text:
Talk:Gigantopithecus

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 October 2018 and 21 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Noa0910, Hootalin, Ninkaido.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Removed Line
Either species could have crossed the Bering Land Bridge much in the way it is thought humans may have brought themselves to the New World. I have removed this line because it sounds to me like cryptozoological speculation to explain Bigfoot. How could a creature that lived in tropical or subtropical climates survive the intense cold of Siberia (during the Ice Age no less!) to reach the Bering Land Bridge? Nik42 18:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

These claims are not generally considered credible by the scientific community. I have removed this line and reference because the reference does not support the statement. The referenced article makes no remarks about Gigantopithecus, it does not discount the existence of the "legendary apes", nor does it provide any statement as to the scientific community's views on the issue. I have replaced it with a statement drawing attention to the pure logic of the problem: we do not know the morphology of Gigantopithecus, so we cannot compare it to the morphology of any living species. That is; there will never be any evidence of Giganto crossing the land-bridge, until a more complete fossil is found, and a Big Foot is examined. I will leave it to a WikiGnome to correct the reference to Destination Truth.

This is a duplicate article
There is already another article that covers the exact same creature. A merge is in order —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.149.41.45 (talk • contribs).
 * Which article? There are currently 3, and none should be merged as far as I can tell.... One for the genus, and two for two of the three species. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is the other page they said about Gigantopithecus blacki it seems the exact same but phrased differntely --Climax Void 18:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is about the genus. There are three species, and artciles for two of them have been started. No merge is needed. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Line in the intro
Isn't this line a bit vague?

"Although it is not known why Gigantopithecus died out, researchers believe that climate change and resource competition with better adapted species were the main reasons."

Why not just say:

"Although it is not known why Gigantopithecus died out, researchers believe that climate change and resource competition with humans were the main reasons."

· AO Talk 11:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Because perhaps it was other species it was in competition with, not humans per se. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Pandas are often cited when talking about gigantopithecus extinction. Not everything has to deal with us.--Menah the Great (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge
The result was no consensus (6 merge, 3 keep), therefore no action will be taken. -- Jack (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Should be merged with "Gigantopithecus blacki" article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.81.85.115 (talk • contribs).
 * Why? There are multiple species of Gigantopithecus. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Currently there's three articles, Gigantopithecus, Gigantopithecus blacki and Gigantopithecus giganteus. The last one is basically a stub and two sentences, the first two are about the same length and cover much of the same information. I think the genus article could easily cover both.  Discussion?  WLU (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Merge, per my above rationale. WLU (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * keep. There's no need for a change, no matter how small the stubs are. It's room for growth. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, but right now, giganteus is nothing at all and looks like it'll never be expanded. I'm suggesting a merge now, with no prejudice against spinning the articles off when they get bigger.  Right now there's so much duplication between the genus page and G blacki that it's a re-wording of the same page.  An another option, what about just making G. g into a section within the genus?  WLU (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge. The current setup, with so much duplication between Gigantopithecus blacki and Gigantopithecus, is terrible.  The reasonable options are either to make it all fit in the Gigantopithecus article (which seems fine, given that Gigantopithecus giganteus will never be more than a small subsection), or move most of the material into the sub-articles and leave the Gigantopithecus article as essentially a pair of links.  As I said, the first option seems better to me. - Atarr (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As a third alternative, I would suggest the possibility of editing the blacki article down to a stub. This seems somehow less elegant than the other two options, but it does make it easier to split it out into two articles if a bunch more information abut Gigantopithecus giganteus suddenly comes to light. - Atarr (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Merge, spin off species pages later if needed. B.S. Lawrence (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Merge, makes sense to me. AstarothCY (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Merge, nearly identical contentHelikophis (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand the articles, rather than merge! Kaarel (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge, a single article can also do a better job comparing these species.Scray (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per UtherSRG. Jack (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

