Talk:Underwear/Archive 3

Lexicology

What are undergarments, namely underpants, called when you're not wearing pants? Are they simply "overskins"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.200.189.2 (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Though this seems like a joke, I'm going to assume good faith. There's no name for such a thing. And article talk pages are not a forum for discussing the subjects of articles, only how the articles may be improved. — Cheers, Truth's Out There ^–talk– 17:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability

Does anyone have a verifiable source for the picture associated with the above discussion on garments? All I have found is blogs and web published information - none of which seem to meet the criteria for verifiability. --Trödel 17:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Trödel, you might be interested in this question I asked about image verifiability at the Village Pump about 18 months ago; here's the response. In short, the feeling was that images are meant to be illustrative of what's in the article and not documentive, and thus don't have to meet the same standards of verifiability or reliability as article text does. alanyst ^/talk/ 22:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting - I disagree with that line of reasoning - a picture is worth a thousand words is a proverb that often proves to be true in that pictures can misrepresent or accurately represent information.

It would be good, I think, if we could get more views on this issue. At the very least the picture should have a disclaimer of some sort per the response you received. --Trödel 23:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: The previous discussion on this topic, which concluded in December 2007, has been archived at "Talk:Undergarment/Archive: Mormon temple garments". — Cheers, Truth's Out There ^–talk– 18:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder for those that haven't read that discussion. I note that the discussion reached no consensus on the verifiability of the picture or its source. --Trödel 21:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This link at least provides verifiability of the temple garments for men. —Peco! Peco!^TALK 03:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately that page does not provide verifiability. It is written by Vince Hoffer which may or may not be a psydonymn. It was only published on the internet and according to Vance Hoffer site info and there is no evidence of the key requirements for a verifiable source - i.e. there is no evidence of peer-review of the information on the site, and the site does not have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." as required by the verifiability policy --Trödel 14:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Where is the verifiability policy on images, then, am I missing it? —Peco! Peco!^TALK 15:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

After doing some research, I direct your attention here. The burden of proof is limited to the "judiciousness" of the contributing editor, and if the person uploading the image is the creator of that image, no further source information is needed. Cheers! —Peco! Peco!^TALK 17:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how this image meets this criteria "the identity of the image's content (author, manuscript, museum id) must be given (see also Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Images that are not properly identified (e.g. images with descriptions such as "a cuneiform tablet", "a medieval manuscript" etc.) are unencyclopedic and hence not useful for Wikipedia. see WP:IMAGE#Pertinence and encyclopedicity --Trödel 20:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

So we should fix the description. There are plenty of JStore academic articles and websites out there which describe the temple garments in great detail. This photo clearly illustrates them. What sort of evidence beyond that are you looking for with regard to both the encyclopedic value of a very rare illustration of what Temple Garments actually look like in photographic form, and with regard to the reliability of the contents of said photograph? If the author contends the photo contains the photo contains "Mormon Temple Garments" and the photo illustrates what is clearly described on the temple garments page that is heavily sourced, where's the issue here? Fix the description if you think that's the problem. An incomplete description is certainly not a reason to delete the image in question.  —Peco! Peco!^TALK 20:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Replacement of good-quality image with poor-quality one

Hi, 67.189.250.227. You have inserted Image:Hanes2249.jpg into the article "Undergarment" twice, replacing the existing image Image:Ice blue fbriefs.jpg. However, your edits have been reverted by another editor as the latter image is of better quality than the image you keep inserting. If there is a reason why you feel that your image is more suitable for the article than the existing image, please discuss the matter here on the article's talk page instead of just replacing the image again. Thanks. — Cheers, Truth's Out There ^–talk– 00:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Focus on Bottoms

It seems that this article focuses more on undergarment bottoms and minimizes undershirts and bras.FYInformation (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of information

Hi, 68.192.132.43. I have reverted your recent edit to the article "Undergarment" which deleted the phrase "US: Tightie-whities". It seems an unobjectionable piece of information, and you have deleted the phrase twice without giving any explanation of why you had done so in an edit summary. If you disagree, before deleting the phrase again please discuss this matter here on the article's talk page first. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

They've done it four times, thus far actually- once on the 26th, once yesterday, and again twice today. Loggie (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

China Underwear Manufacturer—Odear Fashion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Szdikep (talk • contribs) 05:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

