Misplaced Pages

I also reject the argument that this photograph is similar to a depiction of Muhammad. Has the LDS church made some decree concerning photographs of the temple garments? Is it a grave sin to photograph the temple garments on live models? Are we potentially inciting violence? The Bahá'u'lláh article had some controversy over the inclusion of a photograph of Bahá'u'lláh and a very amicable compromise seems to have been found. I wish we could operate in a similar spirit here. shotwell 13:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to pop you bubble, but would you please show me where a majority of editors voted that we need to meet Duke53's standards on articles. If you can't demonstrate that he was voted WIKI God, I suggest it does not matter a hill of beans what Duke53 wants. We write articles according to Wiki policies; after that there is no standard; certainly not a DUKY standard we have to live by. I suggest you keep those delusions of grandeur for your own blog and off Wiki pages. Storm Rider 18:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you keep your personal attacks off Wiki pages. --jpgordon 19:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Jp, you and I have a difference of opinion on the meaning of a personal attack. Would you please explain why you would accuse me of such an action. Duke, not once, but several times has stated that everyone must meet his specific desires for quality, type, and resolution. Further, he has gone so far as to insist that we meet his personal objectives. I have never once, before this date, heard another editor set himself/herself up as king and god of Wiki, but I reject all pretense of such a position or action. I await your enlightened explanation of how my statement was a personal attack. Storm Rider 20:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Referring to another editor as having "delusions of grandeur" is a personal attack as would be accusations of any sort of psychopathology, as does your references to "king and god of Wiki". Feel free to attack the position; do not attack the person. It doesn't matter that you think it is justified. --jpgordon 20:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

As in that wonderful show Forest Gump, "stupid is as stupid does". The behavior demonstrated by demanding, insisting, and requiring others to meet an individual's personal standard is not acceptable on Misplaced Pages. If my comments were interpreted to be a pesonal attack, I deeply apologize. However, those actions and statements, those of acting as if one had been recognized as a king or god, are not acceptable nor will they be respected. In fact, they should be bluntly ignored by all editors.

Each editor is worthy of respect. We gain additional respect by demonstrating expertise and objectivity in editing. Conversely, respect is lost by demonstrating a lack of expertise and subjectivity in editing. I hope to never see anyone insist their standard is the standard for the rest of us to meet again. Storm Rider 20:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the classic non-apology apology. "If someone was offended, I'm sorry." How can you possibly reconcile "each editor is worthy of respect" with "they should be bluntly ignored by all editors"? Duke53 was perhaps speaking too strongly -- expressions like "I insist" tend to cause negative reactions; I'd have expressed the same thought simply by citing the relevant Misplaced Pages policies, and asserting the intention to make sure the article adheres to them, without personalizing it. But his point is correct. --jpgordon 20:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

jpgordon, since I do not accept the pro-Mormon POV here at Misplaced Pages, Storm Rider seems to have a big axe to grind with me most of the time; his idea of 'getting to me' also include false allegations, such as using sockpuppets and committing 3RR violations, each of which he has done recently. I am letting him build a trail of such behavior before I do something about it officially. (Funny that nobody has even mentioned that some user may be using a sockpuppet on this very page; at least there is some appearance of it) Duke53 | 20:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know and I don't care about the past history; all I know is what I see here. --jpgordon 20:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That is what you are seeing here ... more personal attacks. Duke53 | 20:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, did my comment spawn all this? I could have repeated the same thing Duke53 wrote, but it was easier to write "Duke53's standards". I see why it was taken the wrong way and perhaps I should have chosen my words more carefully. shotwell 21:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"Hmmm, did my comment spawn all this"? shotwell, your comment did not start this, it is just another in a line of attacks against me by certain editors. Duke53 | 22:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's move this along. "Something officially" sounds ominous; makes me want to run for the hills for safety! At least it is an appeal to higher powers so a change is apparent and acknowledged. Let's move on. Storm Rider 21:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Unlike other editors, when I make an official complaint about someone breaking the rules I won't have to lie about the circumstances. :) Duke53 | 22:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Duke, you get to do anything you choose, but lie. First, this has nothing to do with this article and you repeatedly attempt to bring up irrelevant issues on a multitude of articles. Please focus on the just the article and topic at hand. Second, mendacious statements does not aggrandize an individual's position, rather it blatantly exposes one's behavior. Please learn to state the truth about matters; particularly when it is so easy to demonstrate the truth of the matter. Third, do not take things so personally. You are an editor; no more and no less. You are but one among thousands. If your behavior garners you corrective action from others, the first thing to do is stop doing what you are doing. It is your behavior that is the problem. It is not you as a person. I hope you have many more happy days editing Misplaced Pages. We need a diverse group of editors to maintain neutral articles. Cheers. Storm Rider 22:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It would have helped if you knew exactly what 3RR consisted of before you made your 'report'. In your eagerness to malign me, you screwed it up. You cannot change the definition of 3RR. Nice try. Funny that you should link to proof that I didn't violate 3RR, but that another editor involved did. :) You were told so on that page; your insistence still that I did violate 3RR then shows your true intentions. The only lie there was yours.

