Talk:Undergarment/Archive: Mormon temple garments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I have deleted the unsourced comment that corsets were very uncomfortable for the wearer and caused health problems. Tightlacing is certainly an issue, but a well-fitted corset of modest compression is not. - PKM 22:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Rodparkes 07:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


I removed an image after coming across it in Temple garments. From what I can tell this user is on a crusade to insert this image in any article he thinks he can argue it has relevence. I don't think it has relevence here because the picture does not add any information to what is already in the text Abeo Paliurus 21:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The image is perfectly relevent in this article and in Temple garments. If he puts it in places where it isn't relevent ot the topic it will be removed. However, Wikipedia is not censored for anyone's religious views. pschemp | talk 21:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Please stop this silly edit warring. Let's discuss the merits of keeping/deleting the picture of Mormons in their underwear and come to a consensus (if that is possible). Pontificake 21:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed - but when someone specficially picks out an image with the express purpose of embarrasing a group of people that is wrong. I will be happy to find another image, or even take one myself. I left the image where it was on-topic - unlike some other editors there. I plead with the editors here to not allow one editor to harrass a group of people by embarrasing them. We don't put the images of the prophet mohammad on the cartoon page, why would we treat a christian religion any differently. Abeo Paliurus 21:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore - the addition is awkward since there are already so many pictures - Abeo Paliurus 21:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
This is not a cartoon, it is a straightforward illustration. There is no intent to ridicule inherent in the image. I don't see anything embarassing about it either, as the faces are not visible. I think this page does have too many pictures, but I'd keep this one since it is one of the more interesting ones and certainly not the only religious undergarment in the world. Many beleif systems have things they consider secret that are discussed and illustrated on Wikipedia, but we don't remove them because that group is uncomfortable with them being shared. Doing so is the silppery slope to censorship. If you don't like the image, don't look at it, but no religion has precedence here when it comes to content. pschemp | talk 22:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the article contains too many pictures, but it is not fair to accuse another editor of doing something for the purpose of embarrassing a group. FYI, the Mohammed cartoons do appear on Wikipedia so there are no double-standards. As the Temple Garments are very distinctive I think that the image does contribute to the article.Pontificake 22:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
the photo contributes nothing - it's insertion was intended to ridicule, as anyone familiar with anti-mormon literature knows. distinctive? with the exception of certain details not even visible in the photo, the male garment is identical to regular men's undergarments you can buy at any wal-mart. also, i'm not myself mormon. 02:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The photo illustrates what is stated in the accompanying text. Wikipedia does not allow censorship. Leave this image where it is. Removing it again will be considered vandalism. Duke53 | Talk 03:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have proposed a compromise on the LDS garment page. Someone can take a photo of some run of the mill undies, that resemeble Mormon underwear (they are really not all that different than contemporary non-Mormon underwear), and have a caption that says "Mormon underwear is similar to those shown here". This way, we have a depiction of the clothing without offending Mormons by using actual underwear. Bytebear 22:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No, then we would have a depiction of something 'similar' to the actual object rather than the current actual item, a step back from where we are now. See my counterproposal over at the other talk page. I consider this 'proposal' to be an end run to censorship. Duke53 | Talk 00:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I too think the LDS Garments photo should be removed from the article. The text itself may be ok, but The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has never released general public photos of those two piece garments and as such, the photo is unverifiable and generally disrespectful. 23:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow censorship; if the picture is so upsetting to you, don't look at it. The LDS church can dictate what goes into their publications; they do not have the right to do that here. Duke53 | Talk 00:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about censorship Duke53. This is about including unverifiable and possibly inaccurate information into a wikipedia article, all in the name of anti-censorship. I vote that this picture be removed. As was previously stated, the LDS church has never released public pictures, in reference to the garments, and should therefore be treated as non-notable. For all we know, the picture could be completely wrong. The only word we have that this picture is correct is some random wikipedia user. Quit harping on "we don't allow censorship" and do what is right. If this picture stays, then you will be stating that Wikipedia allows for potentially inaccurate images to be included with their information.Phefner 04:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If you continue to vandalize articles you will be barred from editing at Wikipedia. The picture does not have to come from the LDS church; they do not control what appears in Wikipedia. Duke53 | Talk 05:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Duke, you are real close to be banned yourself. I sincerely question your "neutral" point of view on this topic. Of course the LDS church doesn't dictate what is on wikipedia, that is not the debate at hand. The debate is that you are putting non-notable photographs into your articles. I urge you to remove the picture before another mod is dragged in to this. Besides, after doing a little research, I've noticed that you have quite a few "LDS" articles that you've added this picture to. Is this a personal vendetta that you have against them, I didn't think that was allowed in Wikipedia? Phefner 05:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Duke, you are real close to be banned yourself." Do tell. If you noticed the names of the articles you would be able to see why they are relevant to the article. The picture, after much debate, will be staying in the articles. Wikipedia does not allow censorship. Please stop with the personal attacks or I will report you; that behavior is definitely not allowed here.
Bytebear, persistant deletion of the article is vandalism, especially after the long discussions we have had here. Duke53 | Talk 05:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Duke, you are not assuming good faith. Please stop with the threats. Bytebear 05:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

