Talk:Temple garment/Archive 5

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

Oversimplifications by those who want to get rid of the photo:
 * I'm sure there are some...

Common Interest

 * Desire to promote better understanding between religion (?)

Apposing Interest

 * "Side by side interest"? What's that mean? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

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&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

It appears to me that there is enough question that we should remove this picture. Potential copyright violations, tacky picture, highly offensive to mormons, sacred religious clothing that Mormons believe should not be shown publicly, etc. Futher, I don't believe that a photograph showing the underwear significantly enhances the usability of this article. Why do people care what the underwear looks like?? The explanations are sufficient.
 * There are <B>no</B> questions about the copyright of the image; the owner relinquished <I>all</I> rights. 'Sacred'  is only one view concerning these garments and has nothing to do with the image being here. An illustration of any article <I>subject</I> adds to the article. It is not for us to question anybody's <I>reason</I> for any image being here, just that it doesn't break any Wikipedia policy <I>by being here</I>; this one doesn't break <I>any</I> policy. That is the only factor in considering any image for deletion. <I>Wikipedia does not allow censorship.</I> <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 19:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Without commenting one way or the other on the various issues of whether it applies to this situation. I do want to point out that, it is every Wikipedian's responsibility to questions the suitability for images - that is the editorial discretion that we jointly share in our efforts to build an encyclopedia. In fact, "Please discuss the contents of images used on Wikipedia on the talk page. Images should depict their content well (the object of the image should be clear and central)."WP:IUP (emphasis in original)
 * Additionally, although not at issue here, (though it applies to this image in another article): "Articles may get ugly and difficult to read if there are too many images crammed onto a page with relatively little text. For this reason, it is often a good idea to temporarily remove the least-important image from an article and queue it up on the article's talk page. Once there is enough text to support the image, any contributor is free to shift the image back into the article."WP:IUP It seems obvious to me that if the editors decide that the text on a specific aspect of a topic should be minimal in comparison to the article as a whole, then an image might not be justified since the use of too many is ugly. -- Trödel 21:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Had that editor read the talk page they would have known that the issues ('offensiveness', 'sacredness', etc) have already been discussed numerous times here; the only issue left on the table is the 'quality' of the image. I will prepare a canned response for the next group of editors if that's what it takes. If one person or a thousand give the same arguments it doesn't make them correct in wanting to censor this image. I will repeat again: <I>if someone is <U>so offended</U> by this image they can simply not visit the article</I>; I do that with numerous articles at Wikipedia myself.
 * As for the other article I would suppose that the talk page over there would be a more appropriate place for discussing it.<font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 22:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually it does make a difference in determining concensus. Even if you think the argument is the same, those seeking to get full concensus through some type of middle ground (rather than the current standoff) can often do so when they understand the motiviations of the different participants. Hopefully someone will think of something innovative and useful. Of course, this is not your way of resolving disputes on Wikipedia so I can understand your need to respond. -- Trödel 22:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Anybody can "<I>understand the motiviations [sic] of the different participants</I>" rather easily by reading the entire talk page; if they care enough to get involved they should be willing to do that. I did. The reason I think that the arguments are the same is that they usually contain the words 'offensive' and 'sacred' ... things that hold <I>no weight</I> in this conversation. They are not offensive or sacred to many of us.<I> Wikipedia does not allow censorship.</I> <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 00:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It is exactly this kind of productive responses in support of reaching a concensus that all reasonable parties agree is a good soltuion that have inspired me to avoid this page lately. But instead of productive responses we get stuff like that below. All you need is someone who will play your game - then the page is full of comments that do nothing to help resolve the issue but just create even more hard feelings (See last exchange with Storm Rider that was removed by Friday for another example) -- Trödel 01:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Can I propose a compromise? I would sugest someone take a photo of run of the mill undies, that resemble the garments layed out on a bed and have the caption "Temple garments are similar to these".  I think this will allows those who feel a photo is important without offending LDS who see the actual garments as sacred.  Bytebear 22:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, what an offer: <I>Remove an image of the <U>actual</U> item to replace it with an image of something 'similar'.</I> <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 00:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Counteroffer: <I>somebody take a new picture of the actual item, upload it here to the talk page and we can discuss whether or not to replace the present image</I>. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 00:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am trying really hard to assume good faith here, but it seems to me that you only want the real item as an effort to antagonize Mormons. What difference does it make to the reader if they see a photo of something that appears very similar if not indestinguisable from the actual artifact? Bytebear 00:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am trying really to believe you when you say that you think a photo of something 'similiar' to an object is as good as a photo of the <I>actual</I> object. Perhaps you are trying to antagonize non-Mormons or ex-Mormons? <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 00:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * perhaps you need to look up the definition of "compromise". Bytebear 00:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No need to; perhaps you should look up the definition of counterproposal. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 00:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, gee, since your "counterproposal" has been so successful, let's just continue to discuss it ad nausium. Bytebear 01:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As successful as your 'compromise'; we're done <I>here</I>. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 01:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Considering you are the only one who has commented on it since I proposed it about 3 hours ago, I would hardly call your opinion a consensus. Bytebear 01:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I meant 'you & I' >'<I>here & now</I>'< ... we have some mediation on the horizon anyway. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 01:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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


