Talk:Howard Hughes/Archive 2

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)


 * "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Sugarbat (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2013 (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)


 * A quick googling for "creepshow howard hughes" finds a bunch. http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/creepshow-1982 and http://canadiancinephile.com/2012/10/29/creepshow/ are two quick examples.  Rmd1023 (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2013 (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)


 * Some citations would be nice, although I wouldn't be surprised if you were right - hypercortisolism from untreated pain can cause all sorts of weird mental things (note the relationship between it and depression)... see the Tennant article (on Pseudoaddiction). Allens (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It is known, that after any major accident or illness, that the body may require prolonged pain medication due to the damage of nerves, bone, etc. Just because he had to take opiates while in the hospital, does not mean it made him an addict. Furthermore, there is a difference between an addict, and someone who is physically dependent. Here, I reference the National Pain Foundation, and several other published and peer-reviewed articles on this subject. I think, at least, the sentence; "Many[who?] attribute his long-term dependence on opiates to his use of codeine as a painkiller during his convalescence", should be removed, or at least changed to reflect that some people require the medicine for the rest of their lives due to their illness.--Craxd (talk) 12:36, 4 November 2014 (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)

NOT a place for an accurate biography of Howard Hughes
I cannot believe all the inaccuracies, flagrant lies, self-posturings and so-called "citations". When one tries to go in and clean up an article and discussion to keep it relative to the subject, Wikipedia decides that false history is better than accuracy. I will NOT be coming back to this site for any kind of historical accuracy and in the future, might I suggest that Wikipedia make major overhalls as to whom is doing the research and editing. If you want accuracy, hire true historians and not people who fued, fuss, fight, lie and generally make offensive and derisive comments! GOODBYE to bad rubbish! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.75.19.234 (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * adios.. - 4twenty42o (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Aristotle Onassis bet Howard Hughes result Vietnam War
Was the whole Vietnam War fought over a bet when Howard Hughes lost to Aristotle Onassis? Is this just a theory? Do they have any connection? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.151.52 (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Showalter reference
One section says that Showalter revealed in a 2004 interview, but his wiki page says he died in 2000. Um, what? 75.63.62.4 (talk) 02:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Howard Hughes vs. "Howard Hewes"
I added a section under the "popular culture" heading in which Howard Hughes appeared on "The Beverly Hillbillies" - sort of. In the series of episodes, Jed befriended a resident of Hooterville named Howard Hewes (this was one of the crossover episodes they did with "Petticoat Junction"). Naturally, this causes all kind of excitement when Mr. Drysdale hears the news. I just saw that episode this morning, and that's why I added the section. By the time this episode aired, "The Beverly Hillbillies" was in a state of decline, but I do think it was one of the more clever episodes of their last two seasons.97.73.64.164 (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a very minor popular culture connection and I will be pruning it. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC).
 * I'm taking it out. It has no greater relevance than a short laugh in one TV episode. Binksternet (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

AIDS?
Howard Hughes: A Secret Life reports that he died from AIDS. Is Jason Robards related to Hughes? Is Hughes really the father of Larry Ellison? etc. etc. Apple8800 (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Charles Higham did not say that Hughes had AIDS, he insinuated it that he might be suffering from symptoms like AIDS. It really is not a credible source to use. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Specify why it's not a realiable source. Have you read the book? I did. I insist you defend you OPINION with some substance. In the book, I don't have the page directly, but some expert actually says, without a doubt, quoted by the author, that Howard Hughes had AIDS. So, please, read the book, and then form a better opinion. If you opinion changes on the subject, good; if you opinion doesn't change, good. But realize a book can't go into publication like this, make a claim, and NOT be sued by Hughes' estate. Apple8800 (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did read the book and there is no direct reference to Hughes having AIDS, just speculation. Higham is a discredited author whose long career as a celebrity stalker has put him into the category of gossip-monger. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree, as the books author is certainly not an authority on any illness. He is not a doctor of medicine, nor has a M.D. reviewed the patients records. Thus, it is only hearsay, speculation, and or gossip at its worst, and has no place in an encyclopedia article.--Craxd (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Removed unverified allegations of tax evasion in section
Managing the financial empire== ==

I removed the section which contained the following: As his empire grew, Hughes worked to minimize the company's taxes. In the early years of Hughes Aircraft, Hughes attempted to move his company from Southern California to Nevada in an effort to take advantage of Nevada's low taxes. Ultimately, Hughes donated all his stock in Hughes Aircraft to the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, thereby turning over the ownership and all profits of the military contractor to tax-exempt charity. In addition to avoiding income taxes, this had the effect of silencing the upper management in Hughes Aircraft, who for many years had clamored for stock in the company as part of their compensation.

