Talk:Hugh Hefner/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Refactored from Talk:Hugh_Hefner&oldid=87947938 using Help:Archiving_a_talk_page.

Playboy

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.

Mistress

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:

Macquarie: "A Woman who has a continuing sexual relationship with one man outside marriage."

Oxford: "A woman (other than wife) with whom a man has a long-standing sexual relationship."

Penguin: "A woman with whom a man has a continuing sexual relationship outside marriage."

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:

• 4 references to a racehorse named "Lucks Mistress". Obviously these don't contribute anything to the conversation one way or the other.
• 13 references to the Peterson case. Obviously the "other woman
• 2 references to the "Harris case" - a reference to the other woman.
• the "Kim case" - other woman.
• The vietnamese deputy sports minister who paid a "former mistress" $1000 to procure him an underage girl for sex. Unclear whether he was married or not, but a highly negative reference.
• A quebecois high school teacher jailed for having sex with a student. Unclear whether he was married.
• Rebecca Loos, who had sex with the married David Beckham.
• A Hong Kong kid how ratted out his father to his mother.
• Monica Lewinsky.
• Camilla Parker-Bowles.
• A bank fraud case where one of the participants was a "long time mistress" of the other. Defence lawyers claim that the prosecution was acting on the morality rather than legality, suggesting that this was another married man (but I'm not certain.
• An agony aunt column about a married man.
• A guardian column about the ease of having a mistress for the nobility, when compared to a wife.
• A reference to a boat called "the mistress", including jokes about the jealous wife.

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)

No response, so I'm going to revert to a mistress-free version... --Robert Merkel 05:52, 24 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 I have explained to you, it carries a value judgement about their relationship. The ladies themselves describe themselves as "girlfriends".

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.

I disagree with you on current usage of the word "mistress", but even if I accept that it is still used to describe the romantic partner of an unmarried man, it still carries the implication that the women are not equal partners in the relationship and are being taken advantage of by Hefner. If you want to make that argument, fine - but don't sneak it in with your choice of language without substantiation. Secondly, the use of "illegitimate" in this context (when, as you state, he hasn't had any with his short-term girlfriends) is another attempt to cast Hefner in a negative light.

In any case, Mr (or Ms) Anonymous user, we are at an impasse here. I'm going to slap an NPOV dispute label on the current version and let other Wikipedians sort it out. --Robert Merkel 12:48, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't find the use of "mistress" overbearing. I don't think it should be taken out unless we can substitute a properly descriptive non-euphemism. "Girlfriends" doesn't do it. The fact that Hefner is famous, has access to a lot of women, does it openly does not make the women not mistresses. Other famous people, not so "active," are generally described as having had "mistresses," including Franklin D. Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower. On the issue of children, if there aren't any, it is a non-issue. If there are, they would be viewed as "illegitimate," which is a nicer term than "bastard."

I might agree if this were a case of an individual woman living with a man in a marriage-like situation which may lead to marriage. In this case "mistress" might be technically correct, but doesn't really describe the situation. But neither do "girlfriend" or "fiance." "Live-in lover" might be accurate, but is tacky.

As to the use of the term "mistress" bearing negatively on Hefner, it describes the behavior. Wikipedia has no interest in casting this in a softer light. If you say that, "well, the seven women he lives with, especially if there is intimate activity is more like marriage," then he is a polygamist. IOW, I don't think the article can or should be made "softer" than it already is. -- Cecropia | Talk 18:40, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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)

As for mistresses being confusing, see the dates when Hugh was married. Also, they "are being taken advantage of by Hefner"? Are you saying that this did not happen - in any case?? Lovers is not too bad, and has been used in the article - see Terri Welles.

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)

I would say that's closer to pimp than anything, or concubinage. Is there some kind of term we can agree on that communicates what he does without confusing it with infidelity in marriage? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:23, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)\

Addendum: see also dictionary.com, which lists 8 definitions. Of these, the first five all deal with a woman who is in a position of authority or power (e.g. a mistress of the culinary arts, etc.). #6 supports my view of the definition: A woman who has a continuing sexual relationship with a usually married man who is not her husband and from whom she generally receives material support. The other two are a courtesy title (Mistress Mary) and a British term for schoolteacher. I think we should change to a different word. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:41, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)

It's a tough one but I think we can do better with some thought. As of now, everything else seems worse than "mistress"--after all I don't think anyone takes the meaning to suggest he's housing schoolmarms. Your #6 definition comes close to what the "lovers" are absent his being married.

