Talk:Temple garment/Archive 2

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. CO GDEN  22:24, July 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've forgotten which anti-Mormon book it is from. Sorry. I don't mind the link staying in the article (to either one), but would rather not have either image hosted by Wikipedia. It is my opinion that it would create edit wars and would be considered too controversial to include at this time. The trouble it would cause outweighs its educational benefit, IMHO. I agree that a drawing is preferred, if we have to go down this path. I'm not sure that I'd vote against or abstain such a move to include at this point. Need more discussion first. -Visorstuff 23:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The LDS people do hold the garment to be sacred and WIKI should be respectful of this position. However, I personally am not offended by actual pictures of garments being linked.  When I go to a gym to work out my garments are readily seen by all who are in the locker room.  We do not attempt to prevent others from seeing them; for others it is just underwear.  However, I appreciate when others afford a modicum of respect for whatever others hold sacred.  I treat the Quran with respect because I know my muslim friends treat it reverently. Yes, this is a very sensitive subject, but we might be a little too sensitive on this point.  This article is already far more explicit than comfort for LDS's directs.  I would let it slide. Storm Rider 23:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia purports to be an encyclopaedia, mere simulacrum though it may be, and as such there is no reason why anyone should remove perfectly valid information because mormons happen to disagree with the publishing of it, or because it offends their beliefs. If they cannot understand that, why would they even patronize this altruistic venture?


 * Should wikipedia show cartoons of Mohamad? This article is more offensive to Mormons than showing cartoons of Hohamad is to muslems. I would like to delete this article, because we hold this to be very sacred, but if I delete the article, you will miss my argument. If I come back tomorow, and their are no cartoons of Mohamad, I will consider you hypocries, and I will delete this article. myclob 03:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "If I come back tomorow, and their are no cartoons of Mohamad, I will consider you hypocries [sic], and I will delete this article". I hope that  all editors  are paying attention to the above post by myclob. :)  Duke53  | Talk 03:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. If we had to worry about someone being offended by information that is posted in Wikipedia, we would never get anything posted around here. It seems that the Wikipedia policies agree as well. See Content_disclaimer. I see no reason why I should have to look elsewhere in order to see a picture of the described garment if we have a picture that can be placed on the page. If you are offended by the article, don't read it. -GamblinMonkey 03:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * GamblinMonkey, if that is what you believe, then I want to see cartoons of mohamad. I can't imagine what a cartoon of mohamad looks like, so I NEED to see a cartoon of him. myclob 03:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * " ... I NEED to see a cartoon of him" Then by all means find a licensed copy of one; there's a big world-wide web out there ... knock yourself out. I guarantee you that I won't attempt to practice censorship by deleting it. Duke53  | Talk 03:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Actually, if you visit the Muhammad you'll see that there's still quite a debate about what exactly is proper to add into Wikipedia about religiously sensitive subjects. Note it's been locked from changes in the form WITHOUT a picture of Muhammad on it at the moment.--Gillespee 16:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually that proves my point. Remove the picture, until there are cartoons of mohamed.myclob 03:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

This is the photo in question:

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

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

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

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


 * Agreed. If nothing else, it needs to somehow be made clear right off the bat why these images have not been added (yet).  Beginning 23:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Whether one is needed or not (I come out on the not side) - the current problem is that there is no properly licensed one. -- Trödel 03:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * We have a licensed one now. Remember, Wikipedia does not allow censoring; I would dare guess that this photo denotes nothing sacred to the majority of WP users  Duke53  | Talk 03:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree the pictures should say. Wanted to add something about comparisons viz a viz Muhammad. While I've never taken part in the debate and don't know for sure which way I feel I don't think the situations are really comparable. The simple fact is, Muhammad was a person who lived in 6 - 7 AD. We have descriptions of him but no real way of knowing what he looked like. All we have are artists impressions.
 * (May have gotten a bit carried away here). Also, I would argue there isn't a great deal of relevance to the average reader. I grew up in a Muslim country (Malaysia) but have lived in New Zealand for several years. But before today, I'd never AFAIK seen a depiction of Muhammad. I used to be a Christian (now agnostic) and as with many people, I've seen countless depictions of Jesus Christ and have an idea of the quitensential image of what he looks like (which IMHO isn't very accurate but I digress). I've also seen countless depictions of Buddha and also have an idea of the quitensential image of what he looked like (which probably also isn't very accurate). But for many people including a many Muslims this isn't true when to Muhammad and the number of depictions of him, especially ones intended to be positive is probably much, much smaller then of Jesus Christ. Indeed I suspect many Muslims don't really have any clear image in their head of what he looked like. I also note that the earliest depiction we have of JC is from 3 AD (~ 0 AD life) but of Muhammad its something like 14 AD (6-7 AD life). So really So IMHO, depictions of Muhammad aren't of that great relevance or significance (except perhaps that it's a very controversial area). Our current policies of having a seperate Depictions of Muhammad article may be the best solution (although I haven't thought about that great a deal).
 * But when it comes to this article it's IMHO of very great interest to the average reader to know what garments look like. These are accurate depictions of a current day thing. & most LDS members & other Mormons would know what they look like even if they find the image/depiction offensive. Nil Einne 17:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the illustration is fine and informative. I can't imagine it being hard for someone to draw their own illustration and release it free and clear.  I don't like the photo, not because it is offensive religiously, but more because it is just a bit tacky having a couple standing there in their underwear.  I would rather see them on a maniquin.  Not to mention, that I assume these people in the photo are not LDS, and therefore, they are wearing someone else's underwear which is just a little creepy. Bytebear 09:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous. Stop removing the photo!  No one has given any hint of a valid reason for it not to be there, and it's obviously relevant.  Friday (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

