Talk:Temple garment

Verifiable source

Because of the secret/sacred nature of the details of the subject, the only sources that will describe specifics will be tertiary ones. I see the primary source being the LDS Church who defines what the meaning behind the symbolism is, a secondary source would be an active member of the church. I consider ex-Mormons to be tertiary sources as they tend to have an agenda in revealing these secrets, and although their information may well be accurate, it often times is not (see Ed Decker). I am proposing a warning about this and other articles that involve secrets that cannot be verified by primary sources. Something like "Because of the nature of this topic, some details cannot be verified with primary sources". If anyone can think of better wording, I am up for that. Please do not make this a Mormon/non-Mormon issue, as there are many many articles unrelated to Mormonism to which this suggestion applies. Bytebear 17:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Is the Nauvoo Endowment secret? That's where the symbolism is described. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see a reference to the Nauvoo Endowment on this page? Where is your source? (This is not accusatory, I just don't see it) Bytebear 18:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can read about it in the article linked to in the first paragraph from endowment ceremony. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you are misuderstanding the ordinal labeling of sources. I personally hate these labels as they are very commonly misunderstood. Forget about all the "primary" "secondary" etc. that really doesn't apply to images at all. I can't really find any mention of anything at all on verifing illustrations. I suppose the that illustrations should not contradict the information in the text (which should be verified), but honestly I found nothing on this topic. I personally know of no precedent for people asking to have an image verified outside of copyright verification.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 21:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My oppologies, I am not referring to the image (which is why I started a new heading.) I am referring to the specifics of some of the content that cannot be verified by a primary source. Let me give an example. Xenu, apparently is an alien ruler in Scientology. Scientology has attempted to keep this knowledge confidential. Therefore, any information about Xenu would be from a secondary or tertiary source, either from an ex-scientologist or from someone who heard something from an ex-scientologist. Given their propensity to sue over any confidential documentation, I would assume there is no official documents from Scientology referring to Xenu available to reference. Therefore, the article should have a heading that says that the information comes from secondary sources, by its very nature. Bytebear 00:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er actually no. The Xenu information comes from documents in L. Ron Hubbard's (the founder of the religion) own handwriting that were published before the community got secretive and copies of the original documents that were smuggled out. If you scrounge around on the internet there are some scans of it available. A perfect primary source, no hearsay involved. The official documents are quite accessable, despite the best efforts of the religion to censor their publication. pschemp | talk 00:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Still you have misconceptions about sources. I will try to explain, but it is confusing so bear with me. Let's say we have document such as the 9/11 report; it is not inherently a source of any kind; just a document. But we are going to use it as a source. We can use it in several ways. If we wish to use it as a primary source on the opinions of the 9/11 committee we could go to where they discuss their conclusions and say, "The 9/11 commitee concluded Foobar about the attacks" (ref 9/11 report). That would be using it as a primary source as your are simply attributing an opinon to the authors of the source without analysis (i.e. they concluded correctly or incorrectly would be analysis). If we want to use it as a secondary source about the FBI's work prior to the attacks you could say, "The FBI had knowledge of several relevant pieces of information prior to the attacks, such X, Y, Z. However the FBI did not know of A, B, C." (ref 9/11 report) That would be using the document as a secondary source because you are using it's analysis of other documents (i.e. the FBI memos, interviews, etc.); you are also trusting this analysis and treating it as fact. In other ways the 9/11 report could be used as teriary source although I think this distintion is fuzzy and unimportant. If you would reference a timeline of the attacks from the document, I believe that would be using it a a tertiary source. This is because a timeline is a combination and sumarization of all other sources. In the end a document is a document and is not inherently primary, secondary or even a source. These terms all have to do with what a persons wishes to do with a document. Of course some documents are easier to use in one way or another; sometimes, but rarely, exclusively. I really wish everyone would stop using these terms as they are only occasionally used correctly, or at least only use primary and ignore the other two. However this has nothing to do the person who wrote the document and what connections they may or may not have to the subject of the document.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 14:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration

I've read a lot of comments that a drawing might serve as a better illustration of the garments, so I made a public domain one with Sharpie and put it up. I'm not necessarily advocating the removal of the photo. Personally like to see them both stay up there for a while while they percolate through the community. Now that there is a drawing up, what do you think? -- Norvy (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite it being made with a Sharpie, I like the illustration better than the photo. Both are pretty crude (no offense), but the illustration is more informative and less intentionally provocative. COGDEN 08:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that the sketch could stay up as a companion to the actual image of the garment; I wouldn't consider it a replacement for the current photo though. Duke53 | ^Talk 12:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you changing the format? Images should just be left at "thumb" because everyone has different screen sizes and can set their own preferences. 255 px looks different in relative size on a 17" moniter and a 25" moniter; thumb does not.[1]--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was setting it in relationship to the existing image; when they are the same size they are in proportion to each other. 275px = 275px on any monitor at any resolution. Duke53 | ^Talk 16:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right the size of the display does not matter. The thng about using "thumb" is just about getting the user preferences working correctly. Thanks for removing the forced sizing.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sketch provides a useful illustration of the markings so I would support it as an addition, but not a replacement. The size should default to "Thumb" for best display. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doc Tropics (talk • contribs) 09:49, 11 December 2006.

As a Mormon i would respectfully like to request that all descriptions of the Garments physical appearance including illustrations and photographs be removed. I'm fine with a description of their purpose and use, but please do not show them or describe them or their symbols. I don't see the need to show such things to the general public. So please respect our religeon. Some things need to remain sacred in order to protect their sanctity. You wouldn't want me splashing you're sacred things all over the internet. 4.179.60.47 20:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-mormon I find your request to be quite unsettling; Wikipedia does NOT allow censorship. I would suggest that you avoid places where freedom of expression is allowed and that you simply stick with mormon owned, endorsed or controlled sites. Feel free to post whatever you choose, but don't make requests that others not be able to do the same. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the word censorship There is a place for respect of other's feelings. For example, comments that would be thought of as gossip should be avoided by each individual. I did not say that any one be forced in any way to not post such information. If they wish to cause offense that is their perrogotive I only requested that out of respect it be removed in the hope that those who did not know it was offensive to others would do so.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.179.60.47 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I agree with you that censorship is not exactly the right word. However, the goal of Wikipedia is to be a comprehensive neutral compendium of knowledge. Certainly, the vast majority of editors on Wikipedia do not seek to cause offense. At the same time, the consensus here is that we cannot also supress information on the grounds that it may cause offense to some, or we could not have articles on evolution, criticism of Christianity, criticism of Islam, criticism of evolution etc. If you read through the talk page archives, you will see that there has been extensive discussion of these issues.--Kubigula (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship is what it would be, let's not kid ourselves about that. I do not go to mormon owned or controlled sites and ask that they include items that they don't believe; that would be offensive. You should respect Wikipedia's values, or not bother to visit here. I object to you trying to force your values on non-mormons. I find that offensive. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you have misunderstood. I do not intend to suppress free expression of knowledge however I wish you would follow in suit with the editors of the article on LDS Endowments, and excercise similar respect for things we hold sacred. We do not appreciate pictures of such sacred thing to be displayed. It is not an act of censorship, merely a request for respect. If you choose not to follow it that is your choice. I respect that choice. I am not forcing my opinon on anyone. Just asking for respect of our beliefs. Knowing of such things is fine and we as mormons freely talk about the Garments, but certain aspects about them we find too sacred to be treated so lightly. I don't see how asking for respect is forcing my values and that of other mormons on you. Please realise that I don't wish to contentious about this subject, but I would appreciate that you be more ambiguous concerning the symbols on the garments and perhaps refrain from placing photographs of them. Not as an act of censorship but as a act of respect for our beliefs. You may offend me and post you're beliefs. I am not asking that you believe what I believe. Its a free country and internet. I have made the changes that I see fit. Revert them if you wish and you will hear no more from me concerning this. I have made my point, and asked you respectfully. Do what you please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.179.57.219 (talk) 05:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I misunderstood nothing. You have edited here at Wikipedia on EXACTLY ONE TOPIC: Temple garments ... which you obviously would like to censor. There is no doubt about what you intended to do and, in fact, attempted to do. To deny it now is ludicrous. Duke53 | ^Talk 14:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did an admirable job making your request known; thank you. However, as a encyclopedia we are not very good about showing respect. We set up guiding policies that can be carried to extremes, but more importantly ensure an even-handedness with all subject matter. In this instance, some people think that seeing a pair of underwear is far more enlightening than not seeing a pair of underwear. As you continue to edit Wikipedia you will see this type of thing again; it is particularly interesting when another's sacred cow is begins to be gored and how readily they begin to think that policiies should have exceptions. We are seldom very good at living up to principles when they work to our personal displeasure. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well do as you will. But just to respond to Duke53, I actually have edited many wikipedia subjects on many occations and infact i have a wikipedia account but It has been a while, and i forgot my password and signin name, thus the lack of apparent history. You shall hear no more from me on the subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.217.206 (talk) 06:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah, we hear that often; easy to say, but impossible to prove. Perhaps writing down that info might have helped. :) Duke53 | ^Talk 14:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See above for an example of NOT ASSUMING GOOD FAITH. Bytebear 06:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New version of photo