Deletion of Garment picture

I don't believe the picture of Mormon temple garment's add anything to this page and should be removed. Its already displayed on its own page. Why not show the picture of the Sikh's kaccha? The Mormon garments are only being displayed here to be inflammatory. HK747 (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed at length, and it appears the current consensus is that the image should remain. Have a look at the discussion archived at "Talk:Undergarment/Archive: Mormon temple garments". I have no strong feelings on the issue either way. Feel free to reopen the discussion if you wish, perhaps by setting out the reasons why you feel the image should be deleted. You may also wish to notify other editors of the discussion by posting messages on relevant talk pages, such as "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fashion", "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement" and "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion". — Cheers, Truth's Out There ^–talk– 15:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree it has been discussed at length before - however, I still do not feel that a neutral review of its inclusion has been properly undertaken. Those involved in the prior discussion (including myself) were motivated by strong emotional personal feelings associated with its inclusion. The arguments focused on censorship, whether it encourages someone to read the article or not, and stare decisis (we've already discussed this and made adjustments to the image so it should be included). Left out of the discussion was any evaluation based on neutral standards of inclusion and whether or not the image meets those standards. i.e. how does the image stand up to (1) verifiability, (2) undue weight (see also the style guide). Furthermore - what standards should be applied - are these the only 2 or should others also be included? --Trödel 15:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that if its important to show underwear of a sensitive and religious nature in this article, that the other items mentioned in the article should be displayed as well. There should be no reason to give more weight to one style as apposed to another. That would be the same as only showing the thong underwear style as apposed to the others styles identified in the chart shown in this article. A chart similar to the one under 'Types and Styles' could be formatted to show each of the items listed under 'Religious Functions' and would be consistent with the rest of the article. I'm still learning maybe somebody could take a shot at creating it.HK747 (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• In addition to the standards mentioned by Trödel, I think we need to consider the image's pertinence and encyclopedicity (don't you just love this Wikispeak?): "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significantly relative to the article's topic." In this case, I don't think the image is sufficiently significant to the article, which is about undergarments in general. Quite apart from the important issue of whether the image is verifiable, the image is already available on the "Temple garment" article.
• I would disagree with HK747's suggestion that for reasons of parity, all the different forms of religious undergarments must be pictured. A guideline like this would be quite unworkable across other articles, since it would force the use of images even though this would detract from the appearance of the article. I would prefer that no images of religious undergarments be shown in the article at all. After all, the article has enough images in it.

In any case, is someone going to investigate the image's verifiability so that at least that point can be resolved? — Cheers, Truth's Out There ^–talk– 18:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that pertinence is another good policy to include in evaluating the image. I also think that we should be able to select examples amongst a list of items rather than comprehensively including all items. I think we, Wikipedians, in general, included too much detail on pages which are supposed to be overviews in the name of NPOV. --Trödel 20:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If the option is to not show all items from the list, why show the one item from the list that is the most controversial? HK747 (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Because most people don't know what they look like already. If anything that makes it the most important image to include in the article.  —Peco! Peco!^TALK 03:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the image is already on the "Temple garment" page. People interested in finding out more about the topic can click on the link and will find the image there. (All this is academic, though, if the image is not verifiable and has to be deleted from Wikipedia anyway.) — Cheers, Truth's Out There ^–talk– 00:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The image is verifiable. It's an esoteric article of clothing and yet is worn by a major religious population. It's totally relevant to the article. Perhaps more so than any other image on here other than the historical ones. If you don't think it is verifiable, be bold and try nominating it for deletion again and see what happens, my friend.  —Peco! Peco!^TALK 05:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I said before, it doesn't really bother me whether the image is in the article or not. My feeling is if the image is that objectionable to some people perhaps it is better not to have it in the article since it is not directly the subject of this article (which is about undergarments in general) and since it already appears on the "Temple garment" page. But I think you've made a good point. The image has been in the article for a while, and it's probably going to be difficult to establish who first inserted it. Therefore, any editor who feels that the image is not verifiable should take the initiative to show that this is the case by providing some evidence that it does not accurately depict Mormon temple garments. — Cheers, Truth's Out There ^–talk– 16:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what has been previously said; however, I believe the Mormon Temple Garment image should be removed, as the garments, as stated in the inside label, are property of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Unless written permission has been granted by the Church, it is blatent legal infringement of the Church's property to post images of the clothing items. Also, it is clear that the images offend the majority of the Mormon community (they believe the clothing to be sacred). I think that we all should, regardless of our religious or nonreligious beliefs respect their wishes and have the images removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.132.234 (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the copyright in the design of an item of clothing is infringed by a photograph of the clothing? If you are relying on this as one of the reasons why the photograph should not be used in the article you will need to show which legal provisions or case law it offends. — Cheers, Truth's Out There ^–talk– 09:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it not enough that millions of Latter-Day Saints find this image being publicly displayed to be incredibly offensive? Or is this what qualifies as "censorship" these days, that we not only have the *right* to display whatever we want, but that we also do so with the sole intent of offending people, as displaying the image adds nothing to the article? Jnschein (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The picture of the Mormon temple garment is very offensive to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It does not enhance the information in any way but rather exposes that which is held sacred to members of that church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tateallenhansen (talk • contribs) 14:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored so material that some may find offensive may be found. If it doesn't break the law, we can't take it down and call ourselves an "independent encyclopedia" at the same time. --Mithrandir^∞ (Talk!) (Opus Operis) 05:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that we do have images of both the kaccha and tallit katan available. If the concern is that the present section singles out Mormonism for undue emphasis, we could expand the section with those images. I think the temple garment image is a settled issue, though. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Having the image is deliberately provocative and disrspectful. It is not a major concern of the article, and since there are no images of Sikh or Jewish clothing in question, having an image of the Mormon clothing, which is held to be of such a nature that it should not be viewed by those who have not been instucted in its meaning, is not at all justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your removal of the image. As noted in that section, you need to get consensus to remove that image here before you remove it. As I note above, I think that we would do well to also include image of the other two religious undergarments, neither of which is meant to be kept secret. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Socks???