A herbivore? An herbivore?
The example given by Merriam-Webster is "a herbivorous animal". That should settle it. Thanks. AstarothCY (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. that's one example. It's not wrong, if you say "her-biv-or-ous". But if you say "er-biv-or-ous", then "an" is correct. . Reverting. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have provided a supporting citation that demonstrates how what I am saying is more valid. I'd be interested to see examples of use of "an herbivore" in similarly credible sources. While "an herbivore" may not be grammatically incorrect, until you can demonstrate (as I have) that this is something most people would recognize as grammatically correct, I don't see how it can be used. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt so I'll wait a couple of days for your response and supporting evidence before reverting. AstarothCY (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I provided a citation for the general usage of "a" vs "an" with regards to the pronunciation or silence of the leading "h" of a noun. It is a matter of pronunciation. As such, it does not get changed from the original, just as British vs. American Englishisms should not get changed. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your citation lacks credibility. It does not come from a credible source at all and it doesn't even make a convincing argument, not to mention that even if "an historic" was "correct", that means very little as to whether "an herbivore" is correct because I'm sure you know full well that the English language loves exceptions (or rules that apply to only one word). Of course it's a matter of pronunciation, the question is which one is more likely to seem unusual to most people, and I am pretty certain the answer is "an herbivore". To illustrate my point, do a google search for "an herbivore" and "a herbivore". You should find that you get 33,900 results for the former and 97,100 results for the latter. To further prove the point, do a Google Scholar search for those terms to find similar results. AstarothCY (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You help to prove my point. The difference in usage is less than an order of magnitude. The difference in scholarly usage (4390 for "a herbivore" and 2730 for "an herbivore") is even smaller. Neither are incorrect, so there is no need to change it. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't follow your reasoning. If I revert you now, there would be no reason to revert me back. In fact, if we are going by the measure of google hits, there IS reason for me to revert. Even if we don't go by it, what is your rationale for reverting me in the first place? AstarothCY (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's suppose that when you found the article, you didn't like that it used the word "colour", because your preference is to use "color". You might change the article, and I'd be justified in reverting it back. Neither are wrong. Both are right. One is predominant, but that predominance is inconsequential. The same is true for "an herbivore" and "a herbivore". Neither are wrong. Both are right. One is predominant, but that predominance is inconsequential. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

So let's just carry on reverting back and forth, shall we? AstarothCY (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Leave off. Keep it as is. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have provided a rationale for my edit. You have not provided one for reverting. AstarothCY (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You're joking, right? We've been over this. If you don't provide a rationale, I'm reverting. AstarothCY (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * When two differemt possibilities are correct, use the one originally used in the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ...except I've shown several reasons why "a herbivore" is a better choice, and you haven't shown any. AstarothCY (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have given a rationale, and provided a reasonable source. You refuse to accept it. That is your problem. You even helped prove my point with the Google searches. both are used, both are acceptable. Neither is used in a significantly grater amount than the other, so the original text holds. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition, listion to the pronunciation given at Merriam-Webster, in the link you so helpfully provided. the pronunciation is without the 'h', so "an" is appropriate. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break
Pronouncing "herbivore" with a silent "h" is the rarer form in US English, and certainly much rarer outside the US. Why is someone insisting it take precedence? --77.96.133.241 (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's how I and everyone I've talked to say it. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope you aren't suggesting that as your source of credibility for this edit? AstarothCY (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (reply to UtherSRG} It's good to know you live in such a rarified and quaint area. "A herbivore", it stays. --77.96.133.241 (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See above. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would definitely call it "a herbivore" too and I think AstarothCY's source holds more weight than yours. That this is the second edit war you've been in over it and I really think you are violating WP:3RR. ~ mazca talk 22:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I have just been considering escalating this issue in a dispute resolution. UtherSRG, please consider stopping this edit war, you have already done 4 reverts in the past 24 hours and I don't think you're the kind of editor that needs to be disciplined for 3RR. AstarothCY (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

