be the committee that wrote the changes, not McKay, and I really doubt he had access to primary documents showing such, however, I've been wrong before, and will be wrong again. Thanks again for looking into it. -Visorstuff 23:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have found Buerger's book at the library and located the source that COGDEN referred to (page 153). Buerger cites a letter or memorandum from George F. Richards, Joseph Fielding Smith, Stephen L. Richards, and Melvin J. Ballard to the First Presidency and Council of Twelve Apostles, 22 April 1936, as found in the LDS archives. Buerger quotes an excerpt from that letter, which reads in part:

Committee recommended and received approval [...] The best interpretation [of the markings] which has come to us up to this time has been supplied by President David O. McKay.

What follows is a bullet-point summary of McKay's interpretation of the garment markings, not a narrative text as might be found in the temple ceremony. The summary quoted in Buerger's book is different in some fairly minor respects from the summary that COGDEN presents in this article; COGDEN's version seems to take some details of the explanation from a source other than Buerger's book. (I didn't have time to copy the summary in Mysteries of Godliness verbatim, so I'm afraid I don't have enough information to make specific corrections in the article. COGDEN, maybe you could do this?) But the overall attribution of that part of the temple ceremony to McKay, at least as of 1936, seems to be pretty solid. Hope this helps. I have added the requested citation using the <ref></ref> style, which clashes with the older citation style used for other references, but I think the newer style is needed for this article. Can anyone else help in linking the other references cited to the particular parts of the article they support? It's not clear to me what information in the article comes from the Asay or McDannell sources. alanyst /talk/ 19:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

An interesting blog comparison

For those of you involved in previous week's dispute about the photographs of the Garments, I thought you'd enjoy this blog post. Enjoy. -Visorstuff 18:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Army Garment

Unless they've been changed to go with the new ACUs (I've been out of the Army since before those were issued so I don't really know what has changed), the garments for Army service personnel are brown not green. Green garments would be something of a stand-out, given that every other soldier has brown t-shirts (and is issued brown underwear). All of my army garments were brown... And I think there are blue versions for the navy, but I could be wrong. Maybe there are other options for militaries other than the US's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.69.111 (talk • contribs)

During the VietNam era, when camouflage garments were green, Mormon soldiers assigned to my unit wore green sacred undergarments. I suspect that the safest comment might be one which indicates the garments are made available in colors that conform to those in use for military camouflage, which change from time to time. Irish Melkite 10:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a user here but was just looking at this page and wanted to add, that I am LDS (and in the military) and the church is now putting out garments in the color of the new ACU uniform, that is sand tan colored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.133.206 (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Therefore?

In the following sentence,

Adherents consider them to be sacred and therefore may be offended by public discussion of the garments.

I think we should remove the word "therefore" as POV. I don't think everyone would agree that someone being offended by public discussion of something is a logical consequence of holding that thing sacred. Alternatively we could reword the sentence to say that certain groups do hold to that logic, assuming it is true that they do. --Allen 03:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