There are no citations of any kind and no reason to think this is anything other than fiction or character assasination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.151.247 (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Tag the section appropriately rather than remove it. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC).

Video Games
Honestly, if a character in a movie can be a reference to Hughes, then the same goes for a character in a video game. Stop removing Mr. House from Fallout: New Vegas from the popular culture references. House a direct allusion to Hughes. I understand a lot of people dismiss it because it is a video game, but it's still culture. So stop being narrow and stop deleting it from the article. It's an illustration of the magnitude of the man and his achievements. How much more respectful can that get?

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gamehunters/post/2010/10/five-things-you-didnt-know-about-fallout-new-vegas/1

AATroop (talk) 02:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, have you read the notes at the top of the page? Choose your words more carefully, or they will be stricken as inappropriate to a forum, I suggest you do that. Secondly, has the game ever stated that the character is based on Howard Hughes? Although there is more than enough similarity to the real-life person to make that "assumption", it is neither direct nor an "allusion", it is original thought, research or synthesis that is being presented. If there are legitimate connections to Howard Hughes, there needs to be reliable, verifiable and authoritative sources to back up any statement. FWiW, please also read about cruft submissions. Bzuk (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC).
 * I read both of the sites you specified, and one has a passing mention to a Hughes-like character, and this will probably suffice. Blogs are not typically considered reliable sources as they are unverified, and user-made discussion sites, but I have identified a Ryan Kao, who is identified as the author, being an expert in entertainment articles, so this will probably work. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC).
 * All right, I'll give you that.

AATroop (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Nixon scandal?
The section makes very little sense. It begins with one sentence about Hughes giving Donald Nixon a loan, but has no explanation of why this is a scandal. Then, with an absurd nonsequiter, it jumps into a description of the 1972 campaign and false information being given to Donald Nixon (how is that a scandal for Richard Nixon???). I suggest that if someone can't rewrite the section so that it makes sense, is accurate, and is properly sourced, the section should be deleted. 75.177.157.195 (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The latest revision seems to have answered most of the above concerns. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC).