Why aren't socks listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.11.202.241 (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Reg Grundys

The prominence given to this:

while undergarments may be more casually called, in Australia, Reg Grundys (rhyming slang for undies) and Reginalds,

...seems wrong to me, and misleading. "Reg Grundys" was only ever occasionally heard, and only as a joke or humourous term, but is hardly ever used since around the early 2000s. Given that Reg Grundy has been off the TV scene for many years now, I would imagine many younger people would have no idea what it means at all. I am sure there and many, many joke terms for underwear. Should we list them all in the article? If so, why aren't they all listed? Format (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Styles and Types

The description of a Tanga is incorrect. It is not a type of Thong Also it should not link to Thong, which is another type of garment without any rear coverage 15:25, 5th March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.251.55 (talk)

This section seems like it would be better placed in a separate list type article --Trödel 17:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the section is all right. It sets out major types of underwear that are in use today, which is useful for readers seeking information. It also replaces a very haphazard bulleted list of types of underwear that was incoherent because editors kept adding various types of underwear and random images (see [1]). — Cheers, Truth's Out There ^–talk– 13:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless a clear distinction in text and pictures can be made between thongs, G-strings, and tangas then I suggest collapsing into 'Thong / G-string / Tanga' or just 'Thong' with the other names listed under the 'Varieties' column. (Personally I prefer the latter since thong appears to be the superset - a Google search of 'thong underwear' returns 43.7M hits; 'g-string underwear' 8.3M, and 'tanga underwear' 3.62M. Also, the 'thong (clothing)' article already has a G-string section and references tangas.) That said, I'm dubious as to the information and photo provided for Tanga in the context of what vendors such as Gap, HerRoom, and Victoria Secret sell as tanga panties / tanga hipsters / cheeky hipsters. Many of the tanga panties offered for sale are hipsters - on Gap.com hipsters and tangas are one and the same - but in this article 'Hipster' is listed as a variety of 'Panties'.Penelope Gordon (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Time to review Temple Garment image

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that the Temple Garment is sacred and that images of it should not be shown. Use of an image of the Temple Garment is relevant on Temple garment; however, the image also exists on the Undergarments page - a topic that is tangentially related to temple garments. Therefore, in light of the meta:2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content and it's suggestions relative to images which are considered sacred, I have begun a discussion regarding whether such inclusion is necessary at Talk:Undergarment#Time to review Temple Garment image. Please join the discussion. --Trödel 00:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The guidance from this study is that the groups involve "absorb and understand the values of the other, after which, and only after which, a determination of action around these images may be taken." Furthermore the guidance suggests that we, "We start with a bias towards openness but agree to limit that openness, based on respect for our users, as little as possible."

