![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Refactored from Talk:Hugh_Hefner&oldid=87947938 using Help:Archiving_a_talk_page.
Hey, can someone expand on the first paragraph of the article? Maybe some more about the history of his involvement with Playboy? Let's recognize this quibbling over words as the secondary issue it is. The article could be improved much more through expansion than through changed wording.
I don't care for the use of the word 'mistresses', especially so repeatedly (seems almost translated)... typically, that refers to someone one's cheating with. 'Girlfriends' seems a little off, though... (though an improvement). Also, 'no illegitimate issue from any of these unions'? I'm thinking 'He has had no other children', but putting that line in in the right place might require pulling the other lines about children out of the marriage block... thinking. -- Jake 12:22, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
About the word mistress -
Definitions of the word from several dictionaries are as follows:
In other words, the man (in this case Hughie) does not have to be married.
The other reversions make no sense. For example, of course it should be noted that Hugh had no children from these partnerships. Actually, its quite curious that he has not had any. Besides, the section that discusses this looks at his family/relationships background.
Again, I've removed "mistresses" because, although the dicdef doesn't necessarily insist that a mistress must be the "other woman" to a married man, it is very rarely used these days in a context other than that of the "other woman". -- Robert Merkel 06:48, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It is still valid. By the way check out this dictionary for a definition of the word illegitimate. It is not "1950s". Also, see above notes.
I see the dictionary definition. It is my contention that the word mistress is only used these days to refer to the "other woman". Aside from the mistress Wikipedia article (which is really a dicdef at this stage, and IMO a more accurate one), I did some research to back this up, by doing a search on news.google.com for the word "mistress". In the top 30 references, I found the following:
So (assuming I can count), there's 26 relevant references in the 30. Of those, all but three are unambiguously about a married man and the "other woman", and those three are, to varying degress, likely to be about married men's "other women". I challenge you to find me contemporary references (preferably online to make it easy to verify) to an unmarried couple where the woman is described as a "mistress".
In any case, my argument is that my choice of language conveyed exactly the same information without the value judgements implied in the use of "mistress" and "illegitimate". If your argument is that they are value-neutral terms, why are you so insistent on using them instead of equivalents? -- Robert Merkel 13:43, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Er, that's because I was largely indisposed over the past few days.
Firstly, let's meet your challenge. A Google search on "Wallis Simpson" and "mistress" alone yielded 1470 hits. "Camilla parker-bowles" and "mistress" yielded 1500. That s 2970 all up. Yes, the Parker-Bowles ones do have references to "girlfriend" and the like as well, but even with that taken into account , that's an awful lot of mistress entries.
What this whole unfortunate debate is really all about is whether a mistress is someone who has sex with an unmarried man. I shall proceed on those terms.
Yes, the mistress article reflects your preferred belief of the word, but it is wrong. Some anonymous soul placed it there recently and I don't think that he did his homework properly. It clashes with numerous other articles. Personal relationship says that a mistress "is a somewhat old fashioned term for a female lover of a man who is married to another woman, or of an unmarried man." - and that article received more attention and discussion than mistress did. Numerous other articles in this context use the m-word in this context. Examples are Andronicus I Comnenus, Benito Mussolini, Eva Braun, Lilly Langtry... it's quite a long list. I've listed examples of where the man was definitely unmarried here, and yes, by doing that it does shortens that list. But I trust that their usage here is contemporary enough for you. If you insist on editing this article for something as vague as "companion", you'll need to edit these as well. So there are numerous precedents in this website alone for the usage of this word in this context. It may be ambiguous but not so in this article. The mistress'es 'terms of office' are listed here.
The question is : why use a wording as vague as "female companions"? For starters, the word "female" is redundant. The term "companion" is not defined in dictionaries in the context meant here - see this dictionary for an example here. The word mistress is far more precise and an exercise in calling a spade a spade, not a gardening tool.
As for illegitimate, you've completely ignored the argument for the sentence being there in the first place. It was describing Hefners relationship's and the children who came from them. As for the i-word itself , Illegitimate_child is actually listed here, together with a discussion of their changing legal status. Do you propose to have this it deleted because you don't like the word - or other articles that use it? Afonso IV of Portugal is a random example. I wouldn't try it myself.
