Talk:Temple garment/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Temple garment. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

John Safran vs. God a reliable source for this article?

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion

John Safran vs. God is a satirical documentary, so can it be used as a source about LDS beliefs? Specifically, it is being used a source to support the statement that some Mormons believe the garments to have protective powers.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kww (talk • contribs)

That looks more like a job for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. // Liftarn (talk)

Not even close to a reliable source, other than for examples of religious satire. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would say it depends. In this case the source was a LDS salesperson saying many of her customers were saved from physical harm by the garments. Now the salesperson may not be a reliable source, but it should be OK to use if it was reformulated. // Liftarn (talk)

It is absolutely a reliable source. A work can be satirical AND factual at the same time. Satire, in fact, is an earnestly serious genre at its heart. Qworty (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a whole class of scholarship for Mormon studies, and I believe these sorts of claims have been analyzed in secondary sources. The current citation is unencyclopedic; it's like using the Daily Show. Cool Hand Luke 12:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point. Both a satire and an encyclopedia can have an impact, but let's hope it's a different impact. --Halcatalyst (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Documentaries can be used as a source even if they are entertaining. Anyway, there is now a second source for the claim so it doesn't really matter anyway. // Liftarn (talk)

RFC responder: Satire is always dubious as a source. Salespeople are always dubious as a source. Statements by a salesperson in satire is thus dubious squared. It does not look to be a reliable source. The additional source is also user generated content, and thus definitely fails to be a reliable source, much as any blog would fail. The sentence still lacks reliable sourcing. GRBerry 20:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd hate to just say "me too", but GRBerry has quite succinctly stated the case. Vassyana (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Safran's documentaries may be a good source for illustrating popular or public perception of a religious topic. However for the hard facts, there are much more reliable sources than a single salesperson in a satirical documentary :-). It is interesting trivia if written correctly in prose. In Seventh-day Adventist Church we're planning to quote solid statistics regarding public perceptions of Adventists. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Consistency in bolding Mormon underwear

Latest comment: 16 years ago31 comments7 people in discussion

It really doesn't matter if this term is "acceptable" to the Mormon church or not. This is an encyclopedia, not a Mormon pamphlet. We are not bound by what is or isn't "acceptable" to Mormons. The fact is that "Mormon underwear" is the most common appellation for these underclothes, and therefore deserves to be bolded, just as the other, lesser-known names are bolded. Qworty (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, let's be aware of the relative recognition of the terms. Here are the Google hits:

"Mormon underwear": 25,200

"Temple garment": 6400

"garment of the holy priesthood" : 2960

Thus, an excellent case can be made that the article should be called "Mormon Underwear." At the very least, under every possible measure and consideration, the term deserves to be bolded so long as the less-used "temple garment" and other obscure descriptions are bolded. Qworty (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

If this article wasn't a hot-button article, I would tend to agree. However, it obviously irritates a lot of LDS members. I don't see that consistency is such a big deal if it gives us less trouble combating censorship/vandalism. There's no reason to wave a flag. We do have a redirect for "Mormon underwear", which is pretty normal for when a common name is more prevalent than an official name.Kww (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I do understand that the history of this article reveals a lot of disruption from Mormon censors, Mormon vandals, and perhaps even Mormon apologists. I'm rather experienced in this area, as I've had a lot of trouble from such editors on articles relating to Mitt Romney and his presidential run. But in the final analysis, this is an encyclopedia, not a wildcat bank in Kirtland, Ohio in the 1830s, and so there is no justificaiton whatsoever for us to be held hostage by the Mormon censors or vandals you are complaining about. Vandalism is clearly against Wikipedia policies, and the fact that vandals may be Mormons has no bearing whatsoever on how their disruptive editing should be viewed or treated. Qworty (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It's neither censorship nor vandalism. It's just a content dispute where most of the disputants on one side happen to be Mormons. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, if it were changed to "Mormon underwear" who would write the section on Fruit of the Looms? I bet that there are more church membmers wearing Hanes or Fruit of the Looms than Garments. -Visorstuff (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Now this is one stupid piece of logic. Based upon what Qworty has stated if the majority of people called African Americans niggers, then the article for African Americans should be nigger because "the majority" uses the term. We do not bold the slang used for every other racial/ethinic group simply because a majority of people are familiar with the term. You really can't be serious? Slang is slang and is not an encyclopedic terminology.

The reason it should not be bolded is because it is not a proper term; not the imagined censorship you profess. Censorship would be deleting the term entirely! You might want to review wikipedia polices because it is obvious that you are sadly lacking in understanding. More importantly, your argument is not strengthened by making accusations when they are so obviously based upon hot air. The stupidity or ignorance of a majority does not make it correct; knowing the correct terminology makes it correct. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I clarified the statement that the term is used by those ignorant of the proper terminology. Ignorance is not an offensive term, but one of fact. However, if someone is offended by it, I believe this article has demonstrated that offensiveness is not an acceptable standard for deletion of factual information; or am I mistaken? If it is good for the goose, it must be just as good for the gander. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Where and wear; geez I am a twit tonight. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. It doesn't matter in the least what results we get from a Google search or what the Average Joe on the streets calls it. What matters is what the clothing is called in reliable published sources. I've yet to see a serious book or academic paper call the clothing "Mormon Underwear", though "Temple garment(s)" (with both capitalized and lower-case "t") occurs fairly regularly. Vassyana (talk) 08:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That is true, but common names do have some currency. We bold "Mormon Church," which most scholars would agree to be slang. I'm therefore ambivalent about bold "Mormon underwear," especially when the slang usage is explained. The main problem I see is that it's a long parenthetical inside of a long sentence. We should make it more readable. Perhaps we should put the other names into a separate sentence. Cool Hand Luke 08:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"Mormon Church" may be slang, but it at least sees reasonable usage in reliable references. I believe that to be an important distinction. Vassyana (talk) 08:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Luke, if you have a suggestion why not go ahead and make the change to the article. I don't see this as a controversial edit, which eliminates the need for discussion. I guess I am really ambivalent, but I think your suggestion may make sense; let's see. The bold was more of a concession on my part and a desire not to cause more waves than I had. Ignorance is not an offensive term, but your term "unaware" is also acceptable. I still find it interesting when one group insists that offensiveness is not a standard to use in editing, but when the shoe is on the other foot, then it gets thrown out the window. I too often see a double standard on Wikipedia. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you might be right Vassyana. Lots of newspapers still use "Mormon Church," for example, but I wonder whether that's really much more reliable than "Mormon underwear." At any rate, Storm Rider's implementation of my suggestion solves the problem by making all of the other names into flat prose. I think it might prove controversial with User:Qworty, but we'll see. Cool Hand Luke 09:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the bolding because it did not look right to me; do you think all the terms should be bolded? Is there a manual of style that can direct us in this area? Qworty's persona taste are irrelevant; no single editor owns any article. What we are seeking is to improve the article; that is my sole objective. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Luke, I don't think it's good form but it is a title reliable sources use often enough. As I said, I think the important point is whether or not reliable published literature uses the terms or not, not whether they are popular or correct. Vassyana (talk) 09:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

