Talk:Temple garment/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

I recieved this comment, for removing the photo

"This is your one warning. You've already posted on the talk page so you know what the consensus is. Remove the picture again and you will be blocked. "

I did not see a "consensus". How do you see a consensus? Did anyone respond to my assertion that the garmet is just as offensive to Mormons as cartoons of mohamed are to muslims? I like how you threaten to kick me off, without even responding to my argument. Are you going to kick me off for disagreeing with you?

"This is your one warning. You've already posted on the talk page so you know what the consensus is. Remove the picture again and you will be blocked."

No, "I'm sorry you are offended but this is important to keep this here for these reasons..." No responce to my argument... just a threat... myclob 03:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) There really is no concensus to keep the picture. Even though some agree that an image would be appropriate if it is used thoughtfully, the current picture is being used is particularly offensive. Additionally, its being used under as a Copyrighted image in which the artist has irrevocably released all rights to it; however, the poster originally quoted the artist as allowing it for only non-commercial use - a license that is not compliant with Wikipedia policies.

There have been claims that consensus is to keep the image, but that isn't what the concensus above indicates. The consensus is to use an appropirate image, not this one The dilemma is - how do we find one? --Trödel 03:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

And in the mean time, this one stays. Personally I think this one is appropriate, but I wouldn't object to a different one. pschemp | talk 03:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The consensus actually is that there will be an image (and a sketch isn't going to work) of these garments on this article page; this one fills that need. I don't see a mad rush to the door by anyone willing to furnish a different one; that's not my fault. I will remind the other editors that I would insist that any alternative image must have at least the same resolution and clarity as the one being used now. Live with this one or come up with a suitable replacement; Wikipedia does not allow censorship. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I spent a good portion of my evening fruitlessly searching for a suitable and free replacement. I can't even find a poor replacement. Someone said that flickr had photos of this, so perhaps I'm searching for the wrong tags? I spent a ridiculous amount of time tediously shifting through page after page of photos tagged with combinations of 'Mormonism', 'LDS', 'Mormon', 'underwear', 'garments' (and other such words). I never searched on ebay (as someone suggested) because I doubt that I'd find a free image. Surely I'm doing something wrong here? At any rate, I'm done searching and I agree that the current photo should stay if a replacement meeting Duke53's standards cannot be found. I don't understand why this photograph is so offensive. I get the feeling that any photograph would be considered offensive by someone.

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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia. 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 ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 | ^Talk 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 | ^Talk 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 | ^Talk 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 ^(talk) 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 | ^Talk 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.[1] 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 Wikipedia. We need a diverse group of editors to maintain neutral articles. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 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 | ^Talk 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

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.--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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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, Wikipedia strictly limits you to assuming good faith motivations. The above statements are prohibted by Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia does things. It is not the way dispute resolution is done on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. -- TAGregory

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. [Myclob]

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)