I think the difficulty comes from the fact that what Hefner does is so large, but (Godfather movies notwithstanding) a crime boss is often a street punk who made it bigtime; and a Wall Street thief a petty thief with an angle and a lot of chutzpah. Saying "lover" (even "mistress") reminds me of the Vaudeville introduction of a jaded showgirl with the tagline "is it a crime that she is so friendly"?

How about "liasons"? Maybe that approaches it better? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:32, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)

I believe that's even worse. Most meanings of "liaison" are non-sexual and the sexual one (mirriam-webster) is: "an illicit sexual relationship." That goes further than mistress. His relationships are not illicit (illegal, also implying hidden) and m-w compares "liaison" with "affair," which does not describe it either. So far "mistress" is best so far. Actually concubine is closest ("a woman with whom a man cohabits without being married: as one having a recognized social status in a household below that of a wife.") But what does m-w use as the comparative definition of concubine? You got it: "mistress." -- Cecropia | Talk 20:26, 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?

You might think it's settled, but you would be wrong. Mistress, in describing a relationship by an unmarried man with an unmarried woman, is an archaic term and carries a note of disapproval. I don't pass judgement on Hugh Hefner, and neither should the Wikipedia. But by the choice of language we are condemning him. There are other words that don't carry the same value judgement but make perfectly clear that Hefner was having a sexual relationship with these women. If you want to make the argument that Hefner manipulated and exploited these women, make it explicitly rather than trying to sneak it in! --Robert Merkel 15:28, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The main focus of this debate is - is mistress an accurate word? It is. Also, whoever it was who wrote "Let's recognize this quibbling over words as the secondary issue it is." hit the nail right on the head.

I don't necessarily disagree with you but how is arguing that Hefner exploited these women less POV and value-laden than use of the term "mistress"? Overall this article reeks of an even more antique attitude "You and me, we're men of the world, and we know that Hefner is just a good 'ol boy whose got a good angle with the ladies." That's why I called this heading "a wink and a leer." In general terms, I don't agree with the "Wikipedia No-Values Police" attitude, which causes obvious points to be soft-peddled because it is "value-laden." An encyclopedia is expected to use descriptions accurately rather than dump a pile of assertions on readers, and let them sort it out. -- Cecropia | Talk 17:17, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, the problem is, 'mistresses' is POV--it carries with it a connotation of disapproval (as referenced by dictionary.com). So we need to find a neutral phrasing to indicate that Hefner had a sexual relationship with these women. Maybe a request for comment would suit us here. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:36, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)

Cecropia, I understand your point, I believe. What I am suggesting to you is that it is entirely NPOV to include other people's criticisms of Hefner's behaviour. The article would be improved by doing so! Such criticism might even possibly discuss the issue of the appropriate description of Hefner's lovers. However, by the Wikipedia calling them mistresses, when Hefner himself and the ladies concerned do not use the term, is expressing a point of view without even going in to the debate. As to the other language in the article that you object to, it too should be attributed or deleted. --Robert Merkel 11:24, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hefner has more than a sexual relationship with the women. His position is more like a procurer who incidentally has sex with the women. Look at some of the rhetoric in the article: "the sexually open and financially well-off swinger, the 'man's man.' " Sexually open and financially well off? That could describe Tommy Manville or Errol Flynn or almost any significant rock star, none of whom live off the earnings of the women they screw. And he wasn't financially well-off until he started earning his money off of these women's sexuality. "Swinger? Man's man?" Gad, how POV can you get? "Swinger" is surely NPOV. ;-| Define a man's man for people. Someone who gains the admiration of many men as an example of manly values? Colin Powell maybe. Or Winston Churchill. Or in a different context, Boy George or Freddy Mercury? And the quote about his current stable: "And here's the surprise bit — it's what they want!" Or sure, we should accept at face value that women want to leave with him at 78 because of his charm. They couldn't possibly be after luxury, money or fame. As the expression goes, this article "Out-Herod's Herod," and we worry that "mistress" is judgmental. Sure, have an RfC. Why not?

I don't know, to me, the word "mistress" doesn't have any connection to extramarital affairs. Personally, I agree with the author of the statement on the top of this page - you people are arguing over the mere possibility of the negative implications of a single word in reference to a man whose life has been swamped in what most of society would consider vice for 50 years or more. There must be bigger issues with this page than what sort of image the word "mistress" conveys. I say leave it as mistress, and get on with the encyclopedia. StellarFury 18:03, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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?