SR: I agree. Moreover, removing the bold is stylistically correct if we break this into a separate sentence. Boldface is not normally used after the first sentence. Vassyana: that's true. In fact, what it means for a term to be "correct" isn't clear, as in the dispute at the now-retitled Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. Use by reliable sources is the standard. Cool Hand Luke 09:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, WP:BOLDFACE is a bit different, and implies they should be bold while the main manual of style says it's optional. I could go either way, but I'll just let it be. Cool Hand Luke 09:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

At this point it is more of a visual thing for me, but I am more than willing to follow the manual of style. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Right now it's pretty awful. the slang term used by non-Mormons unaware of the proper terminology, "Mormon underwear" -- well, first, we'd need some RS that it's only used by non-Mormons; then we'd need the same that it's used by those unaware of the "proper terminology", which I can tell you from personal experience that it's also used by those fully aware of the "proper terminology". It's a slang term in general use, and we shouldn't characterize it more precisely without sourcing. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I reject your comments completely. The fact that it is a slang term is sufficient to note; there are also other terms that have been used, but are you saying that all slang terms should be noted in an article? If you really believe that type of logic, where does it end? Should we also use slang terms for different races? Or do we just list them for groups/things that a majority of the people ridicule, dislike, or hate? This type of logic is dangerous and I see no other area on wikipedia that supports its use. The ignorant use Mormon underwear; I prefer calling them ignorant rather than uninformed. Has has been clearly stated by you and others, simply being offensive is not an acceptable standard for deleting information. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You can call ignorant or uninformed or whatever you want; you don't get to call them that in the Wikipedia article without reliable sources. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Your logic is in error. There is a known correct terminology. If there are those who do not use it and use a slang term of their own creation, it is obvious that they are ignorant of the correct term or that they seek to be offensive. We are talking about the obvious here; Wikipedia does not require references for demonstrating stupidity, ignorance, or even blatant prejudice of others. Their actions evidence enough. Cheers. I love Evangelicals; they are heart-warming examples of Christian love. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, actually, Wikipedia requires references for all those things. We don't get to say something is stupid; we get to cite a verifiable source asserting that that thing is stupid. What do Evangelicals have to do with anything? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing the discussion page with the article; they are separate and with different policies. Please show us the policy that says that when there is a correct term and those who use slang for the item needs to be referenced that their ignorance is not obvious simply by their use of term. Choose; they are either ignorant or purposely being offensive. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You really can't get away with much on talk pages that you can't get away with in an article. People could be being purposefully offensive, ignorant of proper term, ignorant that the slang term is considered offensive, or aware that some find it offensive but don't believe that this is an environment where it is likely to cause offense. Without some kind of reference, we can't explain the reason in the article.Kww (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(new indent) I am not sure if I understand your comment. Are you saying that people use slang because they think it is correct language? Please apply that logic to all slang terms for race. No possible reference is needed for the obvious. Is it a slang term? Yes. Why do people use slang terms? Because they are either ignorant of proper terminology or they choose to use slang. This is so obvious it boggles the mind that anyone argues the point. There is no need for a specific use of slang. White supremists use the term nigger becasue they are just being friendly? NO! They use the term to be specifically offensive to civilized society. This logic is just getting silly; I would urge a little bit of thought on your part. This is one of those situations that will come back to bite you in other areas. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we are really that far apart. It is reasonable to describe it as slang, and I don't think you need a specific reference that says it is slang (although one wouldn't hurt). I don't think you can discuss the motives behind the usage of the slang without specific references to specific cases.Kww (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I think perhaps my statement, It's a slang term in general use, and we shouldn't characterize it more precisely without sourcing wasn't understood. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This is reasonable. As Kww says, people can (and do) use it to be purposefully offensive, ignorant of it being offensive, and so forth. Calling it "slang" or "unofficial" should be enough; no need to generalize oft-incorrect motives about why the term is used. Cool Hand Luke 19:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ambrose Bierce said it best in his dictionary; he called slang "the grunt of the human hog." One of the failings of a public instrument such as Wikipedia is that everything must be presented to the lowest common denominator. The use of slang is multifaceted and motivations for its use is a rather active debate. When slang is use for the beliefs, rites, or ordinances of a religion I for one have difficulty believing that anyone would say, with a straight face, that motivations are noble. I would hope you remember this little conversation the next time you hear someone use racial slang; say to yourself that their motivations are unknown and should not be judged or labeled for just what they are. The tyranny of the majority is a wonderful thing...until the time when you are no longer in the majority. What goes around, will come around; let's move on. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Changeing Mormon underwear to Magic underwear

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

A lot of Mormons call their underpants Magic underwear. They believe that it will protect then from harm and evil demons. I Have Talked to a lot of Mormons and all of them say it's Magic underwear. Would it be possible to change the term from Mormon underwear to Magic underwear.--Anon-kun (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Talking to lots of Mormons is not a verifiable published source. See WP:V. Reliable sources don't back up the claim that Mormons themselves call it "magic underwear." Cool Hand Luke 04:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed these comments as obvious vandalism. Come on. Don't feed the troll. Bytebear (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah jeez. Sarcasm doesn't exist on my planet, so I always miss the possibility of trolling. Cool Hand Luke 04:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