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

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

Caption Should we include a notice at the top of the article?
 * support -Visorstuff 23:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * support B 23:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * oppose. I think it might draw-in more controversy than it solves. But having a commented-out notice in the text for editors might be a good idea. <font color="#0000FF">CO <font color="#6000BF">GD <font color="#A0007F">EN  01:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No need IMO. There's nothing here to offend the non-LDS, and the LDS should know what they're getting into by reading an encyclopedia article on this topic.  Friday (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. No need. No need for silly polls either. pschemp | talk 03:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ditto pschemp. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I see no purpose in a notice, I do see purpose in having a statement, should the picture remain, that the picture should not be removed for any reason to prevent future problems. Storm Rider (talk) 07:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Note: Although considered sacred, a photograph of Temple garments may be found at the end of this article. Due to the sensitive nature of religious topics such as this, reader discretion is advised. The Wikipedia community has come to a consensus that the current image should remain in the article, please do not delete.
 * Alternative: The Wikipedia community has come to consensus that this picture remain in the article. Storm Rider (talk) 07:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My problem with the above wording is that we should not reference Wikipedia at all.
 * I really don't support the polling. A RFC would be a better idea.  But an RFC would have to be much more focused than this this to be worthwhile.  You should work out the strongest argument you have and present that as an RFC.  I honestly don't think it would be useful to argue against the precedents of showing offensive pictures and of using low-quality but free pictures.  Probably the best RFC question would be: Is the illustration shown in the article Temple Garment encyclopedic?; ask that has been the objection that has been less answered than others.  I think most other objections have been firmly refuted.  But I obviously have a different perspective; maybe you want to go a different route.  I think it would be a bad idea to ask several questions on a RFC because I think people will be less likely to respond.--<font color="#f4a460 ">Birgitte§β  ʈ  <font color="#778899">Talk  20:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