Awards
Why is there a separate Awards section when a more substantial Awards section appears in both the introduction text and also the break out box summary? Epideme (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Allodynia
More than three references to the affliction necessary here? Someone got a little pistol-happy after reading (or writing?) a report, maybe? Separately, and overall, shouldn't an article like this have a LOCK on it, for contributions to be fielded by someone with some expertise (and time/interest? I notice a few users who seem to be monitoring the article/talk, maybe you're willing to officialize that somehow? There is currently/still a lot of unsourced material which, although possibly common knowledge among a segment of the population, should nonetheless have a source provided; otherwise it would seem wikipedia is just as guilty of furthering speculation. I would offer help but my own to-do lists are in overflow (and I know how time is often against wiki contributors). Locks on articles such as John Lennon or Mona Lisa lead me to believe Howard Hughes is as/more deserving. It may also help lead toward tighter focus of the facts; in its current state the article gets side-tracked in places, especially with Hughes' personal life. Japanglish (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Many users, such as myself, monitor the page due to a significant history of vandalism, to the point that it made a frequently vandalized list here on Wikipedia. That said, is it not better to have more references than are the bare necessity, assuming that they are not linked to one another, are secondary sources, etc, all to better prove the validity of the article? As it stands now, vandalism and lousy references cause Wikipedia to be refused by educational institutions as a resource, should we not strive to improve the reputation of Wikipedia and advance from there? Your point of pages requiring references is valid, but those unacquainted with a subject are ill suited to find references for them. As an example, if I hit upon an article of acid rock, I'd be rubbish to be finding references that are worthy of an encyclopedia of any sort. Meanwhile, my knowledge on medicine, electronics, emergency medicine, first responder, computer technology, information security, just to name a few is quite encyclopedic in nature, so I can trivially find references that are quite well respected. As for "Locks", why not lock every page then, just to keep the nit pickers happy? Indeed, we could lock the entire Wikipedia and only special folks can edit. Totally ignoring the charter and the desire of the charter of Wikipedia. Pages that are Protected are protected for a valid reason, for as short a time as is possible. They're semi-protected for a bit longer than Protected, but still a short as possible amount of time. In the past 24 hours, I've reviewed four dozen changes on pages in my watchlist that were changed, many from IP's. Of those, eight of my watchlist were reverted for cause, the rest actually improved the article or were in the case of three, a case of errors in adding or deleting a comma. As for the John Lennon article, I edited it, added in the word test in the main body, then went to history and did an undo. It's not "Locked". Please try to learn what the hell you are talking about. A small hint, semi-protected is that logged in users can edit. Learn from there, the documentation is right here in Wikipedia and I learned from it and the learning and wanderings here and there to secondary links was highly educational. Something that exasperated me at the time, but I learned so much that I'm happy to be frustrated briefly.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey there Wizardly1, cool down there pard'ner. Everything after pointing out the Allodynia-overload were simply suggestions; I'm no "Lock" expert. Oh, I see, you were the contributor of the Allodynia information maybe? I'm just pointing out an overtly obvious flooding of an article lest it soon become more about Allodynia than Howard Hughes. Your tone was unnecessarily rude to me. I've been around a great long while and I'm very aware of everything you've noted. Heck, the same amount of time wasted in this discussion could've been instead spent balancing the Allodynia reportage as suggested. I've just been spending my weekend, for free just as you, working on this'n that at wikipedia such as monitoring my own pages/contributions and just offered a 3rd-party view to the dilemma here because I happened to pass through. I also don't notice anything antagonistic about my initial message, but, if you wanna get snotty about it, then I'll just go ahead and say there's a lot of work to be done with this subject (Hughes; Allodynia is another page, right?), so why don't you spend your time fixing instead of barking, especially if you're supposedly monitoring things? I thought I was being polite by suggesting before deleting, but... farewell my friend, you just lost an anonymous peer and I won't waste my involvement here seeing as you seem to have things under control. Or maybe next time I'll just bypass the Talk page and just go through the article with my finger on "delete" and really exasperate you. Oh, have a nice day.Japanglish (talk) 09:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I came off rude. It's been a lousy weekend here, so I've been a bit on hair trigger due to weather related pain. I seem to be a bit of a human barometer, secondary to disc disease and osteoarthritis. The point I was trying to make was that there are no locks, only semi-protection and protection of articles, with semi-protection permitting only logged in users edit articles. I'm aware of no configuration here that has users classified as authorities in a field, save some informal groupings that have nothing to do with article editing access. Your point is quite valid though, content should be balanced and not overloaded with any particular issue, such as allodynia.Wzrd1 (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Allodynia and chronic pain overly POV spun?
I just read the article—after finally getting around to watching 'The Aviator'—and I too was left with the impression that the allodynia and chronic pain angles were being POV pushed. 'Tasted' almost like ad copy insertion, to me. I think the promotional tone of such really stood out. Awkward to read and questionable as to how and what it presented. Sorta' came off to me as trying to push sympathy for the condition and justification for the individual.

It's after-the-fact theory—reflecting updated medical thought—to explain some of Hughes' quirks, right? I do find such worth noting and quite appreciated that such was mentioned. However, how this has been done at present feels kinda' unsavory to me. Perhaps if such was recontextualized into a distinct paragraph including some overt qualifiers ... ?