Latest comment: 16 years ago20 comments7 people in discussion

Excuse the ignorance, but I couldn't see this answered in the article: do LDS people wear these garments all the time or only sometimes? What about, say, at the swimming pool? jnestorius^(talk) 00:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it really needs to be covered specifically. Just like any group of people, there are times that they go without underwear.Kww (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; so you're saying it is underwear? The first sentence currently describes it as "religious vesture worn beneath outerwear" which didn't seem at all the same thing (to me "religious vesture" and "underwear" sounded like mutually exclusive categories). I did see that "Mormon underwear" is a disliked appellation, but it might be as well to use the word "underwear" in the opening sentence, in the spirit of stating the obvious. jnestorius^(talk) 00:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Most terms that include the word underwear are considered pejorative. The first paragraph includes the phrase "Mormon underwear", which I really think is sufficient. This is a sensitive subject among the LDS, and, while I don't favor censorship, I do favor keeping it concise and respectful.Kww (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Pejorative? Really? Or just in in this particular case? But the current phrasing does work fine. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of a phrase for Temple garment that includes the word underwear that isn't considered pejorative.Kww (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting coining a name, label, or phrase for the garment; I'm asking for a clearer description. I don't believe the current phrasing works. I personally did not understand from the article that the garments referred to are undergarments. The reference to "Mormon underwear" was if anything misleading in that regard; I assumed the reason the term is pejorative is that the garment is not underwear. If people don't like the particular word underwear, maybe there is a synonym that would avoid offence while being less cryptic than "worn beneath outerwear". (A thesaurus throws up underclothes, underclothing, undergarments. FWIW Tallit katan uses "undergarment" Any other suggestions? ) jnestorius^(talk) 01:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll contemplate what to do, but I'm not going to rush a change in. Kww (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. jnestorius^(talk) 01:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[Outdent.] Kww, as a Mormon I do appreciate your efforts to keep things respectful. I personally would take no offense at the words "undergarment" or "underclothing". As to the original question, LDS people who wear them do remove their garments for certain activities (bathing, strenuous sports, swimming, etc.) but are encouraged to wear them whenever their current activity permits it. alanyst ^/talk/ 02:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The garment is strictly a religious garment used by LDS who have gone though an LDS temple. Its purpose is to remind the wearer of covenants made with God. It would be imprecise to think of them as underwear even though many wear only the garment, thus serving the purpose of underwear. However, others will wear other clothing items over the garment such as bras and normal underwear. Only someone unfamiliar with temple garments would consider them as underwear; it misses their main purpose. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be VERY precise to think of them as underwear since they are meant to be worn UNDER all other clothing. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Storm Rider's points can be put into the article. Currently the only reference to "Mormon underwear" is the info that it is pejorative. (Actually there are other references in the names of several external links and references: not all seem to be pejorative.) In fairness, while I can see how opponents of LDS might provocatively use the term as a taunt in the knowledge that it is disliked, I don't think "pejorative" is an accurate description of the usage by an uninformed person in all innocence as a simple descriptor. How about something like the following (with copyedits, references and corrections as appropriate):

The temple garment is often called "Mormon underwear" by non-LDS. This is disliked by LDS, (?? because of the word "Mormon"; ??) because the expression is used pejoratively by anti-LDS; and chiefly because the purpose of the garment is spiritual. Although the garment is worn against the skin, some LDS additionally wear other, secular undergarments.

"secular undergarments" is a poor label, but Storm Rider's "normal underwear" might suggest the temple garment is "abnormal underwear". jnestorius^(talk) 11:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The paramount rule of editing is: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." So here's an idea: Leave it alone. The subject is fully covered (pardon the pun) in the first paragraph. Further explication not only violates WP:NOR; the word "underwear" simply doesn't merit micro-explanation. It's pejorative, it's inaccurate (my 3rd-generation Mormon grandmother, and she says, all of her friends with sagging and/or incontinent anatomy, wears the usual bits of women's underwear beneath her garment), and dwelling on this non-issue descends to simple voyeurism. Sorry, grandma, about making an example of you. I had to make a point. JuanFiguroa (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"... it's inaccurate ..." Something is inaccurate. From a BYU faq page [1] linked in article: "Having made covenants of righteousness, the members wear the garment under their regular clothing for the rest of their lives, day and night". Duke53 | ^Talk 17:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

JuanFiguroa: My point was, it is broke, so fix it. Having read the article, I failed to understand the nature of the garment until I got clarification from helpful editors here on the Talk page. I attribute my initial failure to understand, not to my stupidity, but rather to a deficiency in the article: a deficiency which might be fixed by adding some of the information from this present discussion. I have no intention of doing so myself, as I am clearly inexpert on the topic. Of course any addition needs sources so as not to constitute original research. I am confident that an amendment to the text could retain the dispassionate tone befitting an encyclopedia, and be concise: no more than a single sentence, perhaps a single well-chosen word. jnestorius^(talk) 23:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I changed the wording; given the number of photos/pictures it would be hard to understand how anyone could not understand exactly what is going on now; at least I hope so. Jnestorious, does it satisfy your concerns. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed it because it's a) undocumented, b) not necessarily true, c) an awkward construction. Moreoever, micro-explanations of simple English words don't help make the entry MORE encyclopedic. They make it less so. Though SR is responding in good faith, the concern to which SR responds appears churlish. It requires overexplaning the self-evident and lends excess weight to small points. --JuanFiguroa (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It is true that I may act churlish; it is tiresome to argue about such silly positions. However, the motivations for an edit have little to do with the value of an edit. LDS related articles seem to attract obnoxious amounts of explanation.

I still think the edit is valid. Juan, LDS are instructed to wear the garment next to the skin. If someone does otherwise, that is a personal choice. I would also say that when instruction is given, it addresses the body of the church as a whole. When particular circumstances arise where it is not practical, such as someone that is incontinent, of course one could not wear the garment next to the skin. However, this is the exception. Also, the current sentence is more awkward; we do not use the term outerwear in English. When it is used it most often used to think of coats, jackets, etc. I request that you revert it or edit it so that it answers the issues stated above and flows better. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"However, the motivations for an edit have little to do with the value of an edit". Interesting to see this comment here; this applies to other editors as well but is often overlooked or ignored by many others here at Wikipedia. Probably more a case of 'who we are rather than what we say' than anything else. :0) Duke53 | ^Talk 16:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Affront v Offend

Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

Reverted because "affront" (see dictionary.com definition) is the more precise word. Precise word choice trumps imprecise words. AuntieMormom (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC) (who made reversion under someone else's login. Sorry.)

The phrase in question is as follows: "Adherents consider them to be sacred and may be affronted by public discussion of the garments."

The definition according to AuntieMormom's source (dictionary.com) defines affront "to insult intentionally, especially openly." I don't think all public discussion of garments is meant to intentionally insult; hence, adherents may be offended. What does everyone else think? Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"Offense" has the connotation of an act done with deliberation. "Affront" has the connotation of acts that while offensive, may have been performed with or without intent.

"Affront" also has the advantage of describing the act, without implying a [over?]reaction on the part of the person offended. It is the milder word. It is also the more precise word, and therefore the more accurate word. AuntieMormom (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand...your connotation-driven interpretations completely contradict the dictionary definitions--that's the only reason I commented in the first place. Dictionary says affront is intentional while you say the opposite. I would appreciate a third-party opinion because we're in disagreement. --Eustress (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is a fascinating conversation. Suppose, Eustress, I grant you your point. The larger problem with the word "offended" is that it impugnes the character of the victim, rather than the victimizer. When one takes offense, one lacks character. When one is merely affronted, one's character doesn't come into play. For that reason, "offend" violates NPOV.

