Talk:Undergarment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fashion WikiProject
Fashion Portal
This article is within the scope of the Fashion WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of high-importance within fashion.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Let's get a consensus on inclusion of temple garment image

Okay, so as per above, I think there is pretty clear consensus that the "Religious significance" section needs to mention and briefly describe Mormon temple garments and contain a link to the Temple garment article. Yet there appears to be a gradually developing consensus that the image of the garments in this article is gratuitous and is included as an attempt to make a point regarding Wikipedia's anti-censorship policies. (It is clearly appropriate to have the image included in Temple garment, and I don't think there's any question of its inclusion there)

So far, only one person has weighed in in support of including the image in this article, and that is Duke53. Anyone else? I am still somewhat on the fence (leaning towards leaving it out, but mostly on the fence), and I would like to hear any arguments from the pro-inclusion side that haven't been made yet. --Jaysweet 19:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from more people too, of various sides (or non-sides, as the case may be). I'm reluctant to go asking around though, since it could be viewed as trying to recruit !votes for the position I favor. Jaysweet, since you seem to be pretty neutral on the issue, would you be willing to seek input at the Village Pump or somewhere similar? alanyst /talk/ 19:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm timid to do that since last time I tried to get more attention drawn to an issue at the Village Pump, they told me to take it back to the Talk page. heh... I invited User:Rodparkes to comment, since he originally mentioned a pro-inclusion stance. If we really want to get serious, we could always do an RFC, but I'm not sure it's come to that.. --Jaysweet 20:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to be sure that those making a decision do so while keeping in mind all aspects of the issue. I'd like to highlight some of my comments above. The picture in question is of clothing that is sacred to Mormons; displaying it as such is extremely offensive. The users of Wikipedia have it as a guideline in the "Five pillars" to "Be civil". In the name of civility, it is requested that the image be respected not by hiding it or deleting it from wikipedia, but by minimizing it's use. The picture is also found on the page "Temple garment". With the purpose of counteracting censorship and upholding civility, would it be appropriate to remove the image from this page, but keep the description and link to "Temple garment"? In doing so, the picture can still be found, but the impact of including sensitive material is minimized. We can't possibly expect others to hold sacred the things which we ourselves do, but we can hope that others will treat those things with respect. The complete deletion of the image is not called for, but it is asked that in consideration of civility, its use be minimized. Thank you, Quin. 67.190.100.208 11:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to try to make this an RFC just for fun...


For those new to the discussion, please note the following:

  • We are all aware that Wikipedia is not censored. As such:
    • No good faith editor (that I know of) disputes that the image is appropriate at Temple garment.
    • No good faith editor (that I know of) disputes that a mention and brief description of the temple garment is appropriate under Undergarment#Religious significance.
  • Even though Wikipedia is not censored, one should not include an image solely to make a point about censorship.

So, with those points in mind, the question is: Does this image add to the article in a meaningful way?

If so, then as per WP:CENSOR, it stays. If not, then as per WP:POINT (and recognizing that this could be seen as baiting those who find the image offensive), it goes. --Jaysweet 20:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC Reply

It seems to me that we must approach this from the perspective of the reader who has come to the article out of a sense of interest or curiosity. While some editor may be trying to make a point, it doesn't come through in the article and the curious reader would not know.