Although when initially posted, many members of The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS removed images of the temple garment from all pages without comment or generally opposed the any inclusion of the image at all (myself included); this is no longer true, nor is it appropriate. Furthermore, not discussion has taken place that shows an absorption or understanding of both the values of members of the LDS church and the need for openness within Wikipedia; thus, it is appropriate for us to discuss this issue with that in mind.

My reasons why inclusion here is inappropriate:

1. The use here is to provide an example of undergarments with religious meaning. Other images which provide such an example exist. In selecting what image to represent the topic at hand we should use one that is without controversy where one is available.
2. Removal from this page is in keeping with the guidance that we bias towards openness (include the picture in an article about temple garments), and agree to limit that openness as little as possible. I.e. remove the image from a page where it is only one example among many that can demonstrate the topic being discussed.
3. Removal here follows the principle of least astonishment^{1}. One would expect to find a picture of temple garments on a page about that temple garments, but the inclusion of the image here with only one sentence of text is surprising (and for LDS readers, I believe it is fair to say based on the comments from the LDS users that have tried to remove the picture, that they were astonished to find such a picture when expecting to learn about undergarments in general.) ^{1}Note: I realize that this principle is used in supporting user controlled viewing options, but I believe the principle applies here.
4. I am not asking that the image be removed from Wikipedia in general, but that, if we are going to offend a group of people, we should be held to a high standard and only include the image if it uniquely is able to illustrate the topic and non-offensive images do not exist. In this case neither standard is met, the image is not unique in respect to undergarments with religious meaning, and non-offensive (to any group) images that can illustrate the topic do exist.

I hope that a rational discussion of the necessity of including this image can be held and that such discussion be held "de novo" as prior discussion sometimes relied on - "its been here for a long time so it must be ok and users must have reached a consensus. As discussed above, the guidance from Wikimedia, I believe, provides an excellent framework for discussion controversial images and that this framework has not been applied to this situation. --Trödel 00:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I support keeping the image. "It's been here for a long time so it must be OK and users must have reached a consensus" is perfectly adequate reasoning, because we respect that an existing status quo must have come about by agreement or it wouldn't have come about at all. More importantly, there is consensus for an entire section on religious undergarments and that section is greatly enhanced by the use of images. As I've said before, my preference would be to include images of the other two undergarments there, rather than having images of only one or none of them. The prose could be filled out as well to support the space requirements for three images. I understand that some Mormons will not like the fact that we have an image, but that would be a reason to remove the image from Wikipedia entirely, which is not going to happen. It shouldn't be pushed along by degrees, either. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that there is consensus - this comes up regularly because substantive issues related to the decision to use the image have not been addressed. For example - your argument because a group does not like an image that is an argument for its removal is directly contrary to what I have said above. The use of images that are not offensive instead have not been addressed. --Trödel 03:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP Actually I would like to replace the image with the original, instead of this 'ghost like' replacement. The image is in an appropriate article (notice it is titled 'undergarments' ?) If lds members are offended they can simply disable images. Wikipedia does not allow censorship ... this could be a slippery slope we are starting down. There is a mormon wiki where the lds can call all the shots, unfortunately for them they can't do that here. Cheers ! Duke53 | ^Talk 01:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

p.s. "Time to review Temple Garment image" ? Is there some sort of timetable for this that I wasn't aware of ? How many times to we have to go through this process ? Every time some tbm gets 'offended' we have this same conversation. Give it a break. Duke53 | ^Talk 01:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I was unclear - the new guidance regarding controversial images provides a reasonable framework for discussion. Thus it is time, IMHO, to discuss the use of this image in light of that guidance. IMHO the balance between openness and showing respect for what a group of people hold sacred has never been addressed. The past arguments have focused on "Wikipedia is not censored" type arguments and do not show that the Wikipedians involved have "[absorbed and understood] the values of the other;" thus I have suggested a dialog focused on achieving this understanding. --Trödel 03:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear but my objection is that whatever arguments you folks come up (there have been many) it always will come down to your desire to censor WP to appease mormon sensibilities. You don't seem to grasp the fact that there is nothing sacred about Temple garments to the vast majority of the world's population; why do you expect them to kowtow to your wants and whims ? Learn to disable images and the problem is gone. Period.

p.s. Since you seem to be a stickler for rules, isn't there something that says you shouldn't refactor article talk pages after there have been responses ? Cheers ! Duke53 | ^Talk 04:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about - I haven't moved anyone's talk page comments. --Trödel 20:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