AstarothCY, i've only just stumbled into this fight; but there really is no standard as far as a/an before H words. hell, i switch sometimes myself, depending on the mood i'm in. but "an" is typically the british/commonwealth convention, and perfectly valid itself. i think you'll find that if you end up taking this to WPMammals, you're going to come away unhappy, because the Wikipedia convention, on matters where no larger conventions hold, will always go with what was previously done in the article -- which, here, is going to be "an". i'll freely admit that UtherSRG can be frustrating to deal with at times, but he really is right on this one. just ask another admin. - Metanoid (talk, email) 01:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Metanoid, thanks for giving some third party opinion on this. I take the point that both forms are grammatically correct and that we generally go with the form that was originally in place. I will therefore back down and stop reverting. However, could you link me to the relevant Wiki guideline? I remember glancing at it a while ago but I've been searching just now and can't seem to find it mentioned explicitly anywhere. I just want to be clear on this and make sure I don't get caught up in edit wars in the future. Thanks. AstarothCY (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

here's WP:MOS, which is a general guide you may/not have already seen. the intro touches upon the problem at hand, i think. also, here is the outcome of a similar dispute which i believe is relevant: Requests for arbitration/Jguk. i hope that helps some. i'm still getting the conventions down myself, hehe. - Metanoid (talk, email) 18:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That does help. AstarothCY (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Arboreal?
Was Gigantopithecus an Arboreal animal (i.e. living up trees), or ground dwelling animal? I ask because obviously it lived in forested areas and eat bamboo, but could it climb trees like an Orangutan? Or was it more like a panda walking through the forest floor? It would seem almost too large to get into a tree at that size. I suppose I have a few other related questions, did Gigantopithecus walk upright like a human, or like other apes? (knuckle-walking or whatever it's called). And did it have any predators? If anybody know these things they should probably be added to the article. --Hibernian (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody has found anything bellow the neck so it can't be said if it walked upright or not, or if it climbed trees or not. The consensus, based on extrapolations by comparing giganto's teeth to gorillas, orangutans and other apes is that no primate of that size could get on a tree or walk on two feet for long. However, that doesn't mean it couldn't do for a short time, like gorillas do today. It's also possible that, like in gorillas, maybe males couldn't climb but females could, if they were smaller, but as I said there is little more than speculation based on the little evidence available. Given their size, it's unlikely adults had real predators either.--Menah the Great (talk) 02:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I would take a wild guess and say that they are not, but don't take my guess too seriously. If the jaw and teeth fossils are large, it would indicate the animal ate a lot of food, and would not be too agile. If they are small, it would indicate they do not eat as much, and would be more agile and would climb. Like I said, don't take my guess too seriously, but do listen to my logic. ;) Paleo Kid (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

DNA?
I wonder if any DNA studies have been done. It should be possible to extract DNA from inside teeth. Of course the thought of cloning them is really appealing. --Calypsoparakeet (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything about DNA being found. I think most people are waiting for Mammoths to be cloned rather that Gigantopithecus. And yes, the thought of cloning does sound appealing. :) Paleo Kid (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

DNA tends to deteriorate after 10,000 years so it is unlikely but plausible although the teeth are not really the best places to find DNA. We do know from comparing what fossils we have to fossils of orangutans (no gorillas apparently ever made it into Asia) both extinct and extant that it most likely resembled an orangutan--Nicholas Wolf (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Merge
I can see from the discussion history that there was a lack of consensus on merging the article about the species Gigantopithecus blacki with the article about the genus Gigantopithecus. There are presently 3 articles about the named species within this genus. These are:

 * Gigantopithecus blacki
 * Gigantopithecus bilaspurensis
 * Gigantopithecus giganteus

There is extremely little information in the fossil record about this genus. At best, each species article duplicates information in the article about the genus. At worst the species articles are stubs or hatracks for speculation about Bigfoot. Lets go ahead and merge all four articles into an improved and expanded single article about the genus, with sub-headings for each named species. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Make it so, number one. -- Bobyllib (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like it could be a major improvement. ClovisPt (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

An adequate time for discussion has passed, and in reading the help page for Merging it seems reasonable to commence the merger. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Cryptozoology edits by IP user
An IP editor keeps changing 'the pseudoscience of cryptozoology' to 'the science of cryptozoology'. Please discuss this before changing again. Cryptozoology meets the arbitration committee's definition of a pseudoscience, now reflected in Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view in relation to pseudoscience or fringe theories. This has been discussed on several pages, including the cryptozoology talk page. In any case, it is certainly not a science, and if in general you wish to assert that it is you need to include some references. I am reverting again because this is a really egregiously incorrect and unsourced statement. Please contribute to this discussion before further reverts. Locke9k (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