In the article Undergarment several images complement the article which is expected. I suspect that the desire to keep the image off the page may be because its a very private and potentially embarrassing part of their faith. We should treat the image like any other and keep it present in the article. It adds to the material. Just my thoughts. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 23:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. I believe that the presence of the image in the article serves to pique interest on the part of some readers (it did for me), encouraging them to read more of the article and potentially read the related articles. As such, the image adds to the article in a meaningful way by acting as a hook. I don't believe that WP:POINT comes into it. --AliceJMarkham 03:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Remove with a caveat. All things being equal, I see no problem with the image in principle and it is really just a matter of article aesthetics, so to speak. Having said that, it seems all things are not equal here; it is claimed that display of the image is offensive to Mormons. If that is true, it seems to me that the balance would then weigh in favour of removing it, unless of course there is something noteworthy about the image that would swing the balance back in favour of keeping it (e.g. I think the image at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy is appropriate because its publication was a noteworthy event, notwithstanding the fact that some found it offensive). I see nothing noteworthy about the image itself, so on balance I think it should be removed if its display is truly offensive to Mormons (a point on which I am not fully convinced without more feedback from Mormons). -- Really Spooky 13:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    I'm a Mormon. Mormon reaction to public display of the garments is a bit complicated. It does offend most Mormons to see it displayed, not strictly I think for reasons of embarrassment or some notion that the garments should never be seen, but rather because of the betrayal and mockery of religious vows that its publication represents. Mormons who wear the garment have promised to treat it with honor, which precludes flaunting it publicly. Mormons are likely to perceive gratuitous use of the photo as mockery of their beliefs, especially since such photos are circulated by anti-Mormon organizations for that purpose. (An anti-Mormon organization was the source for this photo, and an editor antagonistic toward Mormons uploaded the photo and placed it in this article and other less-relevant articles.) However, there may also be a large number of Mormons who object to its use anywhere on Wikipedia, supposing that any public display is a desecration.
    I think the compromise being proposed here is to avoid the gratuitous uses of the photo in order to minimize the sense that it's being used for ridicule, while keeping it in use where it actually contributes significantly to the subject. (This will displease some Mormons who don't want it displayed at all.) With apologies for the Godwin-ness of this analogy, it's like asking that swastika illustrations be limited to those subjects where the illustrations are necessary, so that those affected by the Holocaust are not needlessly provoked. The swastika is just a geometric symbol and used to be used neutrally, but it carries a painful message to certain groups; likewise, the garment photo may seem neutral to some but if used gratuitously is likely to be perceived by Mormons to be a form of ridicule. alanyst /talk/ 20:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Since you brought up the Swastika analogy, here is a list of the pages on Wikipedia where a picture of the Nazi[1] flag is displayed. Doesn't seem that victims of the Holocaust are being sheltered too much. Duke53 | Talk 06:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that it is not approiate that this image be on the page. I know that to MOrmons, this is very sacred and could insult many(cheesepuffsaretasty!!! 18:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC))
    That's not what's being asked, though. We know that many Mormons may find the image insulting, but the in and of itself doesn't matter, if the image adds to the page. That's what we're asking here: Does it meaningfully add to the article. If so, the fact that some people find it insulting is irrelevant. --Jaysweet 19:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It doesn't depict undergarments that are shining with The Light Of The Lord, or barbed for deliberate discomfort, or in any way remarkable. It's just a picture of undergarments, and the article has plenty of others. IMO, it does not add meaningfully to the article; inversely, its removal would not subtract meaningfully. -- ShaneCarey (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is no censorship on WP, it isn't a POV violation (there is a photo of Jewish undergarments), it's interesting, and it adds to the quality of the article. Unfortunately, with respect to Mormons, it doesn't matter whether or not it is offensive, all that matters is that it relates, is verifiable, and does not violate NPOV. Phyesalis (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The presence of a picture of a tallit is all the more reason to remove the Mormon undergarment, since the section is short enough it doesn't really need two photographs. The tallit is a much more interesting photo (though it would be better if the whole thing were shown, instead of just the tassel.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.121.232 (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I came to this talk page to scold anti-Mormons for being pushy, but now that I see the photo in context I see that it's totally appropriate. If there's a section on religious significance, and a description of the undergarments in text, then a photo is a plus. The only reason to remove it would be to prevent it from being seen. Leadwind 04:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
