Talk:Non-Nude

Merger
There is an existing article, non-nude pornography, which is about the same topic, with similar but not identical content. I suggest merger of articles under the original title. --MCB 23:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the article of which you speak, non-nude pornography, I find it unfit to contain my information, as it relegates material that is not inherently pornographic to a category that it does not belong in. The Non-Nude movement, as I have described it (and as how it actually exists) includes both the non-nude models and the more innocent photo-sharing sites.  There are major differences between these two varieties of sites, and perhaps the actual argument here is whether the material should even be listed under the "pornography" header to begin with.  I would argue that the non-nude pornography ought to be deleted and its poignant information merged into my article, where it will receive just and non-commercial coverage.  Furthermore, my article deals more with the movement and the growth of a trend than with the material it produces.  To summarize, I believe that Non-Nude, all varieties included, ought not to be part of a general discussion of pornography, but rather, recognized as its own category.  While its value may be primarily sexual, much of this lies in each individual's perspective.  Whereas there is no doubt as to whether or not hardcore pornography is pornographic and overtly sexual, Non-Nude is not so clear. --cgros841 19:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your contributions; however, it is considered very bad manners on Wikipedia to simply redirect an existing article, worked on by a number of editors, to a new article that you wrote, simply because you think yours is "better" and the other is "unfit". My mergeto/mergefrom tags were intended to start a discussion. It is considered impolite and un-collegial to simply end that discussion by fiat. I happen to disagree that your article should replace the other one; ideally, the best part of both would be merged into a single article. That's the purpose of the tags. Please let the discussion proceed and don't attempt to resolve it unilaterally. --MCB 01:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for redirecting the page without discussing it with you first. I will accept your offer to continue the discussion. As it stands, however, I have heard no truly compelling argument from you as to why Non-Nude, which cannot be strictly interpreted as pornography, should be enshrined as such here. Its nature is up to debate and is heavily dependent on the perspective of each individual user. Unless you have witnessed the movement firsthand and participated in it, I suggest you allow those with more experience in the field (such as myself) to determine the article's content. True "non-nude" is sexual in nature but not inherently pornographic, and listing it under a header as you have proposed will mislead those who appreciate its entire scope. In short order, I simply believe that all pertinent info ought to be combined under the "Non-Nude" article heading, rather than under "Non-Nude Pornography." Non-Nude is not necessarily pornographic, and a great disservice will be done to those interested if it is labeled as such.--cgros841 21:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I think you've raised an interesting question. Does "pornography" imply sexual explicitness? Or are all works that are intended for sexual arousal "pornography"? I'm not sure either. In fact, I'd propose that neither Non-Nude nor Non-nude pornography is the right title for the article. The problem I have with "Non-Nude" as a title, is... non-nude what? (One might equally well title an article "Non-Fat", or "Non-White" or for that matter, "Non-Aircraft".) There's no clue that it refers to something very specific, which is photographs (or video) of clothed people intended for sexual arousal. While not everyone would consider the whole of the material to be pornography, it's at least closer to what you (and those who edited the other article) have in mind. So, maybe Non-nude sexual imagery or similar as a title. --MCB 03:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, the merged article looks pretty good. Thanks. --MCB 03:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)