BTW, I did a google search on Hefner and mistresses - 1,420 entries were returned. Now is that evidence that the word mistress is out of style?

---

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)

I agree that the fact that there are 1,420 web pages mentioning both the word mistress and the name Hugh Hefner does not establish a strong connection between that word and Hefner's girlfriends. What we would need is a *significant* number of (non-mirror) pages containing phrases like "...Terry Welles, Hugh Hefner's mistress..." Since search

"Hugh Hefner" "[name of alleged mistress]" +mistress -"[random text string from article]"

yields no more than eleven hits for any non-trivial string, I doubt one could find such a number of this variety of phrases. Also, note that search

"Hugh Hefner's mistress"

yields zero hits. It seems to me we would expect some if the connection [anon] suggests were common. –Floorsheim 10:44, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You make a good point; it would be destructive for us to sugarcoat things or ignore negative aspects of reality in what we do here. If Wikipedia is to be as exhaustive as we all would like to see it become, such things must be represented—including as they are viewed that way by various cultures.

However, I also think that there are enough people who find nothing immoral about Hefner's relationships that to use language that represents them as such would be POV. I would be fine with an inclusion to the effect that many people do find Hefner's relationships immoral in some way. Why don't you go ahead and add a sentence or two to the article explaining exactly what it is that folks are concerned about?

Also, you might consider getting yourself a user name. The process is very quick and greatly facilitates communication. And never feel like you need to ask permission to edit an article (regardless of whether you have a user name or not). If you think there's a problem with an article, go ahead and fix it immediately. This is an important part of how Wikipedia works. (see Be Bold policy) –Floorsheim 09:33, 5 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.

You have insisted on your favoured phrasing without considering any of the perfectly valid alternatives advanced by others, including myself. Given that a number of people have objected to the use of the word "mistress", would you please consider how best to 'explicitly state the objections that many, but by no means all people, have towards Hefner's relationships with his playmates. Then we'll both be happy, I think. --Robert Merkel 09:37, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In other news, it appears Anon's (I'm assuming for simplicity there is only one) problem with the article as it stands is that it is in some way not clear enough without the use of the term mistress. Anon, could you tell us what you feel mistress establishes that the present usage does not. –Floorsheim 10:44, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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.

Please try, try, try to understand that a word (m)ight be accurate according to the dictionary definition but carry additional connotations that make value judgements. If you will pardon my crudity, it might be quite accurate, according to the dictionary for the article on Angelina Jolie to describe her as a slut. However, this would imply a value judgement on her behaviour so we dont use this language. This is a similar case. --Robert Merkel, who cant sign this or get apostrophes because he is trying to type on a broken German keyboard...

Anon, you have yet to say why the usage you suggest establishes any factual information that is not established by the alternative text. In answer to your question "How am I to differentiate between illegitimate children and legitimate ones?" you may do so by noting from the context of the sentence that children born out of wedlock are under discussion. I'm reverting.

Again, if there is a widespread value judgement concerning Hefner's relationships, I am interested in hearing about it—hopefully (but not necessarily) along with the basis for that judgement and am all for mentioning it in the article. In that spirit, I think I'm going to add some things to the article that reflect what I have pieced together about your point of view.

Look, a "slut" is not the same kind of word as a "mistress". That's a more judgemental word. 210.9.64.162 05:55, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if one word is more judgemental than the other. Both are judgemental, and as such should be avoided when discussing facts. Judgements, if they are notable enough, must be discussed separately. –Floorsheim 03:23, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In answer to your question, I don't find any of your points (1) to (7) to be convincing reasons to substitute the current verbage for one that is outdated, widely unknown as to its exact meaning and, for many of us, ringing with judgment. The only argument I would find convincing for such a substitution is one that established that there were facts not expressed by the current verbage that would be expressed by the one you wish to substitute. And even if that were the case, I would prefer to find a means of expressing those facts that did not use said verbage. –Floorsheim 03:57, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What Floorsheim said. --Robert Merkel 05:35, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

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)

Thank you. However, our anonymous friend continues to revert the page. Could it please be protected in a mistress-free version (I'm an admin, but since I'm a major protagonist in this dispute it would be inappropriate). --Robert Merkel 05:35, 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.