In any event, here is a list, in ascending order, of correct and common responses to public discussion or mockery of sacred things. Pick the appropriate reaction: disheartened, bothered, affronted, disconcerted, consternated, discomfitted, dismayed, appalled, scandalized, shocked, outraged. I'd probably be content with any of those. AuntieMormom (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, let me say I don't have a strong opinion on the word used in this article. However, I must disagree with the assertions you make above about the problem with "offend" and the idea it violates NPOV. The last time I felt offended, and described the experience to others as offending me, was a lecture on energy healing. In the lecture she suggests that single mother stricken by cancer healed themselves by their mental determination not to orphan their young children. As I was orphaned when my mother died of cancer, I was extremely offended and had to walk out of lecture before I made a scene by speaking out against that idea. The next morning at breakfast several people asked why I had left the lecture so suddenly and told them how I had found what she said offensive and had to leave. So I cannot agree that the word implies any lack of character in the person offended. I cannot say that I have ever understood any such implication in that word or I would never used the word naturally in that context. Since I don't find your assertions intuitively correct, do you have any sources backing up your understanding of "offend"?--BirgitteSB 03:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If the issue is divisive enough to cause an edit war, it would probably be best to find a source for that statement. And use the terminology of the source. But in any event settle the issue here, on the talk page, rather than continuing to edit back and forth. It would be a rather silly issue to have to request page protection over.--BirgitteSB 13:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No need for an edit war. I'm perfectly happy to acquiesce to a talk-page-derived consensus. I simply ask for the common courtesy of discussion and consensus before reversion. AuntieMormom (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm ... it looks like you made the change, then 'discussed' it ... are there different rules for you? I also believe that you have the proper definitions reversed. Duke53 | ^Talk 01:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Check again. I made the change. Eustress rv'ed. I changed it back and began a discussion on the talk page. YOU reverted AGAIN without discussion. The rules are: Once the talk page discussion begins, wait for consensus before reverting. AuntieMormom (talk) 01:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

My point exactly ... you made the change with no discussion ... then reverted ... then discussed. Want to show me where that rule is?Duke53 | ^Talk 02:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur. The original should stand whilst debate continues. I also agree entirely with points made by Eustress regarding actual definitions of words, versus personal intrerpretation of 'connotations'. Doc Tropics 03:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Two marking illustrations

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

(Referring to images Temple garment circa 1879 (GSR 1879) and Illustration of symbols on the temple garment) Are both illustrations of the garment markings necessary? The images seem to portray the same information, and removing one of the images would also free up some much-needed space. What say ye? --Eustress (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think space is an issue. Is there a more compelling reason for removing one of the images?--BirgitteSB 19:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope—just trying to avoid redundancy (and save space in the process) if appropriate. --Eustress (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

After four days, no one has yet opposed or supported my idea, so I will take this silence and be bold and remove the Sharpie illustrations, since it is less reliable than the 1879 published illustration. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of contested information

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Several things tagged as problamatic were removed reference diff of combined edits

Garment of the Holy Priesthood{{Fact|date=March 2008}}
The garment is thought to symbolize the "coats of skins" which Jehovah (Yahweh) made for Adam and Eve before casting them out of the Garden of Eden ({{sourcetext|source=Bible|version=King James|book=Genesis|chapter=3|verse=21}}){{Or|date=March 2008}}. It is worn, in part, to remind adherents that they have made special oaths and covenants to God. Members of the LDS Church today are commonly clothed in the garments, together with outer temple clothing, for burial.{{Fact|date=March 2008}}
These marks were a reverse-L-shaped symbol on the right breast, a V-shaped symbol on the left breast, and horizontal marks at the navel and over the right knee. These cuts were later replaced by embroidered symbols.{{Fact|date=March 2008}}
~~The most recent major change took place in 1979, when the Church offered a two-piece garment.~~ While most often white, the garment is also made in brown and sand colors for regulation military use. ~~Today, many styles of garments may be purchased at a church-subsidized cost at a location near each temple or at special distribution centers.~~ One must show the clerk a current temple recommend as part of the transaction. Garments can also now be purchased online from the Church's Distribution Center by members who have to provide the date of their birth, the date of their Endowment ceremony and their membership record number. (marked unreferenced by a general tag)
LDS members use their garments as a standard for what attire they wear to maintain a modest dress standard.(marked unreferenced by a general tag)

Please do not restore any of this information without addressing the concerns listed by a citation.--BirgitteSB 19:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding #3: This information was in the middle of sourced paragraph discussing each symbol in detail. I did not notice this until I saw where it was restored. The fact tag and removal were inappropriate as the information was already sourced. The rest of the tags seem valid to me, (outside of the invalid one that is still on the article).--BirgitteSB 13:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Everything here is verifiable, I believe. For example, Number 5 is supported by Packer, who stated: "The wearing of such a garment does not prevent members from dressing in the fashionable clothing generally worn in the nations of the world. Only clothing that is immodest or extreme in style would be incompatible with wearing the garment. Any member of the Church, whether he or she has been to the temple or not, would in proper spirit want to avoid extreme or revealing fashions." I don't know offhand on what page that is found, because I'm looking at the online version. The first sentence of #4 is supported by this LDS Church official source. The last sentence of #4 is supported by this official source]. I'll try to insert these back into the article. COGDEN 01:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I was meaning to come back and spend time on more citations here but forgot about it. I know the current ref #7 (Religion Dress and the Body) had something to say about item number 5 as well. I also notice that with time passing it now appears from the talkpage that I contested and removed these items from the article. I did not, but since that person did not explain their edits on the talkpage I went ahead and left the standard talkpage message I usually leave when removing material. I think that it is a good framework to use when things are contested especially on contentious topics.--BirgitteSB 01:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Analogy to tallit katan is original research

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The analogy in the previous version of the introduction of the garment to the tallit katan is original research unless backed up with a source that actually makes that comparison. Therefore, I'm deleting the reference. COGDEN 02:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Policy reminders

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There's a lot of vandalism on this page. Would it be helpful to include information on the talk and edit pages for this article informing new editors to Wikipedia of basic editing policies? I was thinking something similar to what is used on Order of the Arrow (see here and here), which is another organization that has some information it tries to safeguard. --Eustress (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

An edit notice that popped up and said something to the effect of "Images are included in this article that many LDS members find offensive. Wikipedia policy is that such images should not be removed on that basis. Removing them will be treated as vandalism." might be in order. The main problem is that even after editors are told that our policies don't considered sacredness to be a valid reason to remove the images, they continue to edit-war over the issue. Being able to treat the first edit as vandalism would at least expedite things a tad.—Kww(talk) 22:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Per the manual of style we shouldn't mention the article itself. I removed the recently introduced self-reference.--BirgitteSB 04:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Who added this 'feature' ?