I did not use sockpuppets, even though you desperately wanted to believe that I did. Another nice try. You exposed yourself for exactly what you are ... you are the one who lied; my behavior has been much more honorable than yours. I have never been the subject of 'corrective' actions; have you?

You can attempt to cram LDS 'truth' down anybody's throat that you choose ... it simply will not work with me. I would suggest that if you decide to report me again that this time you do it with factual evidence, not with distortion and innuendo that is not even close to being true. Grind your axe as much as you choose; I don't have to take that behavior without commenting on it. Duke53 | 22:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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. (Richman9)

Discussion started by user:Myclob

Motivations

Of those who want to keep the image and the article

(All these motivations will not apply to everyone who wants to keep the article, but we should be honest that some of the motivations apply to some of the people who want to keep it). myclob 18:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

1. To educate those who know nothing about Mormon Underwear. myclob 18:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
2. To humiliate Mormons by showing pictures of Mormons in their underwear. myclob 18:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
3. To make Mormons seem ridiculous by showing a picture, that has no context. myclob 18:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC) You have to admit that those who do not like the Mormon church would be drawn to this article. I'm not saying that everyone who is editing this article is anti-mormon, but the most highley motived editors would tent to be anti-mormonmyclob 18:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
4. To exemplify the fact that Misplaced Pages is not censored. Some highly motivated editors simply have a strong moral belief that information should be free and available regardless (not because of) of the offense caused to others. Please remove/strike the above statements that some motivations are to humiliate Mormons or make them seem ridiculous. Attributions of those sorts of motives have no place in Misplaced Pages.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
   • You've actually stated two different reasons here, but it does not diminish the fact that there are those (not necessarily on this talk page) who hold the above motivations. I know a handful of contributers who, in real life, devote a significant amount of time to identifying the flaws they perceive in Mormonism, creating and distributing anti-Mormon literature, etc., based on their own religious beliefs. It is their right to do so. In similar discussions, the points they raise are nearly identical to those above contending the photo should be displayed. You can see then, why it is difficult to differentiate between those honestly seeking the publication of knowledge for its own sake, and those with significant personal bias. Also understand that outside of Misplaced Pages I have never seen a public portrayal of the garment where the intent was not humiliation or ridicule. Given the nature of the topic, the attribution of such motives is certainly appropriate. More importantly, whether users on this page have such motivations or not, some on the other side of the argument will perceive them to be so. Ignoring such a perception removes context from the debate. We cannot understand why others respond the way they do until we understand their motivations, expectations, and perceptions. TAGregory 20:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
     • Eh. Their motivations etc. are irrelevant. How's this: I have no anti-Mormon motivations. ("Some of my best friends"; and since I live in Nevada, I know a fair number of them.) In my opinion, the only difference between LDS and most any other religion is that LDS was invented/revealed more recently than most, and we know by whom, when, and where. If there are not other sites where the garments are portrayed without anti-Mormon intent, then all the more reason to picture them here, where people will be able to learn the pure fact of the matter (what the things look like) without any argumentation or rhetoric about them or Mormonism. I do wonder why the historical drawings we link to don't suffice; perhaps we could get a release for those and include them in the article? --jpgordon 20:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
     • (edit conflict) Regardless of what you have experienced outside Misplaced Pages. Attributions of those sorts of motives are inappropriate and unacceptable here. If you wish to understand others' motivations etc. I suggest you ask them. That is the only way to truly understand them; through dialouge. If you insist on assigning others' motivations on your own, Misplaced Pages strictly limits you to assuming good faith motivations. The above statements are prohibted by Misplaced Pages policy and they do not help this issue whatsoever.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 21:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

