Talk:Howard Hughes

Weasel words

"Hughes is believed by many to be one of the most brilliant minds that America has produced and still to this day is one of te most successful American aviators." I would like to shorten this to e.g. "Hughes is one of te most successful American aviators." In particular, "by many" is just a waesel phrase (if notable people seriously voiced that opinion, then they could be cited instead?); anyway I personally think "most brilliant" to be slightly absurd (cf Feynman or Edison if you like etc etc). Anyway, I do not think Wikipedia should necessarily have a position whether Washington or Lincoln should be considered more or less brillinat then Feynman or Witten (although I personally would have a strong opinion on that matter). 128.139.226.36 (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It is all a matter of 'approach to the subject'. A leading British magazine described Mr Hughes thus; 'for most of his life he was a certifiable lunatic who had a nasty habit of building aircraft that frequently crashed'. That is an unfriendly approach. Wikipedia is taking a more friendly approach.Johnwrd (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Spruce Goose 'failure'

"One of his greatest failures was the Spruce Goose," this has to be discussed IMHO the Spuce Goose only fly once because the WW II was ending so they were no more funding for a plane conceived to carry troops across the Atlantic. Hughes made the flight to show the plane can actually fly and thus was not a technical failure. Ericd 11:53 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)

Not a practical design, just the same, Eric. A grand and wonderful idea, but there was no market for it. Tannin

The spruce goose was definately a failure. It went well over budget (Hughes appeared before congress to beg for more). It wasn't finished until after the war. The one and only flight of the plane was for about a mile, and it was never more than a few feet above the water. Also it was mostly birch, not spruce (although 'spruce goose' certainly sounds better).

Note on above-- the flight was more than a "few" feet above water -- 70 ft, double its height, but admittedly still less than its wingspan. 8-> --ssd 05:33, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Whether or not the H-4 was a failure isn't an interesting debate as far as I'm concerned. There are more interesting facts surrounding it that serve to illuminate some of the personality traits of Howard Hughes. Yes, it was over budget and finished after the war was over. OCD aside, Hughes was a perfectionist. Some of his staff are quoted as saying that the plane could have been built on time if it was not for Hughes need to re-do things that were not up to his highest standards. They indicated that after construction on a particular subsystem had already started, Hughes would often design improvements and bring them down to the floor so that work in progress was scrapped (even if it was adequate for the job). I suppose in Hughes mind, he was not just slapping together a prototype. Even if that was his intent, his nature (aided by his OCD) would not allow him to leave well enough alone. Because of this, though, the plane did advance the state of the art in aviation. I think it might have been more of a "failure" without Hughes close involvement. It might have been delivered on time, but it still would not have been a practical airplane for its intended role. At the same time, many of the innovations brought forward in the design would not have been as refined and ground-breaking. I suppose it's a failure by the terms of the military contract, and a wild success as a design study. Strawtarget 13:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, a plane that size that can get itself onto the step and haul itself out of the water to 70 feet can surely clean itself up and climb out of ground effect. Probably not full of tanks and troops, though. The plane was an outstanding design that needed only stronger engines to truly succeed at its military mission. Strawtarget 13:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hughes never left ground effect. He never tried to turn the airplane.

Think about it.Mark Lincoln 02:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Death on plane

Hughes died on an airplane enroute from his penthouse in Mexico to the Methodist Hospital in Houston.

Written by an IP that vandalised Lewis Milestone on the same day - needs verification. Martin 23:01, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's true. Stargoat 12:37, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

So, I remember when it happened. He did die in flight between Mexico and Houston.

So what? <-----Who wrote this part? Coffee4binky (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

He died in flight between Acapulco & Houston, He was a demostration of the corruption on the US Congress, a their attitudes toward PANAM & JUan Trippe. MX--AGS -- --Dagofloreswi (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Xrays taken of Mr Hughes Post Mortem show numerous broken hiperdermic needles embeded in his arms. As well as being painfull for him it is never explained how so many needles came to be broken off into arms in such a manner.Johnwrd (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Picture

What's going on in that picture? Was his head pasted on from somewhere else? Adam Bishop 05:24, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, it's weird. Looks like he's carrying a menhir behind his back like Obelix. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 15:52, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

They had to edit that out. It was just an embarrassing habit of his. - Jerryseinfeld 01:37, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Aviator movie

Does anyone know the airplane used in the Aviator, when he was teaching Katherine Hepburn to fly? It's a twin-radial-engine multipassenger amphibian.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but just based on that description alone, I would guess an early Grumman amphib, probably the Goose. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot in Wikipedia on early amphib/seaplanes, which is a shame, and I don't have a reference book handy, either. -- Chris Lawson 21:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nope, much earlier than a Goose. Wing-high above the fuselage (a bit like a PBY), with the engines hanging below the wing; possibly even a biplane. Smaller than a Goose; about the same as a Widgeon, I guess. Had a "throw-over" yoke (that could be moved from left to right seat), which could make it a Grumman. Definately had wheels, as I recall them landing on a golf course. Looked a lot like a Keystone Loening "commuter" k-84 amphibian, but with twin engines. Aha, there it is. Sikorsky S-38.

It was a Sikorsky S-38. One has been restored to flying condition. The night shots were all computer generated.Mark Lincoln 02:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions

He was forced to sell out of TWA in 1966 for around $500 million.

Is this supposed to mean he was forced to sell out to TWA? Who or what forced him?

• If The Aviator is correct, (which I think it is) he *owned* TWA until that point, having purchased it earlier in his career. (No research here, just mentioning.) -- ChristopherSchmidt

Irving later spent fourteen months in jail.

Why? AxelBoldt 22:20, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I read a Playboy interview of Clifford Irving. He did time for federal charges of mail fraud. fredgr

According to some speculation on the Watergate affair, the 1972 burglary of Democratic headquarters had been ordered by President Nixon's aides in order to recover potentially damaging papers documenting payments from Hughes to Nixon, and in an effort to link the Democrats to Hughes. Larry O'Brien, the Democratic National Committee chairman whose office was broken into, had been a paid lobbyist for Hughes since 1968.

This section seems somewhat questionable. No information on this subject exists on the watergate page, nor are there sources given here. Is this really true? If it is, I think we need some sources.

It isn't just questionable, it's nonsensical. Watergate was ordered so the burglers could get documents from the Democrats that proved Hughes paid Nixon? Nixon was Republican – what possible documentation could the DNC have about payments to a Republican? I'm going to remove this paragraph. If someone can source it, feel free to add it back with a citation. Otherwise, it's out. I'll look myself for a source, too. - ddlamb 10:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The loan from Hughes to Nixon was to Donald Nixon. One such loan became an issue in the 1960 campaign. Richard Nixon apparently feared that Donald had received another loan from Hughes and the Democrats had discovered it and were intent on exploiting it. It has some credibility, if you search around for it. One inconsistency is that Richard Nixon was forced from office over the Watergate cover-up, and historically everyone agrees that Nixon had no foreknowledge of the burglar's plans. And now, as another poster has said, Larry O'Brien was a former Hughes lobbyist. Although O'Brien, like so many others, may have never met Hughes face to face, like so many other lobbyists, he's have no desire to embarass his old associates, unless Howard had grown tired of the Nixon boys.69.255.0.91 01:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Featured article potential?