Latest comment: 15 years ago29 comments6 people in discussion

Warning: An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive. Your edit is attempting to modify one or more images whose placement in this article has been subject to consensus. In order to prevent vandalism, only administrators are allowed to modify these images. Please ask for assistance at the talk page if you wish to continue this change. If you believe you have received this message in error, you may report this error. I was attempting to remove an annoying link which restricts surfing back to WP when I was presented with the message above. How did this get added to the article with no discussion ? Duke53 | ^Talk 13:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILTER. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you report the problem at Wikipedia:Abuse filter/False positives?--BirgitteSB 13:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm more concerned about 'why and when' this was installed ... whatever happened to consensus ? Duke53 | ^Talk 13:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatever happened to it, it won't get fixed by (a) talking about it here, and (b) not actually trying to fix the problem. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 13:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand Jpgordon's comments above ...what better place to talk about consensus than here ... the 'problem' wouldn't have to be 'fixed' if it hadn't been put in place without consensus. Duke53 | ^Talk 13:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That your edit was prevented was very likely a bug. I checked the history of the filter and has worked as advertised when an IP tried to remove the images on the 17th of April. There is a wide consensus for using this filter to prevent common vandalism edits. There does not need to be a discussion on this talk page to use the filter for such common vandalism was that covered by the wider discussion about implementation. When it is not working as advertised, you should report the bug in the place where it will be examined.--BirgitteSB 16:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Kww has reported the bug Thanks.--BirgitteSB 16:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"There is a wide consensus for using this filter to prevent common vandalism edits" Could you point out where this 'wide consensus' was discussed and agreed upon ? Duke53 | ^Talk 17:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILTER started as a proposal and is now a guideline. Discussion, including changing the proposal to reach consensus happened on the associated talkpage; starting at Wikipedia_talk:Abuse_filter/Archive_1. There were links to these discussions around the project.--BirgitteSB 17:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this ANI discussion precipitated the recent problem.--BirgitteSB 18:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Recap

Long story short: A request for this filter to be placed on the Mohammed article page resulted in the placement of this filter on the Temple garment article page, after virtually no discussion. This entire episode took place in less than five (5) hours ..... cool. Who ever would think that WP worked in this fashion ? Duke53 | ^Talk 14:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

So what's the harm? It was an accident, it can be fixed. What's the point in decrying it as an act of injustice when it could have been resolved without any outcry? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Does the term 'consensus' ring a bell with you ? Duke53 | ^Talk 14:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

p.s. We must have different ideas about what 'accident' means ... this was no accident. Duke53 | ^Talk 14:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I really don't understand your objection. You and I have both reverted removals of these images multiple times, using edit descriptions that described the image removal as vandalism. The consensus to have the images in the article is long established. The problem with the edit you are trying to make is a bug which will be fixed. What action has been taken that you believe is unsupported by consensus?—Kww(talk) 14:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding that filter with almost zero discussion and no consensus? Is a request by a single user usually acted upon this quickly and in this fashion? I'd say no. Duke53 | ^Talk 15:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Presuming to speak for Dragons flight, I expect that he reviewed the history of the articles in question and verified to his satisfaction that there was a vandalism problem and that consensus for the inclusion of the images had been reached. That's pretty easily verifiable on Temple garment. As it stands, if someone wants to remove the images, all it takes is to achieve consensus on the talk page. Once that happens, any requested admin could and would remove the images.—Kww(talk) 15:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You failed to address the concerns that you asked me about.

Now another filter won't allow me to make that deletion because it would be not 'constructive'; how many filters are in place on that article? Oddly, filters didn't prevent another editor from deleting a link to a non-lds associated link. Duke53 | ^Talk 15:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a separate question. The filter was intended to prevent image removal. It used to be a public filter (until someone parsed the code and figured out a way to abuse it), and, when I looked at it, it seemed very straightforward, and like it would only block removal of the targeted images. There isn't any kind of conspiracy to prevent the removal of Mormonism endorsed external links. What part of your objections are to the designed function of the filter, and what part of your objections are to the bug?—Kww(talk) 15:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

1) I don't think that the filter (or any other filters) should have been added to that article without a consensus by editors.

2) If the filter isn't doing its intended purpose, remove it until it can do what it was intended for. Right now it is restricting legitimate edits at that article. Duke53 | ^Talk 15:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I only just now got online and saw the error report. The filter has been disabled (which frankly someone else at AF should have done sooner, but that's a secondary issue.) This was originally written several weeks ago, by request at WP:RAF. During those weeks it functioned correctly, but someone at ANI pointed out that the specific logic used could be exploited for evil, and so the logic was hastily changed yesterday. Obviously, those changes broke something (I don't yet know exactly what). I ran the normal tests for false positives yesterday without seeing any, but obviously there is some larger issue here. As also mentioned at ANI yesterday I intended to follow-up with the affected editing communities, but hadn't yet had the opportunity (and obviously didn't anticipate a spate of bad matches in the interim). Dragons flight (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe I have fixed the problem in the logic which was causing these false reports. (Sadly, the bug was of the head slappingly dumb variety.) For now I'll leave it disabled, so people can discuss whether or not you want this functionality here. Dragons flight (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that once everyone has some time review how this stuff works and how it came about, there will be no objection to implementing the filter. Most everyone here has numerous reverts of these illustration removals in there contributions. It is a constant problem and just the sort of thing the filter is really good at dealing with. Thanks for updating us on the issue.--BirgitteSB 22:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely I think a working version of this filter is a real boon to this article (and Endowment (Latter Day Saints), which this filter also protects). I really hate policing the image removals from this article, as they can escalate into nasty confrontations at time.—Kww(talk) 22:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I also feel that a working version of this filter would be wonderful ... and I agree that the ability to circumvent the filter be limited to admins, B U T I also feel that every article that has these type filters in operation should have a notice telling we commoners that they are in place. Thank You. Duke53 | ^Talk 00:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: I've created a parallel discussion for consensus at Talk:Muhammad#Image_Protection_Filter, since this filter also relates to Muhammad images. That discussion provides a bit more technical detail for anyone who is interested. Dragons flight (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Based on the general support here and at Talk:Muhammad, I have re-enabled this. It should be working correctly now. Please tell me if there are any additional problems. Dragons flight (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank You, Dragons flight. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

EL in question

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I noticed that one of the external links ([5]) is a plagiarized version of a section of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism ([6]), so I opted for the direct link. ELs are supposed to provide further information, and it would probably be nice to have an official in-depth explanation of the subject matter (from BYU). It's the same information as before, just from a more reliable source. However, Duke53 objects on the grounds of maintaining NPOV, so now both ELs are listed. One needs to go. Thoughts? —Eustress ^talk 19:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he had a problem with the BYU site trapping his browser, and not letting his "back" button work. I had no such difficulty. You might want to test it. If it truly traps browsers, I agree that the link should go.—Kww(talk) 20:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I don't know that you have accurately characterized Duke's motivations. But in general I think that the "Encyclopedia of Mormonism" info should be incorporated into the article and the link converted to a proper reference. It really isn't external link material, it's source material. Not that I mean to imply any or all of the other external link are properly external link material either. I honestly have only examined your link in depth.--BirgitteSB 20:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The edit summary is "Remove annoying link which does not let you return to WP by hitting 'back' button". I took it at face value.—Kww(talk) 20:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I edit-conflicted with you, hence (ec). So I was referring to Eustress's characterization. Sorry for being unclear.--BirgitteSB 20:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The edit summary I was responding to was "Let's keep NPOV, okay? No need to delete THAT source." (diff), where Duke made it so both ELs were listed. If it traps browsers (as Duke responded to in his second edit following my edit), then the secondary, less credible Lightplanet link should be listed. However, both IE and Firefox allow me to return to Wikipedia, so I feel the direct source should be used. —Eustress ^talk 21:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I took my own suggestion, although there is probably more info that can still be integrated into the article.--BirgitteSB 22:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing referenced info