re "Their motivations etc. are irrelevan" You obviously know nothing about conflict resolution. I'm not an expert, but took a 400 level class in college. The essence is that you discuss interest (motivation) not positions. That is the only way you can come to (yes I know it is a cliche) win-win solution. Once you know the interest of everyone partisipating (common interest and apposing interest) then you can find a solution that meets everyones interest. Other wise you are arguing over conclusions, and there is no way to compromise. I shouldn't have to prove that I know more than you. Look up conflict resolution, and you will see that I am right. This is the only way to find a solution. Brigitte. Me thinks though doest protest to much. I did not accuse anyone of any specific motivation. My goal is to brain storm the motivations of those on BOTH SIDES of the issue. Please help me by putting those motivations you believe to be most valid towardst the top of each list. I want to find the probable motivations (interest) of those on both sides of the issue.myclob 04:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

re: "Please remove/strike the above statements that some motivations are to humiliate Mormons or make them seem ridiculous" You want to silence the belief that anyone could be using wikipedia to further their political perspective, or world view? To assume that no one who edits wikipedia has any motivation (interest) besides forwarding the truth is niave. And you have not responded to any of the arguments that point out that all truth does not need to be explored. If you want to live in a black and white world, were all truth needs to be shouted from the mountain tops, no matter who it harms, you will live in a very violent world. Should you use wikipedia to expose those whom you know that have elicite affairs? Should we show pornography? Pornography accuratly shows what it is looks like for people to engage in certain activities. To make over simplistic statements like we are just trying to find the truth, or expose the truth sounds fine, but the world is more complicated than that. People have a right to privacy. What type of underwear someone wears fits within that right, especially when they view that garment as a simbal of their religious commitments.myclob 05:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read Misplaced Pages:Assume Good Faith: criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. I will not respond to any of your arguments while you continue to include the assumptions that some editors wish to humiliate Mormons, etc. I do understand what you are trying to do. However it is not the way Misplaced Pages does things. It is not the way dispute resolution is done on Misplaced Pages. Assuming bad faith motivations is not acceptable here.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 13:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Of those who want to get red of the image and the article

(All these motivations will not apply to everyone who wants to keep the article, but we should be honest that some of the motivations apply to some of the people who want to keep it). myclob 18:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

1. To hide the truth myclob 18:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Look Bridget, I'm being fair. I'm trying to show both sides.myclob 05:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
2. To maintain reverence for something considered sacred. -- TAGregory
3. The current photo subtly connotes an association with anti-Mormon websites, where it is commonly used. This is counter to the neutral PoV goals of Misplaced Pages. -- TAGregory

Comparisons to Mohamed Cartoons

Similarities

1. Cartoons of Mohamed and photos of Mormon Garments are only offensive to Muslims and Mormons respectively. myclob 18:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Cartoons often ridicule the individual in the cartoon. Photos of people in their underwear, are embarising, and would be displayed to also ridicule.myclob 18:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Differences

1. Severity of the response, between Muslims and Mormons.myclob 18:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Comparisons to Pornography

