Talk:Playboy/Archives/2009

lacking pictures

Good article but lack of pictures :-)

logo

While the 1st issue is nice, the logo should really be added. -LtNOWIS 02:46, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe

The Marilyn Monroe article says that she was the secong article. Which one is correct? - User:Olivier

accesses

"This page has been accessed 393945828484924928 times." Good grief! I guess the saying "sex sells" applies here as well as anywhere else. -- Modemac

market cap

Since market capitalization (share price times outstanding shares, I believe) fluctuates so much, is the market cap at a specific time -- even if it's labeled as being a snapshot -- really useful or pertinent information? --Calieber 16:33, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I've thought about this and think it could be fair to put in a years graphs, like ones that could be found on Yahoo! Business. Although I think it should be on a subpage, say Playboy/Financial 2004. Then you can have the relevant links on the front page and link to somewhere with the background info towards the back of the company. Now just to find the fool who would would update it daily... (c; Webhat 01:51, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

Copyright violations (section 2004)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I've discovered a possible copyright violation which I would like confirmed before I do anything.

Most of the text on the Playboy page seems to come from the following page: [1], which contains the following notice Copyright © 2003 WorldSexExplorer.com. All Rights Reserved.

It is also copied on [2], although I think they got it from here... I'm not sure what to do about this besides from this message. -- Webhat 02:18, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sites that use Wikipedia for content. I'm fairly sure the copyright violation goes the other way -- WorldSexExplorer ripped it from here, without crediting the source. — No-One Jones (talk) 02:24, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, it was my first violation note. -- Webhat 02:37, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)

Old news by now, maybe, but that website contains the following at the bottom:

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Playboy". Wahkeenah 00:23, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

First full frontal nudity

In the article it claims that the first full-frontal nudity of a Playmate (not the dancer Paula Kelly) occurred in 1971, Liv Lindeland. It also claims that the shot of her pubic hair was in a mirror's reflection.

I have recently come across jpegs which show that Liv Lindeland's full-frontal nudity is not reflected, but it a straight-on shot, and that she isn't the first after all. I have a jpeg of Melodye Prentiss from 1968 whose pubic hair is visible.

That JPEG couldn't have come from any of Melodye's 1968 appearances because there is no pubic hair visible in any photo of hers.

The playboys

Do we have articles about play-boys, either jet-set or choirboys? -- Error 01:16, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• This article definitely needs some sort of mention of the wider meaning of the term "playboy" - in fact, maybe the term could have its own article complete with list of people considered by others to be playboys, etc. – drw25 (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Playboy as Pornography?

I would have to differ here. To me, Playboy is erotic, highly so in many cases, but I would still stop short of calling it porn because it is nowhere near as full-on as many hardcore magazines. Unlike those, Playboy shows women as sexy, sensual, elegant, classy and mysterious (and yes highly arouseing! Why not?). In short I think it gives them more respect than hardcore mags, so I'm going to remove the line that calls it a pornographic magazine. Fergananim.

I agree. It may have been seen as pornographic once, but the term has evolved and today Playboy is more properly labeled an Erotic men's magazine. Shanes 12:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Erotica" is the right term. Also, one thing that distinguishes Playboy from actual porn is that some of the articles are actually not about sex and are actually worth reading on their own even if the "hot stuff" wasn't there. Wahkeenah 00:17, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that in some places in the U.S., you don't even have to be 18 to buy it. Emperor001 (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

British Playboy in 1953?

The article says there was a British version of Playboy published in 1953 (in the international editions section). I find that hard to believe. The American version of the magazine began in 1953 and published only a single issue in December of that year. I find it unlikely Hefner was already expanding into the international market within weeks of his first publication. MK2 07:39, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Want to get rid of a line

The magazine and following empire has spawned a video game which allows the user to create the Playboy brand from scratch.