--Kevjonesin (talk) 06:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * agreed, I read the article and immediately turned to the talk page to see if anyone else noticed this totally speculative has been pushed all over the article. Can anyone trace who added the info? --166.137.101.159 (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I'm too busy to do edits anymore but please, someone fix this. Source #34 is way overused.  71.233.32.183 (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree as well, and removed some of content related to Allodynia and chronic pain. The link is dead anyway, so it can all be deleted if the source can't be found.  Holdek (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Terry Moore
I think Terry Moore should be taken off the lists of Hughes' spouses. While she had a relationship with him (and he dated a lot of actress), she had no proof that the two of them were ever married. Also, they both got married (in her case multiple times) during the period when she claims that she and Hughes were together. She only made this claim after his death when they were trying to sort out his will.

Even including the disclaimer "alleged" gives more credence to this claim than is warranted. Wikipedia requires some evidence to support a claim and while it is fine to include her allegation in the section concerning the aftermath that occurred as his will(s) was challenged, her name should be removed from his infobox. "Alleged", without proof is, in the eyes of Wikipedia, made up. They were neither bigamists nor were they married.

Finally, this alleged marriage is not even listed on HER infobox as existing. If it is omitted from her bio (and she is the one who made the allegation), then it shouldn't be included on Hughes' infobox. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Simpsons reference
In an episode of the show The Simpsons there was a reference to Hughes indirectly via Mr Burns, himself almost a caricature of Hughes. He was, just as Hughes had done, become introverted and his hair had grown long, his nails long, etc. He even told Smithers to get into the Spruce Moose, which was a model of the plane. Not sure if this is considered to be notable enough to add to the list of appearances and references section, but thought I would mention it in case anyone cared to add it. -70.66.90.57 (talk) 03:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Needs more references
The recent expansion work should be based on references. Please cite the sources. Binksternet (talk) 06:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Seeing more expansion work with no references, I have reverted all of it. Please cite your sources! Binksternet (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Wife and divorce
From the entry under Personal Life: "Hughes' wife returned to Houston in 1929 and filed for divorce." Who is this? I think her name should be included here. Rissa, copy editor (talk) 00:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Bipolar activity
From the entry: I"n a bout of obsession with his home state, Hughes began purchasing all restaurant chains and four star hotels that had been founded within the borders of Texas."

This is classic Bipolar Type 1 behavior but I don't know if there is a reference for this in any of the cited materials. Does anyone know? Rissa, copy editor (talk) 02:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Pop culture in the lead
Re: this revert

How does the Wikipedia community feel about pop culture references in the leads of bios about American aviation and aerospace icons? Let's survey some of the most important figures. Does the lead include pop culture references? No: Neil Armstrong, William Boeing, Jacqueline Cochran, Glenn Curtiss, Jimmy Doolittle, Donald Wills Douglas, Sr., Amelia Earhart, John Glenn, Charles Lindbergh, Samuel Pierpont Langley, Billy Mitchell, Eddie Rickenbacker, Alan Shepard, Juan Trippe, Wright brothers. Yes: Chuck Yeager.

One out of sixteen, and I probably could have made it twenty with a little more effort. This is clear evidence that the community does not feel that pop culture references are lead-worthy in this type of article. In some cases, such as Boeing, Cochran, and Douglas, such references don't appear anywhere in the articles, although we know these people have been portrayed in films. Why is this? The most likely answer is that pop culture is far more about entertainment than history. In particular, DiCaprio's portrayal is a caricature of the real Hughes.

, can you say why this article should deviate from the almost complete community consensus on this? Can you refer me to a local discussion about this? Do you have anything concrete, something beyond I just like it?

Does anyone else have a comment? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I see you editing elsewhere, so I guess the notification didn't go through. Trying again. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

While I make a concerted effort to play fair and by the rules, there is little guidance on what to do in this particular situation, so I'm left to what makes sense to me.

On the one hand, a disputed edit is supposed to stay out until talk consensus is reached for it. On the other, that should reasonably depend on some level of participation in talk. Absence of participation implies absence of real opposition to the edit, and/or lack of viable arguments against the edit. It wouldn't make much sense to allow a debate to be won by remaining silent.