Having read the article, I would say I found "mistresses" to be confusing, and would note that I think of it as being "the other woman" in a marriage. Might I suggest "lovers" or a similar term? Personally I would be fine with "girlfriends" as well, since it's far less confusing. [[User:Meelar| Meelar (talk)]] 18:49, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)
Please Meelar, I know you are always sincere, but this article is too euphemistic. Hefner is an unusual character. Can't he be described without softening all the language? I know "mistresses" seems awkward, but it's a lot closer to the truth than "lovers." Any person (most, in many societies) who has slept with someone they're not married to has had "lovers." What would you call a man who houses, clothes and takes care of a number of women who have a sexual relationship with him, who make their own living from their sexuality, and who makes his living in turn from a portion of their earnings? Hmmmm... And Macheath was a piker by comparison. -- Cecropia | Talk 18:20, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, this does point back to mistress always being an appropriate word. This whole debate has been over whether it is an accurate word, I say that it is, and nothing has come up to disprove it. Why not take this matter as settled if nothing more comes up in three days time?
How about "ladyfriends"? "Illegitimate" is unnecessary; obviously we're talking about children born out of wedlock. – Floorsheim 07:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) from RfC
I agree with Stellarfury. This whole thing is really very silly and based on one user's questionable perception (and rejection) of mistress and illegimate. Leave it as mistress and lets get on with things.
With the discussion over this article, apparently a new book by an ex-partner of Hefner's is about to be released, and contains lots of juicy criticism of his exploitation of women. This might be a great source to add attribted criticism of his behaviour to the article, making the "mistresses" discussion moot. -- Robert Merkel 08:47, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
61.88.58.41, 'mistress' and 'illegitimate' are words that have adopted a negative connotation in our culture. If we can avoid using them we should. Before you began reverting, the text established the facts of Hefner's relationships just fine. Thus the use of the words is unnecessary, and we should stick with Dittaeva's version. – Floorsheim 16:55, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Look, it's calling a spade a spade, and euphanisms like 'companion' do not help matters at all. It covers them up. Using your logic, we can never call a dandelion a weed because that is a 'negative' word. You yourself are using judgements that relate to a particular 'culture', rather than words that are truthful and impartial. Also, if you are happy with these words being used elsewhere in other articles, then you should be happy with their usage here. You could even attempt to have the Illegitimate_child article referred to above deleted as it is 'negative' - but you won't be doing that, will you?
To use Google as a guide for what language is widely used, I think the more appropriate approach is to compare google hits of
"Hugh Hefner" "name of alleged misstress" mistress -wikipedia
with:
"Hugh Hefner" "name of alleged misstress" -wikipedia
The results are revealing. -- Dittaeva 19:42, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
But I AM being bold! And that google search was a mistake, it is now an exercise in conflicting statistics. Also, until Mr Merkel { redacted}, noone found the use of the word mistress disturbing, despite that word being there for years.
To summarize my position, with points which have not been countered:
(1) Dictionary definitions. (outlined above)
(2) Use of mistress in other wikipedia articles, (outlined above)
(3) Mistress is defined as an acceptable word in Wikipedia in
Personal relationship, (outlined above)
(4) A lack of effort to change other articles with the m-word in (see above for examples.) There is no reason why this article - or dear Mr H for that matter - should be any different. Indeed , there is an implication that he is exempt or that what he's done is to be whispered about only.
(5) Euphenisms are not necessary in this wikipedia. You said it yourself - "it would be destructive for us to sugarcoat things or ignore negative aspects of reality". As for cultural beliefs - if wikipedia can have words and indeed whole articles called "f**k" that can offend cultures, links to mens magazines like the
Playboy article that unquestionably would offend some cultures, then it can take a precise word like mistress. It goes back to calling a spade a spade.
(6) Also, to add to this something raised above. How am I to differentiate between illegitimate children and legitimate ones? Not distinguishing means an approval of it, which I reject ( yes, a cultural rejection). Also, the lack of illegimate issue is an interesting statistic. Leaving that out is censorship. A strong word? Maybe, but its getting to be that way. Its uesed elsewhere, it can certainly be used here.
Anonymous person
I think you have become far too invested in this. So what if the word mistresses is changed? Obviously some people find it offensive, or feel that it is judgemental. You do not, and that is fine. But since some people do, there are plenty of reasonable options which we can all agree on. Female companions is fine. Ladyfriends is fine. Lovers is fine. You may not like them as much but they are uncontroversial, informative, and will put this issue to rest. I strongly support a reversion to an article with the word mistresses replaced and no other major changes, such as the 16:37, 30 Aug 2004 version.
Canthony 05:13, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm trying to use logic and reason to justify my choice of wording, but noone is willing to discuss them. Instead, its being ignored or placed into pure inconsistency with other wikipedia articles. Its very significant that over nearly two months and 33 KB of chatter, nothing has cope up to refute points 1 to 7 another than "we just don't like it!" and ,oh yes, a fallacious argument that it is the same as slut. Where is the objectivity in that? You are ignoring dictionary definitions - where is the rationality in that???