While I do not agree that it is "pseudo science", but I feel that the edits and other cryptozoological bits in this article are not approaprate for the most part. 64.197.3.194 (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please discuss this on the Cryptozoology page. This Article is about a now-extinct fossilized genus, not the particulars of branches of zoology or of pseudoscience definitions. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Image
Could anyone please upload this image. Also that website says Gigantopithecus exist up to 1.8 mya. 98.119.158.59 (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Merged
Merged all three species articles, 'Gigantopithecus blacki', 'Gigantopithecus bilaspurensis', and 'Gigantopithecus giganteus' into genus article Gigantopithecus. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 05:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. Should be done to most articles about prehistoric species. FunkMonk (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Named species of Gigantopithecus
I was working a bit quick and sloppy last night to get the merger done. A few areas are still pretty rough. Can we confirm that there are only three named species? What is the relationship between the three species, as in, does one species descend from another or are they divergent? - Michael J Swassing (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

statistics
i would be delighted to find a statistic research relating size of this primates finds and the ones of erectus as a factor of rarity, so actually i want to point out how typically these way more robust bones perished where erectus ones survived, and i am curious if one can infer some art of cultural development, iow perhaps being "homo" is to some extend mirrored in the availability of (post)cranial finds. interestingly there are also some finds indicating hominids actually deposed of their dead relatives outside or away from their primary dwellings, (comp australopith. finds and that in many caves after 100k's years of inhabitation no more complete specimen (except crania) are found, crania btw. often being suggestively well preserved, displaced and possibly even 'manhanded').) thus early hominids managed to accidently end up as a fossil in hominid-trace bearing layers (way more often then bigger animals), it suggests more hominid remains then we perhaps supposed have been the result of actual accidents and calamities (with what the individuals apparently coped differently from eg. giganthopithecus). this is speculation to some extend, but perhaps someone has done some of these statistics.(one oddity being that we have more teeth of this (locally older?) species then of erectus but not one skull(part)). 24.132.171.225 (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

once read somewhere that (most) g.b. localities had mostly been plundered for "dragon bones". chinese preferred to collect bigger bones, humans unlike g. lived and camped in caves, tropical climate is not ideal for fossilisation (their whole areal being warm and moist), some g.b. localities also preserved mostly teeth and mandibular material of other species(in modern times). (low) temperature is btw. also a major factor for dna conservation. probably recognisable hominid remains (as opposed to apparently pong remains) were less sought after for dragon bones. there is an interesting porcupine theory in the article, alltho i am not quite sure what indeed statistic implications that would have had for other bones, or why porcupines would preferentially have eaten and carried big bones (then again perhaps they do).31.151.163.18 (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

G. blacki ?
Wasn't that the "scientific" name givin to sasquatch? or did they find a speceis and used the name? I immedatly noticed this as a avid studier of cryptozoology. I would think it'd be agasint wikipedia's rules to use a name for an animal that's existance is disputed on a page for a proven animal in this case. 64.197.3.194 (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * G. blacki is a valid scientific name for an extinct species. However it has been co-opted and badly misused by many laymen when referring to sasquatch in an attempt to validate claims that sasquatch is an existing mammal.--Kevmin (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sasquatch discussion here!
I believe that in the article there should be a section to propose the connection between Gigantopithecus and Sasquatch. If someone wanted to learn more about the connection, there should be something there. PLEASE do not start yelling at me as I have seen throughout this page, just talk calmly. Thank you! Paleo Kid (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