Similarities

1. Photos of sex, show what it looks like to have sex. Photos of Garments show what Garments look like. You could say these are educational, however they illicit an emotional response (by some). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.87.160 (talk • contribs)
2. Photos of sex, and photos of Garments are not necessary on an encyclopedia. You could imagine what they look like (people having sex or Mormon Garments) and because some people find them offensive, we should not show them (this is my opinion. Please do not erase. I have given you an organized format for sharing your opinion also).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.87.160 (talk • contribs)

Note - when people look up sexual acts on wikipedia, they know what they are looking for. When people come here to look for info about temple garments and see the attached, they will be suprised. It doesnt' meet the standards set by the florida case a few years ago. -Visorstuff 01:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Differences

1. More people think photos of sex are offensive. Only a minority of people (Mormons) think photos of Mormon Garments are offensive.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.87.160 (talk • contribs)

Examples of other places were wikipedia does not show images, because some people find them offensive.

(With each of these someone could make the same argument. "Your just sensoring the truth". If I want to see what blank looks like, I should have that right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.87.160 (talk • contribs)

1. Goatse, a common pop-culture reference in the tech community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TAGregory (talk • contribs)
2. The cartoons of Mohamed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.87.160 (talk • contribs)
3. Pictures of every sex act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.87.160 (talk • contribs)

Umm...

1. • Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
   • This does not compare because we would accept a picture of the garments on a manquin and not live people, and there are plenty of artistic depitions of sex that are actually clearer than a photgraph would be. Not line drawing but life-like fully depicted artwork. These pieces of art are better illustrations then a photogragh would be, due the difficulty in getting an angle that depicts sex in real life.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 14:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

My point wasn't to show that they are exactly the same. My point was to show that we sensor ourselves on other issues when people are offended, even though some people do not find these items to be offensive. It is called respect. People who edit this article might want to read about it.

The essential problem

Is it fair to say that the essential problem is that encyclopedic treatment of this particular subject is going probably going to be automatically offensive to many LDS members? I realize this is a sensitive topic to LDS folks, and encyclopedias aren't sensitive. They're rather cold and factual instead, and this is by design. Unless we're going to not have an article on this topic at all, I don't see a way around this. Religious people are frequently not going to like seeing their faith covered from an encyclopedic perspective- it's not very compatible with the "believer's perspective". Can anyone deny that having a photo of this object is simply a desirable part of encyclopedic coverage, same as it would be on many many other topics? I feel like we've veered off into "you're not understanding why we don't like this" land, and that's not relevant to producing an encyclopedia. We're not writing from the faithful, reverant LDS perspective- this is an encyclopedia so we're just trying to be bland and neutral here. The only way to give due respect to the LDS perspective would be to have no article on this subject at all, and I simply don't see that happening. Friday (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Exactly. Scientologists don't like that we have an article about Xenu, but it's hard to honestly write about Scientology without it. Same thing. --jpgordon 17:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

We don't like an article about garments, as much as they do about Xenu, but you've taken it one step farther by including an image.

Friday, i disagree. I think factual encyclopedia articles are not offensive and neutral enough to be agreed upon. It is when something of controversy is added - which is typcially not done in today's encyclopedias - execpt wikipedia. -Visorstuff 01:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you. Are you seriously suggesting that controversial content should be removed because it's controversial? Such a suggestion is preposterous. Plenty of information here are things that certain people would prefer not be here, but we don't use that as grounds for removal of information. This is an encyclopedia -it would not be possible for the project to operate under such conditions. I hope I've misunderstood and you're saying something else, but I can't figure out what that something else would be. Friday (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't take this personally...

You may not be a Mormon hater, but there are mormon haters, and this is were they would hang out...So what is desided by the people who edit this page, may not be very fair to Mormons

Wow, this is just offensive. If wikipedia's job is to fuel religious hatred and bigotry then they have done a good job with this article. Every bigoted anti-religious website between here and hell has picked this up. There are a few editors who can use some training in tolerance and responsible article writing. As a historical note the Nazis published pictures of "sacred" Jewish clothes and symbols to ridicule them. I am sure it was for "educational" purposes too! Heil Bigotry! 64.234.26.109

Please stop with the personal attacks. Comparing the actions of editors to the actions of Nazis is obviously never acceptable. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that activity by Nazis. What an interesting activity. Does anyone have a reference for that? I don't think it would be appropriate for this article, but it would be a valid addition to other articles. It is funny when standing back from an issue that comprable actions are seen.