    Leadwind, I appreciate your input (and that of others here). I see "preventing it from being seen" as an effect of removing it, but not a reason for removing it. Censorship, aesthetics, balance, fostering a friendly atmosphere: these (and others) may be various reasons that each could prevent it from being seen, and some are legitimate reasons under WP policy and some are not. Note also that "preventing it from being seen" in this article and "preventing it from being seen" at all on Wikipedia are two very different concepts, and the latter is not really being questioned here as there is near-universal agreement on this page that the photo does have a place at the Temple garment article. That said, you are free to stick with your opinion or change it as you see fit, and I appreciate your contribution to this discussion regardless. alanyst /talk/ 05:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Let's redo the consensus for the umpteenth time (nope, it doesn't falter or weary over time). For those that do not know, the image has already been modified to be less direct, but these Mormons just can't handle the truth being out there (quite why I don't understand - it's just underwear after all!). You know the saying about the little finger, right? Samsara (talk • contribs) 06:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
    "You know the saying about the little finger, right?" Now you have my curiosity up, what saying about the little finger? TIA. Duke53 | Talk 06:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Samsara, if we Mormons couldn't handle the truth being out there, why would I be saying it's okay to have the image in the Temple garment article? Please consider that some of us at least are making a good faith effort to strike a compromise that is both acceptable under WP policy and accommodating of legitimate concerns about the photo's use in this article. If you are inclined to view this as an underhanded attempt to censor Wikipedia, please redouble your efforts to assume good faith—after all, that's just as much a pillar of Wikipedia as WP:CENSOR is. alanyst /talk/ 06:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Alanyst, WP:CENSOR is part of a policy; WP:AGF is a guideline, so they are *not* equal. And this is not a good faith "effort", it's been a three-year campain for all I can tell. It's all that ever gets discussed here at underwear, and accounts for most edits (remove, revert). God must love you guys for wasting everybody else's time. Just let it go, for crying out loud! Samsara (talk • contribs) 06:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
        I'm sorry you feel that way, because I sincerely am trying to find the middle ground. At the time that Duke53 first added the image, a year or so ago, there was a big discussion that got heated, and I felt it appropriate to wait until things had cooled down to try to restart the discussion in a more level-headed and analytical manner. I'm trying to go about this the right way, and I will respect consensus even if it goes adversely from my point of view—indeed, from time to time I have helped revert deletions of the photo out of respect for existing consensus. I just think there are some considerations that got lost in the hubbub last time, and blanket statements like yours that all Mormons are trying to get the photo censored stand in unfortunate contrast to the thoughtful comments of Jaysweet, Leadwind, Phyesalis, ShaneCarey, AliceJMarkham, Really Spooky, and others, who don't seem to find it necessary to impute ill motives to anyone as they state their opinion. Assume good faith is in fact a policy and "fundamental principle on Wikipedia" and not just a guideline, as you can see by following the link. alanyst /talk/ 06:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Don't worry, you'll learn in time that there are some things you can't stop, such as that image being included in the article. For every one person that might remove it, there shall be two that will re-add it. Hence my comment that you must be striving for higher rewards, because the earthly pursuit is clearly futile. Samsara (talk • contribs) 07:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Erm, I'm not here to earn a "higher reward"—but if I were to receive one, I'd like to think it would be for civility, fairness, and efforts to establish mutual understanding and a workable balance. I don't think I'd merit any sort of divine approval if I were guilty of edit warring, attempting to undermine WP policies, or being disingenuous about what I'm trying to accomplish. It's too bad that you seem to find it necessary to speculate on my motivations instead of focusing on the actual questions being raised about the appropriateness of the photo for this article. alanyst /talk/ 08:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
            • I'm afraid that retaining the status quo does not require any elaborate plaidoyer. Sorry. *shrug* Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
              • I have to say that from observing the last bit of banter, that Samsara (aside from changing WP definitions and facts relating to this issue) is clearly violating WP:AGF and that he/she is also violating WP:POINT, by saying that "you'll learn in time that there are some things you can't stop." Are you trying to show that the evil Mormon censors will not rule Wikipedia? When this image first appeared on Wikipedia just over a year ago (not three years, as you claim), it was placed on many Mormon articles with no reason often with no connection to the article at all. If that isn't an example of "disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point", then I don't know what is. This article is no different. The image in question is not particularly interesting or asthetically pleasing - the original is far worse asthectically, and really gives no further information to the subject. Garments look just like regular underwear. They could just as easily described as knee length boxer briefs and a t-shirt. I don't particularly find the image offensive (other than in asthetics), but I do find the attitude that it must be included to show those Mormons a thing or two, extremely offensive. I hope you can see the difference. Bytebear 09:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Find something better to do

