|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hustler article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
The following are the first three sentences of the article as it exists now:
- Hustler is a monthly pornographic magazine aimed at men and published in the United States. It was first issued in 1974. It was a step forward from the Hustler Newsletter which was cheap advertising for his strip club businesses.
Of course, this is incoherent writing, as the person that "his" refers to hasn't even been introduced. Replacing "his" with "Larry Flynt" wouldn't be much better, as then the sentence reads like an unrelated anecdote. So I'm going to change this passage to the following:
- Hustler is a monthly pornographic magazine aimed at men and published in the United States. It was first published in 1974 by Larry Flynt. It was a step forward from the Hustler Newsletter which was cheap advertising for his strip club businesses at the time.
188.8.131.52 04:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
If anyone things this should appear in the article, please allow me to put it in; it has been deleted by another user but it is relevant.
- In the late 1990s, Hefner was a guest speaker at the Roman Catholic Georgetown University, declaring, during his remarks, that "The Catholic Church has had its hand on other people's crotch for the last two thousand years" 
Thanks ~ Dpr 01:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Why is this relevant? Hugh Hefner created Playboy magazine, not Hustler... that was Larry Flynt. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:20, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
Questions / suggestions
i) Add something about Hustler Magazine v Farwell here.
ii) Add a link about Hustler Magazine that isn't "adult only" to the external link section. [Website for shareholders? ]
Article itself is not bad, but could use a good editing job. --Ohyeahmormons
Who's the chick on the 2004 hustler cover she looks fuckin hot!
Aren't there Hustler video's and stuff? There is no mention of that. --184.108.40.206 14:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Anonguy
- Yes, there are even Hustler TV channels. --220.127.116.11 18:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Free copies of Hustler magazine mailed to Members of Congress
The article states: "Every month's Hustler is mailed, uninvited (sic) and for free, to the office of each member of the United States Congress. This practice began at some point between 1974 and 1983, and it continues as of 2009."
I worked in a DC Congressional office in the early 1990s and we never received Hustler magazine. Not even one single issue.
This passage should be cited or deleted.
- I hope the congressman didnt have to rely on you ever using any initiative, seeing as google can provide a source in seconds. Willy turner (talk) 01:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- I am just saying that the alleged free Hustler magazines were not delivered to the Members of the House of Representatives in the early 1990s.
- Perhaps during that era the magazines were stolen while be handled at the House Post Office.
- This would have been easy to accomplish by one or more of the Postmaster staffers. Remember that individuals at the House Post Office were then dealing cocaine out of the office and the then Postmaster, Robert Rota, was himself engaged in money laundering. And remember that these staffers are not Letter-Carriers (who are subject to Postal Police investigation if they steal mail), they are Congressional staffers who are employed at the discretion of the Postmaster.
- Also, I should note that stealing the magazines would be even easier if they were drop-shipped to the House Post Office (Washington, DC 20515). USPS drop-shipping is a common mass mailing technique. In this case a whole shipment of 435 magazines would be mailed to the House Post Office and then opened and distributed to the Members (or in this case, not distributed).
- 435 brand new copies of Hustler magazine would be worth a lot of money (tax-free, under-the-table) if you sold them to a fence or disreputable magazine distributor.
Inaccuracy -- too much reliance on too few sources
Nature of Content section claims "first American magazine to show pubic hair". This can easily be disproved by scrolling thru http://www.scribd.com/doc/97912/Timeless-The-Women-of-Playboy-19532004 which shows the pubic hair of Miss December 1971 Karen Christy and Miss January 1972 Marilyn Cole, as well as clearer photos in Playboy later in 1972. Since Hustler was not even published until 1974, it couldn't have been first.
The text of this WP page should be modified to indicate what Hustler *did* pioneer in. Pubic hair was also depicted by Alberto Vargas in his Playboy drawings as early as January 1970. Martindo (talk) 09:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Why isn't anything here on Herceg vs. Hustler case? From Autoerotic asphyxiation:
In Herceg v. Hustler, Diane Herceg sued Hustler magazine for the death of her 14-year-old son, Troy D., who had experimented with autoerotic asphyxia after reading about it in that publication. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- I found this source that could be used for a Litigation section and not just this one case. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Asshole of the Month
Bizarrely, the UK edition heads this feature "Arsehole of the Month". Bizarrely, because (1) it doesn't seem to make any other editorial concessions to the UK (I mean, who in the UK actually uses the word "afficionada"?) and (2) the cartoon depicts the victim as the back end of a pony - which is still an "ass" in British English, not an "arse". So the one concession the magazine makes to British English, it gets wrong. - Walnuts go kapow (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC) hey sup?????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
NPOV tag -- The "Regular Features" section read like an attack
The entire section was an attack on the magazine and I have made a few changes.
The section now actually reads as a list of regular features as should be intended, however it currently needs more sources. I have removed a full paragraph from the page which was an unsourced attack. I have added a criticism section and moved a sourced paragraph in question from "Regular Features" to the new section. Due to the nature of the issue, I have added a NPOV tag to the page until other editors see this issue as resolved.
== Criticism of "Criticism"
The "study" referred to in the "criticism" section is poorly cited. No idea what's in the supposed source, but I would assume a legit study "funded by the Department of Justice " would be sourceable online.
There's a reason it isn't. An unauthorized DOJ staffer (and former writer for Captain Kangaroo) using DOJ stationary tried to claim she'd done a study which supposedly included Playboy and Penthouse and was designed to "prove" that mainstream pornography in the 80s was a breeding ground for pedophilia.