In this situation there are no groups; it is one group, LDS. The temple garment represents covenants made between the individual and God. Some LDS are especially sensitive while other have a degree of comfort discussion them in general terms. As a LDS it does not bother me to have a narrative about what they are and what they represent; more than that is offensive, but that is me personally. Wikipedia long ago gave up any form of "respect" to the sacred. We are an information source and the mere fact that LDS do not like talking about some of these things makes it all the more appealing to small minority of editors.
In this instance I do not see your interpretation of therefore as POV, rather I see it as logical. Do you like discussing sacred things with strangers? Some people are unfamiliar with the sacred and it might be better to ask, do you mind talking about your most intimate feelings with strangers? This resistance to sharing those personal feelings and thoughts is comparable to what LDS feel when discussing the endowment or anything apertaining to it. Does this make sense to you? --Storm Rider (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure I follow you. Sacred doesn't have anything to do with private or intimate or personal. Communion is sacred and I don't know any who practices that who is uncomfortable discussing it with strangers. I don't sacred means what you think it means in this particular case. Maybe a more accurate replacement would be "Adherents consider wearing the garments a scared and very private practice".--BirgitteSB 13:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The Holy Communion is sacred just as the Sacrament is sacred; one is viewed as the actual body and blood of Christ and the other represenations. However, these are designed to be communal in nature. In this instance there is no desire on the part of anyone to talk about it regardless of their relgion. However, there are other things of sared nature that are not so easily talked about. The Sacred does become personal and highly reverenced. One instance is the Holy of Holies in ancient Israel was so holy that only high priest could enter. The sacred can easily be sacrosanct. When the degree of sacredness increases to the degree of the sacrosanct, which in this instance it does, it is not open to general discussion. Does this make sense to you? --Storm Rider (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
You seem to agree with Birgitte and I that sanctity does not by itself imply reluctance to discuss a topic in public, and you introduce the word "sacrosanct", which does seem to come closer to implying reluctance for public discussion. Why don't we change the word "sacred" to "sacrosanct" in the sentence I quoted above? I don't see this as a perfect solution for two reasons: first, we're still making our own statement about what is considered logical, when I think it would be better to attribute that logic to a specific group, and second, we would still need a reliable source to show that "sacrosanct" is indeed a term that LDS members use to describe the garments. Even so, I think it would be better than what we have now. --Allen 15:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I also should add that I thought Birgitte's proposed wording was fine too; I don't think you said what you thought of it. --Allen 15:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
No response, so I changed "sacred" to "sacrosanct". --Allen 03:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Sacrosant (Websters): "most sacred or holy; also: having an imputed rather than a genuine sacred character (--institutions that have outlived their usefulness to society)". While I don't think any temple worthy LDSaint would deny that the garments themselves are cloth and thread and are not holy in themselves but as symbols and reminders of sacred covenents, most consider them genuine sacred objects. Misuse, abuse, and public display of the garment are truly offensive. So, if using "sacrosant" implies the garment is not genuinely sacred, I think we could expect some strong opposition. I reverted for now. Best wishes. WBardwin 03:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I do agree with you; sacrosanct has meanings that don't work here. Really I think the correct solution is to remove the word "therefore" as I originally proposed, or to go to Birgitte's wording ("Adherents consider wearing the garments a scared and very private practice"). What do you think of these solutions? The problem with the current wording is that sanctity does not in fact imply unwillingness to public discussion. At least other religions, if not Mormonism itself, are full of sacred places, ideas, rituals, entities, and things that adherents are more than happy to discuss publicly. --Allen 03:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I personally would have little difficulty with Birgitte's "Adherents consider wearing the garments a sacred and very private practice". But it truly goes beyond privacy. Finding a word which would get across the intimate (without the current secular/sexual innuendo of that word) nature of the covenant between one person and God which the garment represents would be difficult - but wonderful. I'll think about it. WBardwin 05:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Removed "therefore" as a beginning, along with a copy edit. From the Intimacy article: " Intimacy is linked with feelings of closeness, safety, trust and transparency among partners in a collaborative relationship. For intimacy to be sustainable and nourishing it also requires trust, transparency and rituals of connection." All of these words would apply to a personal covenant made with God, but "intimate" would not imply that to our readers. (Sigh) WBardwin 05:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with this. Removing "therefore" satisfies my concerns. I'm afraid I can't be much help fine-tuning the language to reflect the true meaning of the garment, although my guess is that relatively few readers would mistake the word "intimate" as having sexual connotations when used in a context like this. But I could be wrong. --Allen 06:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The edit looks good to me. Storm Rider, I am sorry for not responding to you above. I forgot I had left a comment here until I saw the edit on the article. I tend to check my watchlist in the Main namespace more closely than the rest. I really need to prune the watchlist . .. --BirgitteSB 22:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

John Safran vs. God a reliable source for this article?

John Safran vs. God is a satirical documentary, so can it be used as a source about LDS beliefs? Specifically, it is being used a source to support the statement that some Mormons believe the garments to have protective powers.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kww (talk • contribs)

That looks more like a job for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. // Liftarn (talk)

  • Not even close to a reliable source, other than for examples of religious satire. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I would say it depends. In this case the source was a LDS salesperson saying many of her customers were saved from physical harm by the garments. Now the salesperson may not be a reliable source, but it should be OK to use if it was reformulated. // Liftarn (talk)

It is absolutely a reliable source. A work can be satirical AND factual at the same time. Satire, in fact, is an earnestly serious genre at its heart. Qworty (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a whole class of scholarship for Mormon studies, and I believe these sorts of claims have been analyzed in secondary sources. The current citation is unencyclopedic; it's like using the Daily Show. Cool Hand Luke 12:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Excellent point. Both a satire and an encyclopedia can have an impact, but let's hope it's a different impact. --Halcatalyst (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Documentaries can be used as a source even if they are entertaining. Anyway, there is now a second source for the claim so it doesn't really matter anyway. // Liftarn (talk)