As I have stated multiple times, I am not against this specific picture being used though I do find it offensive. If an alternative could be found that woud be accepted by the majority of editors, I would support using it. Misplaced Pages is a source of information and it may be too much to ask to respect the standards of other people regardless of beliefs or religion. Granted, it is easier to abuse minorities, but respect may not be an issue or concern appropriate for Misplaced Pages. This slope is slippery and decency quickly becomes the victim of this all-consuming drive to ensure we are not censoring anything. Storm Rider 03:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Is the humans being shown immodestly in their underclothes that is the offense? Would it be acceptable if, say, they were on mannikins? Or laid out flat? Would a photograph ever be acceptable? --jpgordon 03:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Would a photograph ever be acceptable"? Well, here's a little clue as to what we're up against: " If an alternative could be found that woud be accepted by the majority of editors ...". Some Misplaced Pages editors have been known to go to other editor's talk pages and solicit votes on issues like this. Duke53 | 04:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Jp, thank you for the question. I speak for myself only, but I suspect in reality a picture of the temple garment would never be found appropriate by Latter-day Saints. The acutal garment represents covenants made between an individual and God. It may be difficult for others to grasp, and it has been said so many times it may sound trite, but it is very sacred.

One of the reasons that I am not adamantly opposed to the picture is because non-Mormons will only see underwear when they see the garment; the sacredness of the garment can not be represented in a picture. I wonder what is achieved by a picture that is not accomplished by a description? I do acknowledge that we have become a visual society, but sometimes I think it is not the worst thing in the world to show respect to the beliefs of others. I do not have to believe in something before I show respect. Sometimes, as individuals, it is okay to have a higher standard than the lowest common denominator of the society at large. A picture will always be painful to LDS is the bottom line. Thanks again for your kind question. Storm Rider 04:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is time for everyone to give three cheers for Duke53. What a wonderful job he is doing at being helpful. Everyone clap your hands and sing praises to him for his helfpulness and cooperative efforts. Yeah! Duke; he's our man, if he can't do it, no one can. Storm Rider 04:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Everyone knock off with the sniping and snarking, OK? It doesn't help a damn thing. --jpgordon 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 16:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree that the picture isn't great. But it's what we have today. A photo or drawing of the symbols on it would be helpful too. As for what distinguishes them- to me it's more about how they're seen by their owners than any of their physical attributes, but I suppose this is arguable and it's just my (non-verifiable) opinion. Friday (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am open-minded about non-photographic illustrations. However I haven't yet seen one I think is suitable as a replacement. But please show us alternatives here that we can discuss instead of talking about hypothetical illustrations. I am sure there a hundreds of alternatives possible that everyone would find better than the current photogragh. But is a waste of time to talk of the bad qualties of the current photo until these alternatives are availble. Misplaced Pages always prefers poor quality freely licensed illustrations over high-quality copyrighted ones, this is nothing particular to this article.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Honestly it doesn't look like any "normal" undergarments I've ever seen and is quite distinctive. Since there isn't any replacement forthcoming, I don't see the point about arguing about it. It shows no body parts, protects the identities of the wearers and has a very high cloth to skin ratio. Btw, we don't have a picture of Xenu because its hard to take pictures of space aliens, but for scientologists, the mere mention of the name in print is pure sacrilege of the highest order. They've been know to hunt down people who mention it and threaten them with bodily harm. The Mormon underwear is tame compared to that. pschemp | talk 17:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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

