Talk:Hugh Hefner

If we read the first paragraph of this wiki article, then compare with this news article, the wiki article seems very positive:https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60132760Quaalude "leg-spreaders", "pig night", the "brainwashing", the "cult", "considered taking their own life" etc. etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.72.30 (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I second this! Has there been any resolution on why the extensive accusations against Hefner are not referenced in the introduction? It seems to be common practice to reference allegations (of this level) in introductions for other prominent figures. Bhf123 (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The lead simply summarizes the rest of the article. See WP:LEAD. Since there is nothing about these allegations in the article, they can't go in the lead. Also note that if someone wants to add this, it would need to be attributed to A&E. I would be opposed to adding these allegations unless they are coming from more than just one tabloid style TV show. GA-RT-22 (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok I see now we do have a paragraph about this. I still wouldn't add it to the lead. GA-RT-22 (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The lack of balance is not about the lead, but the entire article. The general impression of the content is that he was the publisher of a magazine that became a media empire. The recent A&E documentary gets a brief mention, although it makes a case that Hefner was a criminal:

1. He trafficked in drugs, but only an assistant was convicted.
2. He fit the legal definition of being a pimp: pandering and procuring, his mansions being brothels.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Are American Playboy: The Hugh Hefner Story and the Playboy Enterprises biopic both fiction? I thought a biopic by definition was biography, not fiction. Shouldn't these two along with Secrets of Playboy all be in a section just titled "Depictions"? GA-RT-22 (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Why doesn't this article have a separate "Controversies" section, given the many accusations of sexual assault and emotional abuse that have been directed at Hefner over the years? 37.96.200.171 (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Controversy sections are generally discouraged. See WP:CSECTION. GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

What goes into deciding who makes the “grade” as a “partner” considering he had so very very vey many girlfriends.I see some gaps.. (and imbot talking about the time in the 90s he was married) Cilstr (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

It should only be for those partners with an article. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Some one removed Carrie Leigh just because she does not have an article. Seems unfair, she was a major partner from 1983-1988 and sued Hefner for palimony. She is mentioned in the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbunds (talk • contribs) 16:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Christian fundamentalists are using this page to preach from! have a look at this here full paragraph quote:

"It's hard to fathom that anyone would have known what this would have turned into. Parents growing up today are fighting to keep their children pure. Spouses are fighting to keep their marriages intact. And many enslaved and trapped in the adult entertainment industry have been figuratively and literally stripped not only of their clothes, but their very value as people made in the image of God. If this does not concern us, what will?"

I would like for the extensive real crimes of Hugh Hefner not to be co-mingled with this christian dominionist tripe. This is very not neutral. How did this ever get in here? I can see why they (christian dominionists) want it here but how was the wiki not defended from being used this way?

@Jorm It seems to... the opposite of matter what CT thinks about Hugh Heffner? This is like letting politicians edit each other's pages. They are not a quality source on this subject to say the least. Please provide another reason to keep this quote or it is going to have to go. Advocatejake (talk) 06:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

"very not neutral"??? Content and sources need not be neutral around here. We document all POV here, and, without such content, we would be in violation of NPOV. Criticism and reputation are legitimate content. Christianity Today is the most significant RS for the views of evangelical Christians. We don't censor them here as the quote is very much on-topic. The quote is rendered accurately and is properly attributed and sourced. I see no reason to remove it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The career section of the article seems rather detailed. What specific periods should be covered? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)