Misplaced Pages

Talk:Temple garment: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:59, 2 December 2006 editShotwell (talk | contribs)3,697 edits →Let's move on: WP:MASTODONS← Previous edit Revision as of 18:09, 2 December 2006 edit undoJpgordon (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Administrators82,458 edits →Let's move onNext edit →
Line 399: Line 399:


==Let's move on== ==Let's move on==
<small>Section removed, as will be any continuing speeches not related to actually improving the article. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)</small>
Well now, we have had all arguments against showing a picture of two individuals in underwear summed up by saying they are solely for religious reasons. All of the other arguments are dismissed as religious regardless. Besides, it is just details and Mormons are making them so they must be religious.

Thank God we are working with editors that can paint in such broad strokes...it is the irreligious and the open-minded that are fighting the sacred fight against the tyranny of censorship. Without these stalwart soldiers we would have been overrun by those mindless religious fanatics that prattle on about ''sacred'', which we all know is just code word for censorship. Of course, these people are just a minority of people who use Misplaced Pages and also a minority of world citizens who would value this subject as sacred, so that also lends credence to the rightness of our cause. Minorities don’t matter because…because they are a minority. Down with these troublesome prigs! Leave no stone unturned, publish everything, but most importantly that which is held sacred.

Of course, when we can sum up the whole argument and include the word penis (I am shocked that no one used the word vagina, I find when I use it I feel so much more liberated...vagina, doesn't that just make you feel more smug to say it out loud. I just feel so wonderful with the quality of this conversation.) Vagina, vagina, penis, penis, penis, and a temple garment article with a picture.

I now possess such a greater understanding of the article because we have a picture; don't you feel like you are just dripping with new found knowledge. That picture changed the whole article. AND why you might ask, because ‘’’they’’’ say so. No reasons, just ‘’’it is better’’’. I can't understand why those pesky Mormons don't just bow down and kiss our editorial…feet for just allowing them to edit. It would be better if they would just edit something else; they are so annoying. Always interjecting facts to the conversation and then we can't get our unique, enlightened opinion included without conflict.

What also makes me feel so good is having an absolute certainty that these superb, enlightened editors will be just as committed to beating down the forces of censorship when it comes to something they hold sacred, when it does not improve an article, when it is not an accurate picture, or anything else. Yup, they will be at the front lines putting it out there for the world to see. It does not matter if it improves the article; I can't imagine anyone not being more enlightened by seeing people in underwear (Of course, it does completely change the whole experience when we call them Temple garments and I almost can see a penis and a vagina (I am feeling more free each time I say it). Even more importantly, I realize that we will include the picture I feel like we got one over on the stupid Mormons and their stupid temples; it makes me feel...illicit! (another feeling of freedom) SO FREE I CAN'T STAND MYSELF! Yup, seeing people in underwear makes the whole article sing with information and improvement. Yup, this is a public encyclopedia and we do not have to have any sense of decency or producing quality articles because that is too close to censorship. If anyone holds back information that is censorship and that has to be stomped down and out.

Do any of you feel like a rhinocéros ? I think Ionesco would roll over in his grave.

Guys, this is whole thing is a joke. Not one legitimate reason has yet been given for having the picture, but hey, if it makes these few feel better I say let them have it. It does not do anything to improve the article, unless looking at people in underwear is somehow enlightening. Let's move on. There is nothing left to do, but observe and watch how ] comes back around. One thing I have learned in my life is you can't run away from your own karma; it is yours and will always follow you. Of course, when that horn starts growing out of your forehead it says something else. Please tell me there are some literary people here or I would have wasted a wonderful analogy. ] ] 07:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

:<I>"It would be better if they would just edit something else; they are so annoying. Always interjecting <B>facts</B> to the conversation"</I>.

:*<B><U>Fact</U> #1</B>: The garment and photos of the garment are 'sacred' to a select few.
:*<B><U>Fact</U> #2</b>: The garment and photos of the garment are not 'sacred' to many more people. Your personal beliefs do not impress or influence that larger group.
:*<B><U>Fact</U> #3</B>: Live with it; you can <I>grind your axe</I> all you choose, but anybody who cannot recognize that an illustration of a subject of any article improves the article is only arguing from a very narrow <B>]</B>. <font face="raphael" color="green">] | <sup>]</sup></font> 10:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
:p.s. If someone wanted to refer to a ] as a ] it would still be okay. That's how life at Misplaced Pages works. We all have to live with that fact.
::Little Duky I think you are feeling free; I bet you also feel so grown up. Mommy and daddy would be so proud. Do it some more; show us how grown up you are. Say anything, do it with abandon because you can.
::After you grow up some more, take the friggin time to look in the mirror and try to understand that having the ability to do something does not mean it is the best choice. Civil society, something unbeknown to you obviously and a few others, have unwritten rules of decency. When we bend over so far in this absurd effort to ensure nothing is censored, with no undderstanding of what improves an article, we will quickly find our heads are firmly placed where the sun never shines. Cheers and move on.
::Oh, and one last thing, the axe is firmly been in your hands. That picture was placed on any article that you felt was even remotely related. But, we are supposed to assume good faith, you were only doing it to improve the articles. Yup, I can see the positive concern dripping from the action. Just call a spade a spade; don't hide behind anything, you have personal issues with Mormons; could even be considered an anti-Mormon. Now that would be something honest to do. ] ] 17:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Stop making these provocations and stop letting yourself be provoked both of you.--] ʈ ] 17:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
:]. ] 17:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:09, 2 December 2006

