Talk:Howard Hughes

"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)

---

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)

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.

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

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.

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)

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.

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.

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)

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)