Okay, so Playboy's recent history is all about a critically bomb video game? The game is not notable to be in the introduction stuff. There are a lot of Playboy merchandise. Playboy is all about the magazine and somewhat the television channel. --Anonymous Cow 00:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Calm down. No one is implying that the game is a major part of Playboy's history, because it is not. I am the author of that line, and whereas I agree it is not a major part of the history it was not written in that context and you are overreacting. It should have a place in the article though, as should the other merchandise - although maybe not in the place that it is currently. Speedway 16:29 15 April 2005 UTC

WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU TALK ABOUT? :-) I don't mind if you mention merchandise near the end of this article. I'm not a Playboy expert so let the other people decide. I was just expressing my opinion. --Anonymous Cow 16:00, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, don't you mean WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Plus, that is exactly what I am talking about. You overreacte to a silly sentence. If you don't know what you are doing, stay away.--Speedway 16:13, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Someone just added this to the article: Human form of naked body is not pornographic. Only by Americans point of view. Naked body is normal. Violence is not. One of the thing USA does not understand to this days.

I'm just going to delete this...

Photoshopping

The description of people who dislike Photoshopping as seen in Playboy today as "readers who enjoy seeing blemishes and other skin imperfections" is not only condescending, but misses the point entirely. My personal perspective: excessive Photoshopping makes human bodies look unnatural, giving them a "plasticky" feel. It is as if I'm looking at a mannequin, or some sort of half-baked android (Sorayama's stuff would score way higher in human-alikeness). Since I'm not sexually attracted by inanimate objects, this is an instant turnoff. PVC is not my thing.

Now think about it: can you look at a picture of Rudolph Valentino today without chuckling? Do you think that today's souped-up centerfolds will fare better? History will have the last laugh, and it will be on us. GregorB 22:58, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

The last laugh is always on us, somewhere down the road. This problem of which you speak is not exactly new or recent. In his 1974 movie Sleeper, Woody Allen is shown a Playboy centerfield and he remarks that these women were not real, they were actually inflated. I guess I don't mind it as much as you do. The alternative seems to be the Hustler types, with details that would make a gynecologist gag. I reckon there needs to be some middle ground. :\ Wahkeenah 00:00, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Someone said that, in the long run, we're all dead. Same goes for fashion: given enough time, everything gets quaint and ridiculous. And it's true: retouching in other magazines is even heavier; it is not limited to "ironing" the skin, but changes the physical proportions of the model (bust, waist, thighs, etc.). Middle ground? Perhaps Perfect 10, with its official policy of no implants and no photo retouching... GregorB June 28, 2005 16:22 (UTC)

I don't know that it's an issue of "controversy." What the article should have is a section on "photography" or "style", that would cover everything from body type of the models to soft focus vs. sharp focus to the props and locales used in photos to the extent of airbrushing and retouching. Postdlf 28 June 2005 23:12 (UTC)

I agree, "controversy" is too strong a word. There is a broader sociopsychological issue here that indeed is controversial (see Cover girl), but - as I said - it is by no means specific to Playboy. It deserves a mention in the article, but I see no need for it to be discussed in detail. GregorB June 29, 2005 20:19 (UTC)

The main "controversy" about Playboy is its trying to be a mainstream publication while containing nude photos. Billy Graham once said that he would do an interview for Playboy if they took out the centerfold for that issue. No deal, obviously. Bill Buckley showed a little more enlightenment (and sense of humor) by doing the interview with no conditions, saying "It was a way to communicate my views to my son!" Wahkeenah 29 June 2005 22:16 (UTC)

What a marvelous quotation, Wahkeenah!

William F. Buckley, Jr., was, to me, a peculiar but thoroughly enjoyable treat.

~~ Wortschätzer (talk) 03:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Playmate's NSS appearances - formatting question

Instead of asking about this on several different Playmate's bio pages, I thought I'd pose the question here. Recently User:HipsterDad has been putting info about the Newstand Special Editions (NSS) on the Playmate pages (e.g. Erika Eleniak, Heather Kozar, etc.). I don't have any problem with that info being there, I think it's fine. What I'm not sure about is the format. They say, for instance, Playboy's Great Playmate Hunt February 1989 - page 55. Now the MoS says that magazine titles should be italicized. Although names of companies should not be italicized. So in these instances should the word "Playboy" be in italics because it's part of the title of the magazine or should it be in a standard font because it's the company's Great Playmate Hunt being documented? I know it might look like I'm picking nits but I just wanted to have a second or third opinion before I go crawling through the wiki changing them all. Dismas 05:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Hmmmmm. I'm using the format started by JM.Beaubourg when he started the List of Playboy NSS models pages, and I think it looks and "reads" pretty well this way. However, if there's a consensus that it's wrong, I'll join you in crawling through and changing them all. HipsterDad 07:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• According to the website of the company Playboy Enterprises, Inc Playboy is the name of the magazine. So I think the whole title should be italicized. Rats! Anyway that's my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong. If you do decide to italicize the titles then I would be happy to help. Jester2001 20:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Can we italicize / bold the title like this then? -- Playboy's Book of Lingerie Vol. 12 March 1990 - pages blahblah? HipsterDad 21:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• That sound's great to me. What do you think Dismas? Jester2001 22:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Looks good! Sounds like a plan! Let's do it. Dismas 04:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

What came first -- the magazine or the word?