Wow, 5000 words of discussion on the use of one word! 210.9.64.162 asked me to comment here but I don't really have an opinion either way. There are valid points for using the word, and valid points for using alternatives. Are those in favor of using the word "mistress" willing to compromise on anything other than that word? If not, I don't know what the solution is since there are a lot of people disagreeing with that terminology. How about using a different word in the text, but noting that <some source> called them mistresses? Without a source, I can understand why people are objecting, but at the same time, I can understand that people don't want to "sugarcoat" it. Perhaps it would be less of an issue if the word were not so overused in the text. It seems to be repeated too much at the moment. I don't think the use of the word affects the neutrality of the article to such an extent as to need an {{NPOV}} tag. Angela. 13:16, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

The most recent reversion was done by me. I switched to the Aug 30 version because it seems to be exactly like anon's version except for the replacement of the word mistress. I'm not saying you're wrong anon, but I don't really see that as the point. Even if mistress were the finest choice of word, it severely bothers some people. That should be enough to agree to a minor edit to appease them. It's not always about proving your point. Now hopefully we can all just relax, move on to another article, and never think about Hugh Hefner again. Canthony 05:22, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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)

It's always easier in packs isn't it? (anon)

• Hefner doesn't mean a thing to me. I barely even know who he is, outside of this article.
• I read the entirety of this talk page before commenting.
• I don't belong to any packs.

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.

Gay rumors

Can anyone provide a link or some other information which states Hugh Hefner acknowledged having homosexual relationships?

Here's an article which claims "a former girlfriend claims that Hefner now prefers homosexual porn". However, the claim is unsourced, and the article is by a Christian minister ranting about what an evil person Hefner was and therefore has approximately zero credibility on the topic. You'd definitely want a more credible source than that before putting such a claim in the article. It probably refers to the book I mentioned earlier on in the talk page (which I have not read). --Robert Merkel 22:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, this equally vitriolic article sources the claim as follows:

Hiding in plain sight in the June 2001 issue of Philadelphia magazine is Ben Wallace's essay "The Prodigy and the Playmate." In it Sandy Bentley, the Playboy cover girl and former Hefner girlfriend (along with her twin sister Mandy), describes Hefner's current sexual practices in just enough detail to give you a good long pause:

"The heterosexual icon [Hugh Hefner] … had trouble finding satisfaction through intercourse; instead, he liked the girls to pleasure each other while he masturbated and watched gay porn."

Frankly, I still wouldn't put the claim into the article until I've read the original article in which it is made. I'd trust the Christian right to report accurately on Hugh Hefner about as much as I'd trust intelligent design proponents to accurately portray evolutionary theory.

In any case, here's a ponderer for you; does the activity he's allegedly partaking in make him "gay"? --Robert Merkel 22:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

dual-degree

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)

Leaving aside his personal life for a moment

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)

On Holly

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)

Expansion

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)

Concubines ?

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.

Roots

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>

Religion

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)

Janet Pilgrim

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)

• I agree. Does not pertain to Hefner in any significant way (and the choice of placement is...unusual). I'm removing the section and placing it below; if someone wants to paste it into the Playboy article somewhere (I couldn't find a good spot for it), please do.

==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)

Nonsense!

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)

First Centerfold.

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).

Raël concerns

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.

Edit Conflict

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 companyRogue 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)

Why is there company info in the opening paragraphs of this article? There's always an introduction to the company of a person who is a founder or president of the company, but it usually doesn't go into detail like revenues. It's poor practice in Wikpedia. Not even the Bill Gates article does this. How can the revenue of Playboy be given so much prominence in an article when the person has not been in charge of day to day operations since 1983. You're giving company info on a bio. A brief mention can be made in the article but not the opening. The paragraph is more deserving in the Playboy Enterprises article. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 20:31, 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)

You do make a good point, and I don't see anything wrong with the paragraph per se, just the placement of it and yes I know very well that Playboy doesn't like to be labeled a porn company and that the majority of their revenue now is through porn; I was with them for 3 years. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 22:10, 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)

Also if you check PEI records you will see Christie Hefner is both, Chairman of the Board and CEO since 1981. Not Hugh Hefner, He is still the Editor in chief of Playboy Magazine and Chief Creative Officer thats it.Posah-tai-vo 03:25, 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)

