Talk:Hugh Hefner/Archive 1

Hugh Hefner

Current talk page

1

Much Better! Now you need to check out how to fgure the status. Click on the link at the bottomof the checklist and follow the instructions there. Also, I'm not sure but we might need put Hugh in the Topic Informant Workgroup. Matt Innis (Talk) 19:50, 8 October 2007 (CDT)

I see what happened [1]. --Matt Innis (Talk) 19:53, 8 October 2007 (CDT)

Sorry again. I'll work slower. But Citizendium needs pages! Haha. But the checklist is all cool now?Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 19:56, 8 October 2007 (CDT)

Teamwork.. Checklist looks good for now. An editor might stop by and change the workgroups around some, but other than that it's all good. When you get good at this we will do {{subpages}} :-) Matt Innis (Talk) 20:00, 8 October 2007 (CDT)

Certainly this is Topic Informant. The lusty old geezer isn't dead yet. --Larry Sanger 20:15, 8 October 2007 (CDT)

sensation

A little editing is needed. The mag. is pretty moribund these days, certainly far from being a sensation. Someone could check the figures, but years ago it was selling several million copies per month; now only a fraction of that. Hayford Peirce 20:57, 8 October 2007 (CDT)

I'll deal with it now; also, I can't seem to make an internal link with "Playboy Magazine". I have no idea why it won't work.Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 20:59, 8 October 2007 (CDT)

According to one Intenret source: "Playboy's circulation is more than three million copies in the United States and 4.5 million worldwide. Ther most widely circulated issue appeared in November 1972 and sold 7,161,561 copies." That's 3 mil per month -- isn't that good?Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 21:01, 8 October 2007 (CDT)

Business Week, 2006: Playboy "(Rate base 3,150,000; reported circulation 3.005,753)"Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 21:04, 8 October 2007 (CDT)

OKAY! Final news, I guess. Starting in January 2008, "Playboy is slashing its paid circulation to 2.6 million from 3 million" [2] That's still okay, isn't it?Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 21:23, 8 October 2007 (CDT)

Yes, that's still pretty good, in fact, *very* good for the declining sales of *all* mags except, perhaps, Consumers Reports and National Geographic. But let's remember, also, that back in 1972 there were, what?, 50 million less Americans than there are today. So the *percentage* of sales 35 years ago was probably *far* higher than it is today. At least three times, I would say.... Hayford Peirce 22:53, 8 October 2007 (CDT)

I am so glad we entered into this conversation, because it has made me wonder if we're going to need a page for Playboy magazine on its own. And perhaps it will be there where we can convey circulation statistics and whatnot. Still early days. Tomorrow I have a finished article on World's Fairs to input. Tee hee.Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 22:57, 8 October 2007 (CDT)

Yes. I haven't bothered to look at the WP article(s), but I'm sure that in an expanded encyl. there should be a Playboy Magazine and a Playboy Enterprises. Hayford Peirce 23:01, 8 October 2007 (CDT)

Well, it's super that there are a lot of other people here then, haha. One thing: for some reason I cannot make an internal link to the first reference to Playboy magazine in the stub, no matter how many times I try. I can't figure out the problem. Will you please try? (Since Playboy mag. is going to require its own page; as well as Playboy, Inc. Thanks in advance just in case.)Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 23:04, 8 October 2007 (CDT)

Family Friendly

As a constable, I want to make sure everyone is aware of our CZ:Family-Friendly Policy. --Matt Innis (Talk) 21:10, 8 October 2007 (CDT)

Matt, what do you mean by that? Are you suggesting I don't have a smile on my face? I'm having fun and bringing info together. If you think I'm upset or whatever, no way. I love collating info and I'm pretty quick at it; I guess too quick. P.S. Playboy Annual Report for 2005 also says 3 mil a month for 2006.Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 21:13, 8 October 2007 (CDT)

LOL, yes, you must be smiling while you work, I can tell if you aren't >:< :D Matt Innis (Talk) 21:23, 8 October 2007 (CDT)

OH! I see what you mean. Of course. I thought you thought I was mad at having to rewrite. No way. Oh I see. Of course. I will be sure to keep it clean. And I am very sensitive to such things. I mean, I'm keeping books out of the bibliography that might tee off some Particular Person, you understand. For example. But I am sure you were right to inform me of this. I will respect and abide by all rules, period.Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 21:15, 8 October 2007 (CDT)

I am going to be watching this article like a hawk; not only anticipatorily but for entertainment value and adherance to FF policy. ;) --Robert W King 23:12, 8 October 2007 (CDT)

Haha, oh my, what did I get myself into? Someone else please take over! I'll write about the Mayflower Puritans instead . . . Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 23:13, 8 October 2007 (CDT)

Notes for Future Section?

Playboy base rate circulation 1972: 6.6 mil a month (highest ever) - New York Times: [3]

Actual circulation during the 1970s once reached over 7 mil a month - According to, um, Fox News - [4]

Circulation 1982: 5 mil a month - New York Times: [5]

Circulation 1987: 3.4 mil - New York Times: [6]

Circulation 2006: 3 mil a month - Business Week: [7]

Circulation 2008: 2.6 mil a month - Advertising Age: [8]Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 21:48, 8 October 2007 (CDT)

new changes

Hayford! Great work! But should it be (b. April 9, 1926)? Also, I personally find it dangerous to compare Hefner with anybody, because a whole can of worms is opened. For example, Howard Hughes had a veritable harem of women stashed away in apartments and houses across Southern California throughout the 1940s and 1950s. And other Hollywood stalwarts are renowned for their enterprising exhaustive dealings with women (Charlie Sheen, for one). What makes Hefner one-of-a-kind, in my estimation, is the Mansion itself. Do Bob Guccione and Larry Flynt have "pleasure palaces" akin to the Playboy Mansion? I don't know, myself.Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 23:32, 8 October 2007 (CDT)

The CZ convention seems to be (April 9, 1926, Chicago, Illinois—June 14, 2035, Los Angeles), so we might as well stick to it. Yes, Hugh is sui generis, but for a while Guccione had an even more elaborate place in NYC, although stuffed with art. Until he went mostly broke. Hayford Peirce 23:40, 8 October 2007 (CDT)

Convention: Thanks for that, I'll need to alter a few things now. I just looked into Guccione and Flynt and their lifestyles are/were nothing like Hefner's, supposedly. They're minor; should we really ennoble them to the extent that they're worthy of mention in the introductory paragraph? Your call. I gotta fix some dates now. Haha.Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 23:44, 8 October 2007 (CDT)

Hayford, the wordsmith extraordinaire. :-)  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 23:57, 8 October 2007 (CDT)

One other note: "more usually" is ambiguous to me, because "usually" in one sense, Hefner is "Hef". You know? Most often, actually, Hef is "Hef". (Guccione and Flynt are mere pale shadows compared to Hef. Okay, I'll stop. haha.)Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 00:05, 9 October 2007 (CDT)