So back to you, so what if the word mistresses isn't changed? What the heck is it to you? Lovers may be fine, but mistresses is still better.
BTW, I did not do that last retraction. It was done by someone who seems to have done more harm than good.
Anon, again, neither I nor Mr. Merkel nor Canthony find your 7 reasons for using "mistress" (which are really defenses against reasons for not using it that aren't ours) as opposed to "ladyfriends" et al. compelling. However, we do have several (other) reasons for not doing things that way, which we have stated.
Angela, I am opposed to an inclusion to the effect that <some source> calls these women mistresses on the grounds that it would be non-notable. I agree that a discussion this lengthy about the word "mistress" does seem a bit absurd. I thought the same thing when I first got here, too. Since then, I have decided that it is a reasonable use of my time to see to it that "mistress" does not get into this article mostly on the principle that there is absolutely no reason (that I can see) for it to be there while there are many for it not to be there. I do wish someone would explain to me what it is they think is being sugarcoated by the wording as it stands. I'd love to try to rework things in a way that fixes that and also avoids the word in question.
In other news, the reasons I made the changes I just did require some explanation.
In a private conversation, Canthony expressed that he found my previous attempts to represent critics' views of Hef unencyclopedic without reference to a source. That is why he made his last edit to the article. He doesn't want to say that here for unimportant reasons.
My problem with that edit is that the second paragraph casts Hef in a positive light that I don't find NPOV and that there is a tacit suggestion in the mention of the lack of children in Hef's unmarried relationships that I think should be spelled out. I've brought in a source for the latter, and attempted to neutralize the tone of the second paragraph by recasting its first sentence.
I'm still not satisfied with this article, though. I think there should be an entire section devoted to the cultural controversy surrounding this man and his lifestyle. I might put something like that together if I feel motivated enough to do it. In the meantime, I think the article should stand as is. – Floorsheim 14:17, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Um... just wanted to add a "me too" vote to the majority feelings here: most people think of a mistress as a woman who is helping a man to cheat on his wife, with the further connotation that either the wife doesn't know about it or is strongly opposed to it. Using mistress in this article would be confusing and essentially inaccurate, for the way most people understand the word. Advocating the use of the word mistress here seems to stem from a desire to insert a non-neutral point of view, ie: someone here really doesn't like this man, and wants the world to know about. func (talk) 13:23, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You are a POV pusher. By changing a single misleading word in an encyclopedia, you wish to denigrate someone you don't like, rather than provide factual information about them. You would do better to get your own personal website at yahoo.com or wherever and make the point there. No one will come along and revert. This reminds me of a talk panel I once saw on television. 4 women were discussing prostitution. All of the women were opposed to prostitution, but while 3 of them choose to discuss it in a factual and non-emotive way, the 4th woman kept using the word whore... over and over and over again. I think it said more about her than it did about her arguments. func (talk) 13:46, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
One might consider the term "paramour" -- it doesn't have any negative connotation that I can think of. Jpgordon 20:19, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The anonymous Func is pushing the POV that dictionary definitions and the like do not count. He has obviously ignored 'factual information' about Hefner by his own admission. He has blindly indulged a politically correct form of vandalism.
Can anyone provide a link or some other information which states Hugh Hefner acknowledged having homosexual relationships?
The information you are looking for turned up in a quote from Hefner a few years ago and was roughly that he admitted to some homsexual interactions in the 70's when he was 'exploring the limits of his sexuality'. I think a Lexus/Nexus search might find the actual quote. Also, we need to add in a more current photo of him. Merecat 07:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is the first source where I've ever seen Hef linked with Terri Welles. I'm not sure that's correct, but since I'm not absolutely certain, I didn't want to delete it. Hey, if he slept with Terri Welles, he was a very lucky man. Asc85 05:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
From what I understand, Hefner holds undergraduate degrees in psychology and communications. I believe I saw this on an A&E Biography or something of that nature. Can anyone verify this? - IstvanWolf 05:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone expand the very limited information in this article about Hefner's professional career? How active was/is he in the production of Playboy magazine and in what areas? MK2 02:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
There was a recent addition to the page about Holly Madison leaving Hef, but it was unsourced. Can we either get a source or take it down? I did some brief searching on Google, but could find NO news about this split. Thanks! -- StarryIce 06:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
EDIT: I'm taking it down, as this "report" is apparently not based in fact. I have been looking for almost 3 hours online and have found nothing to support this posting. Feel free to discuss or put it back up WITH A SOURCE!! -- StarryIce 16:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I've placed an {{expand}} tag in the article, because this article quite imcomplete. Where are the sections of criticism of him, both from social conservatives and from feminists? Furthermore, a lot of it reads like so much trivia -- "he had girlfriends x y and z but then z left, and q came on", ad infinitum. So that section gets a {{cleanup}}. I don't know enough to fix the article, but I do know enough to tag it. -- Zantastik talk 06:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd like to know what this is about:
"Hefner has always espoused a shared liberal/libertarian stance in his editorials and in his life. On June 4, 1963, Hefner was arrested for selling obscene literature after an issue of Playboy featuring nude shots of actress Jayne Mansfield was released. Six months later, a jury was unable to reach a verdict."