The image issue is a bit of a dilemma. We have a photograph, taken from an ex-Mormon website that many LDS would find offensive. On the other hand, many LDS will find any depiction of the garment to be offensive, and we would always have the problem of vandalism. But very few who own the garments would be willing to allow them to be photographed in a more neutral way for the Wikipedia. I certainly wouldn't. Even if we could produce a new photograph or drawing, I can't think of any compromise that would leave the article relatively free of vandalism. Maybe sprotection has to be a long-term solution.  CO GD EN  01:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * COGDEN, we are in a bit of a pickle. The picture now being used is off an anti-Mormon website and is offensive, but no Mormons will produce or offer an alternative.  I don't see an alternative but to keep the offensive photo.  I can't imagine that all of Wikipedia's editors will suddenly grow an higher degree of respect; particularly when respect is confused with censorship.  My mom often talked about proper breeding and instruction, but that topic would certainly be inappropriate when working with the public where everything must, apparently, go to the lowest common denominator.
 * On the positive side of things, we must also understand that what is being depicted is two individuals wearing a T-shirt and very long boxer shorts; a very modest and unappealing ensemble to say the least. That is all the public will every see and they will necessarily fail to understand or recognize their true significance or sacredness.  Let's move on and leave the protect in place for a good long while.  Storm Rider (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Interestingly enough garments given to adam and eve were to cover their nakedness so they were not ashamed. Interesting that the people in the photo are ashamed to be associated with wearing them - as their faces are hidden. -Visorstuff 16:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between tolerating a religion, and tolerating members of that religion trying to change an article from neutral point of view to LDS point of view. As much as some might like it otherwise, our LDS-related articles are not meant to be presented from an LDS point of view.  LDS can  give their point of view in their own publications- here we're trying to be an encyclopedia.  I don't see how this has much to do with tolerance at all- it has everything to do with making encyclopedia articles.  NPOV requires no special deference to any religion.  Friday (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Since a sketch or drawing is simply an artist's <I>depiction</I> or <I>interpretation of an object </I>then it would be a step backward; we have an available <I>licensed</I> image of the actual garments available ... I will never allow it to be replaced by an inferior substitute. <I>" Interesting that the people in the photo are ashamed to be associated with wearing them"</I>. Interesting that you think that they are ashamed; my thought is that they wanted to protect themselves from possible attacks or maliciousness from LDS members. Duke53  | Talk 20:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

And, as an admin, I must warn you that statements such as <I>"I will never allow</I> 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)


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


 * Visorstuff, can you point me to the flickr pages? shotwell 23:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's the page with the search results at flickr.com for 'temple garments': ; two 'artists' and scads of pictures of garments. Hope this helps. Duke53  | Talk 08:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

All: In the interest of striving for a featured article that is stable and unprotected, would the community involved be willing to try out how many reverts a day we get with the current photo, versus how many reverts we get with a drawing, such as this one. 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)
 * <I>"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</i>. How scientific; think about this for a minute and explain <I>how</I> this could possibly be fair ... with all the 'new' editors deleting it anonymously and the way pro-Mormon editors outnumber others here. Feh. Very cool ... setting something up for a revert war. Duke53  | Talk 01:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC) p.s. Feel free to E-Mail the owner of the photo to see if he has given permission for its use.
 * Although I agree that in anomyous collaborations like Wikipedia, these sorts of tests are useless. I think you need to calm down and tone down your remarks.  You are not helping the situation. -- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  01:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The point isn't to design an encylopedia that does not attract vandals. The point is to design a neutral comprehensive encyclopedia.  I don't think that image is an acceptable substitute for the current illustration (although an illustration of evolving designs would be an interesting addition).  Also I don't know that it is a free license.  Do you have any other freely licensed illustrations to offer as a substitute? -- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  01:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The point is to design an encyclopedia that people want to read and participate in. If you offend an entire ethnic segment by the use of an image, you remove their viewpoint from an encyclopedia and end up with mis-information. At one point, there was a move for 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)
 * <I>"In any case, we are counting the amount of removals of both images</I>. You can't see the flaws with that, considering how many more pro-LDS editors come here? They obviously will pick an image with less detail when faced with an 'either / or' decision, since they don't want it shown anyway. Duke53  | Talk 02:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Duke53, you have no idea about mormonism, do you? I'm actually suggesting to replace a current image which some of us find offensive as it shows people in underwear and is semi-see through (showing the body), with one that shows specific marks on a garment. Which is more offensive to Mormon doctrines? The marks. However, I think that more in the community (both mormon and not) will want something less of a underwear fetish with and more doctirnally-founded and academic. However, since you seem to like the former, fine. But if you are here to offend mormons, I'd think you'd go with the second. One is educational about garments, the other is simply an outdated style satisfying a fetish and provides little educational value as to what garments currently look like. -Visorstuff 18:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * <I>"Duke53, you have no idea about mormonism, do you?"</I> 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 <I>newer, better</I> image here (talk page) and let us discuss that. For all this talk about the ease of finding such images we haven't seen anything better as of yet. The flickr.com search you suggested wasn't exactly as you portrayed it to be; if you want a comparison then put up something here for us to compare. Duke53  | Talk 08:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The comment above proves my point. If you understood anything about mormonism, you'd know that no Mormon would put up an alternative image. As for Flickr - there are other pages that show garments, but the above are readily accessible via the search provided. I never said that images of garments or temples clothes are easy to find, but that there are multiple pages full of them - which there are. -Visorstuff 20:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't prove a thing except that there are a lot of people whining about the present photo, but not willing (or able) to present a 'better' one. The flickr search was / is a farce, it shows six photos loosely related to temple garments. Where are these 'multiple pages' you mention? Duke53  | Talk 21:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)