What I'm talking about is you editing your original statement above (you also edited it on at least two other places where you posted it). If I had seen that you'd moved comments I would have said that; what I said is that you had reF-A-C-T-O-R-E-D the article talk page. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:RTP - still not sure what you think I did that is in violation of any rule - could you please provide diffs of the behavior so I can fix it as I have no idea what edits you think were inappropriate. --Trödel 13:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• RfC Comment. I came here from the RfC notice, and I have no previous history with this page. I looked at the links to meta, and they seem to me to be flexibly worded, not obligatory, and in progress. In contrast, WP:NOTCENSORED is exactly applicable to this question, and it seems to me that it points towards keeping the image. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• support removal from here - not of course the main article. We have the Sikh ones for religious underwear & this is far from vital. The 2 together make a big white gap anyway. Johnbod (talk) 08:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Bingo! As easy as that the 'white gap' is gone. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 16:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment- I will admit that I think WP:NOTCENSORED applies to the arguemnt above. However, I think there is a question that has not been addressed. Admittedly I am a bit confused about wp:copyright rules, so I may be way way off. However, I question the copyright status of the image. I can't take a photo of a coke bottle and claim copyright ownership. These garments are the post 1970s garments that you can only buy when you have a valid temple recommend. I know you cannot make them yourself without approval. I can’t go and open a local garment making store, so these must be copyrighted somehow. The File:Mormon garments.jpg is PD for sure since they are the late 1800 style. So my question is are these copyrighted like a coke can?--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 22:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep-After some discussion with an admin that works extensively with {{puf}} and copyrights. I have come to understand that my reasoning was indeed is off. With the information that admin gave me and since the LDS church has lawyers that do enforce it’s copyrights I would suspect there is nothing legally wrong with the use of this image. As an LDS member I have to say, unfortunately, although I don't like it, WP:NOTCENSORED dose apply and I cannot see any Wikipedia policy or reason or any kind on consensus that would justify its removal.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep I came here per RfC, having considered it what Gavia immer said above sums up my view. Additionally I notice in the text there is no description of the garments (unlike the other two religous garments mentioned.) Would be useful to include descriptive text for people who can't view images (either to avoid being offended or for some technical reason) Lessthanideal (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• "Would be useful to include descriptive text for people who can't view images... Agree and done. This section has been open for 12 days and there hasn't been a huge rush by editors wanting to remove this photo, so my suggestion is that this idea be closed ( until the next time someone decides that it's ' Time to review Temple Garment image ' once again). Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

p.s. I would appreciate it if someone would inform me what the schedule for this 'review' is going to be; I'd hate to miss out on something this important. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Many of you may not find this image distasteful and objectionable and but Trödel, myself do and probably the other 13 million other LDS members in the world do. Trödel’s reasons for asking that this image be removed may no be based on Wikipedia rules, and as such the image should stay, but I think the sarcasm I have read in multiple places in this thread is uncalled for and UNCIVIL. I think we should keep to the subject at hand instead of focusing on the what amounts to a poorly choosen title by Trödel. --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It is premature to close this issue - it needs to be addressed by more than 4 or 5 editors and I still don't see that the points I have brought up have been addressed (1) the image is not being censored from wikipedia since it is used on the Temple garment page, (2) its use here is unnecessary since other images exist which demonstrate religious use that do not offend, (3) there seems to have been no attempt to balance the competing interests of NOTCENSSORED and providing open non-offensive information. I also note that the LDS editors have purposely not come in here to overwhelm the discussion with oppose comments and instead have appealed to general Wikipedia users to consider the issue from a fresh perspective. --Trödel 17:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Time to end review of Temple Garment image

"It is premature to close this issue ..." It seems to me that if this issue was that important then editors would have been streaming in here endorsing your viewpoint; could it be that there aren't that many who agree with you ? Unless you are proposing that this review can run indefinitely, I say enough time has already passed to put it to bed.