Why was it considered obscene? Could this be a "The Pope Is Catholic" case? -- Damuna 03:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
In the Private life section, the girlfriends are now referred to concubines. There is no citation present that refers to them in that manner. -- Dcflyer 13:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, there is a major vandalization effort underway. I'm reverting it now.
Hugh recently said on a Swedish telivision programme that his grandparents on his mothers side were Swedes. Any confirmation on this? /Andreas
<End of original redacted archive>
Did Hugh at anytime become ordained? I heard that issue more than once. His philosophy was in reguards to the flesh. Boond ( talk) 14:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The Janet Pilgrim section seems unnecessary, or at the very least, in the wrong article. Should it not go in the Playboy article? Straws 22:14, 1 May 2007 (EST)
==Janet Pilgrim: three-time centerfold== In 1955, an employee became the centerfold because of the need for a copy machine in the magazine's offices. A female employee named Charlaine Karalus made the request, with Hefner offering to purchase it if the well-endowed Karalus would pose. Accepting the offer, Karalus became "[[Janet Pilgrim]]" in the July 1955 issue. She was featured again in December 1955 and October 1956, the only woman to be a Playmate in three months under the same name. One of the pictorials has a man out of focus in the background. It's Hefner. (The photo and explanation were reprinted in the June 1995 issue of Playboy.) Playboy credits her with being the first "girl next door" playmate.
-- Miss Dark 03:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
This article is a mess! I don't even know where to begin. Also, I thought Marilyn Monroe was Playboy's first centerfold. Eurolymius 17:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The quote from the E! interview is wrong. He said his mother didnt believe in the magazine, not his "venture" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.185.173.152 ( talk) 00:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Some of the references in this section are uncited and the language is confusing if not vague. According to Internet Movie Database's biography of Marilyn Monroe, "She would be the first centerfold in that magazine's long and illustrious history." ( http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000054/bio)
I'm new a using Wikipedia, so I dare not change the article myself. I do not know if IMDB is an appropriate source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eurolymius ( talk • contribs) 17:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
On the Raël pages it says Hefner is a sympathiser to that set of beliefs or 'religion', whatever it is. Shouldn't this be included if there is proof? 58.167.199.26 23:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Rusty8.
I made some material additions today to reflect the changing nature of HMH and his company. My changes were carefully sourced and referenced. All of my changes were, within an hour undone by RogueGremlin with no explanation. Sir, if you're going to wipe out my afternoon's work, you're going to need to make an edified (and well sourced) argument.
JerryGraf 21:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Your statement for one was not from a NPOV. Plus most of what you said was NOT verified by the site. The only thing the site verified was sites it had bought. NOT your personal views. Rogue Gremlin 22:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Everything I inserted cited third party sources. That you don't like what I inserted makes it neither my opinion, nor false. There is not a single citation in what you posted, not one. (Your assertion that internal links cannot be used as sources is also unsourced.)
If you have any specific objections (that means something other than the broad and vague generalizations you've already made), I'll be happy to re-consider my edit.
Please consider Wikipedia Etiquette when responding.
Thanks. JerryGraf 01:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference in citing something, and using a proper citation, (wiki itself is not a proper citation according to it's own policy. Furthermore the statements you added were from a personal POV and not a NPOV. The info about the comapnies bought is ok, but not your assumptions, also they do not belong in the opening, and furthermore They do not belong on Hugh Hefners page, You might can add them to the Playboy Enterprises page since all this has been done after his daughter started running the company Rogue Gremlin 19:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
First, I am unable to find any reference at all to your thrice repeated claim regarding internal links. I shall disregard this claim pending any citation. Your assertion that I do not have an NPOV is unsupported by any evidence. Your suggestion that this belongs only on the Playboy Enterprises page is belied by the fact that HMH is the top executive at that company.
Finally, Wikipedia Etitquette advises against the very thing you continally do, which is to delete ALL of my changes: "Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle. When you amend and edit, it is remarkable how you might see something useful in what was said. Most people have something useful to say. That includes you. Deletion upsets people and makes them feel they have wasted their time – consider moving their text to a sub-directory of their user pages instead (saying not quite the right place for it but so they can still use it): much less provocative"
JerryGraf 20:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you raise an interesting point.
