Talk:Hugh Hefner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

Archive 1: September 2003 - November 2006

Contents

[edit] Religion

Wikipedia had Hugh as a Methodist. Was that vandalism? Why is it gone? 01:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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) Well, like a lot of jews in Germany, they were required to take European style surnames. Often this required them to buy(bribe) for a good one including such as "Diamond, Goldman, Silver, etc.", his Euro-name is Hefner for a reason and that's why!