This article has grown into a truly fine entry. With some polishing and additions it could be a good WP:FA candidate. A few more pictures, some direct quotes, a good copyeditor - what else does this need to make it a great article? Cheers, -Willmcw 00:50, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see more on his involvement with the CIA? what exactly was going on there. It is mentioned briefly in many of the paragraphs, but never explored in detail.

I have question about the money he inherited from his father. Does anyone know how much he started with? The point is he was able to make his fortune to about $ 2 B on the end of his life.

Agreed that this would make a great featured article. The intrigue of his bisexual conquests, the power and control of that much money. His growing paranoia, his trust of Mormon confidantes, full swing from party boy to recluse. Doc 03:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Where to put "You might be looking for X instead"

I noticed that in Willmcw's recent round of edits, he moved the BBC personality link to the bottom of the page.

I don't know if there's a specific Wikipedia style for this, but I personally think it's better to have it at the top. F'rinstance, the article on Harry Truman (the U.S. President) had its "You might be looking for Harry Truman, the victim of Mount St. Helens" link moved to the _top_ of the page, because people kept getting confused. Also, it saves someone the trouble of reading through the whole article and then finding out that what they just read really wasn't relevant at all to the person they REALLY wanted information about.

Just my 2c... -- Chris Lawson 03:40, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If people REALLY want information on Howard Hughes, newsreader, then they won't find any, no matter where the disamb phrase is located. The fellow doesn't have an article written about him, and no one is going to mistake the two. The relative importance of a billionaire industrialist who set airspeed records, built the largest plane in history, wooed movie stars, who has had a couple of movies made about him, and who was among the most famous people of his time so far outshines a newsreader, well, I don't see any reason to put the newsreader first. The Truman guy at least has an article. There are plenty of other articles that place minor people or issues with the same name at the bottom. I'd just as soon delete the lesser Hughes entirely, as he doesn't seem notable. -Willmcw 04:29, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's fine by me. I take it there isn't really a "house style" for this, then? More of a case-by-case decision? --Chris Lawson 06:20, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, there is a style ruling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disambiguation#Types_of_disambiguation

This instance counts as type #1: Newsreader is coexisting on Billionaire's page, and so the logical place is after the more important subject. I can't seem to find them now, but I've seen articles with several minor subjects appended in that fashion. (I do see that Newsreader should get a section heading, though I've never seen that done.) When Newsreader merits an article of his own, then the disambiguating link goes on the top. FYI, have you heard of the Newsreader? Does he actually call himself "Howard Hughes," not "Howard M. Hughes" or "Howie" or some other variation? Cheers, -Willmcw

PS - There's another style policy that governs the use of a rule to separate small articles, and I'll post it if I can find it. -W

Here's the part of the policy I was following, on the same page as above. [1]. In this example, horse as a slang term is much less significant than horse, the animal, and does not have an article of its own, so it would appear at the bottom of the Horse article.

One can also disambiguate at the bottom of the article like this:

----

'''Horse''' is also a [[slang]] term for the [[recreational drug]] [[heroin]].'

Disambiguation will appear below a horizontal line, when using the format shown above.

I've never heard of the guy, so I have no idea how he identifies himself on the radio, but thanks for the links to House Style and the explanation. I'll take a look at that. -- Chris Lawson 21:09, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, In the Invader Zim episode "Germs", Zim becomes obsessed with (you guessed it) germs, to the point of wearing kleenex boxes for shoes.

Why is this article vandalized so much?

I don't understand it. Muya 04:06, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have wondered about the same thing. The success of The Aviator must be part of the reason. But look at how many fictional references and characters Hughes has inspired. He is, even after his death, a charismatic and enigmatic figure. Being able to vandalize the biography of an important person perhaps gives an editor a feeling of power. Maybe school teachers are assigning students to do bios of Hughes and the students, in their boredom, are "scribbling" on the page. Aw heck, I don't know. The nice thing is that it is usually benign, sometimes just tests ("wow, I really can edit the page"). Thanks for helping it along. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:13, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

For anyone interested in such things Hughes appears at the center of several huge conspiracy theories. I don't know what the vandals are putting in but its possible they're kooks who think they're posting "factual" information." _J.U.

A question

I always heard the "story" that Hughes redesigned the bra on the principles of the cantilevered bridge for Jane Russell's sue in The Outlaw. In essence, he created the underwiring and support sustems all bras today have. Is this true? If so, should it go into the article? Johnwhunt 23:39, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is true. Someone who has time to properly address it could add this.

Another question

I can't figure out how to post a correction, but it appears you have the wrong date for the completion of his around the world trip--either July 10 or 14 in my quick Google search, but July 14th is more credible by this gov source: http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Explorers_Record_Setters_and_Daredevils/Hughes/EX28.htm 64.81.240.105 Michelle H. 06 July 2007

Hughes Postwar

A couple of small changes made.

Removed phrase about Sale of RKO which referred to RKO's antitrust suit on theatre ownership. Reason: phrase made it appear Hughes or his ownership was reason for antitrust suit when, actually, the entire industry was sued and divested.

Changed sentence about Medical Institute, updated endowment to 2004 numbers.

Changed phrase in TWA sale from "around $500 million" to more than $500 million" Johnwhunt 14:10, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was actually $546 million.

Some suggestions

Firstly, fix up the lead section. It should be longer! Secondly, I just saw The Aviator. Is it true that he went out with many famous Hollywood actresses? Can we add this in there? It doesn't seem complete. I liked the ice-cream story though. - 211.30.184.38 13:35, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re-reading the introductory sentence. I think it's a run-on, and the bipolar and obsessive part just sounds tacked-on. "Howard Robard Hughes (December 24, 1905 – April 5, 1976) was at times a pilot, a movie producer, a playboy, an eccentric and one of the wealthiest persons in the world who had bipolar disorder and perhaps obsessive-compulsive disorder." Trying to think how to reword it to save the meaning but.

---

I removed a statement about his behaviour being 'believed to be due to bipolar disorder' from the intro. I wouldn't object if it was placed elsewhere, but to be in the intro paragraph it should be a rock solid fact. It's actually contradicted later in the article where his behaviour is attributed to syphilis. DJ Clayworth 17:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

---

A lot of information could be added to this article if you use some of the excellent material listed at http://www.famoustexans.com/howardhughes.htm For starters, the article is mostly devoid of any of his political endeavours which were numerous and had a great and lasting impact on the nation.

A "strapping 6'4" " is "strapping" npov?

Not really, remove it! EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE _{TALKTOME | EMAILME} 23:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC) 01:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Senate Investigation Committee Question

I'm a little concerned / confused over two seemingly contradictory comments, one in this article, and one on the article on Hughes Aircraft. In this article, it claims that:

"Hughes was called to testify before the Senate War Investigating Committee to explain why the plane had not been delivered to the United States Air Force during the war, but the committee disbanded without releasing a final report.",

while in the Hughes Aircraft article it claims that:

"After the war, Hughes ran afoul of the US Senate. By the summer of 1947, certain politicians had become concerned about Hughes' mismanagement of the Spruce Goose and the XF-11 photoreconnaissance plane project. ... Despite a highly critical committee report, Hughes was cleared."