"I also note that the LDS editors have purposely not come in here to overwhelm the discussion with oppose comments and instead have appealed to general Wikipedia users to consider the issue from a fresh perspective". And how, exactly, do you know that 'lds editors' have "purposely not come in here to overwhelm the discussion" ? About the only two ways to know that would be if you were 1) a mindreader or 2) if there is some off-wiki activity planning it this way. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 19:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any on- or off-wiki activity of the kind you're insinuating, but I can confirm that Trödel's guess is correct at least for my part. I'd like more disinterested editors to chime in and actually address the issues Trödel has raised about the study's guidance, whether "Wikipedia is not unduly provocative" (my paraphrase) is, or ought to be, a legitimate balancing concern against WP:NOTCENSORED, and if so whether it applies to the temple garment image's use in this article. Given that the time of year is usually fairly slow on Wikipedia due to the holidays celebrated in much of the English-speaking world, it may be good to let the RfC run until a week or two after the holidays. alanyst ^/talk/ 20:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Analyst is correct - this is a guess on my part and I have not communicated with LDS editors off wiki to ask them to refrain from commenting or to encourage to comment - I have pointed to this discussion in the appropriate places. --Trödel 17:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - I do understand how many in the LDS Church may find this objectionable, but then again I think many in the LDS Church would find most of the other images on this page to be objectionable too and would simply find offense at images of people in their under clothing. BTW, I happen to be LDS and do consider this to be sacred, but at the same time it isn't up to me to force my opinion on others and I support the reasoning from other editors about WP:NOTCENSORED being rationale for inclusion in this article. I'd suggest perhaps a bit of a reorganization where the "religious clothing" be added into the same formatting as the other images in a separate section so as to not give undue weight to this particular kind of clothing... and perhaps moving it a bit further down the list so it doesn't show up as essentially one of the first images you see with the article. That is a content organization issue that I think may at least be a partial compromise here, but it doesn't get rid of the image which seems to be the goal here for User:Trödel. Being something sacred does not imply it must be secret, just that it must be done tastefully and within reason like NPOV guidelines that are already part of Wikipedia. WP:UNDUE should be the ruling guideline here for changes. My only objection to this image is the undue prominence of this image in the article for what is a minor sub-topic. A minor rewrite and reorganization of this article can satisfy my objections. --Robert Horning (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Of all the comments I have read in this discussion, I think this is the most thought out and valuable. I agree. Having keeping the image is the correct thing to do, but having the image at the top in it own unique formatting give it WP:UNDUE. I have always thought that it should be inside the tables like the other types of underwear.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 20:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and make the change. Coincidentally, I also added a new image for the Jewish Tallit katan that was not earlier displayed, but I also kept the editorial note about preserving this image with reference to the discussion pages. I hope this satisfies some of the concerns, and it certainly diminishes the prominence of this particular image and attempts to put it into context with other similar images. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor. The picture in question seems to be only relevant to one section (LDS) of one category (religious) of undergarment. I think the picture is therefore somewhat unrepresentative on the subject of the article and although I full agree that WP is uncensored, I would not object its removal from this article or possibly a reduction in its prominence. What exactly is the rational for its inclusion? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

As it comes to the image of Garments for the LDS faith. Well, it is disrespectful for the most part. I am worried that the image will be used in a disrespectfully by people who have no respect for the LDS church. so it should be removed for that reason. But that is up to the writer of the page. If he chooses not to there should be a note to the observer that this is considered sacred and should be treated with care and caution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.234.185 (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support removal. The image is not necessary or needed for this article. Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. This article is about several kinds of underwear; This picture is used to illustrate temple garments in particular, not underwear or religious underwear in general. Actually, I was surprised that mormon underwear is mentioned on this page at all - but as it is mentioned here, it should also come with a picture just like the other kinds of underwear. -- 2001:A60:180F:C401:213:3BFF:FE04:1EE (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Thongs, G-strings and Bikini Underwear in the Unisex Section?

It seems a stretch to me to have "bikini underwear," "thong" and "g-string" in the section titled "Worn by both sexes." First of all, by and large, men don't wear either of these. Perhaps some do, but this is highly unusual. And, moreover, having these two items in this section is totally inconsistent. Why? Because "boy shorts" and "knickers (panties)" are in the "Worn By Women" section, and "boxer shorts," "boxer briefs" and "briefs" are in the "Worn By Men" section. And, of course, just like bikini underwear, g-strings and thongs, some men do wear panties and boy shorts. And, also, some women do wear briefs, boxer briefs and boxers. Such occurrences are also highly unusual, but they do happen.

So, if this section is to be consistent, either, all of these items should be in the section, "Worn By Both Sexes," or "thong" and "bikini underwear" should be moved to the "Worn by Women" section. I suggest the latter.

Cheers, ask123 (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I decided to be bold and just change it. If someone has a problem with the change or would like a different change, they can revert my edit. But, if so, please explain your reasons here so that there can be a discussion. Thank you! ask123 (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

---

I'd like to request that the above change be reviewed and (ideally) reverted...

