Talk:Howard Hughes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Howard Hughes article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Good article Howard Hughes was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision.
To-do list for Howard Hughes: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
  • Improve intro paragraph (lengthen and add detail)
  • Improve footnotes, annotation, and in-line citations
  • Improve format and use of external links (there are some external links inside the article)
  • Review wording and grammar
  • More references

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] '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

[edit] 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))

[edit] 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))

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Movies - Grammar

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

[edit] 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".

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Congratulations to all

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

[edit] How many gallons of banana nut ice cream?

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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


[edit] syphillis?

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

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/o/w/Talk%7EHoward_Hughes_2bbe.html"