I'm not sure these two statements are compatible. It seems that Hughes was formally cleared in one, while in the other, it appears that the Senate simply decided to leave him alone.

Where there perhaps two Committees? It would be nice for someone with some expertise to look into this.

Hmm. What year would this have happened? I have access to quite a lot of historical congressional information; if you can give me a year I might be able to at least try to find out. · Katefan0^(scribble) June 30, 2005 14:09 (UTC)

I was wondering about the veracity of the whole "leave the country" statement. I had the feeling that there was some truth about it, but wanted to find some backup material about it. If indeed this happened I would think this would be appropriate to include in the Spruce Goose section. I found http://www.theaviatorhh.com/senate-hearings.htm, but would still like to know that such a quote is in the congressional record. So perhaps this could give someone with better access (or skills) more information about where to find this (August 1947 and possibly November 1947).

This website suggests to me that, in regard to the original poster's question, there was a report that led to the formation of the committee, or possibly the report was something made to help the senators with the final report. The committee held sessions in August 1947 and was scheduled to continue them in November. Then after the flight of the airplane in early November the committee disbanded without a final report. --Mac 03:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It is incredible that the US Senate could be bribed by Pan American Airways, as it was, against TWA, but it was, it was very commented at the Civil Aviation Department on the Mexican Government at the time, I was friend of the Head of Department, Gral. Salinas Carranza at that time, sorry I did not keep some documents at the time, I was 14 years old and my father was building Mexico City Airport. MX -- AGS -- --Dagofloreswi (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Under the "Airlines" section (which I couldn't find addressed here), I broke up what was originally one long sentance to the following: Noah Dietrich wrote of the investigation that Hughes beat the Senate committee by turning the hearings into an attack on Brewster. Hughes successfully exposed Brewster's dealings with Pan Am and later caused his re-election bid to fail by pouring considerable funds into the campaign of his opponent, Frederick Payne.

IMHO it reads a bit clearer this way and avoids the confusing abundance of pronouns. BrianO 07:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed some obscene spam in "Hollywood" category Zinza 13:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

speculative phrase

I rewrote the phrase about hughes hotel-hopping to remove the 'seemed to need' speculation...I have no idea about the veracity of the fact itself, I just wanted to make it less hearsay-sounding.

homosexual affairs?

If Hughes is rumored to have had homosexual affairs, it must be documented somewhere. Since this section is unclear/argued/changed and changed back, maybe someone could look it up and find a source? I've read several books about him and I don't recall that; but imo it's not out of the realm of possibility. Just needs a source. user:justfred 8/22/05 14:58

All of his affairs need sources, beyond the few very famous ones. If anyone cares, I wouldn't mind seeing the whole list removed. But let's not be selective. -Willmcw 22:27, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I also remember the rumours about H. Hughes being a pedophile, satanist, etc. I think they were true, back in the day people used to say he would sleep with "anything": boys, girls, women, men, dogs, sheep, etc. I know that because Leonardo di Caprio likes to keep the image of the characters he portrays "clean" so that young girls go to see his films these rumors haven't been mentioned.

If you can find reliable sources for that info, then go ahead and add it. -Willmcw 22:12, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

List removed. Rich Farmbrough 14:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I do know second hand from the widow Greta Keller whose husband David Bacon was alleged to have been murdered because of his having written of his affair with Hughes. Both Greta and David were known bisexuals and David's looks and the circumstances of Hughes hiring him certainly fit the possibility and Greta to her death insisted it to be factual. Doc 05:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

According to the Brown & Broeske book (1996) I just finished reading, There was no truth behind the homosexual rumours. Hughes was a womanizer and neither the 2000 pages FBI report into Hughes private life nor the thorough abstract ordered by the Hughes estate after his death found any indication of homosexual encounters.(Lostkiwi 18:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC))

The Charles Higham book (he's the guy who said Errol Flynn was a Nazi spy) states that Hughes was bisexual, but it is acknowledged in one review of the book that Higham's information was received third hand, not even second hand, from Larry Quirk. I have interviewed Mr. Quirk myself, and he seems to think that everybody in Hollywood is/was gay, including Rin Tin Tin and Lassie.Chandler75 09:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Rewording and Questions

Just letting you know I reworded the opening sentance, as it seemed a little awkward to me. Also, I was hoping someone could clarify that he was born in Humble, Texas. I've read some other articles that claim he was born in Houstan, Texas. -Anonymous User

Hughes date of Birth

It has never been proven that he was born on December 24. By Hughes own account, he claims to have been born on December 24, 1905, since Hughes lacks a birth certificate. This has been falsified by his aunt. In fact, the only document supporting his birth date, resides in his baptismal record at Saint John's Episcopal Church in Keokuk, Iowa, which indicates that Hughes was born on September 24, 1905.

The following are various websites which reference Hughes' birthdate as September 24 (There are too many to list all):
http://www.flyingclippers.com/postflight/howardhughes.html
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Howard+Hughes&lastnode_id=17677
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/english/Ho/Howard+Hughes.html
http://www.filmbug.com/db/344547
"Howard Hughes: The Secret Life" by Charles Higham, ISBN: 0312329970
From http://www.theage.com.au/news/Film/The-high-flyer/2005/01/28/1106415746450.html :

• Howard Hughes, according to his own account, was born in Houston, Texas, on December 24, 1905. The vaguely biblical feel of the date was probably intentional, because it wasn't true. Baptismal records show he was actually born in September of that year in a small Texan town called, ironically, Humble

Not to mention, the commemorating of Howard Hughes by releasing the DVD "The Aviator" on his 100th year anniversary, September 24, 2005.

"Hughes, The private diaries, memos and letters" by Richard Hack, page 21. The book's source is page 120/121 of the baptismal record at the Saint John's Episcopal Church, it reads:
Howard Robard Hughes Jr.
Born: September 24th, 1905
Baptised: October 7th, 1906
Parents: Howard R. and Allene Hughes
Witnesses: Mrs. W.B. Sharp and Rev. R.C. McIlwain

Also, on page 22 it notes that his aunt Annette signed a notarized replacement birth certificate in 1941 that had December 24th, 1905 listed as his birthdate. This date was the date carved on his gravestone.