Guideline: This is a sacred topic to Latter-Day Saints, and due respect and propriety ought to be considered in references to the subject.

Moving Sections

I think we should switch the sacred nature section and the unauthorized use of the garments. The sacred nature section is more informative of what the garments. Whereas the unauthorized use is more a history. I think unfamiliar people would understand the controversy a lot better if they had more of a background in why they are so important to mormons. 67.177.35.5 06:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Good comment; go ahead and be bold next time. If you think there may be disagreement explain your edit here. Continued good ideas! Storm Rider 06:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Two Minor Changes

I just made two minor changes and I have recomendations for more. First, I removed the "irreverant fashion" part. Wether something is irreverant or not depends on what someone reveres. I don't think my change to "a manner contrary to accepted LDS practice." is necessarily the best way to put it but it was all I could think of. Second, I removed the phrase "artistic", quotation marks included, in refferance to the pictures on display in the art museum. That seemed VERY pov to me without adding anything to the article.

And a general comment, I think the long quote about the pastor is out of place. There has to be a better way of summing up the sacred nature of the garment. I'll wait for some discussion before removing it(or not removing it if someone can convince me why I should not).Dklangen 09:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

You've been editing as a registered user for about nine hours now? Welcome aboard. Glad to have you around and hope you stick around. For the purposes of responding, I'm going to assume by "pastor" you mean "chaplain" - which are very different positions and responsibilities from a religious point of view.
First of all, There is no need to remove or censor or edit material on Misplaced Pages - especially because there is no space constraints on the Wiki. We can include multiple quotes to illustrate the same point. We don't remove anything unless it is irrelevant to the article or non-factually correct or not NPOV. There is no need for that. In addition multiple examples can better clarify for readers what is meant. This is one reason why images and descriptions are often included in Misplaced Pages articles.
Second, the quote is taken from a sort of quasi-official statement by LDS Church leaders about the Garment, because it is published by the Church. As it reflects current LDS church teachings from an official standpoint, it has validity to be used to explain to others why Garments are sacred, etc. I agree that there may be a better way to "sum up" the sacred nature of the garment, and it could be added in, but not at the expense of a quote from an official temple preparation guide. There are more reasons why the quote should stay, however, this is a good enough explanation for now.
Finally, pictures of people having various forms of sex or sexual exhibition wearing (or partially wearing) sacred vestitures (especially homosexual forms of sex when the vestments represent covenants including chasity) would be considered "irreverant" by most communities, regardless of religious bias. However, as most people have not seen the pictures, I think that your edit was appropriate.
Your NPOV clean up is much appreciated. It has needed to be done and I'm not sure how other editors missed it. -Visorstuff 19:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)
Misplaced Pages 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 , and I will delete this article". I hope that all editors are paying attention to the above post by myclob. :) Duke53 | 03:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. If we had to worry about someone being offended by information that is posted in Misplaced Pages, we would never get anything posted around here. It seems that the Misplaced Pages policies agree as well. See Misplaced Pages: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 | 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 Misplaced Pages 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:

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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages does not allow censoring; I would dare guess that this photo denotes nothing sacred to the majority of WP usersDuke53 | 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 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 | 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