A thought: The LDS temple garments are probably the best-known example of religious underwear, at least in the Western Hemisphere. The picture is not inherently to ridicule; the simple fact is that not everyone knows what the garments look like, and it's not the LDS church's place to say that they can't be shown on Wikipedia. Haikupoet 05:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe the photograph is totally to ridicule either, however my problem lies with the notability of the photograph. Phefner 05:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Duke, Wikipedia also doesn't allow the uploading of non-notable photographs as well. My apologies for the "you are close to being banned yourself" comment, that was spoken out of emotion, and I do apologize, but my argument still stands. Post a notable picture that can verify the authenticity of your claims, otherwise it should be removed. Phefner 05:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

A little background: This discussion has been hashed out quite a bit on the Temple garment page, and the image has been cleaned up to make it less obtrusive, but it is still unverifiable and I believe unnecessary in this article. Duke is a bit of a crusader for the inclusion of this image. He uploaded it originally and claims to have permission for it's use. This issue has never, and probably will never be resolved, and the image will be removed and added time and again, and threatening good faith users is not the solution. Bytebear 05:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
"He uploaded it originally and claims to have permission for it's use". Good faith? Hmm ... I gave all the pertinent and necessary info about the original photograph and the means for anyone to verify it. The original was more pertinent until someone decided that it 'looked' better rendered almost as a cartoon; the original is still available and could be put back in place very easily. Duke53 | Talk 06:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not LDS and I find the idea of sacred underwear a bit silly. BUT -- using a WP article to conduct some sort of "embarrass the LDS" crusade is just plain wrong. Duke can get his own web page and fill it with underwear pictures if he likes, but he can't use this article for his purposes. Perhaps this has reached the point where we can ask to have Duke banned, as having exhausted the community's patience? Zora 06:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Perhaps this has reached the point where we can ask to have Duke banned, as having exhausted the community's patience"? The entire community? You do what you think that you have to do, and I will do the same. This picture is relevant to this article. Ask yourself one question though: What other pictures here have been deleted on a regular basis? It is clearly a select group who seem to be repeatedly deleting this photo. Duke53 | Talk 06:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I am up for any solution you feel is appropriate, but I think it should be initiated by those who have no stake in the image debate itself, but rather are looking at the disruptive nature of the user in question. Certainly there are plenty of people who dislike the image, and Duke is the only vocal proponent of it's use in this article, so I want to make sure he is given a fair shake. Bytebear 06:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we settle this?

I'm sure I'm not the only one here who's tired of seeing this picture getting yanked in and out on a weekly basis. It seems to me that there are several questions here we should address:

1. Is Mormon underwear of sufficient significance to be mentioned in the article?
2. If so, should there be an illustration of it?
3. If so, is the disputed picture suitable for this purpose (i.e. is it verifiable as an accurate depiction, is it free of copyright problems, and does it show clearly what makes this underwear distinctive)?