References in fiction Section, anyone else?
Let's start a Section on fictional references to this genus. I've seen a number of other Articles on otherwise nonfictional topics with "In fiction" Sections. That said, most people consider blockbuster and classic films to be notable. To sum up, I would like to point out that King Kong was a member of Gigantopithecus kong, a fictional species within this otherwise nonfictional genus. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, according to the mockumentary, King Kong's species is "Megaprimatus Kong" (sic). And I do not see why an offhand blurb would merit King Kong being shoehorned into this page.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, according to King Kong's own Wikipedia Article, early RKO trailers and other advertisements described him as "A prehistoric type of ape" [Italics added]. The very few fossilized apes possibly approaching his size were all in this genus, so one can make a pretty good case that, even within the fiction, the term "Megaprimatus" would be a junior synonym of Gigantopithecus. More importantly, this lends credence to the idea that King Kong was loosely based on Gigantopithecus fossils. The premise, which is where the fictional suspension of disbelief comes in, was that 1 individual somehow lived for 301 933 (Date of extinction=300 000 BC, Date of setting=AD 1933, 300 000+1 933=301 933) years after the rest of his species and even his genus were extinct. This can be supported by comparing the 2005 mockumentary with the RKO materials from 1933 and shortly before. So, this genus was notably the inspiration for one of the world's most famous fictional monsters. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This states that King Kong was created by Merian C. Cooper, who had a dream about a giant gorilla running amok in New York City. Suggesting that King Kong belongs in, was inspired by, and or is a synonym for the genus Gigantopithecus is blatant original research and synthesis.  And having said that, there still is very little reason, if any, to mention King Kong in this article.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really a synonym considering the Genus Gigantopithecus is nonfictional; however, the idea that Cooper derived King Kong partly from Gigantopithecus is not original. I just referred to 2 things I didn't write: Early RKO trailers and the mockumentary. Given that dreams are partly syntheses of earlier waking thoughts and realities, and that the 1st discoveries of Gigantopithecus fossils occurred around the same time that Cooper had his dream (IE 1st half of the 1930s), there are nonoriginal dots to be easily connected here. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yourstill run afoul of WP:OR with this though, as you have not supplied any references which specifically link King Kong to Gigantopithecus. Without those links you have no way of proving that the genus was in reality the basis for the fictional ape.-- Kev  min  § 07:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Teeth and jaws only, or other remains?
"Gigantopithecus giganteus is a large extinct species of ape that lived in what is now India. This animal is known only from teeth and jawbones.[9] Based on the slim fossil finds, it was a large, ground-dwelling herbivore that ate primarily bamboo and foliage. It was approximately half the size of its Chinese relative, Gigantopithecus blacki. Also a recent fossil was found (2000) with another fossil of a different species inside of it (the specimen has yet to be identified) which poses that they might have been carnivores."

These two paragraphs appear to be contradictory. Is this animal known from teeth and jawbones only, or has enough of the postcranial skeleton been found to show stomach contents? 66.232.245.74 (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I took out that sentence about "a different species inside of it". It appears to be a hoax. Here is a reference with details and scientific speculation about the diet of Gigantopithecus, with no mention of anything like this: Dickson, P. 2003. Gigantopithecus: A Reappraisal of Dietary Habits. Totem: The University of Western Ontario Journal of Anthropology, Volume 11, Issue 1, Article 4. Wilson44691 (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I found the vandalism that added the rogue sentence, by the way. It is a clear case! Wilson44691 (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Only two species recognized
While doing some editing today I checked on the species G. bilaspurensis. From what I am seeing it is commonly accepted that G. bilaspurensis and G. giganteus are the same species. However I am seeing both species names (here G. giganteus vrs G. bilaspurensis here) used for the taxon in the last 5 years or so. is there any way of untangling which is the synonym and which the valid name? Either way the Indian species entries should be merged into on section.-- Kev min  § 00:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * G. giganteus is the older name and thus has priority. Here's another Gigantopithecus reference you may find useful in your editing: Miller, S.F., White, J.L. and Ciochon, R.L. (2008), Assessing mandibular shape variation within Gigantopithecus using a geometric morphometric approach. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 137: 201–212. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.20856. Wilson44691 (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Scientific Verification
Is there any scientific verification about the Gigantopithecus? I read the references that are included and they don't seem scientifically professional at all. In fact, some are just a noname webpage that someone created. There must be some sort of criticism about this to provide a criticism section.Mylittlezach (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not like criticism sections. Anyhow: http://scholar.google.dk/scholar?hl=da&q=Gigantopithecus&btnG= FunkMonk (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

