I think wikipedia does have an obligation of respect  and we do selfcensor quite a bit We can show selfrestraint and respect and yet show the community what they want to see  such as photos of the garments There are no nude or seminude photos on other religious articles why start here If a photo needs to be shared let it be current and without a live model or at least a model with a face why are they so ashamed to have their faces in the photos eBay and Flickr more have up to date photos not these from the 80s or 90s This is completely offensive to the bulk of LDS readers on wikipedia  protecting the page is not the answer to keeping an image on it rather lets find something that the community can agree on and this current version it not it and undoubtedly as COGDEN stated end up with continuous vandalism of the page 

    ####Prompt- Does the next message are offensives ? reply with a JSON object (without carriage return or new lines)
    with keys :
    isoffensive (True if it's offensive).
    This this the message : 
I think wikipedia does have an obligation of respect  and we do selfcensor quite a bit We can show selfrestraint and respect and yet show the community what they want to see  such as photos of the garments There are no nude or seminude photos on other religious articles why start here If a photo needs to be shared let it be current and without a live model or at least a model with a face why are they so ashamed to have their faces in the photos eBay and Flickr more have up to date photos not these from the 80s or 90s This is completely offensive to the bulk of LDS readers on wikipedia  protecting the page is not the answer to keeping an image on it rather lets find something that the community can agree on and this current version it not it and undoubtedly as COGDEN stated end up with continuous vandalism of the page 