You see, Mormon garments are in made in the style of current longer undergarment styles. I can buy boxer briefs, boxer style, and support briefs. My wife buys similar women's styles. The current photo just shows the "longer" underwear style of ten or more years ago. The current photo shows an out of date style, and doesn't provide any educational value on what garments are. If we showed garments from the 1950s they'd resemble longer bloomers or once-peice union jack suits popular back then. Growing up, i had many friends who wore the above type of underwear before going through the temple, so they could get used to a different underwear style they'd be wearing after they recieved their garments. The current photo is old and is used only to satisfy a fetish - it provides no educational value. -Visorstuff 18:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The current photo is being used to illustrate the article. Period. It is the only freely licensed illustration available, therefore it is used in spite of whatever drawsbacks it has in quality. I am sure Image:NSRW Africa Hadendoa.png is an out of date depition of person of the Hadendoa ethnic group and that they no longer wear their hair in such a fashion. However it is the only freely licensed illustration we have so it is illustrating the article despite these flaws. The same is true in this case.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well, using something useless rather than nothing at all is a rather questionable approach. --jpgordon 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 15:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

We describe these things as they exist. If the garment makers don't care to make them visually distinct from normal underwear, this is not our concern. (But, to me they're very distinct from what I consider typical underwear.) Unless you're suggesting that what's shown in the picture are not in fact temple garments, I don't understand your concern. Friday (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The garment makers do make them physically distinct. The photograph does not show the distinction (though, I note if I look way closely, I can barely make out the mark on one knee.) --jpgordon 22:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe we're all already in agreement (except those who object to any picture on religious grounds) that a better picture would be, well, better. When the day comes that we have a better one, we can use it. Until then, what is there to talk about? Friday (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that people seem to think that something useless is better than nothing? --jpgordon 22:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Friday, respectfully I think you are stating facts not in evidence. Could you please share your opinion of the value of the picture? No one has yet stated why the picture enhances the article and what it provides that is not provided by other means. Forget about the numerous and varied reasons that have been provided for not including. I think it may be time to actually understand why including a picture of something so trivial and inaccurate improves the article. Storm Rider 23:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Because it shows one version of the garment. And pictures are useful additions to articles. Text cannot do the same thing a picture does. It isn't trivial, its the *only* illustration in the whole article. It does improve the article because it shows what garment from that time period look like. This "useless" crap is a sneaky way to get around the fact that you are trying to censor the picture. I personally find the picture very informative and so do others. Now, I suggest you find a replacement you consider more suitable, because until you do, this is the *only* hint of what the garments look like that we have and it will stay in the article. pschemp | talk 23:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It serves the same purpose that any other picture in any other article serves: to illustrate the topic. How can this possibly be a matter of disagreement? Why do you say it's inaccurate, unless you're suggesting it's a picture of something other than temple garments? I don't see that I've stated any facts not in evidence, but I do note that most of the people objecting also self-identify as LDS members, and I really don't think this is coincidence. I would suggest that members need to take extra care to ensure that their religious beliefs are not interfering with their judgment as editors. I think we all agree it's not a great picture, but it's the picture we have today and it's free. Perfection is not required. The "numerous and varied" reasons for not including it have all been answered, have they not? The only vaguely sensible one I remember hearing is that it's not current, but the answer there is obvious: if we know when these garments are from, we say so in the caption. Friday (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, pschemp, I'm the only one using the word "useless", and suggesting I want to "censor" the article is kinda silly if you consider what I'm actually saying: I very much want a picture of the temple garments in the article, and I want it to be one that actually displays the aspects of the temple garments that are interesting: not that it's old-fashioned underwear (lots of religions have garment rules or preferences that harken to older time), but that it bears ritual markings that denote the covenant subscribed to by the wearer. A line drawing such as those we link to the page ("pictures of the garment over the years") is more informative; that it happens to have the side effect of being less offensive to those sensitive about it isn't a bad thing, but I don't really care much about that. The Barbie doll picture here is also more informative, albeit quite silly (though not in a bad way.) Note also that I'm not removing the picture from the article, and I'll quickly revert anyone who removes it without consensus. --jpgordon 01:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want a more information about the marks on the garments in the illustration, I am sure you could find some method of highlighting where they appear in photoshop. This is the beauty of a free license, the work can be improved to be even more useful by anyone with the ability. Even a low quality illustration gives a great deal of information instantly that is difficult to piece together from the text. I find the usefullness of the illustration so obvious that I do not know how to respond to your statement otherwise. I think that we will just have to disagree on this point. I find it useful and informative, despite the low quality. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Jpgordon makes an important point above- he's saying this picture is so bad as to be worse than no pics at all. Maybe I just don't have the artistic eye of a photographer, but to me it's nowhere near that bad. It's not great, but it's what we have today and it's IMO certainly better than nothing. The objections of those who want no picture at all, on the other hand, can IMO easily be dismissed at this point as being religiously-motivated, not motivated by a desire to improve the encyclopedia. And while I completely understand such personal biases, they have no place here on the project. Anyone who can't take off their "true believer" hat long enough to function as an encyclopedia editor should probably just stay clear of articles where this is a problem. Friday (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Friday, I think you misunderstand Jpgordon's point. None of the group involved in this discussion will remove the photo on the LDS side once the page is unprotected - on the contrary, we'll revert it back when we see vandalism, as we are supportive of the wikipedia process.

