Talk:Gymnophobia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why was the blurb about Arrested Development's "never nude" removed?

I think it was appropriate as Never Nude is a fictional and altogether different affliction. Initially the Arrested Development page had a link to this page, whereas there is now a Never Nude page which it links to. — TuesdayMush 01:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with TuesdayMush. Never Nude is entirely fictional, and has never been associated with Gymnophobia in the series. The wearing of cut-offs isn't how Tobias deals with gymnophobia, it's a part of being a Never Nude (in the series they have conventions, and they all wear cutoff jeans, like Zach Braff's character). Additionally, some may take offense with the association made between a serious disorder and a fictional disorder that was intended as a hilarious running gag. Taco325i 01:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maidenform

Greetings MgeKelly (or is it XmarkX?). I restored your hasty reversion, as we have not had an opportunity to discuss this matter. I justify my inclusion of this material based upon relevancy, as I consider this to be an example of the commercial use of this common dream situation - related to the dream, not the fear. As this is a piece of commercial history, where else would you prefer that it be located? (Offline for now, will continue tomorrow) Leonard G. 03:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like it put under Maidenform or perhaps in some kind of history of advertising article, although I don't see what the imperative is for Wikipedia to carry it at all. It certainly doesn't have much to do with gymnophobia. XmarkX 03:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it does, for this is an example of one of The Hidden Persuaders, - subtle psychological manipulations used for commercial advantage, an extension of methods developed during WW II. Your deletion is what I consider to be a prime example of information entropy in WP - the removal of factual information because it is not considered to be a good fit for a particular article, rather than the thoughtful and appropriate relocation to a new or existing article. I will be moving this out within the week - at the time it was included (3 December 2004) there was no Maidenform article and did not feel qualified to write one (it was created 24 May 2005). Best wishes, Leonard G. 17:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The relevant text has been moved to the Maidenform article, referenced from a new See also section. Leonard G. 06:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)