McKay Edits

I agree with your revert to include the edit, Storm Rider. However, there is no reference for that quote, like the others in the article. Therefore, I can understand why the anon saw it as suspect. A reference needs to be incldued or deleted. While McKay could have said that in the Temple, if it is not publicly available, we should reconsider including as it is unattributable. Can you or Cogden find the source, as I'm unfamiliar with it? -Visorstuff 16:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The explanation of the marks is attributed to David O. McKay here (footnote 1), but it doesn't have a specific citation. I assume the source for that bit of information would be David John Buerger, The Mysteries of Godliness (Signature, 2002), but I don't have access to that book. COGDEN 01:19, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
This is an uncomfortable situation to be in; I would prefer that the quote not be in the article, but I don't feel it appropriate to be the one to delete. Worse, I restore a quote that I can't find a supporting document. I do not have access to the book COGDEN mentions. I have done a search on GospeLink 2001, but nothing comes up for any of the major phrases or words. I do agree that without a it being attributed, it should be deleted with the confidence that we are not being overly protective of things valued as highly sacred by the LDS people. Storm Rider 04:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I've found that very little in the church is done by one man. although the changes can be attribted to McKay, that is like saying the footnotes in the current standard works are all president monson's work. As the church runs by comittee and there is no current citable source, let's remove for now - until it is properly atttributed. I've preserved the text here until we can find a citable source. Other readers - please do not see this as an attempt of censorship, because we find nothing in the below that is not widely known in the LDS Church and/or masonic circles. Rather, it attributes an entire paragraph to something that is un-attributable per initial guidelines of the page and common sense. -Visorstuff 13:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
The reverse-L-shaped symbol on the right breast is the "mark of the square" (similar to the Masonic sign of the square). According to an interpretation by David O. McKay that was added to the instructional portion of the Endowment in the 1930s, the mark represents "exactness and honor" in keeping the commandments and covenants of God. The V-shaped symbol on the left breast is the "mark of the compass" (similar to the Masonic sign of the compass). This mark, according to McKay, 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 garment also contains horizontal lines at the navel and at the knee. The "navel mark", according to McKay, represents "the need of constant nourishment to body and spirit", and the "knee mark" suggests "that every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is the Christ".
You're probably right that it was done by a committee. I suspect what happened was that in the 1930s, David O. McKay was chosen to lead a committee to make the endowment more user-friendly. I found a review of Buerger's book by Daniel W. Bachman, which states: "David O. McKay, we learn, first explained the symbolism associated with the temple clothing by faithful Latter-day Saints." So, I think Buerger is definitely the source of this information. Maybe I'll try to get ahold of a copy of that book some time and see what it actually says. COGDEN 18:40, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
I Googled for about an hour and a half trying to find something on the net, but I came up with zero. Although there is extensive information on the temple ceremony in detail, none of it attributed the actual words of the ceremony to an individual. Even the 1984 and 90's changes were unattributed. I agree that the language should have been removed until we can find an appropriate source. Storm Rider 19:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


Question: What is the ebay policy, if unrelated to religious beliefs? unsigned 198.166.50.241

As a member of the LDS faith, I agree that showing images or describing the temple garments on Misplaced Pages is innapropriate and offensive. I feel that when members any faith respectfully request that material they deem sacred not be posted, this should be taken into serious consideration.

Don't look then :-)

I'm LDS, and I personally think that either an illustration or a photograph of new garment should be shown, although not being worn on an person's body. I'm also a Mason, and I wanted to point out in reference to the above thread that comment in the thread above, stating referring to 'the "mark of the square" (similar to the Masonic sign of the square)' and 'the "mark of the compass" (similar to the Masonic sign of the compass)' is a nonsensical item. From every source I can find, the common usage from 1840's until today in Masonry would refer to them as "The Square and Compasses" (not compass, and no "sign of the"), and in Masonry they are quite real -- a metal square, and set of metal compasses. Note the word is compasses, not compass, and is indicated clearly as such in the ritual of many jurisdictions. The Latter-day Saint usage does include the word mark, and refers to them as "the mark of the square", and "the mark of the compass". Note the term compasses is not used. I have heard a rumor that at one point early in Church history the marks were physically cut into the garments at the time they were given to the recipient, possibly drawing a few drops of blood and making the markings appear red. The Masonic Square and Compasses were also featured on an architectural drawing of the spire of the Nauvoo Temple, where they were oriented in a reversed situation from the standard Masonic usage, with the compasses opening up to the heavens rather than down towards the ground. I hope these comments will help someone somewhere :)

Age?

About what age do members begin wearing the garments? I wasn't able to figure out from the article, so maybe that should be included also? cøøkiə Ξ (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The article does say adult members, which is accurate. The ritual usually takes place between ages 18 and 24, and often just before marriage or a mission. These should be covered more in the temple or endowment articles than in this article. It should be made clear that it is common for adult members to wear garments. It sometimes reads like there is a special class of Mormons who are only allowed to wear them, similar to priests and nuns. Bytebear 20:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is that it's not really a special class, but it is just those who are able to get and keep a temple recommend, which would be a minority of practicing LDS members. Friday (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The tone of your statement is slightly off, Friday, it is not something you "get", but something desired for some members. Though all are encouraged to serve in the temple, a significant minority of Latter-day Saints obtain a recommend and continue throughout their lives to serve in the temple. One's behavior is closely linked to one's desire. In addition, a temple recommend holder should not be viewed as perfect; far from it. Rather, their behavior should be more in the perspective of the requirements of partaking the Sacrament; we must be willing to take upon us the name of Christ. Cheers. Storm Rider 21:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The thing about the garment is that it is a symbol of a covenant that you make with God - analogous to circumsion being the symbol of the covenant Abraham (and the Isrealites) made with God. As such, once you have made that covenant, regardless of whether you area current temple recommend holder or not, members will still wear the garment to remind them of the covenant - if they still honor it - even if they have other issues - and some will stop wearing the garment for their various reasons. --Trödel 22:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