So how do we know if this was even a separate species?
Considering all that's been found is some teeth and a couple mandibles how do we know these weren't just big-jawed gorillas? Even if they were a different species there's absolutely no evidence that they were "10 feet tall, 1200 pounds" as claimed by the article, I think it should be mentioned that this was pretty much a complete guess. --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Gorillas are known from DNA reconstruction to have evolved in Africa and most likely never ventured into Asia where Gigantopithecus's remains were found. --Nicholas Wolf (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Morphology of the teeth and jaws known are notably different from Gorilla species. And the size is estimated using body morphometrics, scaling the rest of the Gigantopithecus body based on statistics from related genera.  Same as is dome for incomplete human remains.  BigPimpinBrah do you have peer-reviewed papers that suggest otherwise?-- Kev  min  § 05:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Considering jaw size varies alot between animals of the same size I don't think we can make any such assumptions, I mean they were probably bigger than gorillas but 10 feet and 1200 pounds? That's a hell of a claim for an animal we haven't even found any bones of, it could just as easily have been an ape species with proportionally bigger jaws. Seems like some scientists were getting a bit carried away with this, maybe we should give more emphasis to some of the more conservative estimates? --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would we suspect that this species has much bigger head-to-body (or jaw-to-body) ratio than closely-related species? When a species develops a need for greater chewing power, the usual answer is to bulk up the teeth and the power of the jaw muscles, not to simply scale up the size of jaw bones in all dimensions.  Humans have a bigger head-to-body ratio than chimps, but this was not in response to a need for greater chewing power (and in fact the jaw muscles are less powerful in humans than in chimps).  Are you suggesting that Gigantopithecus was big-brained?  Otherwise, I'm not sure your objections make too much sense... AnonMoos (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't really answer this since there doesn't seem to be any info in the article on exactly how big their jaws were. I believe I saw a study once where they were comparing gorilla's jaws to humans and the biggest gorilla mandible was around 20cm long, it would be good to know how this compares to Gigantopithecus. --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

 * More than just teeth seem to be known. And on this note, the silhouette in the size comparison looks off. FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "And Gigantopithecus was pretty darn big. Fossils indicate it stood as high as 10 feet (3 meters) and weighed up to 1,100 pounds (500 kilograms)" (Strauss, Mark (Jan 6, 2016) "The Largest Ape That Ever Lived Was Doomed By Its Size" National Geographic). Considering National Geographic is a reliable source the upper limit of 10 feet (3 meters) and weighed up to 1,100 pounds (500 kilograms) is totally valid.  In fact, the "200–300 kg (440–660 lb)" in the article has no reference and should have been contested a long time ago.--174.99.238.22 (talk) 03:05, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's better to use the source that actually calculated out those numbers. There are no references in the lead, you'll have to go into the actual article for that; the reference is in the Size section. NatGeo and other scientific journalists have a bad tendency to sensationalize size estimates; here, it looks like they rounded up the metric estimates (2.7 m became 3 m, so 9 ft went to 10; and 300 kg went to 500 kg) Dunkleosteus77  (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Current article claims Gigantopithecus lived until a hundred years ago. This flies on the face of everything I've ever read about Gigantopithecus besides pseudoscience tying it to the yeti and bigfoot myths. I checked the source linked and sure enough, it talks about Gigantopithecus extinction taking place about 300,000 years ago, and that the humans it coexisted along with were Homo erectus.--80.26.120.40 (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean this phrase here, "an extinct genus of ape that existed from perhaps nine million years to as recently as one hundred thousand years ago"?--Mr Fink (talk) 02:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the opening paragraph is still quite wrong. If Gigantopithicus existed nine-million years ago would have the ape diverging three-million years before Orangutans, which is much earlier than anything I've seen sourced. If you follow the link supporting that line, it suggests the earliest would have been one-million years - "Rink has confirmed the time range for Gigantopithecus as being from one million years ago to 300,000 years ago." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:CC00:934A:DDBB:689E:2239:E3E8 (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Gigantopithecus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/giganto.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Yeti and Bigfoot Sections
I removed and will keep removing the sections on the Yeti and Bigfoot because both sections are obvious original research and synthesis. What few citations the sections did have are either irrelevant, or are unreliable and untrustworthy. And the (anonymous) editors who insist on keeping those sections do not appear to be too interested in addressing these problems.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅, a 100,000 year extinct species linked to neo-Holocene fringe species as "Yeti" or "Bigfoot" is in any case very unconvincing. Tisquesusa (talk) 05:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Especially when the citations in the Yeti section never said anything about Gigantopithecus-human interactions evolving into the legend of the Yeti, or the citation given in the Bigfoot section is a self-published fan site that fails Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I wrote the Legend of the Yeti section, it was based on this Smithsonian article: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/did-bigfoot-really-exist-how-gigantopithecus-became-extinct-16649201/ I'm not a wiki editor and I've found it extremely difficult to put in citations, the article covers the change in environment and available food caused by the rise of the Tibetan plateau 1.6 million to 800,000 years ago which altered the climate of South Asia, ushering in a colder, drier period where the forests shrank back to the mountainous Himalayas, water in the air gathers at mountains this is how clouds form. Would I need to cite how clouds form? I can easily do so putting in a wiki article is another matter entirely.AD Scott (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gigantopithecus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303233645/http://www.anthonyolejniczak.com/PDF/olejniczak_et_al_2008_AJPA_Gigantopithecus.pdf to http://www.anthonyolejniczak.com/PDF/olejniczak_et_al_2008_AJPA_Gigantopithecus.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Picture of Orangutan?
What's with the uncited drawing of the orangutan that says it's a 'restoration' of Gigantopithecus? This is like a joke right?