RFC responder: Satire is always dubious as a source. Salespeople are always dubious as a source. Statements by a salesperson in satire is thus dubious squared. It does not look to be a reliable source. The additional source is also user generated content, and thus definitely fails to be a reliable source, much as any blog would fail. The sentence still lacks reliable sourcing. GRBerry 20:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd hate to just say "me too", but GRBerry has quite succinctly stated the case. Vassyana (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Safran's documentaries may be a good source for illustrating popular or public perception of a religious topic. However for the hard facts, there are much more reliable sources than a single salesperson in a satirical documentary :-). It is interesting trivia if written correctly in prose. In Seventh-day Adventist Church we're planning to quote solid statistics regarding public perceptions of Adventists. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Consistency in bolding Mormon underwear

It really doesn't matter if this term is "acceptable" to the Mormon church or not. This is an encyclopedia, not a Mormon pamphlet. We are not bound by what is or isn't "acceptable" to Mormons. The fact is that "Mormon underwear" is the most common appellation for these underclothes, and therefore deserves to be bolded, just as the other, lesser-known names are bolded. Qworty (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, let's be aware of the relative recognition of the terms. Here are the Google hits:
"Mormon underwear": 25,200
"Temple garment": 6400
"garment of the holy priesthood" : 2960
Thus, an excellent case can be made that the article should be called "Mormon Underwear." At the very least, under every possible measure and consideration, the term deserves to be bolded so long as the less-used "temple garment" and other obscure descriptions are bolded. Qworty (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
If this article wasn't a hot-button article, I would tend to agree. However, it obviously irritates a lot of LDS members. I don't see that consistency is such a big deal if it gives us less trouble combating censorship/vandalism. There's no reason to wave a flag. We do have a redirect for "Mormon underwear", which is pretty normal for when a common name is more prevalent than an official name.Kww (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I do understand that the history of this article reveals a lot of disruption from Mormon censors, Mormon vandals, and perhaps even Mormon apologists. I'm rather experienced in this area, as I've had a lot of trouble from such editors on articles relating to Mitt Romney and his presidential run. But in the final analysis, this is an encyclopedia, not a wildcat bank in Kirtland, Ohio in the 1830s, and so there is no justificaiton whatsoever for us to be held hostage by the Mormon censors or vandals you are complaining about. Vandalism is clearly against Wikipedia policies, and the fact that vandals may be Mormons has no bearing whatsoever on how their disruptive editing should be viewed or treated. Qworty (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
It's neither censorship nor vandalism. It's just a content dispute where most of the disputants on one side happen to be Mormons. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, if it were changed to "Mormon underwear" who would write the section on Fruit of the Looms? I bet that there are more church membmers wearing Hanes or Fruit of the Looms than Garments. -Visorstuff (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Now this is one stupid piece of logic. Based upon what Qworty has stated if the majority of people called African Americans niggers, then the article for African Americans should be nigger because "the majority" uses the term. We do not bold the slang used for every other racial/ethinic group simply because a majority of people are familiar with the term. You really can't be serious? Slang is slang and is not an encyclopedic terminology.