As you have been told by me and 2 others, What you are trying to add has to do with Playboy Enterprises, not Hugh Hefner as his daughter has been running PEI for the last 26 years. If you want to try and add it try there. But it will always be deleted here. Try adding something of value about Hugh Hefner. Not to mention PEI does not try to hide from all the companies it owns. But your comments are about PEI not Hugh Hefner, since he does not run PEI and is not even on the board of directors. Yes he is a coroporate officer and his name is at the top because he is the FOUNDER he is NOT the top executive, his titles are Editor in Chief, and Chief Creative Officer, neither of which are involved with the day to day operations of PEI. His daughter is the TOP executive and has been for over 20 years. So add it to PEI with proper citations and i wont delete it, but add it here and I will.Rogue Gremlin 15:43, 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)

You have now lost all credibility. This will be my last note to you. The shareholder listed as owning over 60% of this business is not "HMH Publishing," it is "Hugh M. Hefner." You are deliberately seeking to mislead both the readers of this thread and those of the article. HMH owns this company. He holds the highest paid executive position at this company. As I indicated earlier, your wish to divorce him from his company is absurd and emblamatic only of your non-neutral interest. Finally, you reposted the unsourced libertarianism comment.

The way you are managing this disagreement is counter to everything recommended by Wikipedia in Edit War.

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)

I am willing to subject our dispute to binding arbitration. Are you?

JerryGraf 22:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, submit itRogue Gremlin 02:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration was rejected as prematureArbitration. I'm going to post for comment.JerryGraf 20:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC: Is Playboy in The Porn Business? Does this relate to Hefner?

Playboy Enterprises derives a disproportionate share of its revenue from Porn. Hugh Hefner is the majority owner of the company. He is the highest paid officer. This company's business is defacto, part of his bio.JerryGraf 02:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The language that is repeatedly deleated appears at the end of the overview. It follows language which we agree on that Playboy Magazine is today only one third of all Playboy revenue. Gremlin wants to stop it there. I believe that those other two thirds must be identified, and carefully sourced, as follows:

The balance comes through the dissemination of adult content in electronic form, such as television, the internet and DVD's.[4] Much of this electronic revenue comes not from the soft nude imagery which made the magazine famous, but from hardcore pornography connected with the company's ownership of Spice Digital Networks[5], Club Jenna[6], and Adult.com [7] JerryGraf 11:47, 27 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)

RG is incorrect with respect to Mr. Hefner's role. He owns the company, and runs the company via his unfettered control of the board. This following is a quote from Playboy's annual report on form 10-K to the US Securities and Exchange commission on March 16, 2007:

"Ownership of Playboy Enterprises, Inc. is concentrated. As of December 31, 2006, Mr. Hefner beneficially owned 69.53% of our Class A common stock. As a result, given that our Class B stock is nonvoting, Mr.Hefner possesses influence on matters including the election of directors as well as transactions involving a potential change of control. Mr.Hefner may support, and cause us to pursue,strategies and directions with which holders of our securities disagree. The concentration of our share ownership may delay or prevent a change in control, impede a merger, consolidation, takeover or other transaction involving us or discourage a potential acquirer from making a tender offer or otherwise attempting to obtain control of us."

Key to this edit issue is to whether Mr. Hefner significantly influences the direction of this company. Here, Playboy itself says he does.

RG is also wrong on two other fronts. First, Wikipedia policy does not prohibit "negative" comments, it prohibits falacious and poorly sourced comments. Second, while the assertion that PEI distributes porn seems to be "negative" to RG himself, it is certainly not objectively so. JerryGraf 05:12, 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 was asked to comment so here's my two cents. I don't see anything wrong with the paragraph itself, just the placement of it. It is more appropriate in the Playboy Enterprises artice. Even if for some reason, it belongs in this particular article which I don't think it does, there is no way it belongs in opening paragraph; perhaps another section in the article. Looking at the edit history, I also don't see why it is continually being reverted to include this paragraph when three editors have expressed their opinion in this talk page to exclude it with the opposition of only one. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 06:12, 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)

• Agreed (Rogue Gremlin, Posah-tai-vo, Dysepsion). An article about Hugh Hefner must focus primarily on him. Especially the lead section, whose current form excessively focuses on Playboy Enterprises to the detriment of the biography. It is appropriate to describe his involvement and career with PE, but keeping in mind the higher standard required by WP:BLP, detailed content specifically about Playboy Enterprises should be moved to that article instead. Playboy Enterprises is wikilinked in Hefner's BLP as appropriate and sufficient. At a glance, the Hefner biography could also do with expansion of relevant content and a considered rethink of the article structure. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 14:14, 7 October 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)