Can anyone identify if the word Playboy was a word before the introduction of the magazine? Or did the magazine introduce the word in the same way that "email" did?

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word dates back to 1829 in hyphonated form (play-boy) referring to a "funny gentleman", and then appears in the title of J. M. Synge's Irish play The Playboy of the Western World. So, the word is certanly older then the magazine. The OED is the resource for answering this kind of question. Get yourself a copy!! --Smileswearily

Celebrities

Where's Barbi Benton?? Brigitte Nielsen?? D:> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.210.10.85 (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that a celebrities section has been added and a list produced, I think it would be good if we left it "as is". If people want to see a fuller list they can go to the list of people pages. This article isn't the place for a full listing of every celeb that's been in the magazine and then there would have to be some guideline as to what came first, the pictorial or the television show (e.g. Pamela Anderson, etc.). Some would argue that such people are celebs and thus should be on the list but then they got their start as Playmates so they weren't celebs until after they had already appeared. This hasn't gotten out of hand yet, I'm just trying to voice my opinion before it has a chance to. Dismas|^(talk) 23:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. What's the point, other than to supply links to various celebrities which are way too over-exposed as it is? I wouldn't mind so much if it was a fair list, but it only covers the last 10 years, and a more comprehensive listing would be WAY too long (as it is, it's too long for the article). Just get rid of the whole thing if you're going to limit it this way. CFLeon 23:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and trimmed the lists to ten people per category. I feel like I'm repeating myself but the list doesn't need to include each new celeb as a new issue comes out. If nobody opposes, I'd like to keep each list at 10 names and keep the lists the way they are. They only need be a sampling. Dismas|^(talk) 15:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the idea of keeping the list down to 10 is a good idea. Oh, and if someone feels that a celebrity should be added to the sports section, please don't put her in if she's a wrestler; there's one of them in Playboy every year.

I agree, and I would like to add NOT to add Candice Michelle to the celebs list. There are enough wrestlers as it is, and if another athlete from another sport poses, then remove a wrestler and put her instead. Ohyeahmormons 23:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Not many athletes have had pictorials, so it will be a long time before a 10th athlete pictorial is published who's not a wrestler. I recommend that the athlete category be dropped in favor of Supermodels. Ghosts&empties 02:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I have put an accuracy check for some reasons, including:

Dorothy Stratten is not known for being an actress

Mostly all the athletes are wrestlers

It's undetermind whether or not Geri Haliwell posed for Playboy or Playboy published pictures of her

10 celebrities doesn't really show anything; a new article should be created to give a bigger listing of what celebrities have posed. Ohyeahmormons 03:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What would you suggest this new article would contain? Wouldn't that be redundant considering the lists that are already in place?

If you think Dorothy Stratten isn't know for being an actress, then we can switch her out with someone else.

Dismas|^(talk) 19:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay Susie Feldman has just posed... she is famous... Canadian (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Why Do Women Pose in Playboy?

Not objecting (as if!), just wondering. Not everybody has the gumption to do it, so if there are any out there with informed opinions on the matter, would like to hear. We could eventually do it up into something for the article. After all, WHY they pose nude, for millions of men, and for posterity, is a damm good question to ask, don't ya think? And yes Hugh, I have started to read the interviews now. Thanks for asking. Fergananim 21:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

For the money, fame and because posing for Playboy is considered the peak of the modelling biz.