I have altered the original photo and uploaded the new version in its place in hopes of achieving the compromise version that editors on this page have asked for. I doubt this will prevent all drive-by removals of the photo, but hopefully it's less objectionable than the original and still sufficiently illustrative. (You may have to clear your browser cache to see the new version.) alanyst ^/talk/ 04:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's an improvement. COGDEN 05:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Nice work. shotwell 06:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this alteration as being a real 'improvement' on the original; there is not a bit more detail of the 'markings' on the garment, which, from many comments on this page, was the biggest criticism of the original photo. The focus of the 'objection' to the original image seems to have changed yet again. Flooding the image with bright white has simply given this image a cartoonish effect. A photo of a garment with higher resolution and detail should still be our objective; this does not achieve that. Duke53 | ^Talk 07:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an improvement. Thanks for making the effort; having simply a picture of the garment in the identical resolution as the first one should remove the majority of the motivations from anons to delete the picture. Cheers for a job well done.--Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the effort this is great work! It is amazing how much better the photo looks without the busy wallpaper from before! More impotantly removing edvidence of the people themselves is a very nice gesture to those that are offended. Hopefully the differences will also make it hard to recognize as the same photo from Anti-Mormon websites. This is certainly now the best freely licensed illustration available. And your work is a good example of why it is important to focus on freely licensed images. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 13:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Totally agree with BirgitteSB - especially as it relates to using free images --Trödel 14:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good change. The picture is still just as bad information-wise, but if it removes an aspect of it tha was unnecessarily causing offense, yay. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, this article got referenced by an outside source. See [2]]. They also used the ugly old version of the photo. Sorry to the offended. Bytebear 23:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McKay quote

The McKay quote has been unsourced for nearly two years, and had been removed at one point. I've poured over sources, but can't find a source. I think the editor who removed the quote did it righfully - it isn't properly sourced, nor do I think he said it in any referencable forum. User:COGDEN introduced the quote, however, we should remove it or attribute the content to another source. Thoughts? -Visorstuff 19:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can hardly agree he did it rightfully when he also removed both pictures in the same edit. I am not sure exactly what you mean by "the quote". What exactly would you like to see removed?--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rightfully part was his explanation of the removal of the quote. I don't think of us here agree the removal of the image was proper. In the editor's edit summary, they wrote "Removed the incorrect citation of David O. McKay." [3]. The editor was right in removing the quote as it is not something McKay said. If you want to attribute to another person, that is fine, but I can't find where McKay said it, and I have a great deal of access to LDS leader quotes. The quote that should be removed reads:

According to McKay, the reverse-L-shaped symbol on the right breast is the "mark of the square", and represents "exactness and honor" in keeping the commandments and covenants of God. The V-shaped symbol on the left breast, according to McKay, is the "mark of the compass", and symbolizes "an undeviating course leading to eternal life; a constant reminder that desires, appetites, and passions are to be kept within the bounds the Lord has set; and that all truth may be circumscribed into one great whole." The horizontal "navel mark," according to McKay, represents "the need of constant nourishment to body and spirit," and the horizontal "knee mark" suggests "that every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is the Christ." ^{[citation needed]}

Where he "stated" this is not cited, nor do any reference of him stating such exist. -Visorstuff 21:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is from David John Buerger's The Mysteries of Godliness. I don't have access to the book right now to see where Buerger got the information, but I'll be in Utah over the holidays and I'll add it to my list of things to research at the BYU libraries. COGDEN 23:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response - we'll wait until your return.