That said, the photo is like showing this photo and stating that all american women wear this type of underwear. While it is true that women wear them, the style of bloomers has changed to this . They are both bloomers, but which looks like is worn? The style in the current photo is out of date.

I think our point is that we want to go on record that this is offensive to a segment of people, and there should be some warning of such on the page. -Visorstuff 18:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Pardon my laughter but the pictures on Penis are offensive to a segment of people and there is no warning on that page. There is no precedent for your suggestion. We are not here to "warn" the members of one religious group. Plus it doesn't matter if its out of date, provided it is labelled as such. That's called "history". pschemp | talk 04:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages's goals. --jpgordon 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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)

Oversimplifications

Oversimplifications by those who want to keep the photo:

• Those who want to keep the photo will say that those who want to get red of the image want to remove "all" controversial content. We of course, only want to remove controversial content that we hold sacred, and no one has any business knowing about (what kind of underwear we wear). So it is an "oversimplification" to accuse us of wanting to remove "all" controversial content.myclob 05:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"We of course, only want to remove controversial content that we hold sacred". That is all fine and dandy in Mormon publications, but Misplaced Pages is not a Mormon publication. I would guess that Mormons make up a tiny percentage of Misplaced Pages users, most of who do not see a thing 'sacred' about these garments or this picture of the garments.

"no one has any business knowing about (what kind of underwear we wear)". It is not up to you to decide what is anybody else's 'business' at Misplaced Pages. I would suggest that if you are so bothered about this material that you simply stay away from it. I know that I avoid visiting articles that offend or disgust me; maybe you should do the same. Duke53 | 12:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Oversimplifications by those who want to get rid of the photo:

• I'm sure there are some...

Common Interest

• Desire to promote better understanding between religion (?)

Apposing Interest

• "Side by side interest"? What's that mean? --jpgordon 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 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 no questions about the copyright of the image; the owner relinquished all rights. 'Sacred' is only one view concerning these garments and has nothing to do with the image being here. An illustration of any article subject adds to the article. It is not for us to question anybody's reason for any image being here, just that it doesn't break any Misplaced Pages policy by being here; this one doesn't break any policy. That is the only factor in considering any image for deletion. Misplaced Pages does not allow censorship. Duke53 | 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 Misplaced Pages on the talk page. Images should depict their content well (the object of the image should be clear and central)."WP:IUP#Content (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#Image queuing 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: if someone is so offended by this image they can simply not visit the article; I do that with numerous articles at Misplaced Pages myself.

As for the other article I would suppose that the talk page over there would be a more appropriate place for discussing it.Duke53 | 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 Misplaced Pages so I can understand your need to respond. --Trödel 22:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Anybody can "understand the motiviations of the different participants" 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 no weight in this conversation. They are not offensive or sacred to many of us. Misplaced Pages does not allow censorship. Duke53 | 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: Remove an image of the actual item to replace it with an image of something 'similar'. Duke53 | 00:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Counteroffer: 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. Duke53 | 00:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)