Talk:Temple garment/Archive 4

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

Wow, this is just offensive. If wikipedia's job is to fuel religious hatred and bigotry then they have done a good job with this article. Every bigoted anti-religious website between here and hell has picked this up. There are a few editors who can use some training in tolerance and responsible article writing. As a historical note the Nazis published pictures of "sacred" Jewish clothes and symbols to ridicule them. I am sure it was for "educational" purposes too! Heil Bigotry! 64.234.26.109
 * Please stop with the personal attacks. Comparing the actions of editors to the actions of Nazis is obviously never acceptable. -- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  03:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of that activity by Nazis. What an interesting activity.  Does anyone have a reference for that?  I don't think it would be appropriate for this article, but it would be a valid addition to other articles.  It is funny when standing back from an issue that comprable actions are seen.
 * As I have stated multiple times, I am not against this specific picture being used though I do find it offensive. If an alternative could be found that woud be accepted by the majority of editors, I would support using it.  Wikipedia is a source of information and it may be too much to ask to respect the standards of other people regardless of beliefs or religion.  Granted, it is easier to abuse minorities, but respect may not be an issue or concern appropriate for Wikipedia.  This slope is slippery and decency quickly becomes the victim of this all-consuming drive to ensure we are not censoring anything.  Storm Rider (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Is the humans being shown immodestly in their underclothes that is the offense? Would it be acceptable if, say, they were on mannikins? Or laid out flat? Would a photograph ever be acceptable? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Would a photograph ever be acceptable"? Well, here's a little clue as to what we're up against: " If an alternative could be found that woud [sic] be accepted by the majority of editors ...". Some Wikipedia editors have been known to go to other editor's talk pages and solicit votes on issues like this. Duke53  | Talk 04:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jp, thank you for the question. I speak for myself only, but I suspect in reality a picture of the temple garment would never be found appropriate by Latter-day Saints.  The acutal garment represents covenants made between an individual and God.  It may be difficult for others to grasp, and it has been said so many times it may sound trite, but it is very sacred.
 * One of the reasons that I am not adamantly opposed to the picture is because non-Mormons will only see underwear when they see the garment; the sacredness of the garment can not be represented in a picture. I wonder what is achieved by a picture that is not accomplished by a description?  I do acknowledge that we have become a visual society, but sometimes I think it is not the worst thing in the world to show respect to the beliefs of others.  I do not have to believe in something before I show respect.  Sometimes, as individuals, it is okay to have a higher standard than the lowest common denominator of the society at large.  A picture will always be painful to LDS is the bottom line.  Thanks again for your kind question.  Storm Rider (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is time for everyone to give three cheers for Duke53. What a wonderful job he is doing at being helpful. Everyone clap your hands and sing praises to him for his helfpulness and cooperative efforts. Yeah! Duke; he's our man, if he can't do it, no one can. Storm Rider (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Everyone knock off with the sniping and snarking, OK? It doesn't help a damn thing. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The more I consider this, the more I think that the current photograph (which, by the way, showed on one of my favorite blogs this morning) isn't helpful. All it is is a picture of two headless people in slightly unusual, somewhat old-fashioned undies; there's nothing that actually distinguishes between "mormon underwear" and any other sort, given that the actual acceptable style of the garment has changed over the years. Is the shape of the garment something special, other than "highly modest"? Or is the actual special part of the garments the marks on the chest etc.? If the latter, it seems to me that a drawing would actually better portray the garments - I'm rather fond of the historic series we link to, as they show (a) we really are just talking underwear here; and (b) they clearly show how the marks are the things that distinguish them from plain ordinary dainties. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree that the picture isn't great. But it's what we have today.  A photo or drawing of the symbols on it would be helpful too.  As for what distinguishes them- to me it's more about how they're seen by their owners than any of their physical attributes, but I suppose this is arguable and it's just my (non-verifiable) opinion.  Friday (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am open-minded about non-photographic illustrations. However I haven't yet seen one I think is suitable as a replacement.  But please show us alternatives here that we can discuss instead of talking about hypothetical illustrations.  I am sure there a hundreds of alternatives possible that everyone would find better than the current photogragh.  But is a waste of time to talk of the bad qualties of the current photo until these alternatives are availble.  Wikipedia always prefers poor quality freely licensed illustrations over high-quality copyrighted ones, this is nothing particular to this article.-- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  17:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Honestly it doesn't look like any "normal" undergarments I've ever seen and is quite distinctive. Since there isn't any replacement forthcoming, I don't see the point about arguing about it. It shows no body parts, protects the identities of the wearers and has a very high cloth to skin ratio. Btw, we don't have a picture of Xenu because its hard to take pictures of space aliens, but for scientologists, the mere mention of the name in print is pure sacrilege of the highest order. They've been know to hunt down people who mention it and threaten them with bodily harm. The Mormon underwear is tame compared to that. pschemp | talk 17:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Well, using something useless rather than nothing at all is a rather questionable approach. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It isn't useless. If it isn't current then label the time period which it represents in the caption Easy. It would be great to have different pictures showing the different styles though the years, but this is all we have. Give it a true label then, but it is not useless. pschemp | talk 07:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's useless. There's nothing that indicates that it's a temple garment rather than two people in undies (I'm glad at least we're using the cropped version of that pic.) The website that image comes from does have a slightly more useful pic -- a Barbie in garments, with closeups of the marks. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 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&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 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&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Friday, respectfully I think you are stating facts not in evidence. Could you please share your opinion of the value of the picture? No one has yet stated why the picture enhances the article and what it provides that is not provided by other means. Forget about the numerous and varied reasons that have been provided for not including. I think it may be time to actually understand why including a picture of something so trivial and inaccurate improves the article. Storm Rider (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it shows one version of the garment. And pictures are useful additions to articles. Text cannot do the same thing a picture does. It isn't trivial, its the *only* illustration in the whole article. It does improve the article because it shows what garment from that time period look like. This "useless" crap is a sneaky way to get around the fact that you are trying to censor the picture. I personally find the picture very informative and so do others. Now, I suggest you find a replacement you consider more suitable, because until you do, this is the *only* hint of what the garments look like that we have and it will stay in the article. pschemp | talk 23:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It serves the same purpose that any other picture in any other article serves: to illustrate the topic. How can this possibly be a matter of disagreement?  Why do you say it's inaccurate, unless you're suggesting it's a picture of something other than temple garments?  I don't see that I've stated any facts not in evidence, but I do note that most of the people objecting also self-identify as LDS members, and I really don't think this is coincidence.  I would suggest that members need to take extra care to ensure that their religious beliefs are not interfering with their judgment as editors.  I think we all agree it's not a great picture, but it's the picture we have today and it's free.  Perfection is not required.   The "numerous and varied" reasons for not including it have all been answered, have they not?  The only vaguely sensible one I remember hearing is that it's not current, but the answer there is obvious: if we know when these garments are from, we say so in the caption.  Friday (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, pschemp, I'm the only one using the word "useless", and suggesting I want to "censor" the article is kinda silly if you consider what I'm actually saying: I very much want a picture of the temple garments in the article, and I want it to be one that actually displays the aspects of the temple garments that are interesting: not that it's old-fashioned underwear (lots of religions have garment rules or preferences that harken to older time), but that it bears ritual markings that denote the covenant subscribed to by the wearer. A line drawing such as those we link to the page ("pictures of the garment over the years") is more informative; that it happens to have the side effect of being less offensive to those sensitive about it isn't a bad thing, but I don't really care much about that. The Barbie doll picture here is also more informative, albeit quite silly (though not in a bad way.) Note also that I'm not removing the picture from the article, and I'll quickly revert anyone who removes it without consensus. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 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)
 * For better or worse, there is a warning at Bahá'u'lláh. The warning has helped stop the drive-by removals and it appears to be the result of lengthy discussion. Members of the Bahá'í Faith are not permitted to view the picture; they believe it is a serious sin. This is quite different than what's going on here because there is no such restriction in the LDS church. Nonetheless, the Bahá'u'lláh discussions might be relevant or helpful to us. I particularly appreciate how the Bahá'í there accept that wikipedia is not bound to follow their religious norms. shotwell 19:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a note, I wouldn't describe that as a warning. It says: Note: A photograph of Bahá'u'lláh can be found at the end of this article.   I expected a warning to be like  ! This article contains pictures of human nudity, do not edit the article to censor images, see wikipedia disclaimer for detials. The preceding warning was once put on the circumsicion article.  I find it unacceptable for the self-references.  I am not sure why a note similar to the Bahá'u'lláh would help in this case.-- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  19:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't really distinguish between "note" and "warning", but I see the distinction now that you've pointed it out. I agree with you about including a note. One would (or should) have the reasonable expectation of seeing a photo of temple garments in the temple garment article. I just figured that it'd be helpful to point at that discussion. shotwell 19:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Another difference is that the Bahai apparently just don't want to see the picture themselves, while the anti-garment-photo faction doesn't want anyone to see it. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That would not be a correct description of my position or, I suspect, any other Latter-day Saint. Our concern is not that others will see the garment.  Were that true you would not find LDS going to a gym and changing their clothes.  Those are common occurences on a daily basis.  Some would say their concern is that it is simply unnecessary to show a picture of something they hold sacred.  For readers capable of reading the article one immediately is capable of understanding what a garment looks like.  Other editors have stated it may not be accurate; I think this is not completely true.  The picture is close enough for for this purpose.  There are many styles and they also come in colors appropriate for military attire, i.e. they are not always white.  Others have a higher sense of decency and would simply respect a religion's tenants; not because they believe, but out of respect.  Others, would say the picture does not improve the article.  I suspect you would also find other reasons, but none of them would say they want no one to see the garment.  Please be careful about how you charaterize the issue; it most certainly is not between a religion and censorship.  Storm Rider (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I stand corrected. However, re "higher sense of decency" -- WP:NPA prohibits me from giving that the response it truly deserves. Please be careful about how you characterize other editors. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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