The reason it should not be bolded is because it is not a proper term; not the imagined censorship you profess. Censorship would be deleting the term entirely! You might want to review wikipedia polices because it is obvious that you are sadly lacking in understanding. More importantly, your argument is not strengthened by making accusations when they are so obviously based upon hot air. The stupidity or ignorance of a majority does not make it correct; knowing the correct terminology makes it correct. --Storm Rider (talk) 07:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I clarified the statement that the term is used by those ignorant of the proper terminology. Ignorance is not an offensive term, but one of fact. However, if someone is offended by it, I believe this article has demonstrated that offensiveness is not an acceptable standard for deletion of factual information; or am I mistaken? If it is good for the goose, it must be just as good for the gander. --Storm Rider (talk) 08:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Where and wear; geez I am a twit tonight. --Storm Rider (talk) 08:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. It doesn't matter in the least what results we get from a Google search or what the Average Joe on the streets calls it. What matters is what the clothing is called in reliable published sources. I've yet to see a serious book or academic paper call the clothing "Mormon Underwear", though "Temple garment(s)" (with both capitalized and lower-case "t") occurs fairly regularly. Vassyana (talk) 08:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That is true, but common names do have some currency. We bold "Mormon Church," which most scholars would agree to be slang. I'm therefore ambivalent about bold "Mormon underwear," especially when the slang usage is explained. The main problem I see is that it's a long parenthetical inside of a long sentence. We should make it more readable. Perhaps we should put the other names into a separate sentence. Cool Hand Luke 08:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
"Mormon Church" may be slang, but it at least sees reasonable usage in reliable references. I believe that to be an important distinction. Vassyana (talk) 08:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Luke, if you have a suggestion why not go ahead and make the change to the article. I don't see this as a controversial edit, which eliminates the need for discussion. I guess I am really ambivalent, but I think your suggestion may make sense; let's see. The bold was more of a concession on my part and a desire not to cause more waves than I had. Ignorance is not an offensive term, but your term "unaware" is also acceptable. I still find it interesting when one group insists that offensiveness is not a standard to use in editing, but when the shoe is on the other foot, then it gets thrown out the window. I too often see a double standard on Wikipedia. --Storm Rider (talk) 08:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you might be right Vassyana. Lots of newspapers still use "Mormon Church," for example, but I wonder whether that's really much more reliable than "Mormon underwear." At any rate, Storm Rider's implementation of my suggestion solves the problem by making all of the other names into flat prose. I think it might prove controversial with User:Qworty, but we'll see. Cool Hand Luke 09:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I removed the bolding because it did not look right to me; do you think all the terms should be bolded? Is there a manual of style that can direct us in this area? Qworty's persona taste are irrelevant; no single editor owns any article. What we are seeking is to improve the article; that is my sole objective. --Storm Rider (talk) 09:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Luke, I don't think it's good form but it is a title reliable sources use often enough. As I said, I think the important point is whether or not reliable published literature uses the terms or not, not whether they are popular or correct. Vassyana (talk) 09:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
SR: I agree. Moreover, removing the bold is stylistically correct if we break this into a separate sentence. Boldface is not normally used after the first sentence. Vassyana: that's true. In fact, what it means for a term to be "correct" isn't clear, as in the dispute at the now-retitled Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. Use by reliable sources is the standard. Cool Hand Luke 09:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, WP:BOLDFACE is a bit different, and implies they should be bold while the main manual of style says it's optional. I could go either way, but I'll just let it be. Cool Hand Luke 09:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