-Scott:63.198.220.4 23:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Several of those sources are dubious and at least one is just a mirror of Wikipedia. "Everything2.com" is not authoritative, nor is "filmbug.com". The Handbook of Texas, which is authoritative, gives the Christmas Eve date.[2] As you say, his gravestone also says Dec. 24.[3] It sounds like your contention is that he was born in Iowa rather than Texas, so I'm not sure why you've been changing birthdate while leaving the birth place unchanged. One of your sources, an Australian newspaper, says that he was born in September but in Texas. It appears they may have gotten their info from a publicity package from the "Aviator". The book, "Howard Hughes: The Secret Life", seems to give contradictory information about when the baptism occured. All in all, I'd say that we should indicate that there is a controversy of over the date, but that we should use the "official" date most prominently. -Willmcw 01:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

My contention has nothing to do with his place of birth and never has. I never stated Hughes was born in Iowa. I stated that he was baptised there. Please read my posts. You have made this statement twice so far regarding his place of birth and I have never made such a remark. There is a big difference between birth and baptismal. His baptismal records indicate he was born on September 24, 1905. His baptismal also indicates that he bas born in Humble, Texas. Hughes had strong ties in Keokuk, Iowa, but he was not born there.
The authoritiveness of The Handbook of Texas, I would consider questionable as well. This reference also states that Hughes was born in Houston, not in Humble.
This wikipedia community is amazing. It seems the validity of all entries here is governed by administrators who think they know more than others. Any attempt of someone making a correction and providing proof of such correction is immediately dismissed if it challenges the admin, irrelevent of it's accuracy. The wikipedia is formed for the community to provide correct information, to the world, not to deny information because the admin does not agree.
I know it's not just my edits, it seems any edit of this page is not allowed, even when another anonymous user makes an edit to add a link around TWA, it is quickly reverted by an admin Jpgordon. Was that edit so harmful it required an admin to revert it????
-Scott:63.198.220.4 05:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Considering that you repeatedly made the change without any explanation or supporting references you should not be surprised that other editors have been skeptical. You should also be aware that this has been a heavily vandalized page over the last year. Now then, considering that it is the date on his gravestone a certain amount of deference is due to the 12/24 birthdate. Since there is a dispute, we shouldn't just give only one date, but rather we should mention both dates with an explanation of the controversy if we think it necessary. Would it be possible to summarize the matter in a sentence? -Willmcw 07:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

My two cents: (1) The Handbook of Texas may be a prestigious publication, but there is no rationale for how they are sure that his birthday is December 24. (2) Gravestones are not undisputable fact. People can have anything put on their gravestone if there is no birth certificate. (3) There is no such thing as an "official" date of birth for persons, there are real and fakes. For that reason, I have added the dubious tag to the opening paragraph since his date of birth is presented as fact yet there is a reasonable dispute.--Fallout boy 21:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If the date of birth is unsure, then a footnote should be put on the page, as linking to the talk page isn't good form. Qutezuce 06:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I HAVE BOTH BIRTH DOCUMENTS IN HAND!

1) Baptismal record - Hughes was baptised October 7, 1906, at the St. John's Episcopal Church, in Keokuk, Iowa. THE BAPTISMAL RECORD DOES NOT LIST HUGHES' BIRTHPLACE AT ALL. The handwriting of the baptismal record is a rather trembling one. The clerk was an aged person and there is a good chance that, supposedly, being hard of hearing he/she may have misheard "December 24" as "September 24" instead. This is speculative but quite possible an explanation for the discrepancy of dates.

2) Birth certificate - Contrary to what Scott says, the Hughes' 1941 affidavit birth certificate is a perfectly legal document and not "falsified by his aunt". (Anyone can order a copy from the Bureau of Vital Statistics of Texas Department of Health [Record nr. 234358, of December 29, 1941, filed January 5, 1942].) I don't understand people's trouble in accepting that Hughes was born in a December 24. What's the big deal? "Hughes claimed he was born in a Xmas Eve" - what's your source for his big claim? He was a very secretive man and I doubt he ever talked about his birthday to people at large. What would have been the point?

The birth certificate seems the most reliable source, in spite of being an affidavit one.

Highly credible birth data collector Edwin Steinbrecher has in his astro-data archives (http://www.astrocye.com/webcharts/modcharts.ASP?which=4275&search=HUGHES&Inc) the data for HH as December 24, 1905, at 10.12 PM, source: Hughes' uncle to astrologer LeGros. This made HH a Capricorn Sun with Virgo rising, quite fitting to his personality: lonely and misanthropic (Capricorn) and hypochondriac, obsessive-compulsive, detail-minded, germophobic (Virgo). Jupiter (the planet of wealth) is close to the mid-heaven making him one of the richest man in the world, plus Pluto in the 10th house standing for big power in a hidden way. Like another Capricorn/Virgo native (Richard Nixon), he liked to work behind the scene and was scheeming. Quite a different picture if he had been born September 24 at that same time 10.12: Libra Sun with Gemini rising...--Orlando F (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

's

I moved this from an anon to the talk page. Please, don't shoot me.

Correction: When "Hughes" is made to be possessive, you don't need a freaking apostrophe and then another "s" to make the point. The following is acceptable, and much less irritating: Hughes'

Mikereichold 05:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Nope you are wrong about that the s' is only appropriate if the noun refers to multiple objects, there is only one Hughes

Info from from Brown & Broeske "Howard Hughes: the Untold Story"

I updated according to info from the book, especially the later years which are much less detailed than the aviation years. I have detailed reference including page numbers but I couldnt find anything in the help files on how to make those... and nobody else has referenced the text!

(Lostkiwi 01:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC))

Fictional media inspirations

Is this section really relevant? The major ones probably but this section takes up alot of space which should be devoted to the actual article and knowing that "1970s Christian rocker Larry Norman's song "Without Love" contains a reference to Howard Hughes" without any details seems frivolous. Maybe a seperate page should be created for this.

(Lostkiwi 01:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC))

Settlement amount

Peters, who initiated the divorce proceedings requested a lifetime alimony payment of $70,000 a year, adjusted for inflation, and waived all claims to Hughes' estate.

This line needs a citation and should state the actual amount. "Adjusted for inflation" to what year? Tempshill 23:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Shattered [not just broken] ribs

Since his ribs were shattered, and not just broken in his plane crash, I editted the crash section of the article. Kamikaze Highlander 00:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally, it sounds like you're quoting The Aviator 22:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, yea, it is said on the movie, but that's because it happened. Kamikaze Highlander 03:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Movies - Grammar

I changed "theory" to "theorize". Reads a little cleaner now. Epecho 17:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)epecho

Spruce Goose

Just wanted to point out that "spruce" is also an adjective, defined by MSN Encarta as "appearing neat and tidy; having a clean and well-cared-for appearance." I always thought that was what was meant by "Spruce Goose".

Later Years

Researched and found that hoaxter Irving was convicted of fraud. www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/01/28/60II/main154661.shtml BrianO 08:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The obsessive compulsive disorder, the codiene, the valium, and the syphllis are all well known, but the allegation that Hughes wasted ice cream is not well-proved. The source cited is not authoritative and it actually does not speak about 350 gallons of ice but of 1,000 gallons, and there's nothing about the hotel giving away the extra ice cream to guests. Let the man be, for Christ's sake. 69.255.0.91 23:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The article quotes Dr. Forest Tennant regarding pain killers, but ignores the fact that Dr. Tennant disputes the idea that Hughes suffered effects of syphilis later in life. I have corrected the omission, and I have changed the references for Dr. Tennant to a source document. Saraalan 21:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The article now makes no mention of syphilis. Did he have the disease or not, and if not, how did the rumor get started? Drutt (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Air Speed Record

According to this article (and the Higham biography, which I am currently reading) Hughes set a new airspeed record of 352 mph on September 13, 1935. This I find rather confusing because according to other sources (eg http://www.speedrecordclub.com/records/outair.htm) the air speed record had passed 400 mph by 1931, and a new record of 440.68 mph had been set by the Italian pilot Francesco Agello in October 1934.