 * Everyone needs to be very careful about how they characterize the other position here. First off, it is foolishness to try and sum up the beliefs of every editor in the opposing position.  That said I have seen some supporters of picture removal say they would find any photo offensive (i.e. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to prepare an image that is both accurate and acceptable--for it is the public display of such an image that is in itself offensive. Yes, there could be a better picture; but, it sorrows me that something sacred must be held up for such public display.)  If some feel differently, that is fine, but it is known position of some editors.  On the other hand, I have not seen any supporter of retention of the photo say that they despise religion or that they find it a "scourge to humanity."  I have not seen anyone claim they hold everyone of different religous beliefs in disdain. I find those statements to be rather strong.  Perhaps you have had outside .conversations I am not party to, but I have not seen those opinions expressed here.  Regarding a higher sense of decency, I think you would be better understood by saying a higher standard of decorum.  Dencency can be defined in regard to general qualities such as suitable; appropriate; fair; genourous; respectable; worthy as well as maintaining conservative standards of behaivor.  Decorum is much more narrowly defined as regarding standards of behaivor. -- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  05:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah. I got a little pissed off at the suggestion that somehow I had an inferior sense of decency. Decorum, sure -- decorum isn't necessarily congruent with Wikipedia's goals. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 07:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify. Decency does share one definition with decorum. (Think "Can I come in the bathroom? Are you decent yet?") However it also has other definitions which can lead to misunderstanding.  I do not think it was an incorrect word to use, rather an imprecise word. -- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  17:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It may have been better to use decorum in my edit; however, neither really seems to be a bedrock principle of wikipedia. It would appear that the overarching objective is to provide information regardless of any other potential influence or concern.  How we individually live our lives is a wholly different matter.  For example, personally I find it inappropriate for me to demonstrate disrespect to any religion.  On wikipedia it is very possible to offend religious people or any other person as long as the goal is to share information.  This would also seem to be your position; correct?  Storm Rider (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I never take an action for the purpose of causing offense. However I am certain people can be offended for a number of reasons by things I have done or said. I find this to be unfortunate but unavoidable.  As far as Wikipedia goes it, there are a number of policies and guidelines here which help us navigate different cultural norms.  I do my best to rely on these as well as precedent here over my own gut instinct of what I find personally acceptable.  When WP norms lead to people being offended; I do think we should try to mitigate this as much as this is possible without compromising the core principle of providing free encyclopedic content. In this case little can done unless another freely licensed image is found.  I would very much prefer to see these garments on a dress form or manequin rather than live models.  Not because the models offend me personally, but because I think live models make the photo more offensive to Mormons without adding anything encyclopedic over the same picture on a dress form.  I respect people to make there own choices regarding religion but I cannot say that I personally feel obligated to conform to other's religous standards.  I hope that this clarifies my position for you. -- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  05:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well said. pschemp | talk 05:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Very. Thanks. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 06:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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


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

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