It relates to what defining characteristics make a person prominent. There is little question that if HMH were to write his own biography there would be no mention at all of how Playboy has changed over the years. It is my opinion that an objective look at the what HMH has accomplished, and how he has impacted our society, muct include the points I've raised. Bill Gates' life has been on one trajectory. Compare that to Jeff Skilling, and Bernie Ebbers whose entries --and entire lives-- are now defined by a single event late in their lives. HMH's prominence is certainly due to one thing: the invention of Playboy Magazine. However, to terminate the overview on his life at that point in 1953 is to willfully ignore the important turn his life has taken. Playboy Ent. takes great pains in its corporate propoganda to avoid being labled a porn company. But the fact is that this is what it's become. It is also fact that Mr. Hefner is the majority (and controlling) shareholder of this corporation, and is listed on their own website as its most senior officer. These are surely important elements of his biography.
JerryGraf 21:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
It does not relate to his defining characteristics, since all of this was done after his daughter took over day to day operations of Playboy over 10 years ago. I agree with Rogue it does not belong here. Much less in the opening. Not to mention it is obvious from your statements, that you are NOT representing the article frojm a neutral point of view. I agree with Dysepsion and Rogue it does not belong here. What you are stating belong in Playboy Enterprises if anywhere. So I will point out to you what it says at the top of this talkpage "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard. " Posah-tai-vo 03:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Can no one deal with the text?? I have added third party citations on Club Jenna and Spice Digital Networks in order to satisfy the (still unsourced) wish that I not use Wikipedia links. Does anyone actually argue that CJ and Spice Digital are NOT owned by PEI. Please. This is nothing but a red herring. Second, to suggest that what I've posted is either controversial or potentially libelous is absurd. Once again, please comment on the text, not me. If you believe something is innacurate say so, then prove it.
Additionally, if you check the citation I've posted you will see that HMH is the controlling shareholder, and again per another citation, the TOP listed executive at the corporate web site. Last, that you would have the temerity to post something completely devoid of any citations and then question the validity of my posting is nothing short of comical. I'm particularly bemused by the fact that all you defenders of Wikipedia principles repeatedly post the assertion that HMH is somehow a voice of libertarianism without any citation whatsoever.
Time and time again, all you guys do is delete. You do no research and no real writing. You provide no evidence of your assertions, even in this very string. You simply revert to the bumper sticker corporate PR that's been here for some time, and then make accusations about NPOV. More than anything else, it is this dynamic that demonstrates who truly has some axe to grind on this subject.
Let's start working to improve the accuracy of this bio instead of seeking to promulgate corporate propoganda.
JerryGraf 05:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Good. It appears as though you've now abandoned all arguments but one, which in essence is: "Hugh Hefner has nothing to do with PEI." Please support that argument in light of two facts: First, HMH owns more than 60% of the Class A stock making him both the majority equity owner, and the controlling interest in this company. Those are hard facts. Please consider them. Second, Mr, Hefner in addition to being the top listed "officer" --in a list of officers-- also makes the highest annual cash compensation ($1MM) of ANY officer at this company including the CEO. Attempts to try to distance HMH from PEI make little sense in light of these facts. Last, please provide citation for your repeated posting of HMH as a voice of libertarianism. Until you yourself can live up to the high standards you profess, you undermine your own credibility.