However, my guess is that he makes an inference that since McKay led the committee that made changes resulting in the 1936 endowment ceremony, he (McKay) was the author. It would be similar to saying McConkie OR Monson wrote all the chapter headings in the current LDS editions of the standard works. It isn't true. It would be the committee that wrote the changes, not McKay, and I really doubt he had access to primary documents showing such, however, I've been wrong before, and will be wrong again. Thanks again for looking into it. -Visorstuff 23:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have found Buerger's book at the library and located the source that COGDEN referred to (page 153). Buerger cites a letter or memorandum from George F. Richards, Joseph Fielding Smith, Stephen L. Richards, and Melvin J. Ballard to the First Presidency and Council of Twelve Apostles, 22 April 1936, as found in the LDS archives. Buerger quotes an excerpt from that letter, which reads in part:

Committee recommended and received approval [...] The best interpretation [of the markings] which has come to us up to this time has been supplied by President David O. McKay.

What follows is a bullet-point summary of McKay's interpretation of the garment markings, not a narrative text as might be found in the temple ceremony. The summary quoted in Buerger's book is different in some fairly minor respects from the summary that COGDEN presents in this article; COGDEN's version seems to take some details of the explanation from a source other than Buerger's book. (I didn't have time to copy the summary in Mysteries of Godliness verbatim, so I'm afraid I don't have enough information to make specific corrections in the article. COGDEN, maybe you could do this?) But the overall attribution of that part of the temple ceremony to McKay, at least as of 1936, seems to be pretty solid. Hope this helps. I have added the requested citation using the <ref></ref> style, which clashes with the older citation style used for other references, but I think the newer style is needed for this article. Can anyone else help in linking the other references cited to the particular parts of the article they support? It's not clear to me what information in the article comes from the Asay or McDannell sources. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting blog comparison

For those of you involved in previous week's dispute about the photographs of the Garments, I thought you'd enjoy this blog post. Enjoy. -Visorstuff 18:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Army Garment

Unless they've been changed to go with the new ACUs (I've been out of the Army since before those were issued so I don't really know what has changed), the garments for Army service personnel are brown not green. Green garments would be something of a stand-out, given that every other soldier has brown t-shirts (and is issued brown underwear). All of my army garments were brown... And I think there are blue versions for the navy, but I could be wrong. Maybe there are other options for militaries other than the US's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.69.111 (talk • contribs)

During the VietNam era, when camouflage garments were green, Mormon soldiers assigned to my unit wore green sacred undergarments. I suspect that the safest comment might be one which indicates the garments are made available in colors that conform to those in use for military camouflage, which change from time to time. Irish Melkite 10:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a user here but was just looking at this page and wanted to add, that I am LDS (and in the military) and the church is now putting out garments in the color of the new ACU uniform, that is sand tan colored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.133.206 (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore?

In the following sentence,

Adherents consider them to be sacred and therefore may be offended by public discussion of the garments.

I think we should remove the word "therefore" as POV. I don't think everyone would agree that someone being offended by public discussion of something is a logical consequence of holding that thing sacred. Alternatively we could reword the sentence to say that certain groups do hold to that logic, assuming it is true that they do. --Allen 03:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this situation there are no groups; it is one group, LDS. The temple garment represents covenants made between the individual and God. Some LDS are especially sensitive while other have a degree of comfort discussion them in general terms. As a LDS it does not bother me to have a narrative about what they are and what they represent; more than that is offensive, but that is me personally. Wikipedia long ago gave up any form of "respect" to the sacred. We are an information source and the mere fact that LDS do not like talking about some of these things makes it all the more appealing to small minority of editors.