My own answers would be 1- yes; 2- probably yes; and 3- I have no idea. What do others think? Clearly Duke is intent on inserting it and some others (presumably Mormons) are intent on excluding it; what we need is a consensus of those in neither camp. Rodparkes 07:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I've reverted the last removal, with my reasons in the history summary, but I'll repeat them here. Mormon temple garments are likely the best-known form of religious underwear in the English-speaking world, and as such are perfectly representative of the phenomenon. Their existence is common knowledge and pictures (such as this one) are readily available. There is no reason to not have a picture here. On a personal level, coming from a religious background that is quite open about its doctrines and symbols (though not its practices), the Roman Catholic Church, and now being a member of the secularist/humanist tradition, which prizes openness as a major virtue, I don't really sympathize with the LDS contributors who feel that their religious symbols shouldn't be shown in public -- to me, it's sufficient that they be shown without being ridiculed or defaced. But that's only my personal opinion. Haikupoet 07:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to the questions put forth by Rodparkes: 1-yes; 2-I don't see why not, but sensitivity of some readers to its depiction is not a good enough reason to keep it out per WP:NOT#CENSOR; 3b- no idea; 3a,c- possibly, but a suitable reference with images for comparison would make it easier to establish the accuracy of the image. The drawing Mormon_garments.jpg‎ could be used in place of the photo until its accuracy is established, but I think the photo is ultimately preferable if it is an accurate depiction and there are no copyright problems.--Eloil 09:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There are no copyright problems; the original picture (from which this 'cartoon' version was created) would be better suited for illustrating this article. Duke53 | Talk 13:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Really? That's not what the concenus was on the garment page. [1] In fact, Duke53 the only contributor who is not in agreement. And for the record, the only "proof" of copyright is Duke's word.Bytebear 16:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
"And for the record, the only "proof" of copyright is Duke's word" No AGF? :) If you want to look again you will see that I gave the source of the photo and the info needed for confirming it; simply contact Mr. Packham if you are a doubter. I will suggest again that if you want to end this silly debate once and for all that you escalate it to a Wikipedia-wide discussion ... or didn't we do that once? It does get tiresome going through this over and over whenever a new single purpose editor decides to practice censorship; ever look at the Whois reports ? There seems to be a pattern to where most of the anonymous editors reside. Wikipedia doesn't allow censorship by anybody. Live with it. Duke53 | Talk 22:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

For those having difficulty seeing what the group consensus on this topic is, I've compiled a list for you. Remove the unnecessary pictures: Abeo Paliurus,, Pontificake,, Phefner, Bytebear, Zora, myself. Keep the clutter: pschemp, Duke53, Haikupoet, Eloil. Neural: Rodparkes That's 8 for removing them, 4 for keeping them. Please don't distort what you think the consensus is. 11:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You have omitted me from your list of "keep" advocates, and failed to make any actual argument. I've also commented on your user talk on the fact that your obsession with this matter can only reasonably be explained by assuming you to be Mormon, something you vehemently deny. Samsara (talk  contribs) 12:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Message to Mormon would-be censors