JerryGraf 19:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Even if HMH publishing owned 95% of PEI. It does not make him the head of PEI. The company you are refering to in the acquistion is PEI, and the revenues are of PEI not HMH Publishing. HMH publishing in a sense makes money from what PEI does, but it does not tell PEI what to do, It is merely a major stock holder in the company. Hugh Hefner is NOT on the board of directors of PEI, not the charmain of the borad, and NOT the CEO. You need to understand how companies work. Your statements belong in PEI, NOT Hugh Hefner. Rogue Gremlin 19:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
JerryGraf 20:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
First of all I never said HMH publishing owned it. I was responding to you saying HMH owned 60% " HMH owns more than 60% of the Class A" Secondly The arguement still remains the same just because he personally owns a majority of the stock does not make him the TOP coroporate officer, neither does having the highest salary. He gets that because he FOUNDED the company, and is still Editor in Chief and Chief Creative Officer. The things you added belongs on PEI's page NOT this one. Not to mention you are trying to use negative comments in the biography of a living person which is against wiki policy. So it will be as wiki says to do IMMEDIATELY REMOVED. Rogue Gremlin 20:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, submit it Rogue Gremlin 02:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Being a majority stock owner in a company does not mean you run a company, also being the highest paid employee does not mean you run the company. His salary is based on him founding the company and being the only employee that has been with the company for 54 years. The part of the comment you are trying to add does not belong on this page it belongs on PEI's page, Not to mention you are trying to use it as a "negative comment in the biography of a living person." Hugh Hefner is paid as Editor-in-Chief and as Chief Creative Officer and is NOT on the board of director's at PEI. His daughter Christie along with the board of director's makes the decisions on what PEI does, as she is Chairman of the Board, and CEO of PEI, and has been since 1982. Rogue Gremlin 04:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
OK here are the exact words "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard." I have yet to actually report it. But I still can. Not to mention did you actually READ what you copied and pasted and understand it? Rogue Gremlin 05:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Rogue and Dysepsion, the paragraph belongs on Playboy Enterprises page not in the personal biography of Hugh Hefner. Regardless of his status in the company, since wikipedia has a Playboy Enterises page. In fact even the little bit that Rogue left should be transferred to Playboy Enterprises page as well. Posah-tai-vo 14:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Brendan, I don't quite get the relevance of your assertion that the biography must focus on "him." I am doubtful you could find anyone who would disagree with this. The question to be debated is the importance of this company to his personal biography. You seem to be implicitly suggesting that his "involvement and career" with PEI are somehow tertiary. Why? In the same way that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are defined by their companies, so it is the case with Mr. Hefner. I'm also interested in getting more detail regarding why you bring up the topic of "higher standards." There was not a single component of the section you find objectionable that was unsourced, or poorly sourced. (Indeed, the piece you left, about HMH being some kind of "voice" for the sexual revolution is unsourced.) I find this conversation interesting because it forces a debate on what a "biography" is, and why someone merits attention at all. HMH invented "Playboy" and this is an important reason why he is a biographical subject. However, it is quite a stretch to me, to argue that the nature of the company he owns and controls is not pertinent. I would direct you to the biographies of other business leaders and entrepeneurs. In this case, I think that because there are some people who regard a connection with porn as being pejorative, they don't think it belongs -- and then incorrectly invoke the BLP policy. To me, this argument is specious. The BLP policy is not intended to hide the truth of well sourced writing. It is intended to avoid frivolous and poorly sourced edits. I look forward to discussing this further.
(Separately, be aware that Posah-Tai-vo is a blocked sock puppet of Rogue Gremlin, and Dysepsion ended up agreeing with my additions, just not the placement of them.) JerryGraf 20:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
A cogent argument. Thank you. I agree with you. I've looked at the mix of information between Gates/Microsoft, Jobs/Apple, and Smith/FedEx and find that while there is some redundancy, it is indeed minimized. Of some interest, the founder's name is barely (at the moment) mentioned in the lead of the corporate articles. I'm going to work to improve the PEI page, and I'm going to remove the "voice of sexual revolution" concept here until someone finds a source for it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JerryGraf ( talk • contribs) 13:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
From comments on this page Dysepsion did not agree with you placing it within Hugh Hefner's bio page.Here is his comment stating that he does not think it belongs on Hugh's page "Even if for some reason, it belongs in this particular article which I don't think it does." DevilN dSkyz 02:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
And the only contributions Jerry has made to wiki is the same comment on The Hefner's page's, My guess is he/she/it is a disgruntled former employee.(Just a guess) Rogue Gremlin 21:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
For your information what I did was a revert. i did not add the part about libertarianism or whatever it was. But i will try to find a credible citation for it. If i can't then it shouldn't be there. Also i think you are talking about your self when you speak about trying to place your random thoughts that do not translate to fact. Seems as though others agree with me about you as well. Rogue Gremlin 02:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe that your name calling and verbal attacks will be taken care of after being reported. Not to mention his lifestyle reflects his choice. A lifestyle that he frequently speaks of, and is proud of. Also thanks for showing your true colors. Rogue Gremlin 02:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
They weren't my friends, once the request for comment was made. i placed it one everyones page that had used the talkpage. They chose to comment on their own. Using policy and common sense, something you obviously lack. You just didn't like the outcome Rogue Gremlin 03:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