Controversy links

I deleted the following sections from External links. They certainly deal with Playboy, but it didn't seem fair to have so many links about a single anti-porn activist (Dr. Judith Reisman) listed as if they were neutral discussions of issues. Whoever added these could have instead added a paragraph to Controversy about such allegations of recruiting gays (?) and corrupting youth & the Democratic Party, as well as rebuttals, if any, from the parties accused... but something tells me their aim was not merely informative... Lusanaherandraton 10:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Playboy and Public Libraries

• SafeLibraries.org - Are Children Safe in Public Libraries?
• Oak Lawn Library Vows to Keep Playboy on Shelf

Playboy and Criminality

• Playboy a Cause of Crime on Kids, Women
• Fact Sheet for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) on Sports, Children, Drugs, Crime and Violence in Playboy Magazine, which includes:

• • Playboy has been used in the sexual entrapment of children. Its use is confirmed by numerous case histories, testimonies of sex offenders, and incest survivors, as well as research on child pornography, child prostitution and sex rings, and onsite crime evidence. It is therefore of some concern that most children depicted in Playboy were between six and eleven years of age - the most common age group for actual incestuous abuse and general child maltreatment.

• • We now know that Playboy has mixed drugs, sex, violence, and children in its pictorial and text format. Researchers such as Zillman, Court, and Malamuth have all concluded that the mix of sex and violence affects normal men, socializing self-admitted callousness toward and even interest in sexualized violence.

Playboy and Life Issues

• Playboy and the (Homo)Sexual Revolution
• Family Advocates: Thanks to Playboy, Even Cell Phones Unsafe
• [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16403 Big Porn: A Dem's Best Friend]
• Reisman: Oregon Cases Further Validate ACLU's Alliance with Porn Industry

Bad links

I removed the "http://www.maw.ru/?pb=s" link because of links on that site that is illegal. User 27.05.2006

Merging Playboy magazine article with Playboy Enterprises information

More info on other Playboy products required

I think that this article is more about the magazine Playboy sells. This article should show Playboy Enterprises as a whole, and the Playboy Magazine as one of the topics, because it's one in dozens of products of Playboy Enterprises. The article doesn't say anything about Playboy Clubs, Playboy TV, Playboy.com, Playboy Casino, etc.

Playboy Enterprises is a stub. If anything, it should be merged here. Owen× ☎ 18:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Playboy and "Smut"

Does anyone know why the Smut disambiguation page should redirect here? (or more accurately, to Playboy) I think it's vandalism but before I removed it, I wanted to know if Playboy has any connection with Smut (besides someone's opinion). --KSnortum 23:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I would say it's vandalism since "smut" is a slang term for any pornography and not just Playboy. Dismas|^(talk) 23:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Indonesian Edition

How exactly was this launched in March 2006? Surely that makes no sense given that I'm reading this on the 5th Feb 2006?

Issues are put out one month in advance. Ohyeahmormons

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. Sorry for having overlooked this earlier. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 17:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Playboy (magazine) → Playboy – Playboy currently redirects to Playboy (magazine), which has a link to Playboy (disambiguation).

---

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as nominator. Olessi 17:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support seems reasonable to assume that anyone searching with just the term, "Playboy", is looking for the magazine since it's the most well known arm of the company. Dismas|^(talk) 02:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

"Since reaching its peak in the 1970s, Playboy has seen a decline in circulation and cultural relevance because of increased competition in the field it founded— first from Penthouse, Oui, and Gallery in the 1970s; later from pornographic videos; and more recently from lad mags such as Maxim, FHM, and Stuff."

Um, doesn't anyone think the higly accessible world of online pornography is also a reason?

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Braille

http://www.banterist.com/archivefiles/000305.html --Easyas12c 18:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Other firsts

Alessandra Mussolini was almost certainly the first descendant of a dictator to be featured on a Playboy cover. She's also a politician, it might be another first. She appeared on the cover of the italian edition on August 1983, and on the german edition on November 1983. However, since this article mostly covers the US edition I wouldn't know where to mention this.

--Lou Crazy 05:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think we should get into a precedent of adding "First Playmate with X occupation" types of firsts. Otherwise we'll have this huge list of First Playmate who was a politician, First Playmate that was a carpenter, First Playmate that was a waitress, etc. It's just a start down the road of pedantic facts and figures. Although mentioning that she was a descendant of Mussolini is interesting, you're right about the article being so U.S.-centric. Maybe we should split off the solely U.S. stuff to another article entitled National editions of Playboy or something like that. Then put the U.S. stuff under the U.S. heading in that article in alphabetical order along with all the other countrys info.... Just an idea... Dismas|^(talk) 13:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but politicians could be a nice exception, in my opinion ;-)

--Lou Crazy 22:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, the first issue with video game characters isn't noteworthy (unless you're obsessed with them.) Otherwise the list could include first issue with a peppermill, first with a computer, first to show an electricc guitar,etc. I deleted it.Ghosts&empties 02:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

what about the first transexual to appear (first "man" to appear nude =p) ?