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Please don't remove cited material. Every time I take the effort to properly cite information to reliable sources, people start removing some of it saying it isn't correct. I do not make anything up, I only add stuff based on sources. I very well could make a mistake in interpratation. If that happens, please tweak the writing towards a more accurate phrasing. But don't remove it altogether. If you really think the info is unfixable and must be removed, then use the talk page so we can figure out what the problem is together. Because I am not adding things without any basis. Edit summaries are not discussion tools, they are log entries.--BirgitteSB 04:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The language in question is very odd. Garments are only worn after one has been endowed. The initial language used indicated that garments were required to enter the temple, which is not correct. Baptisms for the dead are most often performed by youth and unendowed members, which obviously negates the wearing of garments. "Required" is odd wording. No one checks to see if individuals are wearing their garments when entering the temple, thus the "required" seems to distort reality. All endowed members are expected to wear their garments day and night, but if they do not wear them few would every know unless they wore immodest or revealing clothing that would demonstrate the lack of an undergarment. I have not checked your reference, but it does seem to lack context because of these obvious deficiencies. --^StormRider 14:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing he context I missed about endowed adults. The extended quote from the source is:

“

The white undergarment worn by those members who have received the ordinance of the temple endowment it a ceremonial one. All adults who enter the temple are required to wear it. In LDS temples, men and women who receive priesthood ordinances wear this undergarment and priestly robes. The garment is worn at all times, but the robes are worn only in the temple

”

--BirgitteSB 15:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

ref 24

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is this perhaps meant to be "Arthur" rather than "Berg". I don't see a citation for Berg and the page number seems to match the Arthur text.--BirgitteSB 03:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of sockpuppetry

Latest comment: 15 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

Not surprisingly, Bytebear has made a false accusation against me and then avoided this page and the sockpuppet report page since then. This same type behavior has also been seen before from other editors; any credibility Bytebear may have had must surely be questioned now by all other editors. I have been wondering if this behavior isn't merely just a bit of 'lying for the lord'. http://www.mormonwiki.org/Lying_for_the_Lord. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 15:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there something in your post that is supposed to be about this topic or is about improving the article? I see nothing helpful in it. Please focus solely on the article and the topic and not other editors. Cheers. --^StormRider 21:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yay ... right on cue the calvary shows up to save the day! Oddly enough, you had nothing to say when the pro-lds editor (Bytebear) posted his lies (which weren't on-topic), but then again you also have lied in the past about me using sockpuppets and I'm still waiting for that apology. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 00:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You are so of a one trick pony aren't you? Seems like it would get boring for most, but for you, you are going to ride it into the ground.

So are you saying that was on topic or not? It is unclear. I would not be too worried about being accused of a sock puppet. You are not the only rabid anti-Mormon in the world. I can see why some confuse you.

If you are waiting on an apology, please just hold your breath. Cheers. --^StormRider 01:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

•"If you are waiting on an apology, please just hold my breath" (huh?) That's says about as much about your character as most people need to know. Thanks for playing. Cheers. :) Duke53 | ^Talk 01:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

In all fairness, Bytebear's speculation on sockpuppetry was equally unhelpful and off-topic. The identity, religious affiliation, or favorite brand of mustard of editors here is pretty much irrelevant to the question of how one version of the garment illustration compares to another. alanyst ^/talk/ 22:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but wasn't that conversation deleted or at least hidden? I should have just deleted his edit with the reason and moved on. Ignore editors and focus on the topic. The current picture works. --^StormRider 22:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This section is important to the talk page as it illustrates how some editors will lie to affect changes in the article. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I never lied. I raised my suspicions (not the same as an accusation, by the way) and did not violate any Wikipedia policies in doing so. Your response specifically violated WP:CIVIL. I have been civil. I have avoided responding. You are continuing to choose to attempt to escalate a situation that I consider long settled. And I suspect you will continue to do so. I will not comment further. Let the other editors deal with you. Bytebear (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't your assertation that nothing 'conclusive' was determined by a 'moderator' about me using

sockpuppets a lie ? Hint: YES! Also, that a 'moderator' 'understood' your reasoning wasn't true, either :). "What a wicked web we weave .... " Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Byte, this is a useless conversation. The only lesson to learn is that editors should use care when alleging another editor is a sock puppet; please use that accusation sparingly in the future.

However, what you know for a certainty is that this particular editor is a troll. His objective is devoid of any benefit to Wikipedia; his only interest is to argue on talk pages. My advice to you is to stop all commutation with him. He has repeatedly proved himself incapable of working cooperatively. Move on and ignore what he says. In doing so, I promise you will have a better day.

Lastly, discussion pages are only for the purpose of improving the article. All other discussions such as this little diatribe of silliness is not acceptable and can and often is deleted. Cheers. --^StormRider 19:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I am the same IP from above. I have redacted my comment that was deemed off topic. As my last note left here was reverted carelessly with it, I don't appreciate your allegations that I am a troll since my contribs on different IPs say otherwise. The comment I redacted was deemed off topic enough to be moved into its own section, was not replied to, and the others were struck out well within policy, so please leave it this way. 68.3.165.84 (talk) 06:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

correct and accurate.

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

thank you for posting this .I appreciate this article .I learned alot about the subject and think it was fairly and accurately described in a non judgmental matter .Thank you . Amanda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.156.64.143 (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

floating underwear picture

Latest comment: 12 years ago28 comments7 people in discussion

The picture looks strange, almost cartoon-ish, alien like and a very bad photoshop as well. A pair of ultra bright white underwear floating in deep space. Whoever 'shopped it, you should have put planets and nebulae in the background if you were going for a comedic effect. I know it made me laugh. :) I've gotta say, this is almost as bad as the picture on the semen article. 70.190.199.33 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC).