It never occured to me that it was possible for someone to see well sourced comments regarding the distribution of pornography as existing on the same continuum with poorly sourced comments regarding voices of a political philosophy. In any case, until there is a source in which legitimate libertarian voices can be shown citing Hugh Hefner this connection will be deleted. In the alternative, if someone can find HMH describing himself as a "libertarian," then it will be fine to simply describe him as such, and not a "voice for." JerryGraf 22:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
You are just a sad little person. The part of the biography does not say "he calls himself a libertarian" it says he was a "voice for libertarianism" but i do understand how easy it is for YOU to be confused. The link provided has direct quotes, which are indeed his "voice for liberationism". Guess I will have to call for a "request for comment" that you will lose again. You are just here to try and destroy any page that has to do with Hef and nothing else, as clearly seen in your conntribs. Rogue Gremlin 22:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
You are critisizing yourself there. You brought the statement in I just included the whole thing. You brought in the first half of the statement, making it onesided, i included the rest of it to take it back to the NPOV. Rogue Gremlin 23:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
LoL, the mere fact that you are trying to seperate the two back to back sentences from that paragraph trying to give credit to one while discredit the other, while both comments are from the author of the article is ridiculous. You can't include one without the other. Either they both stay or they both go. Im fine with either. Rogue Gremlin 00:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
"Rogue Gremlin won the 2005 National Book Award for Best Novel, yet I think he's a horse's arse." Yes, all parts of a sentence must be true. JerryGraf 05:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
JerryGraf it is obvious that you just wish to mess with this page please stop. The picture that I just reverted is already on this page. Note to admins: The revert I just did was a different nature than others today. Rogue Gremlin 22:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, admins please go through this string. Note the well sourced comments I've put in. Note the non neutral POV of Rogue Gremlin who appears willing to do anything to avoid any deviation from the corporate PR spin put out by HMH. You will find my arguments complete, cogent, and supported with third party sources. Rogue needs to start seeking to improve the quality of this article and less time defending Hugh Hefner mythology. JerryGraf 22:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I recommend a more current picture of Mr Hefner. Can this be done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.24.2 ( talk) 23:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Hugh_Hefner
FOR ALL TO NOTE: Rogue Gremlin has refused to allow mediation. There can be no greater indication of the weakness of his argument than his refusal to allow a third party to intervene. Has he no shame? JerryGraf 13:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
First you asked him about submitting for arbitration(from a third party), He accepted. Then you asked for a Request for Comment(third party and more), He agreed. So he has not refused to let a third party help. From what I have seen he didn't refuse mediation, he DISAGREED mediation was needed because the dispute has already been resovled per the Request for Comment. So mediation is not necessary. Because a third party has already decided. You just didn't like that Request for Comment sided against you. Posah-tai-vo 15:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Point away, but you are sadly mistaken. As well as a sad little man with apparently no life. Because the only thing you come on wikipedia to do is try and make comments about Mr. Hefner, his family and Playboy. Did they cancel your subscription or something? In all my talk on this page I used that saying once. I said it first, since not only has he used it, but you have used it too. I guess that makes you a sock puppet too. Posah-tai-vo 18:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
So, since Hefner is a German surname - is he of German or Jewish heritage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.135.219.195 ( talk) 06:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe he's Jewish.
judaism is a religion, not a race. why does this confuse so many people? i assure you, that i am NOT from catholicville. my heritage is italian, my religion is catholic. israel is a country. it's primary religion is judaism, but juddaism is NOT exclusive to israel and vice versa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.143.189 ( talk) 22:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
You are right that Judaism is a religion but being Jewish also relates to a group of people of decent from ancient Israel having genetic markers and features distinc from other groups. Thus making being a Jew also has the possibility of being defined as a race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.25.226 ( talk) 06:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
How about calling them an ethnic group rather than a race? Radio Sharon ( talk) 21:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
on my local radio station, last week they said, he just turned 83. why does it still say 82? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.221.166 ( talk) 16:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Under "Private life", in the 1st and last paragraph. I think this should be corrected. 77.127.68.216 ( talk) 04:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Not a huge deal, but it says that in the 2008 film Iron Man Hef is played by Stan Lee. This is incorrect. Stan Lee is playing himself, and Stark mistakes him for Hef. This should be corrected. Jowades ( talk) 02:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I thought you'd like to see this: The Other Hef It is an internet-only 'TV' show and parody of Hugh's life where things aren't quite what you'd expect... Johnalexwood ( talk) 01:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Don't you think this should be included in the 'Hefner in pop culture' section? Johnalexwood ( talk) 17:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Would someone fix the date format as per WP:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)? 87.254.67.84 ( talk) 00:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Hefner has split with his main girlfriend. Somebody more knowledgable at editing wikipedia should edit the info...