Do you support having the current image in the article?
 * Undecided. Will decide before Dec. 12 I imagine that there is not a real consensus. I'm planning to post this to the village pump later this week to get outside opinion on whether or not the image is appropriate. I've seen enough non-LDS editors who don't think the image is appropriate to belive that consensus could swing either way. Another issue, but seperate is should this article not show an image that some people find offensive? -Visorstuff 23:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * oppose, but: we shouldn't delete until after we decide on a better image. I can't say I'm thrilled with the present image, but it's inevitable and appropriate under Wikipolicy that there will be some image, and I'm not willing, myself, to make a new one. <font color="#0000FF">CO <font color="#6000BF">GD <font color="#A0007F">EN  01:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose (with compromise): I do not feel it adds anything to the article, as the look of the garment is nothing more unusual than contemporary underwear. I have proposed a compromise of showing "similar" garments that will give the reader a sense of what they look like without being offensive to the sacred nature of the actual artifact. Bytebear 01:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wikipedia needs to demonstrate respect, and the image fails to do that. Respect doesn't always outweigh other considerations, but in this case it does.  To those who support the image or something like it, consider whether you would mind having something personal and private about yourself as the subject matter of a wikipedia article. In the U.S., it is illegal to disclose something private to the public. I consider this image to be highly invasive of my personal privacy, and it's analogous to burning a U.S. flag to spite a U.S. serviceman. B 23:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course the picture should appear - The rules of the Wiki apply here, not the "consensus" of Mormon editors. Nearly all the non-Mormons agree the photo should stay. Again, why are we polling when this has already been established? Is it because perhaps, you didn't like the outcome? pschemp | talk 03:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to make this remark since to point out this non-productive discussions is itself unproductive, but I am drawn to say something here:
 * So much of this discussion is unproductive (almost all my own comments included) We should be seeking consensuse amongst ALL the editors regardless of background. The beliefs and feelings of the so-called Mormon editors vary significantly and there is not even concensus amongst a supposedly homogeneous group. -- Trödel 04:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have admit I wouldn't have made that response had Visorstuff not made me think about it with his claim that "there is not a real consensus." Um... pschemp | talk 06:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please show me where any concensus in the past was obtained for inclusion of the picture. I have never seen it and it is deceptive to say that it existed! Storm Rider (talk) 07:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And incidentally, pschemp, non-LDS have also said they feel that the image is not appropriate as well. See comments (some which have been removed) between Duke53 and User:Musical_Linguist on their talk pages, at Talk:Undergarment and other places. This is beginning to gather a lot of attention, and I don't think there is any consensus - even within the Mormon group. I know I've not removed it, nor am I decided on it. In fact, Cogden and I have fought and reverted those who removed links to such an image in the article (although a much more useful image). As was stated otherplaces, its not that seeing garments is wrong, its how its gone about and with what intent. -Visorstuff 17:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * <I>"And incidentally, pschemp, non-LDS have also said they feel that the image is not appropriate as well"</I>. And <I>how</I>, pray tell, does one determine if an editor is <I>'non-LDS'</I>? <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 17:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * They say so? alanyst /talk/ 18:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I do not see how a picture of underwear, any underwear, improves an article except the underwear article.  This really has entered complete absurdity.  We are actually voting on seeing underwear and we actually think it is important enough for which to argue!  Storm Rider (talk) 07:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Usefulness Does the current image illustrate the article?
 * Oppose. I think there is somewhere an image that can actually illustrate the article. This offers little educational value, and looks like people wearing old-fashoined underwear rather than illustrating unique aspects of Garments. As stated above, they are not recognizable as such. I believe drawing would be better suited in this case. -Visorstuff 23:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * oppose. If I were an uninformed reader who had just heard about Mitt Romney's underwear and wanted to consider this all-important factor before deciding whether to vote for him for President (not that I would, personally&mdash;I'm an Obama fan), I'd want to see the symbolic marks. I wouldn't particularly care whether there was a live model inside. If we're talking strictly about the most informative depiction, that would be a drawing, where you could emphasize the symbols (their most significant aspect, and the thing that makes them garments rather than a tee-shirt and boxer-briefs). In real garments, you can't see the symbols without a blowup. <font color="#0000FF">CO <font color="#6000BF">GD <font color="#A0007F">EN  01:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Aesthetically, the picture looks odd, and the headlessness implies some kind of shame or anonymity (which is probably true). A manaquin or layed out on a bed seems more appropriate.  