I agree with you 100%, but at the time of that picture being included I was 'outvoted'. The original is still available as a 'replacement' if needed. Duke53 | ^Talk 14:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

And as the photoshopper in question, I'm happy to admit it's not professional quality -- but I assert it's a lot better than the original, which was widely agreed at the time to be garish and unduly provocative. Duke53 and I will surely never see eye to eye on this, so I will not argue this with him (and I concede the last word to him if he wishes it). Anonymous, if you'd like to come up with a better alternative, by all means do so; I feel no particular pride of ownership for the image that would prevent me from supporting something that would be more aesthetically pleasing while remaining properly encyclopedic. alanyst ^/talk/ 14:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm certain that I could do better than the image in question, since the clearest depiction would be either a mannequin or a human model wearing the garment. If I did so, it may suffer the same fate as the original photo. The original was fine, the background was somewhat busy and distracting and I believe if it was going to be edited, the photo should have been edited in a way to remove the background, not the human model to where the garment looks as if its floating there. The original image should have stayed as per WP:NOTCENSORED, quoted from this policy:

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer). Anyone can edit an article, and changes made are displayed immediately, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms.

It looks like censorship to me, amazing really that an article having to do with religion, editors can completely ignore policies and censor images that aren't remotely offensive to the majority of people. It also seems to me from an outsider perspective, that the user who uploaded this photo has had a campaign run against him by editors or anonymous users who have some involvement with the LDS or articles pertaining to them. Yet articles with non-encyclopedic photos that are put up by exhibitionists or trolls, where the general consensus has been to remove the photos, continue to stay up (article above is a good example of such.) If this article's image has to be censored for the sake that a small percentage of people find it provocative, I am surprised the criticism of LDS page is allowed to stay up as well.70.190.199.33 (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion about editor identity

I suspect anonymous user 70.190.199.33 is a sockpuppet of Duke53. Those are the only two that are in support of this, and user 70.190.199.33 has responded 3 times disguising their IP as if they are separate individuals. Bytebear (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

•If you suspect that then by all means report it as such ... I will be waiting for your apology. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

•p.s. If it is proved that I have used a sockpuppet here I will leave WP forever ... if it isn't proved will you leave WP forever ? You talk about some people having 'no balls' on your user page: do you have balls enough to take me up on this ? I'm betting not. :) Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

How about you reviw WP:Civil before commenting further. Bytebear (talk) 03:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Just as I suspected: 'all hat, no cattle'. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Please review WP:Civil before commenting further. Bytebear (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a very cookie-cutter response, I almost should have expected as much. I have seen this on many talk pages, and this besides that Wiki appears to me to be a bureaucratic nightmare, is what has held me back from actually signing up to contribute. I can assure you that I am not Duke53, and I have honestly made no efforts to disguise my IP. If my IP appears to change, it's because I'm using a public wi-fi network where the IP isn't static and seems to changes periodically. If you believe that I am Duke53, then you should probably take this to sock-puppet investigations and have someone with CheckUser confirm that I am not that person, nor have I ever talked or otherwise interacted with him/her. I am just a user who prefers to be anonymous for the above reasons I mentioned, and when I see something that I feel is unjust or perversion of Wikipedia policy I like to voice my opinion on the talk pages. I have contributed to Wikipedia under several IPs before, which as I said before, is the result of dynamic IP on this network. I know you probably don't want to believe this - but there are many anonymous users who aren't sock puppets, and we don't always agree with the supposed consensus that was reached. Yet, we are always accused of sockpuppetry. That can be said for many Wiki articles - if an anonymous user comes along and happens to go against the "consensus" we are automatically a sockpuppet of whichever user is most adamant against it. I do believe now more than I did before, with your comment, that this user has had a campaign run on them. Sad to say, its probably going to be worse simply because I decided to voice my opinion here, and it happens to be in agreement with them.68.3.165.84 (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you have a lot of knowledge of Wikipedia, but choose to stay anonymous. I will assume good faith for now, but I think it's worth investigating. I also wonder why you, clearly an experienced Wikipedian chooses to remain anonymous. If you want more respect, do not respond to your own posts as if you are another user. It causes confusion and suspicion. Bytebear (talk) 02:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

[Off topic comment redacted]68.3.165.84 (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have initiated a sockpuppet investigation into this matter, since it seems that my accuser was not inclined to do so. It is located at here Feel free to add to it. Cheers. :) Duke53 | ^Talk 20:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The censorship argument carries no weight here. The informational content of the two images is the same: they both depict the temple garment, which is the subject of this article. The photoshopped image removed elements that were unnecessary for the portrayal of the garment, including elements that were gratuitously provocative to a segment of the readers (as acknowledged by non-LDS editors: [7], [8], [9]). The editors involved in the debate over the original image at the time were all in favor of the second image, with the sole exception of Duke53. (See Archive 6 of this talk page; the previous archive pages are also very useful for background.)
Since that time, although there have been numerous drive-by removals by those who feel the garment should not be depicted at all on-wiki, the editors who do accept WP:NOTCENSORED have not touched or challenged the photo. Now, of course, consensus can change. If Anonymous thinks that the opinion of the community is likely to have shifted since 2006, they can upload a new version (or bring forward the original) and invite the community to choose between it and the currently used one. I will be vehemently unconcerned about this. alanyst ^/talk/ 15:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

•"(as acknowledged by non-LDS editors: [10], [11], [12])" Nothing in those 3 diffs you provide identifies any editor as non-lds. Creating an argument out of whole cloth, are you ? Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No—the diffs do not themselves reveal the editors to be non-LDS; they reveal what the editors felt about the content that was removed from the image. The context of the preceding months of discussion as found in the archives, however, does make it clear that they are not LDS; and if you doubt it after reviewing the discussion, you can certainly confirm it by asking them directly. What's the opposite of whole cloth, I wonder? Half cloth? Hole cloth? :) alanyst ^/talk/ 03:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"the diffs do not themselves reveal the editors to be non-LDS" ... "you can certainly confirm it by asking them directly" Or, conversely, you could ask them, since it is you declaring them to be 'non-lds editors'. It's not my responsibility to verify your claim. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Awfully good of you to 'hide' that section with no provision to add to or edit it. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can add further remarks in the hidden section; just edit this talk page and find the location where you want your remarks to go. The intent is to allow users who might not be interested in argumentum ad hominem to follow the main line of discussion, and to discourage the off-topic stuff without forcibly ending it. For your convenience, I have moved your note about the sockpuppet investigation into that section. alanyst ^/talk/ 21:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You may consider these false, baseless accusations as argumentum ad hominem but be assured that I find them a form of childish, petulant attacks meant to annoy and embarrass; the continuation of such behavior will always met head on by me. Odd that some editors don't see their own incivility, but accuse others of it. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Alanyst, do NOT edit my talk page remarks again[13]. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 01:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I do beg your pardon. I fixed a broken wikilink and removed what appeared to be a stray bullet character. I didn't realize that you wanted them that way. It's the compulsive proofreader in me coming through. :) alanyst ^/talk/ 03:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about 'compulsive proofreaders', so I suggest you read [14] so that you're familiar with what WP says all editors should do. Cheers. :) Duke53 | ^Talk 03:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to view the original anywhere on the web?—Kww(talk) 20:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Here it is, [15] as sent to me. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Not as bad as I had feared from the discussion. I think I prefer the floating in space look, but I would have a hard time thinking of the original as particularly provocative or lurid.—Kww(talk) 21:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This debate seems to be settled. Good! Since the article is about the garments, the edited image demonstrates them admirably without distractions. However, there is nothing provocative about the original image, far from it. Wiki images are altered all the time from the raw capture - cropping, color saturation and contrast changes, camera distortions corrected, etc. This is just an extension of that. The actual garments aren't significantly altered. The image is similar to way the J. Peterman company displays their garments in their catalogs and website. Just clarification and focus on the pieces instead of the people. OK by me. Wordreader (talk) 23:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