References

This article needs more references. The statement "... incited considerable protest by college students who were returned missionaries." is a good example of bad writing. How do you know they were returned missionaries? Were they even students? Who made this claim? Bytebear 20:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Kaccha

Kaccha seems appropriate to me as a see-also, being another religious undergarment. However there's been edit warring over the inclusion of this. It was removed once with an edit summary of "categories take care of this" but I don't see how this is true. It was removed again with an edit summary of "list all religious gaments or none to keep NPOV. if there is a particular similarity, it should be discussed in the text, not just plunked in a see also" which doesn't make sense to me either. Sure, it could be compared in the text, but a see-also is sometimes a precursor to that. I don't see the harm in this being a see-also. The similiarity is that they're religious undergarments - the only two religious undergarments we have articles on, as far as I can tell. Friday (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No, there are Jewish religious undergarments too, just no article. Jus because an article hasn't been written yet doesn't mean that others don't exist. But, here is what you are missing, the category lists everything and this is NPOV, and if you discuss it in the text, you will already have wikilinked to it. MOS says you don't put things in the See Also section that are previously wikilinked in the article. (Not to mention the whole "See also sections shouldn't exist at all camp") pschemp | talk 16:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that a see also is a crude way of linking to another article. But does this mean a see-also is always worse than no link at all? As probably the most similiar thing to a temple garment that we have an article on, it seems relevant to me. Friday (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, so rather than take the lazy approach, someone can incorporate the info into the text. There is no rush, this is a wiki. We will live while waiting for the right thing to be done. An incorrect action when the right thing can be done easily is not a good thing. pschemp | talk 17:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
What you've said makes no sense to me - the "see also" was a step in the right direction. If it's there, surely there's a better chance someone will work it into the article. Perfection is not required, articles can improve a little bit at a time. Friday (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Why take a baby step when you can just do it right the first time? Just put it in the text to begin with. What doesn't make sense about that? It doesn't require an expert to do that, you could do it yourself as it would require about one sentence, then there is better chance someone will expand it. There is no point putting it in the see also, when it makes more sense elsewhere. (I won't because I still think its not relevant, but if it goes in the text, I won't complain.) pschemp | talk 17:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Because with baby steps, it will eventually be right Abeo Paliurus 18:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Doing it right the first time makes much more sense!pschemp | talk 19:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


Seems like a close call. I tend to agree with Friday that undergarment religious clothing is unique enough to put in the see also section. But don't really care that much either way, so I'll look to the MoS for guidance --Trödel 18:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't much help:

"Mostly, topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article as free links. The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links as a navigational aid, and it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article."

I doubt the Kaccha would be linked from the article - so it makes sense to put it here. I tend to think that Categories should be used for broad subject areas, and a category with 3-5 articles in it doesn't make sense - where adding the 3 or for links to other religious undergarments does. But wouldn't oppose using Category:Religious undergarments or something like that for the same purpose. --Trödel 18:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the category and its somewhat mixed up with vestements and more generic religious garments all together. It could probably use some cleanup. For the record, the original inserter is ok with the category solution (see my talk.) I really prefer the category solution since it is more inclusive. If a topic is relevent enough to be included, you should be able to do it within the text. There is a whole school of thought here on Misplaced Pages that a See Also section should never be in any article. pschemp | talk 19:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like concensus - wish it could always be that easy :) --Trödel 19:53, 22 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages'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 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 | 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 | 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': ; two 'artists' and scads of pictures of garments. Hope this helps. Duke53 | 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 . 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 delelting it anonymously and the way pro-Mormon editors outnumber others here. Feh. Very cool ... setting something up for a revert war. Duke53 | 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages: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 | 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 | 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 | 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 Misplaced Pages 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; Misplaced Pages does not allow censorship. Duke53 | 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 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 | 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. 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 Misplaced Pages. We need a diverse group of editors to maintain neutral articles. Cheers. Storm Rider 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 | 22:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.--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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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, Misplaced Pages strictly limits you to assuming good faith motivations. The above statements are prohibted by Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages does things. It is not the way dispute resolution is done on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. -- 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...
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.

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)

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

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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. This slope is slippery and decency quickly becomes the victim of this all-consuming drive to ensure we are not censoring anything. Storm Rider 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 be accepted by the majority of editors ...". Some Misplaced Pages editors have been known to go to other editor's talk pages and solicit votes on issues like this. Duke53 | 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 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 04:12, 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. Misplaced Pages 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 and women: .

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)
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 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 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 . 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)

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 Misplaced Pages is not a Mormon publication. I would guess that Mormons make up a tiny percentage of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 | 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)