As anyone can find from the history of this article, it has been subject to persistent attempts by presumed Mormons to remove the image of their supposedly secret religious undergarments. May I point out to them that they are only advertising what they want to hide? I had never heard of these garments before, and would probably have taken little notice of the image had it not been for the high-profile censorship attempts drawing my attention to it. Rodparkes 09:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reported User: for violation of 3RR for his / her repeated deletion of the image of a Temple garment; despite claims of attempting to 'clean up the article', all they have ever done is delete one image repeatedly. This transparent attempt at censorship should almost certainly be considered vandalism at this time. Duke53 | Talk 15:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I suppose your continual inclusion of the image shows your obsession with Mormon underwear. Before you accuse others, look at your own obsession. This is not a religious article, and displaying such an image is tantamount to showing concentration camps on the oven page. You show your own lack of tact by your continual inclusion of the image. Bytebear 06:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
" ... displaying such an image is tantamount to showing concentration camps on the oven page". Yeah, okay. (Godwin's rule in play here? ) :) Wikipedia does not allow censorship ... no matter who wants to do the censoring; easy concept to grasp, no? Duke53 | Talk 12:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
It also doesnt allow POV, and continually adding something that is tangential to the topic for personal titilation is POV. Your upload of the (original) image, and flooding Wikipedia with it on every page including this one, is POV. We should not censor, but we should also have respect for the subjects we write about, and the image is not placed here with any sense of respect whatsoever. Bytebear 16:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
"It also doesnt allow POV". Your POV is that this garment is sacred ... to a majority of people, it is not sacred even one tiny bit." ... flooding Wikipedia with it on every page ..." Exaggerating much? I placed this image on article pages where it was appropriate, like this one.You accuse me of POV, but it boils down to you wanting to force the LDS POV on Wikipedia. Period. Duke53 | Talk 19:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, they've taken your argument to heart, and are now also deleting the Jewish equivalent. [2] [3] Samsara (talk  contribs) 10:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
After further reverts and an incivil edit summary, the user's talk page is now decorated with warnings for vandalism, civility and 3RR. Samsara (talk  contribs) 11:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that I may not do this properly; this is my first post on Wikipedia though I use it everyday for scientific reference. I would like to clarify a few things for (Rodparkes) and pose a few questions along with a solution. I, being mormon, have never known any mormon that would hide the fact that many of us wear sacred undergarments. Please note that they, to us, are sacred and not secret as has been suggested. Please, if you doubt this, go ask a mormon; most over 20 should be able to answer your questions.

Now, knowing that to us these garments are sacred, please imagine something that to you is also sacred. I hope you can see how shocking and distasteful it must be to find posted such a graphic depiction of two people wearing the sacred temple garment. To me it is disgusting as I'm sure it is also to many others who may cross this page. This must be the reason why the picture is removed by so many people, not because they want to hide it, but because it's inclusion is sacrilegious to them. It can be assumed that many of them lack the technical experience or the time to delve into the inner workings of Wikipedia and thus resort to simply deleting the picture.

I know that many here believe that deleting the picture is censorship. It is unfortunate that in the name of censorship, civility is dashed aside. How can anyone, mormon or not, knowing that this picture realistically depicts something sacred to a large group of people, support it's inclusion? Have you no heart? Don't you care how you affect others? Does this community not believe in being civil one to another? I have found a page "Wikipedia:Five pillars"; though I haven't read it's parts in depth, I can see that censorship is not listed as a mainstay, but "Be civil" is. I believe it is possible to compromise censorship and civility. The picture in question is also found on the page "Temple garment"; wouldn't it be appropriate, in the name of counteracting censorship and maintaining civility, to simply reference that page from this. In doing so, the picture can still be found, but the impact of including sensitive material is minimized.

Does this seem like a proper solution to anyone else?

Some notes: The motives of the user Duke53 should be called into question. The motive of those deleting the picture is obviously to maintain the sanctity of the image. Can Duke53 honestly say that he promotes it's inclusion for the sole purpose of providing useful information. Is it obvious to anyone else that his agenda is to offend mormons? Should wikipedia really be used as a tool to offend rather than to inform? If to offend, then keep the picture; if to inform, then minimize it's use in regard to civility (see above).

More notes: I believe it is highly unlikely that the people who posed for this picture are mormon. Additionally, being that the temple garments are not given freely to the public, it is likely that these garments were either obtained via deceptive measures or stolen. I wonder if it is legal to publish photographs of these clothes if they are copyrighted works. In case it matters, my first thoughts when I saw this picture posted were, "Really? Someone really did that? I can't believe anyone would stoop so low." 10:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