Unless they are published in some Playboy factbook ALL of these "firsts" are WP:OR (or at least WP:SYNTH). They don't add to the article, any magazine can have a "first time it did something" issue, that doesn't make Playboy significant. They aren't significant outside the realm of the magazine (in-universe) and the list should be removed. Can someone provide justification for keeping them? Padillah (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering the Pubic Wars, some of them at least are notable. Playboy has a history of doing things first. I see it as a good addition to the article. Of course, I have my limits, as I've stated on this talk page before. Dismas|^(talk) 01:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Largest fee paid to pose?

In light of all these celbrities posing in Playboy - what is the largest ever fee paid to appear? Rachel Hunter got $1.8Million in 2004 - that has to be near the top, surely? Rgds, - Trident13 18:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

What about the standard fee? I don't think it is $25,000, as is commonly quoted on this and many Playmate articles. I think it is much higher, on the order of $100,000. I remember reading a chat transcript on playboy.com in which someone asked the Dahm triplets how they each planned on spending their $33,333. The triplets responded by saying that they were each paid the full modeling fee of $100,000. That was in 1998. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.107.67.131 (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge froms recommendations

I am recommending Playboy Cyber Club and Playboy Online to be merged into this main article. Playboy Cyber Club has already undergone two successful afd deletions of lengthy articles and related articles. The Cyber Club is a sub-website of Playboy Online. Playboy Online is the web operation of Playboy Magazine. I don't see the rationale of maintaining separate articles (Cyber Club is open to a speedy delete tag due to two successful afds as well). Bwithh 04:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Playboy Ban in S. Korea?

I would like a source of this information, because last time I remembered, there's Playboy channel in Korea and there's Korean Playboy magazine. K^ 18:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Dooly00000 (talk · contribs · count)

In Taiwan there is also a Chinese edition of Playboy freely available in bookstores, whoever claimed the magazine to be banned in these areas should provide a reference.

The international section lacks any mention of a Korean edition that may or may not have been discontinued. This should be investigated. As recently as 2006 a Korean was represented in the Playboy World Cup.

Pictures

Has the magazine always used nudity? I heard that they didn't start showing nudity in it until around the late 60's or 70's. 71.31.157.109 15:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

They've used what nudity they could in those days. Just google a couple of names of '60s Playmates and you'll find plenty of images from their Playboy layouts. Dismas|^(talk) 20:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Playboy in Indonesia

The Indonesian edition of playboy magazine has already been ordered to stopped by their police due to people's objection. Just to let you guys know. — 218.111.1.92 18:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hilton look-a-like

In the September issue, a woman who was extremely convincing as Paris Hilton was revealed, after some research, to have been a highly paid look-a-like, and not Hilton herself... Is this a common practice for Playboy? If so, is it worth noting?

From what I know of the magazine, it's not common at all. Dismas|^(talk) 00:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Then, is this worth a mention?

Not really, the text that goes along with the photos make it clear that it's not P.H. It talks about how she's in the celeb look-a-like biz. It wasn't anything that was "revealed" or uncovered since there was nothing that was covered up (pun intended). Dismas|^(talk) 19:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Playman

I heard there was a rival magazine to Playboy, called "Playman"? Is this true? Anyone have any info on playman? If so, I'd like to help start a new article on Playman. 149.167.200.118 01:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Never heard of it. Perhaps you're thinking of Playgirl? Dismas|^(talk) 04:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you're thinking of the gay-oriented Playguy? I remember seeing it on the newsstand when I was a kid, but I had no idea it was still around. —Chowbok 16:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Playboy Vgame?

Shouldn't we add something on Playboy: The Mansion video game?

wtf? Yeah somebody please put the first issue as the main picture for the article, the one with Marilyn Monroe

you guys got three days to do so. Zabrak 07:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

And just what are you intending to do if we don't follow through with your ridiculous ultimatum? Ex-Nintendo Employee 01:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Cyber Girls Page

Has there ever been a Cyber Girls page. It seems like there should be one since there is a Category:Playboy Cyber Girls. I don't know enough to make more than a stub, but feel there should be a an article on the subject. I will get back to this topic if no one has any info.

