Talk:Playboy Information & Talk:Playboy Links at HealthHaven.com

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Playboy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

Wikipedia is not censored
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable in order to ensure a quality article, and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to our content disclaimer regarding objectionable content.

WikiProject Magazines

(Rated C-Class, High-importance)

	v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C	This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Illinois

(Rated C-Class, Low-importance)

Illinois portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

C

This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Chicago

(Rated C-Class, Low-importance)

Chicago portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.

C

This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Pornography

(Rated C-Class, High-importance)

Pornography portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

C

This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives
/Archive 1

[edit] Firsts

Shouldn't marge simpson be featured here as the first cartoon character to make the cover? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.139.127 (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Celebrities

Can we just remove that section altogether? There seems to be no point, as a whole list of everybody who has posed is already available. Irk _(talk) 15:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought I had replied to this when it was originally posted... odd... Anyway, I think it's a notable enough series in the magazine that it warrants inclusion. The small lists aren't taking up that much space. It's just sort of a pain when people avoid the 5 or 6 comments within the section asking for people to not just add yet another name. We have a good spread of years represented and the sports category is no longer 75% wrestling women. Dismas|^(talk) 23:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, enough celebrities have been in the magazine in some form or another (posing, 20 questions, interviews, etc.) to warrant having a small section in there, like what is currently in place. The short list present seems perfectly fine to me as examples of celebrities who have appeared in Playboy in some form or another. UncleThursday 02:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Models vs. Girls in article

I believe we should change the term girls to the term models when discussing the web site for Playboy. Although Playboy calls them Cyber Girls, an encyclopedic article should call them models, since that is what they are; and the term girls may be misconstrued as meaning girls under the age of 18. Thoughts? UncleThursday 02:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removed comanies owned by PEI

The part of the article I removed was saying Playboy Magazine owned these companies. Playboy Enterprises owns these companies the same as it owns Playboy Magazine. Since this article is about Playboy Magazine it should not be on this page saying that the magazine owns them, as this is false information.Rogue Gremlin 06:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Dismas|^(talk) 06:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection now implemented

Due to this page being repeatedly targeted by IP address and new-user vandals, I've gone ahead and implemented semi-protection. This means that this article will not be editable by anonymous users or by users with an account that is, at most, four days old. Anyone with an account older than 4 days can edit the article. The semi-protection is infinite, though can be scaled down to a more defined period at a later date.

Of course, anyone who can't edit the article is more than welcome to discuss changes that should be made here on the talk page! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 21:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Playboy not a porno today

I just finish with one and can say it is not porn. Today it's mostly articles, ads, cartoons, and JUST a few pics that a times do not even reveal the poon or tits. The recent issue is a great example.YVNP (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The very first issue was a great example, too. So has been every issue I've read myself thereafter.

Playboy has never been pornographic. The keys to the meaning of the word are "primary purpose," and "artistic merit."

Every woman I've ever known who's read an issue of Playboy has regarded its depiction of women as tasteful, elegant, even wholesome, if light-heartedly lascivious. Each of the few women I've known quite personally who've posed for the magazine, or have worked for its photo department, has commended the professional respect that organization consistently has shown women in every encounter.

Wortschätzer (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Airbrushing incident

A Polish gossip site http://deser.gazeta.pl (not a reliable source) claims that one of the recently published US Playboy magazines had published a picture of a model with an edited out navel."What is wrong with this Playboy bunny?" Can anyone confirm or deny this claim? The website does not give any deteils besides the fact that the model was Brazilian. Mieciu K (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

some of these magazines make men want sex even more —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.129.167 (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC) The image was a fake. 75.110.137.47 (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The interview

The Playboy Interview is a very noted and notable feature of the magazine, often generating headlines (ref. Martin Luther King and Jimmy Carter). I've started a section on this, but it should be expanded - perhaps spun-off into its own article. 23skidoo (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is written as if it were an ad

As the header says. Chasnor15 (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No yellow on the map

The caption on the map refers to yellow on the map, yet there's no yellow there. 67.38.24.177 (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Circulation

In "Circulation" it says 1/4 of all college men were buying Playboy each month, but it doesn't mention (as the source does) that this was by the end of the 60s, rather than 1972 as the text states. I'd edit this but I don't have an account. 71.123.119.67 (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know what Playboy international edition is available to readers in countries where there isn't a national edition. Is American playboy the standard in UK and Canada? What edition do they sell in latin american countries that don't publish Playboy, the Mexican? The Spanish? Or maybe they don't even know the magazine? (189.63.69.195 (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC))

[edit] See also

I think there should be links for Playboy Cyber Club, Playboy Online and Playboy Special Edition in this section. Meister Schmidt5 (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Playboy IS porn!!!