If you want to show the marks, then I would suggest a drawing, but that will cause another flurry of controversy. Bytebear 01:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The primary interest this image appeals to is a prurient interest, not an educational one. It does little to nothing to educate and far more to offend. B 23:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * comment -- Oh, I don't think there's any shame involved. Here's the original uncropped picture. Question: are the marks considered themselves secret? I mean, we describe them in the article, and they're depicted on the "historic garment" link. Isn't the Nauvoo Endowment openly published? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That looks like a photoshop crop to me. Friday (talk) 02:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ya think? I was kinda wondering. The faces look goofy; on the other hand, the neck musclature on the woman does seem to match the angle her face is turned, etc. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you look at the wallpaper behind the heads, the pattern doesn't match up correctly right at the line where the image cuts off - clearly the sign of a cut and paste job.  If we do indeed have permission from, or access to the copyright holder (which I still question), shouldn't he/she have the original image? Bytebear 00:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Question is irrelevant until another alternative is produced. WP:Voting is evil. pschemp | talk 03:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Again, it is a pair of underwear.  Please tell me that seeing two people wear underwear is not that interesting to readers...and you have to do it with a straight face or I won't believe you.  Storm Rider (talk) 07:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability of images
I have given the discussions on this page a lot of thought and something has occurred to me that I haven't seen addressed directly. How do we know the image is really of temple garments? They definitely look like them, but as others have asserted, having a simulated image of garments is not acceptable, so we must be sure they're the real thing, no? The image resolution of the current photo is too poor to show the distinguishing marks, so it seems impossible to verify by inspection alone that they are indeed garments. Is the source of the image a reliable source? Can it be verified that the people in the photo are really wearing temple garments? I could upload an image of people in underwear and claim it's the real deal, or even upload an image that I think shows the real deal but actually doesn't&mdash;what mechanism is in place to verify the accuracy of the information conveyed by images on Wikipedia? WP:Verifiability only seems to address textual sources. If Wikipedia is to avoid conveying factual inaccuracies via images, how can we be sure about this or any other image from a non-reliable source? Any links to Wikipedia policy that addresses this would be greatly appreciated. alanyst /talk/ 05:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, zoom into the picture -- you can barely make out the dash on the woman's right knee, another at the man's navel, and if you strain your eyes you can maybe see one of the marks on the man's left breast. But that's what's wrong with the picture, to me -- it's a bad example of temple garments. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it takes some close examination and guesswork to locate some of the markings, but I guess my question is a bit broader, and I'll offer the following hypothetical to clarify it: couldn't the creator of this photo have faked some markings or Photoshopped them? I'm not saying that's what happened here, but how would we know if they did?  What gives us the confidence to say that this is an accurate illustration of the article?  Do we need to consider the source at all, or are some images verifiable on their face without needing to come from a reliable source?  Especially for matters that some people consider sacred or taboo, there's a danger: an antagonistic editor could produce a distorted illustration as a means of provocation, and an adherent could not correct it without violating that taboo.  Thus the adherent is the one facing the dilemma even though the antagonist is the one in the wrong.  Shouldn't the burden be upon the provider of such an image to positively demonstrate its accuracy, in order to avoid such an inequality?  I'm not trying to ask leading questions here, just trying to think this through "out loud". alanyst /talk/ 06:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I suspect that if this wasn't really a picture of temple garments, the LDS editors on this page wouldn't be nearly as offended by them. Admittedly it is an old style and should be labeled as such, but the picture is still illustrative, even if poorly executed. Why don't you all work on getting a suitable replacement? Surely that would be a better use of our time as it would make this picture go away easily. pschemp | talk 06:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Concur with pschemp, who accidently mentioned this subject at the Village Pump. Per a number of variations on WP:NOT, there is no significant chance that this image will be deleted or discounted (questions of credibility notwithstanding). Almost anything would be a better use of time...Doc  Tropics  07:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It appears to be a fact that the picture came from a known anti-Mormon web site. I don’t' know how that affects the reliability of the picture, but it does raise an issue and the fact that it comes from an anti-Mormon is offensive to Mormons.  They do appear to be an older style of garment, but I certainly can not vouch for them; all I can say is they have the appearance of garments.