terminology

Latest comment: 12 years ago14 comments9 people in discussion

many people know the term only by magic underwear. The point of including the reference is so that those outside of LDS can make the connection bewtween LDS members saying "garments" and secular persons saying "magic/Mormon underwear" or whatever other term might be used. Magic underwear as a phrase is not sactioned by the Mormon Church, but nonetheless is a legitimate usage of English to describe something. By the logic of those who wish to take out the reference because they they do not like it, we should also emove references in Wikipedia to 'Niggers,' 'Papists,' 'gimps,' 'spastics,' 'urban format radio,' 'queers,' 'Mongoloids,' 'Mexican Jumping Beans,' 'broads,' 'dames,' 'retards,' and all pictorial depiction of Mohammed. Further, we must then remove 'The Netherlands' in favor of 'Nederland', replace 'Japan' with 'Nipon', and list Fort Collins' intentionally mispelled newspaper as 'The Coloradoan [sic]' instead of merely using the proper term 'The Coloradan.'

The fact that a limited demographic may not care for the term, does not mean the term is invalid.

I am not recommending or condoning the term 'magic underwear', merely providing those who may not know the full context with a place to learn the full background. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.58 (talk • contribs)

Absolutely not. There are probably people that only know many people or things by derogatory slang, but that doesn't justify placement in the list. Your examples are quite good: homosexual doesn't include the term "queer" in the lead, Catholic doesn't include the word "papist" as a synonym, African-American doesn't say "a.k.a. nigger". It just isn't normal to include derogatory slang synonyms as a part of the definition of an item.—Kww(talk) 05:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have moved to reference. like I said, the point is not to condone but to inform. the new placement makes the info available without legitimizing it. also, before you speak in absolutes (i.e. Absolutely not), understand that doing so reveals a lack of higher education and an inability to engage in academic discourse. not trying to insult, please understand, just trying to help you so that in the future when you attemt to make valid arguments you do so in a legitimate manner. There is nothing "absolutely" flawed in my possition, and furthermore you state "Absolutely not" but never show which part of my arguement your possition of absoluteness intends to refute.

furthuremore, Wikipedia DOES refer to 'niggers' and 'papist' . . . they have entries all their own! I do not believe 'magic underwear' should have a legitimating entry all its own, just that it should be discussed SOMEWHERE in the article so that the uninitiated may make the connection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.58 (talk • contribs)

Policy-wise, one problem with the information you've added is that it is cited to a website (mormonstudies.com) that appears to be a self-published site which does not meet the standards for reliable sourcing. I've done a quick Google search on "magic underwear" to see if there are any better sources but the results all seem to be self-published sites, most of which use the term to denigrate Mormons, not to discuss use of the term itself.

Slang, due to its distracting effect in an article, should IMO be used only if it's established to be notable, and even then used extremely judiciously and for better reasons than "someone might want to know what that term means". (Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage, or jargon guide.) To draw a parallel, students at many universities will come up with very creative ways to denigrate their rival school or members of its community. Even if such terms gain widespread use, there's nothing that sets one term apart from the rest as particularly noteworthy unless reliable sources start commenting on it (for example, because it's controversial enough to be reported on or has been studied for its cultural significance). alanyst ^/talk/ 06:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

In the event that that is the only term a person knows, entering it will bring them to this article anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magic_underwear&diff=191170325&oldid=191170127 —Kww(talk) 20:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As will Holy underwear, a term which I gather is actually used by Mormons, although it has an unintended and humorous alternate meaning. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This "FAQ",[16] written by a Mormon with a sense of humor, uses the expression "Holy Underwear" in a question about a quarter of the way down the page, while using the term Temple Garment in the answer. No "magic garment" to be seen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

In fact, if you google [mormon "holy underwear"] you will find a lot of entries, but offhand I don't see any that suggest that "holy underwear" is anything more than a colloquialism among Mormons. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been a LDS for decades; I have never heard any LDS use the term "Holy Underwear". LDS use the term "garments" when referring to Temple Garment. There are many, many derogatory names used from Rocky Mountain Jump Suits to Magic Underwear to Holy Underwear; none of these terms are acceptable. When someone is trying to be funny, you will use the term, but none of these terms would be used by a LDS in common conversation. -^StormRider 22:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The item I cited was written by a Mormon, but as noted, his answer to the question only used the terms "garment" and "Temple Garment". I have a friend who has relatives who are Mormons, and he reported the term as Holy Underwear. In fact, until he elaborated, I thought he was joking. My guess is that it's a "nickname" or colloquialism - just as "Mormon" itself is (according to Mitt Romney). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Your example is anecdotal. Mormons do not typically use the term "Holy underwear." They use the term "garments." I've been Mormon for 30 years. 66.75.28.139 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC).

If there is a nickname used by LDS members (especially returned missionaries), it would be "G's". Previous editors are right. Virtually no Mormons use the term "Holy Underwear." --Manway (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe the article says that Mormons call these garments "holy underwear", it says that it's *a* name for them, meaning it could be used by non-mormons. That's confirmed here. tedder (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd also seen the term "Garmies" used in a newspaper article. Unfortunately I have no reference and am not sure whether it was meant to be a colloquialism used by their wearers or a perjorative term used by non-Mormons. Anyone else aware of this? Epeeist smudge (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

we called them "garmies" or "G's" when I was a missionary. Unfortunately I have no references about that. --Man way 17:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

An even cursory google will show that "garmies" is widely used as a nickname for temple garments with hits from both Mormons and ex-Mormons. 12:21 15 Sep 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.161.39 (talk) 05:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hand made

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There seems to be an effort to indicate that LDS Church members currently can make their own garments. A 1977 New Era article was provided as supporting evidence, which as been countered with the applicable section in the Handbook 2, demonstrating that that is not a currently allowed practice. What's missing is something official stating when this changed. I remember it happened after the church consolidated & expanded it's Beehive Clothing manufacturing center (see: Wells, Elayne (Feb. 3, 1990), "'Our labors take on an eternal aspect'", LDS Church News {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)) but I can't find anything on lds.org or ldschurchnews.com announcing the policy change. I'd like to be able to do more than just give a ~35 year range wherein the change was made, so is anyone else able to find a usable ref? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)