So I'll go ahead with removal of the pop culture reference in the lead, linking to this in my edit summary, and perhaps that will stimulate some discussion here. I do hope I'm not reverted without discussion here. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think the mention of the Aviator film is so darn important that it should be in the lead section. It's a weak vote 'no'. Binksternet (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Howard Hughes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140519025753/http://users.tellurian.com/gjurrens/famous_hams.html to http://users.tellurian.com/gjurrens/famous_hams.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Estate section in need of a rewrite
The "Estate" section is badly muddled--to the point where I suspected it of being vandalized, but the history of page revisions doesn't seem to bear that out. It starts out with a paragraph on the "Mormon Will," without any question of its legitimacy; then there is a paragraph beginning "Hughes left his entire estate, in his last will..." suggesting that there is a definitive will that is known and undisputed; then a paragraph beginning "A further $156 million was endowed" which seems to be a continuation of the Mormon Will paragraph, as it goes on to state "a Nevada court rejected the Mormon Will as a forgery, and declared that Hughes had died intestate," which contradicts the second paragraph. I suspect that the first and third paragraphs originally belonged together, and the second paragraph was inserted by someone sympathetic to the Hughes Medical Institute claim.

What is needed is an introductory statement, something along the lines of, "Hughes's estate was contested after his death. Multiple wills were produced with competing claims." Then the current first and third paragraphs (up to "LDS Church Office") could outline the Mormon Will claim. Following that would be the substance of the second paragraph, outlining the Hughes Medical Institute claim advanced by Frank P. Morse, but that needs to be rewritten to get rid of "This obviously makes sense" POV stuff. Then there would be the court resolution and the actual division of assets.

I would attempt it, but I am not an experienced Wikipedian and I have no independent knowledge about Hughes or his estate. Moreover, the entire section needs to be sourced properly--none of it is sourced at all, except for the problematic second paragraph which has non-standard sourcing. Schoolmann (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's a first attempt at a rewrite, using a bit from the Melvin Dummar page:

Hughes's estate was contested after his death. Multiple wills were produced with competing claims.

Approximately three weeks after Hughes' death, a handwritten will was found on the desk of an official of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City. The so-called "Mormon Will" gave $1.56 billion to various charitable organizations (including $625 million to the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and approximately $156 million to the LDS Church); nearly $470 million to the upper management in Hughes' companies and to his aides; $156 million to first cousin William Lummis; and $156 million split equally between his two ex-wives Ella Rice and Jean Peters, even though both women had alimony settlements that barred claims on Hughes' estate. A further $156 million was endowed to a gas-station owner named Melvin Dummar, who told reporters that late one evening in December 1967, he found a disheveled and dirty man lying along U.S. Highway 95, 150 mi north of Las Vegas. The man asked for a ride to Las Vegas. Dropping him off at the Sands Hotel, Dummar said the man told him he was Hughes. Dummar then claimed that days after Hughes' death, a "mysterious man" appeared at his gas station, leaving an envelope containing the will on his desk. Unsure if the will was genuine, and unsure of what to do, Dummar left the will at the LDS Church office.

Many other wills with competing claims surfaced after Hughes's death. However, according to his senior counsel, Frank P. Morse, Hughes left his entire estate, in his last will, to the Hughes Medical Institute, as he had no connection to family and was seriously ill. The original will, that included payments to aides, never surfaced and was apparently in a home surrounding the Desert Inn Golf Course, belonging to the mother of an assistant. Morse, the attorney of record for Hughes, claimed that Hughes had no desire to leave any money to family, aides, or churches (Morse, 1976). Morse claimed specifically that since Hughes was not Mormon, he had no reason to leave his estate to that church (Morse, 2015).

In June 1978, after a seven month trial, a Nevada court rejected the Mormon Will as a forgery, and declared that Hughes had died intestate. Hughes' $2.5 billion estate was eventually split in 1983 among 22 cousins, including William Lummis, who serves as a trustee of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Hughes Aircraft was owned by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, which sold it to General Motors in 1985 for $5.2 billion. The court rejected suits by the states of California and Texas claiming they were owed inheritance tax. In 1984, Hughes' estate paid an undisclosed amount to Terry Moore, who claimed she and Hughes had secretly married on a yacht in international waters off Mexico in 1949 and never divorced. Moore never produced proof of a marriage.


 * If someone more knowledgeable than me about the actual events agrees that this is a fair representation and wants to drop this in as is for now, I have no objections. It's still not sourced properly, though. Schoolmann (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)