At this point it is more of a visual thing for me, but I am more than willing to follow the manual of style. --Storm Rider (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Right now it's pretty awful. the slang term used by non-Mormons unaware of the proper terminology, "Mormon underwear" -- well, first, we'd need some RS that it's only used by non-Mormons; then we'd need the same that it's used by those unaware of the "proper terminology", which I can tell you from personal experience that it's also used by those fully aware of the "proper terminology". It's a slang term in general use, and we shouldn't characterize it more precisely without sourcing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I reject your comments completely. The fact that it is a slang term is sufficient to note; there are also other terms that have been used, but are you saying that all slang terms should be noted in an article? If you really believe that type of logic, where does it end? Should we also use slang terms for different races? Or do we just list them for groups/things that a majority of the people ridicule, dislike, or hate? This type of logic is dangerous and I see no other area on wikipedia that supports its use. The ignorant use Mormon underwear; I prefer calling them ignorant rather than uninformed. Has has been clearly stated by you and others, simply being offensive is not an acceptable standard for deleting information. --Storm Rider (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
You can call ignorant or uninformed or whatever you want; you don't get to call them that in the Wikipedia article without reliable sources. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Your logic is in error. There is a known correct terminology. If there are those who do not use it and use a slang term of their own creation, it is obvious that they are ignorant of the correct term or that they seek to be offensive. We are talking about the obvious here; Wikipedia does not require references for demonstrating stupidity, ignorance, or even blatant prejudice of others. Their actions evidence enough. Cheers. I love Evangelicals; they are heart-warming examples of Christian love. --Storm Rider (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, actually, Wikipedia requires references for all those things. We don't get to say something is stupid; we get to cite a verifiable source asserting that that thing is stupid. What do Evangelicals have to do with anything? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
You are confusing the discussion page with the article; they are separate and with different policies. Please show us the policy that says that when there is a correct term and those who use slang for the item needs to be referenced that their ignorance is not obvious simply by their use of term. Choose; they are either ignorant or purposely being offensive. --Storm Rider (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
You really can't get away with much on talk pages that you can't get away with in an article. People could be being purposefully offensive, ignorant of proper term, ignorant that the slang term is considered offensive, or aware that some find it offensive but don't believe that this is an environment where it is likely to cause offense. Without some kind of reference, we can't explain the reason in the article.Kww (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(new indent) I am not sure if I understand your comment. Are you saying that people use slang because they think it is correct language? Please apply that logic to all slang terms for race. No possible reference is needed for the obvious. Is it a slang term? Yes. Why do people use slang terms? Because they are either ignorant of proper terminology or they choose to use slang. This is so obvious it boggles the mind that anyone argues the point. There is no need for a specific use of slang. White supremists use the term nigger becasue they are just being friendly? NO! They use the term to be specifically offensive to civilized society. This logic is just getting silly; I would urge a little bit of thought on your part. This is one of those situations that will come back to bite you in other areas. --Storm Rider (talk) 09:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we are really that far apart. It is reasonable to describe it as slang, and I don't think you need a specific reference that says it is slang (although one wouldn't hurt). I don't think you can discuss the motives behind the usage of the slang without specific references to specific cases.Kww (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. I think perhaps my statement, It's a slang term in general use, and we shouldn't characterize it more precisely without sourcing wasn't understood. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
This is reasonable. As Kww says, people can (and do) use it to be purposefully offensive, ignorant of it being offensive, and so forth. Calling it "slang" or "unofficial" should be enough; no need to generalize oft-incorrect motives about why the term is used. Cool Hand Luke 19:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Ambrose Bierce said it best in his dictionary; he called slang "the grunt of the human hog." One of the failings of a public instrument such as Wikipedia is that everything must be presented to the lowest common denominator. The use of slang is multifaceted and motivations for its use is a rather active debate. When slang is use for the beliefs, rites, or ordinances of a religion I for one have difficulty believing that anyone would say, with a straight face, that motivations are noble. I would hope you remember this little conversation the next time you hear someone use racial slang; say to yourself that their motivations are unknown and should not be judged or labeled for just what they are. The tyranny of the majority is a wonderful thing...until the time when you are no longer in the majority. What goes around, will come around; let's move on. --Storm Rider (talk) 07:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Changeing Mormon underwear to Magic underwear