I saw the above entry a few days ago, and it seemed...ill-fitting.

So, I went and did some research over the past few days, and found a simply STAGGERING amount of sites, companies, manufacturers, styles, colors, and designs for Men in the "Thong, G-string, and Bikini" styles, as well as numerous essays and media articles discussing how the market for men's underwear has exploded in the past 10 years or so, and demand keeps increasing. (Thus, the manufacturers keep manufacturing. They wouldn't do it if the market wasn't there.)

About 5-15 minutes of research with Google should convince anyone that there's a vast undercurrent in this area of men's clothing, even if it isn't discussed openly; and even if the only underwear "on display" in society seems to be the boxers that young males have showing, while their baggy pants almost fall down. ;-) (That trend is called sagging, by the way. I learned that in my research. :-) )

As a simple example, I just did a search on http://ebay.com/ for "mens thong underwear" and it returned 38,567 results (of which, 38,029 were in the "Underwear" category, with the other 500 hits being in other miscellaneous sections.)

Should you need further convincing, I got: 21,631 results found (also from Ebay) for "mens g-string underwear" and 17,400 results found for "mens bikini underwear". And a Google search on the words "Male Underwear Sales Growth Statistics" turns up interesting results from the NY Times, the Daily Telegraph (UK), MSN, and other reliable sources. (Apparently, it's such a good Economic Indicator, that the sales figures have been used since 2008 to track the Recession, and try to figure out when we've finally hit bottom!)

You can read about that here:

• High Anxiety in the Underwear Department (May 14, 2009)
• A growth in men's underwear (23 August, 2010)

UPDATE: Just found this article on why this may be declining in usefulness as a predictor/indicator, as the market becomes more mainstream:

• The Men’s Underwear Index: A Faltering Indicator

And should that not be enough, please take a wander through the following few sites (which will link to countless others), and you can go and survey the (rather astonishing...and colorful!) landscape that is modern-day Men's Intimate Apparel:

(Fair Warning: You're going to see some things that are NSFW, and some things that you cannot unsee.... If you have issues with this subject, think carefully before you click. Then again, if you have issues with this subject, you're probably not reading this page! ;-) )

Blogs (with links to everywhere):

• http://www.mensunderwearblog.com/
• http://www.guysunderwearblog.com/
• http://www.underwear-addict.com/

A few major retail sites:

• http://www.dugg.com.au/ (Australia)
• http://www.metrosexualmale.com.au/ (Australia)
• http://www.giggleberries.co.uk/ (UK)
• http://www.mensunderwearbrands.com/ (UK)
• http://mypantsshop.com/ (UK)
• http://www.internationaljock.com/ (US)
• http://www.skivviesmensunderwear.com/ (US)

That should be enough to get you started.... :-)

PatrickSalsbury (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I also decided to be bold and change it back to the previous unisex format. I have seen no objections to the above research & links, posted 25+ days ago, so I felt it was time. PatrickSalsbury (talk) 06:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to see the change back to the previous unisex format. Even better would be to remove the gender references - unless you want to start getting into the "presents as traditionally female" type of language. While women may be the primary wearers of bras and men of codpieces, one does not have to be of a particular gender to wear either (or both). If the gender presentation for a particular item is significant (beyond what's represented in the accompanying photo), then it can be mentioned in the accompanying text.Penelope Gordon (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys, seeing that we are talking amount underwear companies, I've noticed that MeUndies hasnt been mentioned once. Have any of you checked them out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlight66 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Request

Can someone please restore this revision? The person who reverted it has not explained why it is problematic. Most, if not all, of that revision actually makes sense. 172.58.25.2 (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: No, it didn't. Those edits moved the jockstrap from only being worn by men to being worn by both sexes, when the jockstrap is designed to hold/protect a penis. The female equivalent is not called a jockstrap, but a pelvic protector. Moreover, those edits were done by an editor who has been community-banned for sockpuppeting. Cannolis (talk) 05:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cannolis: ... And that same editor posted this request. This entire section, except for your reply, was created by the site banned editor, Including the restoral of this section. Steel1943 (talk) 06:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Kinda thought they might be. Thanks for the heads up Cannolis (talk) 06:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

Please restore this revision. There is nothing wrong with saying that a camisole is a type of sleeveless shirt. 172.58.25.2 (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:BANREVERT. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) -  Not done we are not just going to overwrite the last 47 revisions for that
IMHO it should be a separate item under "Worn by women / Upper body", as per the description at Camisole "A camisole is a sleeveless undergarment for women" so I don't think it should have been in "Worn by both sexes", but I'd welcome other's opinions - Arjayay (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Briefs nickname

Perhaps restore "tighty-whiteys" under US nicknames for men's briefs. (BlackAdvisor (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)).

