Talk:Temple garment/Archive 1

message: I think we should switch the sacred nature section and the unauthorized use of the garments.  The sacred nature section is more informative of what the garments.  Whereas the unauthorized use is more a history.  I think unfamiliar people would understand the controversy a lot better if they had more of a background in why they are so important to mormons. 67.177.35.5 06:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving Sections

message: About what age do members begin wearing the garments? I wasn't able to figure out from the article, so maybe that should be included also? cøøkiə Ξ (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does say adult members, which is accurate.  The ritual usually takes place between ages 18 and 24, and often just before marriage or a mission.  These should be covered more in the temple or endowment articles than in this article. It should be made clear that it is common for adult members to wear garments.  It sometimes reads like there is a special class of Mormons who are only allowed to wear them, similar to priests and nuns. Bytebear 20:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My understanding is that it's not really a special class, but it is just those who are able to get and keep a temple recommend, which would be a minority of practicing LDS members.  Friday (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The tone of your statement is slightly off, Friday, it is not something you "get", but something desired for some members.  Though all are encouraged to serve in the temple, a significant minority of Latter-day Saints obtain a recommend and continue throughout their lives to serve in the temple.  One's behavior is closely linked to one's desire.  In addition, a temple recommend holder should not be viewed as perfect; far from it.  Rather, their behavior should be more in the perspective of the requirements of partaking the Sacrament; we must be willing to take upon us the name of Christ.  Cheers.  Storm Rider (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  The thing about the garment is that it is a symbol of a covenant that you make with God - analogous to circumsion being the symbol of the covenant Abraham (and the Isrealites) made with God. As such, once you have made that covenant, regardless of whether you area  current temple recommend holder or not, members will still wear the garment to remind them of the covenant - if they still honor it - even if they have other issues - and some will stop wearing the garment for their various reasons. --Trödel 22:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Age?

message: This article needs more references.  The statement "... incited considerable protest by college students who were returned missionaries." is a good example of bad writing.  How do you know they were returned missionaries?   Were they even students?  Who made this claim? Bytebear 20:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Kaccha seems appropriate to me as a see-also, being another religious undergarment.  However there's been edit warring over the inclusion of this.  It was removed once with an edit summary of "categories take care of this" but I don't see how this is true.  It was removed again with an edit summary of "list all religious gaments or none to keep NPOV. if there is a particular similarity, it should be discussed in the text, not just plunked in a see also" which doesn't make sense to me either.  Sure, it could be compared in the text, but a see-also is sometimes a precursor to that.  I don't see the harm in this being a see-also.  The similiarity is that they're religious undergarments - the only two religious undergarments we have articles on, as far as I can tell.  Friday (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there are Jewish religious undergarments too, just no article. Jus because an article hasn't been written yet doesn't mean that others don't exist. But, here is what you are missing, the category lists everything and this is NPOV, and if you discuss it in the text, you will already have wikilinked to it. MOS says you don't put things in the See Also section that are previously wikilinked in the article. (Not to mention the whole "See also sections shouldn't exist at all camp") pschemp | talk 16:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a see also is a crude way of linking to another article.  But does this mean a see-also is always worse than no link at all?  As probably the most similiar thing to a temple garment that we have an article on, it seems relevant to me.  Friday (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, so rather than take the lazy approach, someone can incorporate the info into the text. There is no rush, this is a wiki. We will live while waiting for the right thing to be done. An incorrect action when the right thing can be done easily is not a good thing. pschemp | talk 17:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you've said makes no sense to me - the "see also" was a step in the right direction.  If it's there, surely there's a better chance someone will work it into the article.  Perfection is not required, articles can improve a little bit at a time.  Friday (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why take a baby step when you can just do it right the first time? Just put it in the text to begin with. What doesn't make sense about that? It doesn't require an expert to do that, you could do it yourself as it would require about one sentence, then there is better chance someone will expand it. There is no point putting it in the see also, when it makes more sense elsewhere. (I won't because I still think its not relevant, but if it goes in the text, I won't complain.) pschemp | talk 17:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because with baby steps, it will eventually be right Abeo Paliurus 18:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doing it right the first time makes much more sense!pschemp | talk 19:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: "Mostly, topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article as free links. The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links as a navigational aid, and it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article."
I doubt the Kaccha would be linked from the article - so it makes sense to put it here. I tend to think that Categories should be used for broad subject areas, and a category with 3-5 articles in it doesn't make sense - where adding the 3 or for links to other religious undergarments does. But wouldn't oppose using :Category:Religious undergarments or something like that for the same purpose. --Trödel 18:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I looked at the category and its somewhat mixed up with vestements and more generic religious garments all together. It could probably use some cleanup. For the record, the original inserter is ok with the category solution (see my talk.) I really prefer the category solution since it is more inclusive. If a topic is relevent enough to be included, you should be able to do it within the text. There is a whole school of thought here on Wikipedia that a See Also section should never be in any article. pschemp | talk 19:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds like concensus - wish it could always be that easy :) --Trödel 19:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kaccha