A lot of Mormons call their underpants Magic underwear. They believe that it will protect then from harm and evil demons. I Have Talked to a lot of Mormons and all of them say it's Magic underwear. Would it be possible to change the term from Mormon underwear to Magic underwear.--Anon-kun (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Talking to lots of Mormons is not a verifiable published source. See WP:V. Reliable sources don't back up the claim that Mormons themselves call it "magic underwear." Cool Hand Luke 04:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed these comments as obvious vandalism. Come on. Don't feed the troll. Bytebear (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah jeez. Sarcasm doesn't exist on my planet, so I always miss the possibility of trolling. Cool Hand Luke 04:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

Excuse the ignorance, but I couldn't see this answered in the article: do LDS people wear these garments all the time or only sometimes? What about, say, at the swimming pool? jnestorius(talk) 00:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it really needs to be covered specifically. Just like any group of people, there are times that they go without underwear.Kww (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks; so you're saying it is underwear? The first sentence currently describes it as "religious vesture worn beneath outerwear" which didn't seem at all the same thing (to me "religious vesture" and "underwear" sounded like mutually exclusive categories). I did see that "Mormon underwear" is a disliked appellation, but it might be as well to use the word "underwear" in the opening sentence, in the spirit of stating the obvious. jnestorius(talk) 00:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Most terms that include the word underwear are considered pejorative. The first paragraph includes the phrase "Mormon underwear", which I really think is sufficient. This is a sensitive subject among the LDS, and, while I don't favor censorship, I do favor keeping it concise and respectful.Kww (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Pejorative? Really? Or just in in this particular case? But the current phrasing does work fine. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know of a phrase for Temple garment that includes the word underwear that isn't considered pejorative.Kww (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting coining a name, label, or phrase for the garment; I'm asking for a clearer description. I don't believe the current phrasing works. I personally did not understand from the article that the garments referred to are undergarments. The reference to "Mormon underwear" was if anything misleading in that regard; I assumed the reason the term is pejorative is that the garment is not underwear. If people don't like the particular word underwear, maybe there is a synonym that would avoid offence while being less cryptic than "worn beneath outerwear". (A thesaurus throws up underclothes, underclothing, undergarments. FWIW Tallit katan uses "undergarment" Any other suggestions? ) jnestorius(talk) 01:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll contemplate what to do, but I'm not going to rush a change in. Kww (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. jnestorius(talk) 01:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[Outdent.] Kww, as a Mormon I do appreciate your efforts to keep things respectful. I personally would take no offense at the words "undergarment" or "underclothing". As to the original question, LDS people who wear them do remove their garments for certain activities (bathing, strenuous sports, swimming, etc.) but are encouraged to wear them whenever their current activity permits it. alanyst /talk/ 02:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The garment is strictly a religious garment used by LDS who have gone though an LDS temple. Its purpose is to remind the wearer of covenants made with God. It would be imprecise to think of them as underwear even though many wear only the garment, thus serving the purpose of underwear. However, others will wear other clothing items over the garment such as bras and normal underwear. Only someone unfamiliar with temple garments would consider them as underwear; it misses their main purpose. --Storm Rider (talk) 03:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
It would be VERY precise to think of them as underwear since they are meant to be worn UNDER all other clothing. Duke53 | Talk 05:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps Storm Rider's points can be put into the article. Currently the only reference to "Mormon underwear" is the info that it is pejorative. (Actually there are other references in the names of several external links and references: not all seem to be pejorative.) In fairness, while I can see how opponents of LDS might provocatively use the term as a taunt in the knowledge that it is disliked, I don't think "pejorative" is an accurate description of the usage by an uninformed person in all innocence as a simple descriptor. How about something like the following (with copyedits, references and corrections as appropriate):
The temple garment is often called "Mormon underwear" by non-LDS. This is disliked by LDS, (?? because of the word "Mormon"; ??) because the expression is used pejoratively by anti-LDS; and chiefly because the purpose of the garment is spiritual. Although the garment is worn against the skin, some LDS additionally wear other, secular undergarments.
"secular undergarments" is a poor label, but Storm Rider's "normal underwear" might suggest the temple garment is "abnormal underwear". jnestorius(talk) 11:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The paramount rule of editing is: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." So here's an idea: Leave it alone. The subject is fully covered (pardon the pun) in the first paragraph. Further explication not only violates WP:NOR; the word "underwear" simply doesn't merit micro-explanation. It's pejorative, it's inaccurate (my 3rd-generation Mormon grandmother, and she says, all of her friends with sagging and/or incontinent anatomy, wears the usual bits of women's underwear beneath her garment), and dwelling on this non-issue descends to simple voyeurism. Sorry, grandma, about making an example of you. I had to make a point. JuanFiguroa (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
"... it's inaccurate ..." Something is inaccurate. From a BYU faq page [20] linked in article: "Having made covenants of righteousness, the members wear the garment under their regular clothing for the rest of their lives, day and night". Duke53 | Talk 17:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
JuanFiguroa: My point was, it is broke, so fix it. Having read the article, I failed to understand the nature of the garment until I got clarification from helpful editors here on the Talk page. I attribute my initial failure to understand, not to my stupidity, but rather to a deficiency in the article: a deficiency which might be fixed by adding some of the information from this present discussion. I have no intention of doing so myself, as I am clearly inexpert on the topic. Of course any addition needs sources so as not to constitute original research. I am confident that an amendment to the text could retain the dispassionate tone befitting an encyclopedia, and be concise: no more than a single sentence, perhaps a single well-chosen word. jnestorius(talk) 23:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I changed the wording; given the number of photos/pictures it would be hard to understand how anyone could not understand exactly what is going on now; at least I hope so. Jnestorious, does it satisfy your concerns. --Storm Rider (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Removed it because it's a) undocumented, b) not necessarily true, c) an awkward construction. Moreoever, micro-explanations of simple English words don't help make the entry MORE encyclopedic. They make it less so. Though SR is responding in good faith, the concern to which SR responds appears churlish. It requires overexplaning the self-evident and lends excess weight to small points. --JuanFiguroa (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It is true that I may act churlish; it is tiresome to argue about such silly positions. However, the motivations for an edit have little to do with the value of an edit. LDS related articles seem to attract obnoxious amounts of explanation.
I still think the edit is valid. Juan, LDS are instructed to wear the garment next to the skin. If someone does otherwise, that is a personal choice. I would also say that when instruction is given, it addresses the body of the church as a whole. When particular circumstances arise where it is not practical, such as someone that is incontinent, of course one could not wear the garment next to the skin. However, this is the exception. Also, the current sentence is more awkward; we do not use the term outerwear in English. When it is used it most often used to think of coats, jackets, etc. I request that you revert it or edit it so that it answers the issues stated above and flows better. --Storm Rider (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
"However, the motivations for an edit have little to do with the value of an edit". Interesting to see this comment here; this applies to other editors as well but is often overlooked or ignored by many others here at Wikipedia. Probably more a case of 'who we are rather than what we say' than anything else.  :0) Duke53 | Talk 16:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)