My point is that detailed information about PEI is more appropriate on the PEI page. That's not to say that Hefner's role and extent of his influence on PEI should not be explored in his BLP. Of course it should. But that's not what is under discussion here. The inclusions I removed from the HH article were already included (verbatim or nearly so) in the PEI article. Wikipedia editing policy encourages the preservation of information except in cases of duplication/redundancy, of which this was a perfect example. Note also that Dysepsion's comments above do show a clear preference for moving the detailed PEI material over to the PEI article. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 09:14, 8 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)

Good form, good ideas both :) --Brendan [ contribs ] 16:16, 9 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)

DevilN is yet another sock puppet (now blocked) JerryGraf 07:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Further dialogue

As of now like Dysepsion pointed out "I also don't see why it is continually being reverted to include this paragraph when three editors have expressed their opinion in this talk page to exclude it with the opposition of only one." So I will be removing the remainder of the paragraph that I Left behind as a result of this Request for comment. Once again you have proved that your comment is about PEI, also you are trying to include a controversial comment that is possibly libelous which is against wiki policies. So as of now the page will be reverted to what 75% of the editors responded it should be. Also of what you copied and pasted this sentence alone prove he does not run the company. "Mr.Hefner possesses influence on matters including the election of directors as well as transactions involving a potential change of control.Rogue Gremlin 21:07, 27 September 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)

The most recent article posted by Rogue Gremlin has no sourcing whatsoever. Rogue doesn't seem to recognize that his random thoughts do not translate to fact. "Not to mention" his careless edits are an embarrassment. I take solace only in the fact that no one seems to care about this page. Go on and play children. I’ve got better things to do than to teach high school English to cretins ("Just a guess").LMAO JerryGraf 01:59, 29 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)

Rogue's view of a credible source for the comment that HMH is a "voice of libertarianism" is an article, critiquing a movie, in which Hefner is described as being a Libertarian. This would be akin to my suggesting that simply becuase Mr.Gremlin is a cretin, that he is a voice for cretins. I believe this would be innacurate. JerryGraf 02:38, 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)

My true colors are revealed by the sensible and well sourced remarks I've made throughout this thread. The remarks of Rogues' friends (who were openly solicited by him) are of little interest. I'd like nothing more than an objective appraisal of the manner in which Rogue has conducted himself here. He has insulted me, and the readers of this site, with his continued, fallacious, unsupported, and in some cases mendaciously written remarks. JerryGraf 03:13, 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 outcomeRogue Gremlin 03:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Also you have spent the last few weeks trying to make him out to be a worse Libertarian than what he is, now your trying to say he isn't one.Rogue Gremlin 19:57, 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)

Rogue Gremlin, who can in no way be treated as a serious contributor to this community, somehow regards this statement: "But somehow, he comes across as less the dirty old man and more the convivial party die-hard." as being in an encyclopedic tone and coming from an NPOV. LOL. I've seen better writing in People Magazine. This truly requires some intervention. JerryGraf 23:13, 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)

The statement "he has been labelled..." is a statment of a purported fact from an article some people think credible. The statement "he comes across as..." though from the same article, is one person's observation. If we were to take the observations of any single individual as credible, one could find all kinds of "voices" from the religious right calling HMH all sorts of horrible things.

I'm starting a collection for RG to attend some accredited lecture in critical thinking. He might also benefit from High School composition. JerryGraf 23:35, 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)

Rogue is also 100% correct in his assesment of you showing your true colors after the request for comment was decided against you. Though he has not reoprted you yet for your incivility and personal attacks, that does not mean others won't. He has demonstrated that he is a far better human being than you could ever even dream of becoming.Posah-tai-vo 16:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

picture

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)

It has already been noted that you are not trying to improve the article. And what I have did was made comments from a NPOV, but even on this talkpage you have admitted that what you have been trying to do. I left the part you added but included the whole thing.Rogue Gremlin 22:58, 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)

Request For Mediation

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)

Ah. Thank you. I see now. His refusal to accept mediation is made out of his high minded regard for the members of the mediation team.

Separately, that two (2) people saw this (in some sense) his way does not "decide" the issue. Despite your (and his) repeated lockstep assertion of that idea. Fact is, if there is merit to the argument, there is no cost to agreeing to mediation. That is unassailable.