Is the Hughes record therefore a myth? Or was his record set in a different class of airplane to the faster ones? Or maybe his was just the AMERICAN record? (The faster flights had been in Britain and Italy) I would be pleased if somebody could solve this mystery, as it really should be checked out.

Gadsby West 00:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

An afterthought: could the British and Italian flights have been military test-flights and therefore their results kept secret at the time? Maybe the Hughes flight was believed to be a new record at the time, but has since proved to be not so. Just a thought.

Gadsby West 00:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

""It says the plane with which he set the land speed record was, as the fact indicates, the fastest plane built up to that time is not correct because there had been one or two seaplanes built for the Schneider Trophy Race which were faster. However they had practically no range and were only usable on a very very smooth lake with fuel enough for a few minutes flight, utterly impractical." [4] --Justfred 01:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting article, and I take the point about the impracticality of the seaplanes that held the record - nevertheless this is surely a technicality. Whilst Hughes could claim to have built the fastest practical plane to date, I cannot see any way that he could claim to have broken the air speed record if other people had flown faster before him. It is significant that none of the lists of successive air speed records (eg the one I linked to in my previous post, or the Wikipedia one [5]) include the Hughes flight. Gadsby West 02:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question 'Gadsby West' all the Italian and British records were set either in or around major international air race events (mostly the Coupe d'Aviation Maritime Jacques Schneider) by racing float planes. His 'airspeed record' may have come from the fact that many American air race pilots believed that his plane would have been faster than theirs, even though it never once competed in an air race. The top speed of his H-1 racer had been surpassed by several aircraft by September of 1935. In fact the only places his name is mentioned in association with airspeed records, is in the Higham biography, the film (the Aviator), places referencing the two and on the airspeed records article on Wikipedia, which has him flying a Macchi M.52 at 494 mph (795 km/h) in 1935. Now, I don't know as much about Italian 1920s racing float planes as I would have most people believe, but I don't think the M.52 can even go that fast (unmodified). I think the whole thing maybe just one of those bogus claims based on a misunderstanding that goes around for a while until it falls upon the ears of people who hold it up to closer scrutiny. Nortexpo Hernsure 08:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind, 352 mph was the average of the seven speed runs made by Hughes on Sept. 13, 1935. Hughes, himself, contended that the plane did fly over 400 mph on the last run, but this is not verified. The previous speed record was not 351 mph, though, as suggested in The Aviator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.119.170 (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that Hughes set the World Land Plane Speed Record. He knew very well that float planes had traveled faster and didn't profess to have broken any of their World Sea Plane Records.

Congratulations to all

This article ha improved dramatically, good job! --Uncle Bungle 02:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

How many gallons of banana nut ice cream?

This article says 350, but the source says 1000. Which one is it?

Holographic will?

The article mentions a holographic will. Is this some meaning of the word I don't know about? I was going to edit it out, but believed it better to ask about that here. mjuarez 14:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a weird term and should be explained. A "holographic" will is one that has been written by the person entirely in longhand, as opposed to a typed and signed will. -Will Beback · † · 18:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

For being in Category:Articles with unsourced statements and Category:Articles with invalid ISBNs, having too few citations, for having citations not formatted corrected, and for having images without fair use rationale. --SeizureDog 18:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Howard Hughes Will

In the Birth and Upbringing section (3rd paragraph) the following appears "Their deaths apparently inspired 19-year-old Hughes to include the creation of a medical research laboratory in his 1925 will."

Howard Hughes died intestate, that is he died without a will. The "Mormon Will" was the only will that surfaced however it was found in court to be a fake.

Therefore, if he died intestate, he did not have a 1925 will and the statement under Birth and Upbringing would be incorrect.

131.216.35.149 20:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Jim K Feb 12, 2007

syphillis?

If he had the disease how did Katherine H. and so many others not get it?

Article ought to make some mention of this issue. Drutt (talk) 12:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Birthdate revisited

The first sentence of "Birth and Upbringing" is somewhat confusing. It looks like it originally read "on December 24, 1905, although...". Probably it was updated but not proofread. Could use some rewording both for comprehension and also to highlight the controversy of his birthdate. Dfrauzel 20:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

General Doctor Richard Montgomery Gano, M.D. was at home watching Law and Order when his first grandchild Allene Stone Gano gave birth to his first great-grandchild Howard Robard Hughes, Junior. Doctor Gano, M.D. delivered his first son William Beriah Gano also. - James 76.182.220.150 (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

gee, she was only 20 years old, man —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.105.8.161 (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Gano, M.D. delivered his first grandchild Allene Stone Gano also, in Georgetown, Kentucky, where his father John Allen Gano was also born. - Garry Denke 14:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Tax Jurisdiction and official Residency

I was recently speaking with a lawyer from a law firm that represented Hughes' relatives, and she said that ultimately Hughes and his estate fell under the tax jurisdiction of Nevada (which has no inheritance tax). This seems to conflict with the end of the fourth paragraph under "Obsessive-Compulsive Behaviour". There it implies that the reason California and Texas couldn't collect inheritance tax because they never resolved whether he could be considered a resident of either state, but not because he was finally declared a resident of Nevada. I'm no expert in this, so if anyone could clear this up it would be appreciated. Yair-Aaron 08:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Arby's

In the lengthy section on Hughe's obsessive/compulsive behavior, there is an anecdote about him buying the Arby's chain. The account of its being formed by Daniel J. Arby and the chain's existance in 1954 is completely at odds with the history given on the Wikipedia article for Arby's itself; also the talk page for Daniel J. Arby contains an allegation that this history (the one involving Daniel J. Arby) is a hoax. So what's the deal? Cris Varengo 21:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a hoax, perpetrated by an anonymous user who created the page for Daniel J. Arby. As you mentioned, the history of the restaurant chain is well documented, and neither this supposed civil war veteran nor Howard Hughes ever owned it. I've removed this claim from the Hughes article and others are helping to clean up similarly afflicted articles. Anson2995 16:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Cris Varengo 21:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Fictional inspirations

This section seems to have grown appreciably and I would like to see if others are of the opinion that it should have some "pruning?" A number of these entries seem noteworthy but the large extent of fictional "off-shoots" has led to the inclusion of a Simpsons episode which comes close to smacking of "fancruft." Comments? Bzuk 18:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC).

While it may look to be fancruft, the Simpsons is a very notable show and the reference to Hughes was extensive. I've seen some long lists @ Wikipedia, so I don't really see the need to "prune" the section. However, in this case, fuck it, let's get rid of the Simpsons reference-- Futurama is a far better show. --oac (old american century) | Talk 20:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Since a reasonable amount of time has transpired, I am now creating a sub-article on Howard Hughes in Popular Culture that will link to the main article but restore some of the encyclopedic nature of the orginal submissions. FWIW Bzuk 13:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC).

Marriages

At the end of the "Hollywood" section his marriage to Jean Peters is referred to as his second marriage, but it was his third according to the box with biographical data. 193.91.181.142 19:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC) (Nick)

Question about Infobox data on marriages to Terry Moore and Jean Peters

If you look at the Infobox data for Howard Hughes, you will see that he was married to Terry Moore and Jean Peters at the same time. This is not possible. Somebody entered erroneous data on the dates of the marriages.