This talk page is reminding me of the one at Armenian Genocide with the same tired arguments over and over by the same small group of "offended" people. The consensus that the picture should be kept has not changed, and the only people who want it gone are the same old group of naysayers, Mormons and suspicious new accounts/sockpuppets/IPs. The picture has already been toned down, and is not used in a gratuitous and attacking manner. There are many things in Wikipedia that are offensive to different groups, however, none of those groups get any special treatment in that regard, and neither do Mormons. WP:CENSOR is clear, and removing the image would be a blatant act of censorship. I suggest you all devote your time to improving the encyclopedia rather than adding text to this tired argument and tireless attempts to circumvent the anti-censorship policy. pschemp | talk 21:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Don;t you think it's a bit early to archive a discussion that occured four days ago? I am restoring the last set of discussions, because Wikipedia is not a place for censorship (through archival). As for your point, it isn't censorship (as the image is in other articles), but astetics, and to say that something should be left ugly just to prove a point violates Wikipedia guidelines. Bytebear (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
NO because it a total rehashing of the same issues and something needs to be done to get people to go do more constructive things. By reverting me you've proved that you are committed to making the argument endless. Censorship is total removal, not moving things to their proper place. Well done. Welcome to the Armenian Genocide. pschemp | talk 22:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't revert anything. And the image is not totally removed from Wikipedia. It still exists on the Temple garment page where it is appropriate (albeit still an ugly picture). I think removing the discussion by putting it into an archive is a form of censorship, something you seem to feel strongly about. There is no censorship of the image or of the subject. The ones arguing for removal of the image think it is ugly (which it is), doesn't add to the article (which it doesn't), clutters up the section (which it does). Answer this: Is it an ugly picture? Does it add to the article? Does it clutter up the section? If your only reason (and it is the only reason you have given) is to challenge censorship, then you are voilating WP:POINT. If you have any other reason to keep the image, I am willing to listen, but you have given only one argument for me to work with, and it isn't valid. Bytebear (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
YOu reverted my archiving. Please desist. The archive is clearly accessible. pschemp | talk 23:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I put part of the archive back here, because it was an ongoing discussion and those comments deserve to be considered current. You are the censor in this case. Bytebear (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
According to WP:ARCHIVE: "It is customary on Wikipedia to periodically archive old discussions on a talk page when it becomes too large." The operative word here is "old". How are you considering 3 days old? Bytebear (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
That's a reversion of my edit, any way you spin it dear. On the other hand, feel free to go on arguing with yourself. There is no consensus for removal, and you can't gain consensus by rehashing things with yourself, so I care not if you choose to waste your time that way. pschemp | talk 23:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Because you were incorrect to archive an ongoing discussion. Or rather a one sided discussion because you refuse to address my valid points, only crying "censorship" by the evil Mormons. Please address my points, in good faith, and do not shut down the discussion by crying foul. Bytebear (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Heheheh. What points? My only point is that you have no consensus for removal. Which you don't. It is not incorrect to take steps to stop a pointless argument on Wikipedia, to step in and attempt to prevent the vast waste of resources in something like this where already and many times in the past vast ressources have been wasted. Get consensus or move on. No one likes to see dead horses beaten, but if that's the image you want to champion, so be it. pschemp | talk 23:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It just shows you are blind to read my responses. I have some very good reasons to remove the image, and none have to do with religion. You have one point to make, and it is that a cry of censorship should outweigh all other positions, even if it means this article will never achieve "good" status because you think ugly, ill placed images that do nothing to improve the article are more important. Bytebear (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately for you, arguments are not won by the number of points you can make, but by the strength of your argument. Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I only wish more people could understand the proper definition of censorship as given by pschemp. "Censorship is total removal, not moving things to their proper place." The argument hasn't been for total removal of the picture. I brought up this topic a couple months ago on the premise that because Wikipedia has it as a code of conduct to "be civil", and given that the picture is offensive, the civil course of action would be to minimize its use; this is not censorship. In the name of civility, I suggested that the picture could be removed from this article and kept in another, I think "temple garment"; this seemed like a great compromise. Many people commented on my writings and it appeared that most people agreed with that course of action. Unfortunately, with the recent RFC, it seemed that most people failed to read that discussion as no one gave opinion of the civility argument in their comments. Of course most people agreed to keep the image; they didn't realize the ramifications of that action. They didn't realize that it was uncivil to do so.Wikiquin (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The slippery slope argument stands against you. WP:CIVIL is about how you address fellow editors in the editing process. WP:CIVIL does not govern the outcome of content questions. Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. They didn't comment on that because WP:CIVIL does not apply to content, period and experienced editors know that. The removal of the picture, is total removal of it from this article. That is censorship. Again wikiquin you are arguing that it should be removed because it is offensive to a specific small group of people, and that is the ESSENCE of censorship. FOr the last time, there is no consensus to remove it. pschemp | talk 20:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't violate censorship (WP:NOT) because the image is in the appropriate article (and the image does nothing to help understanding of the topic - as there are more detailed diagrams in the other article), but it does violate WP:CIVIL as well as WP:POINT. Bytebear (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I wondered about that same thing Samsara until I went to WP:CIVIL. The very first words state, "Civility is a code for the conduct of editing and . . .." I realize it applies also to dealing with others on wikipedia, but unless I'm misinterpreting the word "editing", it also applies to article content. Doesn't it imply quite clearly that when writing/editing an article, one should consider the civility of their edits? Additionally, it doesn't seem logical that a group of people would demand civility towards one another while claiming exemption from acting civil towards those outside of the group. Pschemp, I acknowledged that there wasn't a consensus to remove the image, the purpose of my post wasn't to deny that. I was simply providing a possible cause as to why it seemed many people agreed with the compromise in the discussion, but not in the RFC. If you read in the (now archived) discussion, you can see that a significant number of people agreed with the removal of the image given certain conditions.Wikiquin (talk) 10:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of information

Hi, 68.192.132.43. I have reverted your recent edit to the article "Undergarment" which deleted the phrase "US: Tightie-whities". It seems an unobjectionable piece of information, and you have deleted the phrase twice without giving any explanation of why you had done so in an edit summary. If you disagree, before deleting the phrase again please discuss this matter here on the article's talk page first. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

They've done it four times, thus far actually- once on the 26th, once yesterday, and again twice today. Loggie (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)