We have heard it all before.
Wikipedia does not allow censorship. Period. 13:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duke53 (talkcontribs)
I realize that you have worked hard to maintain the disputed picture; this shows you must have a very strong reason for including it here. If you wouldn't mind sharing that reason, perhaps it could persuade some of us to sympathize with your cause. Most importantly, I'd like some information concerning your statement, "Wikipedia does not allow censorship. Period." While I don't dispute that Wikipedia shuns censorship, I would like to read more about it's policies concerning censorship; specifically, if Wikipedia does not allow censorship, period. It seems odd to me that a group of civil people could be so one sided, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Could you provide official Wikipedia references at which I may information concerning this?
I would also like to know if you truly believe that removing the image from this page but being sure to include references to another page which contains the image is actual censorship. Do you believe in civility, not just to one group, but to all people? Is the suggestion I made, in your opinion, not a just compromise between civility and combating censorship? I await your thoughtful response. 06:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I appreciate this editor's effort to raise concerns and not immediately remove the image against consensus. Anonymous, in my opinion you raise several legitimate points. Without dismissing those, I think the concern by many here is what sort of balance ought to be drawn between the religious sensitivities of a particular group and the mission of Wikipedia to inform in a neutral way. There are some groups to whom a visual depiction of their revered leader is offensive (see Bahá'í and Muhammad); others (Scientology) do not permit certain teachings to be named or discussed in public, and so forth. If one group's taboo is to be protected on Wikipedia, would it be fair to violate others'?
However, your comment is more nuanced than a simple demand to delete the image completely from Wikipedia. You ask that this article not display the image, because it is displayed in the more relevant article Temple garment, and anyone interested in it can still find it on Wikipedia. I support this suggestion for several reasons:
  • The article is already over-illustrated; omitting one image would hardly be noticeable to the typical reader and would benefit the article by reducing clutter
  • The image is tangentially related to the article subject, illustrating one minor example of one particular use of undergarments
  • The image was added for POV reasons in the first place, as part of a multi-article campaign to offend Mormons
  • The section the image applies to has another illustration for the dimension of religion
  • Nothing is censored by doing this; this is akin to removing an image of Muhammad from the Prophet article but not from the Muhammad article
  • This is a reasonable compromise similar to other incidents (such as the Dutch Muhammad cartoons controversy) where an image known to be offensive was judiciously placed where readers who held the taboo would not be gratuitously offended but readers who did not could still find the image and learn about the subject without difficulty
For these reasons I support the anonymous editor's suggestion, and ask for input from the community here to see if we can formulate a new consensus. alanyst /talk/ 13:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Your objective view is refreshing. I am a realist and understand that we live in the information age; I honestly don't mind this information being accesible to those who would like to know. I can't possibly expect others to hold sacred the things which I do, but I do hope that others will treat those things with respect. I do not advocate deleting the picture entirely, but I do hope that in consideration of civility, it's use be minimized yet remain accessible. Thank you again for your response. 06:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Very interesting timing, this. Another 'anonymous' lds editor suddenly appears and this issue 'should' be reopened for the umpteeth time? Whoulda thunk it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duke53 (talkcontribs) 13:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Yawn. alanyst /talk/ 14:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
"Yawn" Predictable. Second verse, same as the first. Duke53 | Talk 16:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't necessarily oppose the proposal of describing and linking to Temple garment from this article, and retaining the illustration there but not here. I do not think that quite constitutes censorship.
I do have to say, though, as someone who left the Mormon church before the age of 20, that I feel very strongly that this material should be included on Wikipedia, whether some view it sacred or not. The anon IP said that any Mormon over 20 would be able to describe this -- yeah, because Mormons are so secretive about what goes on in the temple, even if you are raised in the religion they won't tell you until you jump through certain hoops. You want to talk offensive, how about the fact that my parents felt like they couldn't even tell me what their religion is all about; I had to learn it through the Internet. To me, the secrecy is highly offensive.
Removing this image from Wikipedia is out of the question. Removing mention of the temple garment from the Undergarment article is also out of the question. But removing the image from the Undergarment article, and leaving it at Temple garment... yeah, that's probably okay, because then nobody is trying to hide anything (which would deeply offend me). --Jaysweet 16:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand your concerns. Thank you for also providing another perspective that it would be offensive to you if the image were deleted entirely; I will take that to heart. I also agree with your position that the image should not be deleted entirely, but can be referenced appropriately from this article and displayed in another. 06:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the anon IP's contention the garments must have been stolen or obtained through deception, though, I say, stop being so naive. Given the massive proliferation of temple garments, of course some are leaked. Hell, the people in the picture could even be Mormons who maybe have a different feeling about whether hiding information is actually a good thing or not. Most likely they are not, but who knows? There are a bazillion different ways people can come into possession of a garment.