Anthony22 19:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture

Due to the lastest AfD decision, a great deal of material that was well referenced and researched was eliminated from a sub-article that had been established. The reason for the creation of a separate article was that the amount of information that was in this section was disproportionate to the article. The other main reason for its creation was that it filtered off the massive "cruft" additions that could be dealt with in turn as they appeared. The discussion regarding AfD was for the deletion of the article not for the deletion of the material enbodied in the article. A number of the participants made the case for merge and one editor has subsequently made an effort to place the material back into the main article. Please assume "good faith" in his submission. The reworking of this section may amount to a lot of work but it was better than the recent submissions that were made to the section. Please comment here- an invisible note will direct editors to this page first. FWIW Bzuk 12:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC).

• You're suggesting that the article containing the material was deleted for being unenctclopedic but somehow the material if included in another article magically becomes encyclopedic? No. Sorry, but that's not how it works. Delete does not mean merge. The standalone article was deleted because the material constituted a directory of loosely associated topics coupled with original research. The loosely associated items do not become more closely associated for being in this article than when they were on their own and whatever else happens the "appears to be inspired by Hughes" fictional character section is original research and must be removed. I certainly assume good faith on the part of the editor who put this deleted material back in this article. Clearly that editor is mistaken about what deletion at AFD means and so, to clarify, deletion at AFD does not mean that the entire bulk of the material is added part and parcel to another article. Otto4711 04:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

My interpretation of the closing admin's comment is that it endorsed a merge of the contents back into this article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Hughes in Popular Culture. If that was a mistake then I repent my error. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a bit, I was the one who originally created the sub-article, read the AfD very carefully and endorse Will's interpretation. Besides the pop culture section that was introduced as a sop to the article was exactly that- a directory while the newly re-constituted section properly fits the criteria of having a detailed, referenced and relevant cultural reference. I made a check of every one of the items that were removed under the old "canard" of OR. They all had a relevance. Let it go. Bzuk 12:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC).

• "Original research" is not a "canard." OR is a policy which is non-negotiable. OR material is to be removed. Even the AFD you keep pointing at acknowledges that the "inspired by" section is OR, so I suggest that you "let it go" or if you're so enamored of the material, copy it to your user page and work on finding a reliable source for every item. In the meantime, go review the OR policy and stop adding OR back into the article. Otto4711 13:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• And to clarify the closing admin's comment, s/he was saying that sourced content could be merged back into this article. Not that the entire article should be merged here. Had that been the closing admin's intent, then the AFD would have been closed as merge. And even with a merge closure, the merged content still requires sourcing. "This fictional character appears to have been inspired by Hughes" is not sourcing. Otto4711 13:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The closing admin at the AfD wrote: "What content is here should be easily merged to Howard Hughes, if it isn't already, and I will gladly restore with that purpose in mind on request." Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and the fact that the material was originally in place and was never challenged for OR is proof that the use of this argument as a means to create a disruption is disingenuous. When "good faith" edits are in place, it is contingent that editors improve what is there rather than making wholesale reversions especially since there is a tag instruction that indicates that the talk page is where contentious submissions should be discussed and that's policy.

Read Help:Reverting, in brief: Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously. Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism> , or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism> . If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it. If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.

Besides, the 3R rule is now invoked. I will endeavour from the point of view of clarity to find a reference for disputed entries. Please mark them with citation needed tags. FWIW Bzuk 14:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC).

• The closing admin also said "Sources are what distinguishes genuine "in popular culture" articles from mere "trivia collections", and the consensus is that they are absent here." If there are no sources to support the material as a separate article then there are no sources to support their inclusion in this article. Unsourced material is subject to removal at any time. Given that the fictional character material has a) been deleted at AFD already and b) is original research and c) even were it not OR is unsourced, it has no place in this article or any other.
• Your claim that the inclusion without challenge is proof that the material is not OR is ludicrous. Your claim that the removal of unsourced and already deleted information is meant to be intentionally disruptive is either a failure to assume good faith or is an outright lie intended to bolster your non-argument. I cited OR in the nomination of the pop culture article and, had I seen it in the article initially before it was split off, would have cited it as OR then. Otto4711 15:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Read what I said carefully. I have no interest in picking fights. FWIW Bzuk 19:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC).

What was Maheu paid

In the Howard Hughes article it says Maheu was paid $2.2 million in the arranged defamation lawsuit with Hughes. In the article on Maheu it says $2.8 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.213.80.63 (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

==Sorry i didnt know where to put this statement. Was that episode of the Simpsons, where Mr Burns opens a casino in sprindfield, and Mr Burns become afraid of germs and isolates himself in the casino penthouse, that that a parody of Howard Huges, reading this article about hia life i could help but notice the similarities.

Reference 20 on staying in Vancouver

This link is not longer valid. Is the fact coraborated? 24.8.146.61 (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Scott Rudge

Hughes and "The Outlaw"

A very sensationalist passage has been in place in this setion. It contains no citations for verification. If not sourced, this passage will be expunged. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC).

OR alert: Garry Denke and 76.182.220.150

Garry Denke (talk · contribs) and 76.182.220.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who are currently working on this article, have a bit of a history here, and should be watched closely... - ∅ (∅), 07:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

A burr in your saddle from the Nicaraguan National Palace actually being the Nicaraguan National Museum these days, I do not exist? The National Palace of Nicaragua building was founded in 1935 by President Juan Bautista Sacasa. It was used as the seat of government for well over fifty years (while Howard Hughes, Junior was alive) but this all changed with the revolution. During this period of Nicaragua’s history, the building was taken by the Sandinistas and the local government was overthrown. This action put an end to the use of The National Palace of Nicaragua as a governmental building and is presently used as a historical building, I do not exist, housing the National Museum, National Archive and National Library. It's a bit of a history there, and should be watched closely... - Garry Denke 16:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

...why should I care about the Nicaraguan national whatever? I just want Wikipedia articles to be accurate and not contain original research or unverified claims. - ∅ (∅), 16:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Kids. - Garry Denke 14:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

A couple of conflicting rewrites have recently changed the article substantially. There may have to be a revision to put back some of the over-written sections. Whatdoyathink? Bzuk (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC).

Estate Section

I believe the entire section regarding Andrew Cippola and the Atlas International etc is completely made up. I searched for more information about both of them and the only mention for the most part are various financial filings regarding a buyout offer for a Doral Bank from Atlas and Cippola the offer was not taken seriously and they state that the individual is involved in check fraud etc.. http://www.secinfo.com/dsVsf.u6D3.htm

The entire section was added in one edit, if you look at that users "talk page" it mentions various "vandalisms" on other articles. I would propose that the section be removed. 69.244.247.149 (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I am reluctant to proceed mainly because the query has come from an anon, I would prefer if an established user can also "chime in." Not to denigrate "guest" users but a record of consistent contributions would help validate this request. FWIW, please excuse the tenor of my remarks, they are really not intended to characterize anyone. Bzuk (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC).

I came in to say the exact same thing as anon and I found this thread. In the "Estate" section of this article, there is a paragraph that begins with the words, "Howard Hughes appointed his illegitimate son..."