If you can't find an article on them, be bold!! A stub would be better than nothing. Dismas|^(talk) 17:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I am now noticing the July merge from discussion above. I think that was a mistake, but missed the debate. However all the articles in the category need to have redeirect links made. How can I see the articles that were deleted? TonyTheTiger 17:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Lists of Playmates and Cyber Girls

At one time I believe there were separate pages for Playmates and Cyber Girls. I want to check and see what the problems were that caused deletion. I believe that the moral majority has usurped the right of freedom of expression by mastering the deletion policies. I feel that lists and definitional statements are no less wiki worthy than other more innocuous lists. However, I need to find out info. I have found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playboy Cyber Club However, I am not able to find info on Playmate pages. I admit many Playmates may end up causing redlinks in a listing. However, many are notable blue link personalities. Can anyone point me in the direction of playmate deletion discussions. TonyTheTiger 17:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If you find a Playmate that doesn't have an article, go ahead and add it. You can use WP:PORNBIO as backup if someone thinks it should be deleted.

Performer has been a Playboy Playmate (of the Year or Month) or a Penthouse Pet (of the Year or Month).

I wouldn't advocate making a page for every Cyber Girl though unless they have enough other accomplishments and such that would fulfill WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Dismas|^(talk) 01:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not advocating individual pages. I am attempting to understand why this part of the business is not included in wikipedia even if done so in a professional manner. I just want a full understanding of what has been debated and what has been deleted. See Template:Playboy to get a better understanding of my opinion that Playboy Cyber Club and Playboy Online pages should be undeleted. TonyTheTiger 21:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Playboy Cyber Club Undeletion attempt

If anyone has an interest in seing separate Playboy Cyber Club and Playboy Online articles undeleted must go here to say something positive Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_12#Playboy_Online.2FPlayboy_Cyber_Club. TonyTheTiger 15:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

See Template:Playboy to get a better understanding of my opinion that Playboy Cyber Club and Playboy Online pages should be undeleted instead of redirected. TonyTheTiger 21:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Playboy Automobile Company

I am unable to come up with any other mention of the "Playboy Automobile Company" that is referred to in the History section. Would it be possible to get a reference?

Editdroid 21:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

First issue to show pubic hair

The Firsts section contains these two seemingly contradictory entries.

1. First issue with a Playmate showing pubic hair: February 1956 (Marguerite Empey)
2. First issue to show female pubic hair: August 1969 (dancer Paula Kelly)

They're not contradictory, one woman was a playmate and the other was not. Nit picky maybe but not contradictory. Dismas|^(talk) 10:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

They sound contradictory to me. The second statement implies that Marguerite Empey was not female! Valrith 14:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

First, yes the 2nd statement clearly contradicts the 1st. An analogy: if the 1st blue widget was made in 1901, how could the 1st widget have been made in 1999? Second, the reason the entries are this way is that traditionally Playboy said that Liv Lindeland, January 1971, was the first Playmate to show pubic hair. This is also supported by the FAQ on the official website @ http://www.playboy.com/playmates/playmate-faq/ Apparently someone has come along to claim Marguerite Empey did it 15 years earlier. I have no idea if that's true or false. However, if a Playmate showed pubic hair in 1956, she was BOTH the first female and first Playmate to show it in this magazine. Resolving the question is beyond me; I leave it up to you folks. STFmaryville 10:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not just make it "First Playmate to show pubic hair" and "First celebrity to show pubic hair"? Irk_(talk) 03:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I see what the original editor(s) were trying to do. Basically, the first Playmate to show pubic hair was Ms. Empey; the first female celebrity (or non playmate) was Paual Kelly. Simply clarify the wording and you're done. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 05:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This is factually incorrect. According to http://www.playboy.com/playmates/playmate-faq/milestones.html#8 the first Playmate was Liv Lindeland, in January 1971. Further, Marguerite Empey was the Playmate in May 1955, not February 1956.

I recently purchased a copy of "Playboy: the 50's" and can't find the page with the pubic hair photograph. Where was the information for this "firsts" list obtained? Deatonjr (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)