Hrm. See, I see why folks like Duke53 are so passionate about including the material here, even though I think there are some questions about it being gratuitous. It's a little bit WP:POINT, but I almost want to fight for inclusion here just to prove, what's the big deal?! If something this fundamental to your religion has to remain unspoken and unseen, then, well, in my mind that is just crazy.
I think that, looking at it objectively, it's gratuitous here. But the fact that people care so much makes me want to include it anyway, gratuitous or not. heh... ---Jaysweet 16:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
So, you are saying that regardless of how gratuitous something is, if it causes a lot of offense, if should be included, just to cause more offense? I am confused. Bytebear 17:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I think I made it quite clear that I think it is gratuitous and from an objective standpoint the proposal of removing the image from Undergarment, but leaving the description and a link to Temple garment is probably the best compromise.
What I am saying is, the fact that certain editors are so concerned about removing the link is offensive to me in and of itself and there is a part of me that wants to insist on its inclusion just to spite the desire for secrecy and suppression. However, that would be using Wikipedia to make a point, which is against the guidelines, so I don't support that position, even though I am tempted to. --Jaysweet 17:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I see. And I agree with your assessment. You will find in the talk archives there have been discussions about how the article would be made better wtih fewer images, and the original image (not much better than the current image) was "cheesy" and was edited as a compromise to make it even less offensive (asthetically). That said, the only argument for inclusion is censorship, but does it really improve the article, or Wikipedia? I agree the motivation for inclusion is POV and WP:POINT, and as such, we should take the argument of "censorship" with a grain of salt. Many non-LDS, non-practicing LDS, and ex-LDS have also agreed that it is not necessary. I don't want to point fingers, but only one Wikipedian has persistantly reverted any removal of the image (by anon LDS or not). The concensus on removal far outweights this one lone voice. But logic is struck down by the ever ready "censorship" hammer, so I doubt this article will ever stand up to Wikipedia standards. Bytebear 17:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The other thing that complicates it is that a lot of the people doing the removal are removing both the image and the mention of the temple garment. I think that a brief description of the temple garment and a link to the article is extremely relevant to that section, and should not be removed... so I'll revert that every time. It's just the image that's maybe a bit gratuitous, since this article already has a lot of images... --Jaysweet 17:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The temple garment is relivant to this article. The details of the garment are not. That is what the other article is for. I think this is a reasonable solution. Bytebear 17:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree too, and greatly appreciate Jaysweet's thoughtful input here. alanyst /talk/ 17:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
If it counts, I too agree. I believe this is a great compromise between civility of the group and assuring the protecting of information. 06:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I thank everyone for his/her input and I especially express gratitude that most here have given level-headed opinions and are willing to consider that we should be civil to all individuals and groups in our quest for providing accessible information. I don't expect to be treated with more respect than any other, but I do hope that we are all provided respect. This, in my opinion, seems much better than the alternative -respect for none. While we are not all mormons, we are all human and as such can respect each other; this must be what maintains the Wikipedia code of conduct, "Be civil."

Though I raised this issue (anew it seems), I'd like to make clear that I'm not calling for the immediate removal of the image. I would like that more thoughtful responses be posted. Specifically, it would be great to hear how others balance the two seemingly opposing subjects, that of maintaining civility to all people and that of providing accessible information (anit-censorship). If, after a time, the group agrees to the compromise, I would support the removal of the image with the condition that the details be kept in place, and another article containing the image be clearly referenced.

I am Quin. I hope that I have not discredited my writings by not creating a user account. 06:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to ask the group though I did make this request from Duke53. Can anyone provide wikipedia references at which I could read about policy concerning censorship? It is only fair that if I request civility from others that I in turn study wikipedia censorship policies and be sure to respect those in comming to a compromise. This is especially important being that the main reason given for reverting the image deletes is, "Wikipedia does not allow censorship." Thank you, Quin. 04:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Here you go. It's quite brief. I'm sure there's been a good deal of discussion surrounding it but I'm not able to search for it right now; maybe someone else happens to have a link handy. alanyst /talk/ 05:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFC Reply

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

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

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

Find something better to do

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

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