This paragraph gives very specific details about corporations that have no relationship to the subject of this article. Further, the details of this paragraph offer absolutely no references.

I believe that these details do not relate to the subject of the article. They should be sourced and moved to a separate article. If these statements cannot be sourced, they should be deleted. I didn't go so far as anon, but he may be right, this paragraph might be total and unmitigated BS. Get rid of it. Jarhed (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW Bzuk, I admire your collaborative and cautious style. Thank you very much for your contribution. Delete as you see fit. Jarhed (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Beverly Hills Air Crash Coincidence

House involved in the crash was on same street as the house in which Benjamin Siegel was shot in 1947. (The street is North Linden.)Jrm2007 (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Last public appearance

Does anyone know what year he was last photographed or appeared in public? John celona (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Howard Hughes Medical Institute - tax haven

Recently described on "60 minutes", the original goal of the HHMI was to be a tax haven. this is briefly mentioned on the HHMI article. Wouldn't you think it should be included here as well? Thanks 77.126.62.150 (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Citation style

Bzuk, El Greco, I've set this section up for you. --barneca (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I've seen and I've read that cite templates are perferred. Heck, all the FA nominations I've looked at, have atleast made it know that all bare references should be converted to cite templates. Furthermore comments like this: "Read the edit history of the article; I am the primary editor, the other editor changed the style of my edits to his preference." are not good and imply ownership which is not allowed on Wikipedia. So if User:Bzuk thinks that just because he/she is the primary editor of Howard Hughes and he/she can dictate what cite formats should and shouldn't be used, he/she is totally wrong. _{El Greco}^(talk) 22:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Bringing personal baggage from your argument doesn't help. Assume you've misunderstood Bzuk's phrasing, that he wasn't claiming ownership, he was pointing out the generally accepted idea that you don't switch citation styles from one to the other without a good reason (just like you don't switch from British English to American English, or BC/AD to BCE/CE), and that the "original" style was his version. So now, the question is, is there a good reason to change? I have no idea, so I'll leave you folks to discuss it civilly between yourselves. --barneca (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well not settling the arguement from WP:AN, is reason to bring the discussion over here. I brought it there so it would be settled, not to have it brought back here. So let me get this straight, I write an article and use cite templates, and then some user comes along and decides he/she doesn't want them, the user can just undo them? Then let's say that the same article gets nominated for WP:FA or WP:GA, and one of the reasons to oppose is not correct reference formatting (ie change bare refs to cite templates), what's suppose to happen then? British English and American English is cut and dry, an article dealing with the UK get BE and an article dealing with the US gets AE. But, when one of the to-do lists include: "Improve footnotes, annotation, and in-line citations", bare refs is just fine? What was the entire point of creating the cite templates then? Where they for show or to be a white elephant? _{El Greco}^(talk) 22:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. You edit warred, violated WP:BRD, and made an ANI report just so you could avoid the talk page of the article? This page is where discussion about the article is supposed to go. Not in edit summaries, not in templated user talk templates, but on the talk page.

My point is, if you created an article with citation templates, and someone came along and changed them all to some other format with no good reason, they should be changed back to citation templates. Change the format because it's better, not because some MOS says so. Are cite templates better, or not? If they are, explain why. If they aren't, don't make the change. Leave things in their original state unless you're making it better. If you can't agree on whether it's better or not, see WP:DR, get a third opinion or something. --barneca (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict #2)No I didn't avoid the talk page, (look who are the only two editors discussing right now), I merely wanted the issue resolved or merely someting more than "go to the talk page and discuss". I mean if another user comes and adds some information by referencing it with a cite template, User:Bzuk is within his/her authority to just undo that user's edits by chaning them from cite templates to bare refs? What is that then?

(Edit conflict #1)Here are some examples for my above comment. What do these articles also have in common: Macedonia (terminology), Archimedes, Nigel Kneale, AC/DC, and Casino Royale (2006 film), besides being WP:FA? They use cite templates. _{El Greco}^(talk) 23:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Barneca for setting up this forum. I doesn't matter a whit what style is used as long as it is logical, readable and easy for the reader to understand. FWiW, El Greco you don't understand what I even meant when I said, I had written the edit previously and it was changed, that was the case, read the edit summary, I was the primary editor on changes you described. Read about cite templates, they are not as you surmise. Citing can be done in a variety of styles and includes Modern Language Association style guide which is what the entire article was using. The other citation style used is the Harvard Citaition style guide, and there were errors made in both formats which I corrected. It doesn't matter about the changes made by various editors but the style difference in the use of ISO dating could not be accommodated. I attempted to explain the reason for the edit in the edit summary and then sent you a note as you had concerns, your reaction was to template me with vandal tags which you only consider as "warning tags" but the implication is clear and is not conducive to discussion. Read the edit history, the edits made introduced some correct changes but also introduced errors in consistency by using ISO dating which is inherent in a cite template. I tried to rewrite the template but it didn't work, and that is why the citations were written out in "scratch" cataloging to preserve the exact wording. No edits were reverted, they were changed, that is the difference. I do not revert edits unless there is a clear case of vandalism. I was about to leave the edits as is but then noted that there were tiny errors throughout the entire passage and changed these, then made it all consistent. I began the revision of this article when it underwent attacks, at that time, due to the numerous editors involved, a style was selected that was established by the WP:AVIATION PROJECT group for consistency. Although Howard Hughes is an international figure with many different interests, the project style that was used was a consistent one. Cite templates are rife with small errors and in correcting the ISO dating, it was not possible to change the date style to meet the standard already in the article, so it was rewritten not reverted. All the information that was presented earlier was retained and put back in the same manner that the cite template would have presented it. You are reading something into this article revision that just isn't there. I am not a vandal, I do not change edits arbitrarily and I do not like being treated like a vandal. FWiW, Sorry for even getting involved in this discourse, it is illogical and idiotic of me to get baited like this. Bzuk (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC). Bzuk (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

FWiW, There are numerous articles that have passed FA that do not use any cite templating at all. The template issue is a canard. Changes were made for consistency, explained, rejected by another editor, an attempt was made to further explain, reversions were made twice by both editors involved and a ANI became involved? because charges of WP:OWN were made. Bzuk (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

Well the formattings all screwed up, so I don't know where to put this threading-wise, so I'll just put it down at the bottom with no indents.

El Greco, are you reading what he's writing? He's explaining why he changed it, and he did more than just revert. It's not "I was here first, I win", it's that you need to have a good reason to change things. I have no idea which format is better in this case, I don't do FA and I don't spend time formatting references. But I have read enough to know that cite templates don't automatically trump any other kind format.

Guys, you've both been here 2 years (longer than me), and have many more thousand of edits than I do, and are both content builders. I have to believe you've had a content dispute before. Do I really need to explain how to solve one? You're both pissed at each other, so go do something else, and come back tomorrow, and discuss the issues, leaving any anger or emotional baggage behind. Maybe, if you think it reasonable tomorrow, a sheepish apology for misreading the other's intentions. FWIW, you could both have behaved a little better. FWIW, neither of you did anything ANI-worthy. FWIW, you both want this article to be great. Now stop making me feel stupid for lecturing people more experienced than me, and discuss it like gentlemen. --barneca (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Bzuk (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

Listen, I'm willing to discuss, but don't undo a user's good-faith edit because the way he/she cited the template doesn't conform to your style. You know how many millions of articles like that are on Wikipedia?