Any magazine that has pictures of women called "ass fucking sluts" and "big vixens" is considered porn.

Also, most Americans think nudity is art, not porn. It's things like Playboy that make us think it's porn... :( --Blah911 (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Where has Playboy ever referred to women as "ass fucking sluts"?
Are you just soapboxing or do you have some sort of suggestion for the article? Dismas|^(talk) 19:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I know, it doesn't say that. I was kind of exagerating, but still. I suggest saying that the magazine is a "pornographic men's magazine," rather than just a "men's magazine." --Blah911 (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

First off, Playboy is not porn. It's a well known men's magazine that portrays beautiful women in a positive light. Pornography would be more like Hustler magazine. Secondly, it sounds like you're soapboxing and that has no place here. And thirdly, if you don't like the Playboy article...then perhaps you can focus on another article instead. Caden S (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what planet do you live on? Playboy may not be what you call "porn," but it is at least softcore porn. --71.225.111.4 (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, the women in Playboy are not beautiful at all. They are blonde wannabes who have fake boobs and suck at life. --71.225.111.4 (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If it isn't pornography, than why is it in Wikiproject:Pornography? --71.225.111.4 (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it's softcore pornography. Now do you have a point or are you still just soapboxing? Dismas|^(talk) 00:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Dude, haven't you been listening? I said that since people without an account aren't allowed to edit this page, I'm asking someone else to. I want it to say the it is a pornographic magazine in the opening sentence. --71.225.111.4 (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not make an account for yourself, then you can add the information? Tabercil (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's porn, they why are minors in some states allowed to buy it? Emperor001 (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Type of Men's Magazine

It should say in the introduction that Playboy is a "Pornographic men's magazine" and that it "features semi-nude or fully nude women." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blah911 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Dismas|^(talk) 19:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is locked for me to edit for some reasson, and I even have an account. --Blah911 (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The main article is more than likely protected due to vandalism (from IP's). Even though you may have an account, the page may also be protected from new users editing as well. You could try editing later. Caden S (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Error on Playboy Page

{{editsemiprotected}}Fahrenheit 451 was written by Ray Bradbury, not Roy Bradbury Douglasmusgrove (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 16:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help me please! International Playboy

What is the Playboy edition available to readers in countries where there's not a national edition? Is American playboy the standard in UK and Canada? What edition do they sell in latin american countries that don't publish Playboy, would it be the Mexican? The Spanish? Or maybe they don't even know the magazine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.63.70.7 (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit]

It should be mentioned in the body of the paragraph that since this magazine reveals the naked bodies of women in certain erotic poses it is considered to be pornographic. The stub is often not noticeable. This should be in the first paragraph... this is not merely "men's magazine"... to imply that is very false. Thank you. PLEASE EDIT FOR THE LOVE OF ACCURACY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.115.174 (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More Photoshoppery

Beachnut4's photo in the "History" section is a pretty obvious photoshop job (I say this not because it depicts nudity in public, but because it's just pretty damn obvious when you go to full resolution, i.e. the shadowing around the model's feet, the difference in resolution/grain on her versus everyone else, etc.). Any reason objections to removing it? --rsgdodge (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No issues here. Dismas|^(talk) 21:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Beachnut4 Remove photo by Beachnut4; user could not identify the model; the so-called amateur (exhibitionist) is not typical of Playboy models and therefore doesn't contribute to the article at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 40four (talk • contribs) 03:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remove naked picture

Delete photo by User:Beachnut4. After removing it once with the request that its contributer furnish the name of the model, Beachnut reposted the picture with the claim that she is an amateur from the Women of South Beach photoshoot. Playboy is not known for its amateur models, it is known for its Playmates, celebrities, and signature special edition models; the photo, therefore, does not contribute at all to the article's attempt to provide the unfamiliar reader with a general idea of Playboy's particular brand of pornography. Furthermore, without any name or searchable documentation, it is questionable whether it is even a Playboy photoshoot at all, and not simply an exhibitionist. A glance at Special:Contributions/Beachnut4 is enough to convince even the most 'benefit of the doubt' giving editor that Beachnut is merely trying to shock readers with his depictions of nudity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 40four (talk • contribs) 03:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Famous Contributors and Notable Article

A popular sitcom joke is that people read Playboy for the articles. Playboy, however, is renowned for the quality of its writing and the fame of its contributors. I think a list of notable articles and contributors would be very cool!

04:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benbenbenben (talk • contribs)

[edit] Best Selling Issue?

The article says that an issue in 1972, which sold 7.1 million copies, was the best selling issue. However, it is touted that La Toya Jackson's 1989 appearance made for the best-selling issue, over 8 million magazines. Can anyone confirm if the latter sold that many at the time of release, or notched-up that many subsequently? Actually, does that even matter, as it would still seem to qualify it for the title of 'best-selling issue ever'? User: Jaydash 9 January 2009

how can you send in some thing that you wrote so you can get it put in playboy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.43.200 (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Photo editing - Pamela Anderson's disappearing labia

The article says there is a rear-view shot of Pamela in the February 1990 issue of Playboy that has caused controversy due to photo editing. I just looked at the February 1990 issue and there is no rear view shot of Pamela in the entire issue. Perhaps the original writer was mistaken about the issue? I know she has appeared in Playboy many times.

[edit] remove photo editing section

The whole section is unsourced. It should be removed if there are no independent sources put in. The claim Hustler photos are never airbrushed and completely natural is dubious. The section gives the misleading impression that it's somehow abnormal for a magazine to alter images of models, when the exact opposite is the case. Even if we get good sources, a section on photo editing should be kept only if we can explain how Playboy is unique in this regard. --Rob (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Porn

Based on the definition at the article pornography, why is there even an argument about whether or not it's porn? The definition reads "Pornography or porn is the depiction of explicit sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexually exciting the viewer. Pornography makes no claim to artistic merit, unlike erotica which does." I would also like to mention the Greek word from which pornography is derived: pornographos, which means writing of the prostitutes. Basically, porn is a depiction of prostitution and since there are no sex acts in Playboy (except for the cartoons), it is not porn. In some states, you don't even have to be 18 to buy it. Emperor001 (talk) 04:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see a source for your comment about not needing to be 18 in order to buy a copy. Dismas|^(talk) 04:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Source an employee at a book store. She said you only need to be 18 to sell it, not buy it. Emperor001 (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether Playboy can be considered pornography is dependent on how strict standards are, personally, municipally or even nationally. "Playboy" is banned in most Muslim countries (Indonesia excepted), and was banned for a few decades in the Irish Republic. Many people consider nudity obscene, therefore pornographic.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opusv5 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New owner?

Any truth to Hef selling the magazine/franchise to RIchard Branson? --Cooly123 (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Marguerite Empey

She was in two playmate pictorials. The first playmate pictorial to show pubic hair wasn't her February 1956 pictorial, but her May 1955 pictorial. Would someone please fix the article? 168.100.1.1 (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "Firsts" list

I'm a little concerned with this section/list. At best, it's thematic trivia; you might say it's borderline fancruft—first issue without a staple in the centerfold? And where could this all be sourced from? I think the article could do w/o such a list, likely to be forever largely or entirely unsourced and arguably unencyclopedic. I tagged it with my concerns, and if no one objects to the section's removal, I'll do it in a few days. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 01:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Unencyclopedic?

"Playboy is one of the world's best known brands.[citation needed]" The top brands change depending on who pays for the survey. For example, Apple is a top three worldwide brand when Apple pays for the survey with Microsoft nowhere. 19:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.215.245 (talk)

Contents

[edit] Firsts

[edit] Celebrities

[edit] Models vs. Girls in article

[edit] removed comanies owned by PEI

[edit] Semi-protection now implemented

[edit] Playboy not a porno today

[edit] Airbrushing incident

[edit] The interview

[edit] This is written as if it were an ad

[edit] No yellow on the map

[edit] Circulation

[edit] See also

[edit] Playboy IS porn!!!

[edit] Type of Men's Magazine

[edit] Error on Playboy Page

[edit] Help me please! International Playboy

[edit]

[edit] More Photoshoppery

[edit] Remove naked picture

[edit] List of Famous Contributors and Notable Article

[edit] Best Selling Issue?

[edit] Photo editing - Pamela Anderson's disappearing labia

[edit] remove photo editing section

[edit] Porn

[edit] New owner?

[edit] Marguerite Empey

[edit] "Firsts" list

[edit] Unencyclopedic?