In this instance I do not see your interpretation of therefore as POV, rather I see it as logical. Do you like discussing sacred things with strangers? Some people are unfamiliar with the sacred and it might be better to ask, do you mind talking about your most intimate feelings with strangers? This resistance to sharing those personal feelings and thoughts is comparable to what LDS feel when discussing the endowment or anything apertaining to it. Does this make sense to you? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I follow you. Sacred doesn't have anything to do with private or intimate or personal. Communion is sacred and I don't know any who practices that who is uncomfortable discussing it with strangers. I don't sacred means what you think it means in this particular case. Maybe a more accurate replacement would be "Adherents consider wearing the garments a scared and very private practice".--BirgitteSB 13:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Holy Communion is sacred just as the Sacrament is sacred; one is viewed as the actual body and blood of Christ and the other represenations. However, these are designed to be communal in nature. In this instance there is no desire on the part of anyone to talk about it regardless of their relgion. However, there are other things of sared nature that are not so easily talked about. The Sacred does become personal and highly reverenced. One instance is the Holy of Holies in ancient Israel was so holy that only high priest could enter. The sacred can easily be sacrosanct. When the degree of sacredness increases to the degree of the sacrosanct, which in this instance it does, it is not open to general discussion. Does this make sense to you? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to agree with Birgitte and I that sanctity does not by itself imply reluctance to discuss a topic in public, and you introduce the word "sacrosanct", which does seem to come closer to implying reluctance for public discussion. Why don't we change the word "sacred" to "sacrosanct" in the sentence I quoted above? I don't see this as a perfect solution for two reasons: first, we're still making our own statement about what is considered logical, when I think it would be better to attribute that logic to a specific group, and second, we would still need a reliable source to show that "sacrosanct" is indeed a term that LDS members use to describe the garments. Even so, I think it would be better than what we have now. --Allen 15:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also should add that I thought Birgitte's proposed wording was fine too; I don't think you said what you thought of it. --Allen 15:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No response, so I changed "sacred" to "sacrosanct". --Allen 03:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sacrosant (Websters): "most sacred or holy; also: having an imputed rather than a genuine sacred character (--institutions that have outlived their usefulness to society)". While I don't think any temple worthy LDSaint would deny that the garments themselves are cloth and thread and are not holy in themselves but as symbols and reminders of sacred covenents, most consider them genuine sacred objects. Misuse, abuse, and public display of the garment are truly offensive. So, if using "sacrosant" implies the garment is not genuinely sacred, I think we could expect some strong opposition. I reverted for now. Best wishes. WBardwin 03:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with you; sacrosanct has meanings that don't work here. Really I think the correct solution is to remove the word "therefore" as I originally proposed, or to go to Birgitte's wording ("Adherents consider wearing the garments a scared and very private practice"). What do you think of these solutions? The problem with the current wording is that sanctity does not in fact imply unwillingness to public discussion. At least other religions, if not Mormonism itself, are full of sacred places, ideas, rituals, entities, and things that adherents are more than happy to discuss publicly. --Allen 03:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would have little difficulty with Birgitte's "Adherents consider wearing the garments a sacred and very private practice". But it truly goes beyond privacy. Finding a word which would get across the intimate (without the current secular/sexual innuendo of that word) nature of the covenant between one person and God which the garment represents would be difficult - but wonderful. I'll think about it. WBardwin 05:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "therefore" as a beginning, along with a copy edit. From the Intimacy article: " Intimacy is linked with feelings of closeness, safety, trust and transparency among partners in a collaborative relationship. For intimacy to be sustainable and nourishing it also requires trust, transparency and rituals of connection." All of these words would apply to a personal covenant made with God, but "intimate" would not imply that to our readers. (Sigh) WBardwin 05:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with this. Removing "therefore" satisfies my concerns. I'm afraid I can't be much help fine-tuning the language to reflect the true meaning of the garment, although my guess is that relatively few readers would mistake the word "intimate" as having sexual connotations when used in a context like this. But I could be wrong. --Allen 06:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit looks good to me. Storm Rider, I am sorry for not responding to you above. I forgot I had left a comment here until I saw the edit on the article. I tend to check my watchlist in the Main namespace more closely than the rest. I really need to prune the watchlist . .. --BirgitteSB 22:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Consistency in bolding Mormon underwear

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Changeing Mormon underwear to Magic underwear

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Question

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

[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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"... it's inaccurate ..." Something is inaccurate. From a BYU faq page [4] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Affront v Offend

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.)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]