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/TV/10/09/playboy.breakup.ap/
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7012494524 124.170.164.174 ( talk) 07:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
How can he be dating the playmates and they're off dating and getting engaged to other men? At the same time? Do the playmates get paid for dating & living with him? -- Crackthewhip775 ( talk) 00:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
In the book "Bunny Tales" the author (who was a girlfriend when Holly and Bridget started) said that they get a $1000 allowance a week, but have to pay for their own clothes and surgery etc (except boobs). They had not signed a contract, but we not allowed to see other people and had to be home by 9pm every night. They had to account for their location at all times and the staff would take note of where they were and what they were doing. The notebook was then given to Hefner for review. It was a very controlled environment, largely due to previous girlfriends having sex with Butlers. They didn't get many financial benefits from being with him and barely saw him on a day to day basis.
In an interview with Kendra, she let slip that she sneaked out to see Hank (?) but that Holly and Bridget had been 100% faithful to Hefner. Evil taxidermied sloth ( talk) 08:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
How does that quote support Hugh's atheism? It's quite ambivalent towards any religious views considering the meaning of the word myth. It could be taken to mean that he is a spiritual person whilst not pertaining to any particular religious doctrine. 77.101.162.111 ( talk) 18:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC) [[File:5129526
This claim of atheism seems to be hung more on the nature of the reference rather than the actual content. Mythologies may not be ultimate truths, so to deny the myth does not deny the ultimate reality. I should think that he's more agnostic in the sense that he hasn't thought about it, rather than this judgement from a tenuous source such as celebatheists.com. I'm removing the whole text because it's completely unsupported by the evidence, nor is there any indication of his views from the quotation. In fact, substantial parts just express confusion, and support least a Westerner's conception of atheism. MattHayden ( talk) 12:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Hefner is not divorced from Kimberly Conrad. It was announced recently that he has filed for divorce from her, but it has not been announced that a divorce is finalized. His current marital status is therefore Married/Separated, or simply Separated; I am going to edit the article to reflect this status rather than Divorced. If someone feels the need to change it back to "Divorced", please think first. Mr. Hefner is not divorced from Ms. Conrad. Savacek ( talk) 21:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Is Hugh Hefner at least part Jewish? AnwarSadatFan ( talk) 05:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Hefner's ancestry has been traced in detail. His father's parents, James Marston Hefner (from Illinois) and Lois Householder (from Nebraska), were a mix of English (including Mayflower) and Alsatian German. His mother's parents, Ida and Frank Swanson, were both of Swedish descent - Ida was born in Sweden, as were both of Frank's parents. So, no, he isn't part Jewish. Boomerblau's military comment isn't correct, though - while I'm sure there was anti-Semitism in the army at the time, plenty of Jews served in it - while I don't remember the exact statistic, I know they were overrepresented in the army during WWII. All Hallow's Wraith ( talk) 22:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
There should defiantly be an "in pop culture section" for example hefner plays himself in the mel brooks movie History of the World Part one and there are countless references to him in other movies, tv shows ets usually focusing on his entourage of women or his trademark robe-- 67.86.120.246 ( talk) 02:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
This fact is supported by a reference from his own writing. And the Wikipedia article on Women Studies states that it began as an academic discipline in the late 1970s. One source is wrong. 68.120.198.193 ( talk) 14:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
"he mortgaged his furniture"
How does one mortgage one's furniture? Surely the correct word is "pawn". Wikipedia itself defines a mortgage as "a security interest on real property granted to a lender" and real property is not furniture. Has the word been used ironically, sarcastically or simply because the word pawn was not deemed sufficiently high-toned to refer to a pornographer's financial arrangements? 154.5.32.113 ( talk) 03:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Unconfirmed reports that Hefner died today after a heart attack ( here). Might just be talk, but worth keeping an eye on. Would certainly be up for ITN if reports are correct. Ignorant Armies ? ! 07:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
it seems like Hefner's passed away today... i leave the wording to you since the page is protected...
regards Oceanblueeyes87 ( talk) 12:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
It is said at the bottom of the article that Hefner is a billionaire. A google search does not substantiate this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 ( talk) 14:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
A citation for "The Crooked Man" is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oVzc67YuRQE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glennglazer ( talk • contribs) 16:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to know whether top fashion models such as Coco Rocha and Jessica Stam have playboy shoots?(for example a playboy special issue or private calender).or a DVD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.118.21.114 ( talk) 09:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
This page has been selected by one of my students as a class project. Please be polite and constructive when editing or giving advice and be aware that the students involved in this project are learning Wikipedia along with learning research and writing skills. please assume good faith to their contributions before making changes. If you have any questions, please contact me. -- MrSilva ( talk) 18:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
The early life section is focused on another name - Dominic Tesch. If this is Hugh Hefner's birth name, it is not made clear at any point, nor is there any section detailing when/why he changed his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.250.143 ( talk) 10:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)