What I propose is that any edits made from this day forward that include cite templates be left as is. First, they are organized, there is a field for every piece of detail needed. You plug in the information required and it outputs it in a formatted way. Second, if you (Bzuk) have a problem with how the date is formated let's go over to the cite template talk page and request it be fixed or somehow accomodated. Finally if this page ever gets to GAC or FAC, I'm sure formatting the references to some sort of cite template will be brought up. And as you say, "Citing can be done in a variety of styles and includes Modern Language Association style guide which is what the entire article was using. The other citation style used is the Harvard Citaition style guide." I don't see why an article should be hindered because a compromise is unable to be made.

And for the record, notice this link on your user page: Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, Bzuk, it states user warnings and notices nowhere does it state vandal warnings, which is where the two notices: {{uw-own}} (uw = user warning) and {{uw-delete}}, I used on your talk page are. I use them because they are simple already made and agreed upon community user warnings, rather than sitting down and coming up with one that might be taken the wrong way. _{El Greco}^(talk) 23:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Enough already, go play chess. Bzuk (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC).

Go read WP:CIVIL, because you are seriously acting like a wise guy. _{El Greco}^(talk) 13:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest at this point that both editors should read again Barneca's fine sentiment located only six comments above this one. Bzuk, the "chess" comment was not helpful. The "wise guy" comment from El Greco, while perhaps understandable in context, could have been left unsaid. I urge you both to stick to the disagreement issue at hand. Steve ^{T • C} 14:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Just as a point of fact, the lack of citation templates should not be an issue should this article ever go to GA or FAC. The article Cillian Murphy does not use them, for example, and that is an article that was promoted in the last year. As WP:CITE says, many editors do not like citation templates, so there is no requirement to use them. They are there purely for convenience. An editor coming to an article and changing the prevailing citation format should have a good reason for doing so. Indeed, the guideline states: "Editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus" (not my emphasis). All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 07:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Steve, just to explain myself, Barneca asked for a resolution to the dispute, I agreed, then the other editor made another edit, with the comment, "one final comment that I was working on before Bzuk posted his agreed comment + proposal, then I'm going back to my chess game." My comment back was in jest; it was not a deriding comment at all, I simply indicated that we should conclude, and alluded to the fact that I had read his "chess game" comment. It was not intended to be snide or demeaning, just that things now had come to a conclusion. After that last accusation, I have no further interest in interacting with this editor. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC).

Steve, I agreed which is why I also offered a proposal so it could be the beginning of a new discussion, but what do I get? "Enough already, go play chess". I explain my actions and that's what I get in return? _{El Greco}^(talk) 16:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Hughes hac.jpg

The image Image:Hughes hac.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Tran14G3.jpg
• Image:Rko.JPG

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hughes' Will

From "Early Years:"

"Allene Hughes died in March 1922 from complications of an ectopic pregnancy. In January 1924, Howard Hughes Sr. died of a heart attack. Their deaths apparently inspired Hughes to include the creation of a medical research laboratory in his will that was found in 1925."

This is the will of which Hughes? There are three in this paragraph. If, as we would assume from the rest of the article, it is the will of Howard Hughes, Jr., then how was it found in 1925? Someone please clarify....

Melvin Dummar

I personally believe that Mr.Dummar was cheated out of his money, due to evidence that the supreme court was a little biased on their ruling. I listened to an interview of his on a radio show. Anyone else agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.21.252 (talk) 07:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

popular culture

One of the segments in the movie Creepshow, "They're Creeping Up On You!", has a main character who is a rich germ-phobic recluse businessman who is clearly based on Hughes. Rmd1023 (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If there's no specific mention of Hughes, then you're stuck having to find a critic or popular author who can connect the dots and say that the character is a take-off of Hughes. Until that kind of connection is found, Creepshow is a no-show. Binksternet (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

plagiarism

The paragraph

"In 1947, Hughes descended into one of the most bizarre episodes of his life. In December of that year, Hughes told his aides that he wanted to screen some movies at a film studio near his home. Hughes stayed in the studio's darkened screening room for more than four months, never leaving. He subsisted exclusively on chocolate bars and milk, and relieved himself in the empty bottles and containers. He was surrounded by dozens of Kleenex boxes, which he continuously stacked and re-arranged. He wrote detailed memos to his aides on yellow legal pads giving them explicit instructions not to look at him, speak to him, and only to respond when spoken to. Throughout the duration, Hughes sat fixated in his chair, often naked, continuously watching movies, reel after reel, day after day. When he finally emerged in the spring of 1948, his hygiene was terrible, as he had not bathed or cut his hair and nails for weeks. Many believe that during these months he was suffering a massive nervous breakdown and did not want anyone to know about it.[citation needed]"

is almost a word-for-word transcription of a National Geographic special. See

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQGsGd8hmuE

I don't know if other parts of that section are plagiarized. The only reason I don't erase it is it's an interesting anecdote and adds to its section. If only it were rewritten and sourced.

71.194.62.168 (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just listened to the videotape and disagree that it is plagiarism. There are similarities but there are no verbatim lifts, rather an attempt to use the content in a rewritten form that has many of the same phrases but still not exactly "word-for-word" as was characterized above. FWiW, I agree that a verifiable source is important. Bzuk (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC).

A transcription of the video:

"Hughes descended into one of the most bizarre episodes of his life. In December 1957, he told his personal aides that he wanted to screen some movies at a nearby studio called Nossax (sp?) on Sunset Boulevard. Hughes stayed in the darkened screening room for more than four months, never leaving. He used a telephone to conduct business, and ate a diet of chocolate bars and milk. But most of the time, he just sat in his own chair, often naked, watching movies, reel after reel, day after day. Hughes issued strict orders to his aides, writing instructions on yellow legal tablets. Do not look at him, do not speak to him, only respond when spoken to. ... After four months, Hughes finally emerged from the screening room in the spring of 1958. By then his clothes were soiled and ragged. He hadn't bathed or shaved for months. ... 'It has been surmised that what happened at Nossax was, Hughes was having a massive nervous breakdown but he didn't want to tell anybody.' "

Some verbatim lifts: "Hughes descended into one of the most bizarre episodes of his life," and "often naked, continuously watching movies, reel after reel, day after day." Plus there are blatant similarities in diction.

71.194.62.168 (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Opiates

"As a result of numerous plane crashes, Hughes spent much of his later life in pain, eventually becoming severely addicted to codeine, morphine, and other pain medication. It is believed that this addiction compounded the symptoms of Hughes' obsessive–compulsive disorder."

What is the source of this theory? Recent studies have actually shown that opiates (hydrocodone, codeine, morphine, ...) can actually be used to treat obsessive–compulsive disorder in some individuals.   — C M B J   06:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Snobbery

Owen Tudor must have a million descendants by now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.158.95 (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

and even then there was talks of marriage

were talks or was talk? I'm not sure which is correct. (fotoguzzi)69.64.235.42 (talk) 04:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)