Also, "slip" (singular not plural) is used in other European countries, but not the UK BlackAdvisor (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Use of Daily Mail

I have cited an article in the Daily Mail (which prompted an automated warning). It has detail in no other source and there are no discrepancies between what it says and more reliable publications. deisenbe (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Notice of ongoing RfC on photo for going commando, to be merged here

 Note: The AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Going commando for Going commando was closed as merge to this article. There's an ongoing RfC on whether a nude photo, or photo showing exposed genitals if you prefer, should be used for that. The discussion is at Talk:Going commando#RFC on nude photos in Going commando. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I have just completed the article merge, but I have not tried to merge or redirect the talk page where the RFC was underway. It might be appropriate to add merge templates to the top of this talk page, if anyone wants to go look up which ones they were. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Days of the Week panties listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Days of the Week panties. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Men’s Undies in the ‘70s

I can’t corroborate this at present, but it seems portrayed in popular media that in the 1970s that many American men opted to wear bikini brief or nonwhite classic brief underpants; waning in popularity in the subsequent decade in favor of the return in near-ubiquity of the iconic plain white full-rise briefs. BlackAdvisor (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

statues with underwear in first half of the 6th century B.C

https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/242125?searchField=All&sortBy=Relevance&where=Cyprus&ft=*&offset=1700&rpp=80&pos=1778

https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/242135?searchField=All&sortBy=Relevance&where=Cyprus&ft=*&offset=2020&rpp=80&pos=2023

statues with underwear in first half of the 6th century B.C — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.78.129.211 (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Why does an article about undergarments need to take a strong stand about gender expression? We have other articles for that topic

So this revert is not the safe, cautious, apolitical approach, in spite of what you might think at first glance. What it does is take a very strong stand: "Boxer briefs are worn by men. Bras are worn by women." It takes a strong stand in saying "Items worn by both sexes include T-shirts... etc" -- there are only two sexes, the article claims. As if it were fact, in Wikipedia's voice. After nobody asked Undergarment to be a diatribe about gender politics.

We have whole articles about sex and gender distinction -- what is biological sex? What is physiological sex, assigned sex? What is gender expression? This article, Undergarment, is about simpler, easier questions. People want to know, what are boxers? What exactly is a bra? What is a camisole? This is an easy article to write, and it doesn't need to be political at all. It's a violation of a number of policies to express opinions as facts, as when using wikivoice to assert there are exactly two sexes and men wear this and women wear that. There are cis men who wear bras. There are cis women who never do. There are people who are not men or women. All subjects for other, more challenging articles.

A fact we can say is that boxers are called "men's wear" by retailers. They sell them in the "men's wear section". Wearing them is a way of expressing male gender. In a mainstream movie a character presenting as female who is wearing boxers is explicitly expressing masculinity through clothing, for whatever reasons -- character development or to be contrarian or because she feels like it. This article does not have to say whether or not we think there are only two sexes or what men or when should or shouldn't wear in order to stand on solid ground and state objective facts: T-shirts, tank tops, and bikini underwear are not associated with a definite gender expression. This is a defensible, verifiable, not at all astonishing thing. Saying " T-shirts, tank tops, and bikini underwear are worn by both sexes is a highly charged, highly political assertion that is outside the scope of an article like this. Encyclopedia readers just want us to tell us about the topic, and give them links to ancillary issues like gender expression.

Inflammatory edit summaries like the the put-down accusing another editor of "translating the article into High Californian, a dialect most of our readers will not be familiar with" suggests a desire to pull this article off topic into social controversies. To suggest "most readers" expect to read that there are only two sexes maybe forgets that most Wikipedia readers, most English speakers and most human beings, are not Americans. In any question, the safe bet is that the rest of the world is more enlightened than the USian least common denominator. Even then, more than half of Americans, across all demographics, are comfortable with gender-neutral pronouns, and if anything, American Wikipedia readers skew younger, more educated and more urban than the whole population. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the edit summary was in bad faith and that removing gender-binary-specific language is an easy and non-controversial approach to ensuring that WP articles don't use language that might be problematic. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)