 * I suspect that a picture of long underwear could easily be presented and labeled as temple garments and the vast majority of the readers would be ignorant of the difference. That might actually be a solution; not even other LDS would know the difference in most circumstances.  As far as alternatives, the dilemma is that LDS will not supply a picture and most of those against including the picture are LDS.  Further, LDS appear not to be willing, for whatever reason, to supply an alternative.  In doing so they place those editors who feel it is an absolute necessity to have a picture of garments to use the one provided.
 * I will renew my objection that not a single reason has yet been provided for including the picture other than it is exists. I have yet to see any consensus regarding its inclusion.  What is probably most concerning is the attack on the motivations of those against the picture.  It does not matter if there are religious reasons or not; it does not matter if it is sacred or not; the fact is that many, if not most, do not want the picture.  I am not convinced it improves the article and those in favor of the picture have a difficult time attempting to state that a picture of people in underwear is an improvement to the picture.  It comes down to taste (i.e. editorial preference); nothing more and nothing less.
 * I actually would prefer to have this picture than a picture that demonstrates the marks; however, to me it may be six of one and half a dozen of another. The picture is two people in modest underwear; big whoop.  What makes them sacred are the covenants LDS make with God and the markings represent those covenants.  Without the marks the garment is nothing than cloth and serves no other purpose than as undergarments.  I assume most wear underwear, except for those who prefer going commando, so I still remain puzzled by all the fuss and interest.  People, it is just underwear!  Is Baptist underwear interesting to you?  How about a catholic’s underwear?  Surely, Jewish underwear must have piqued your curiosity.  This so easily become absurd and yet we are actually talking about what underwear. Regardless; please come to a final conclusion and move on.  This is tiresome.
 * I noticed that pschemp stated that voting is evil; I will also say that voting goes on every day on a multitude of articles on Wikipedia. It is obviously a useful tool when conflict is present.  I see no reason not to have a vote(s) here on this topic.  Storm Rider (talk) 07:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The evil that voting is, is that it isn't getting anyone anywhere, and it is distracting people from working on finding a suitable replacement by instead drawing them back into the same tired arguments. Its worse than useless, its actually counterproductive. pschemp | talk 07:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Since Underwear was mentioned, you might check that article for images. Of course it has them, and they enhance the article. Doc  Tropics  07:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I lead a very dull life. I see myself in underwear every day; for kicks I work out and see other men in their underwear.  I assure you, seeing people in underwear has lost its appeal.  I am intrigued by thongs though; I have yet to understand why some men would ever put them on.  Nothing could feel so uncomfortable nor get so nasty as a piece of cloth betwixt one's cheeks.  Cheers.  Storm Rider (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Accidently mentioned it on village pump??? If that was accidental, I would hate to see what on purpose looks like.  I would also like to see a more clear presentation of facts rather than a highly twisted piece of misinformation.  Storm Rider (talk) 07:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The "accidental" was an attempt to be humourous. pschemp | talk 14:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I just found this article after reading about 9/11 researcher Steven E. Jones who is a well-known Mormon. I know a lot about Mormons because I went skiing in Park City every year for about 15 years, and even went on the tour of the temple and tabernacle, and I met some Mormon missionaries in Mexico once, and we talked and argued for hours!


 * This illustration might be good. illustration The article needs closeups of the symbols! How about the claims some Christians make that the symbols on the underwear are related to the occult? see here These people aren't joking! Lookie see here too This article fails to address this? Why? - F.A.A.F.A. 08:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, we don't have rights to that illustration. As far as the "claims", these are the same people who insist on the evil of the old Proctor and Gamble logo; it's significant in the case of P&G, since they actually changed their logo as a result of the harassment; I don't see much need to give undue weight by bringing up their views here. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not against anything that improves the article. I do think it may be included on the endowment because in that article the actual words of the endowment are used.  In doing so, the claims of this occult accusation are easily addressed.  Storm Rider (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)