Also, in that you keep pressing this, I will point out the gathering evidence that you are nothing but Rogue's sock puppet. The repeated use of the spoken expression "not to mention," as well as the poor grammar, the remarkable synergy of view and the perfect timing of posts are all quite suggestive. I invite you to make all the reports you can. JerryGraf 17:43, 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)

I don't know if he is a sock or not, his edits go a long way back. -Icewedge 23:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

My two cents' worth

• I am puzzled at how little this entry says about Hefner. Compare with Bob Guccione. That the little this entry does say has also proved viciously controversial (see above), is a reflection of the sad fact that controversial subjects not infrequently turn Wikipedia into a verbal car crash.
• That Hefner owns a majority of Playboy Enterprises stock is presumably a matter of public record. That his daughter Christie has had editorial control over Playboy for the past 25-odd years should be evident to the casual observer. Dividing business ownership and control along related generational lines is not unusual. How such divisions work in practice is, of course, very case specific and thus hard to generalize about. The devil is in details that are not matters of public record.
• Hefner could not have studied feminist and gender studies at Northwestern around 1950, because at that time, those academic disciplines simply did not exist. The founding manifesto of modern feminism, Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex was published only in 1949, and in French. Curiously and coincidentally, Simone's lover at that time was the Chicago writer Nelson Algren.
• Playboy began publication around the time I was born. It hit its sophistication peak when I was a horny teenager. Since then, I've watched it decline from a magazine often mentioned and quoted in fully prim contexts, to an irrelevance. My demur mother told me years ago that she once leafed through a copy and was not offended; she would be now. My equally demur father told me once that he was impressed with Playboy as a business. He wouldn't be now.
• The trouble with erotica is that it is subject to the sinister logic of the arms' race.
• If Hefner told biographers/interviewers that he was devastated when his first wife admitted that she had had an affair during their engagement, that is a bit rich given what is well-known about his carefree lifestyle over the past 45 years. What's good for the dipstick is good for the engine block! ;<)Palnot (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you've touched on a number of topics, but I tried to verify only one: Hefner studying women and gender studies at Northwestern in 1949. I was unable to find this info in any reliable, third-party sources. And the source given in the article for this info, a graphical timeline at playboy.com,[1] does not mention such studies either. I have removed that info. — Satori Son 18:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Jewish or German?

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)

Age

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)

Son David's birth date mentioned twice

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)

Iron Man

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)

The other Hef

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)

Date format

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)

Split with girlfriends

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)

Girlfriends

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)

I asked once the same thing, and got the responce that he probably have a secret contract with them, where they have to promice to not date other men, and accept to pay a large indemnization to Hugh if that happens anyway. As I understands it the girls are not with Hefner for sole money, he's "atactive" because of the prestige to being his favourite, the favourite of the king of pornography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.149.104.126 (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2009 (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)

Atheism

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)

I removed the category as well. I don't think Hugh has a religion, but I honestly doubt atheism as his belief as well. 64.234.0.101 (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Marital status

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)

Jewish?

Is Hugh Hefner at least part Jewish? AnwarSadatFan (talk) 05:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I was just wondering the same thing. Mrs. Peel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

Though possible, seeing the names of his parents is very unlikely. Grace Caroline and Glenn Lucius are very non-traditional Jewish names, especially for the time period that they were born and lived. Due to institutional racism, it is also unlikely that Hef is Jewish because of his military service. Jews struggled to be welcomed into the military during the period of his service. Boomerblau (talk) 05:54, 11 December 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)

Pop culture section

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)

Took courses in Womens Studies in 1949?

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)

Mortgaging furniture

"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)

So fix it. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope. I view my role here as more copy editor than writer. But I must confess Caroline that (notwithstanding the Brazilian wax job) I'm surprised that you would show so much interest in Hugh Hefner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.32.113 (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Death

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. IgnorantArmies^?! 07:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, probably just a rumour [2]. Wondering if I should remove this before I look like an idiot... IgnorantArmies^?! 07:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Too late. You've been spotted. Dismas|^(talk) 08:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 77.71.170.26, 12 July 2011

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)

No, Hefner is very much alive see hugh hefner is dead rumour circulates the-web. GcSwRhIc (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It would have helped if you had read the section entitled "Death" before requesting the edit. Dismas|^(talk) 13:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Alleged billionaire

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)

Total equity is said to be minus $22 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Citation for Beaumont story in "Playboy"

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)

Is there any special issue about top models ?

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)

Class Project Page

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)

Tesch?

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)