I wonder why .. Curtisarmstrongfan (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Gigantopithecus.jpeg

Merge 2
As far as I can tell Gigantopithecus is now thought to be monotypic, as the other two species have been subsumed into Indopithecus, WP:PALAEO guidelines state that articles about genera with multiple species should generally only have an article on the genus, except in specific circumstances, considering that this genus is now monotypic, there is no question of merging. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: per WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA. Jack (talk) 10:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - shouldn't have been split to begin with. FunkMonk (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Reconstruction
To the IP who keeps reverting, it would be incorrect to put an image of a height comparison of an animal that is only known by tooth and jaw elements. The size comparison reconstruction is also, in and of itself, worse stylistically. The gorilla-like reconstruction is no less accurate than the skinny reconstruction by Harry Wilson, and is also a more common reconstruction of the animal, such as on the UCL website  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I see you've removed the height comparison, but the image still reconstructs Gigantopithecus with what looks like a prehensile lip and if we're going off of Johnson's estimate (or looking at the dimensions of any great ape), the humerus to femur ratio is far too big (the humerus is about double the length of the femur), which is why the the trunk has an oddly steep angle of inclination. I'm not doubting the validity of Harry Wilson's reconstruction (I quite like it), I'm doubting Luis guardiola 816's reconstruction, which clearly has issues  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * God damn it, why did the art from Kaek (Carlos Eulefi) get deleted, there was no copyright violation there, I requested from him to upload it to wikimedia commons, and he did.
 * What was the file name? I don't know if it's possible post-fact but I can try contesting the deletion  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 12:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's the link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gigantopithecus.jpeg It was this one: https://www.deviantart.com/kaek/art/Gigantopithecus-blacki-600210095 As you can see, this one blew, and still blows both we currently have out of the water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.172.152 (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think what happened was on deviant art, he used the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works License (CC-BY-NC-ND) which is not allowed on Commons, so it was flagged and deleted. I'm gonna submit an undeletion request, but you should tell the artist to change the licensing on deviant art to CC0 (Zero Public Domain), CC-BY (Attribution), or CC-BY-SA (Attribution-ShareAlike)  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello there to our favorite Hungarian! Enjoy the block! Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If there is so much disagreement, a new restoration could also be requested at WP:paleoart. There is also this restoration, which hasn't been reviewed: And speaking of images, I think we should also show the jaw more from the side, as in one of these images, otherwise it's depth is hard to appreciate. FunkMonk (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought I already checked Flickr but I guess my eyes skipped over that. The not-reviewed image is the inaccurate image I was talking about earlier  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 13:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, I think it should get the inaccurate paleoart template then so others won't use it. FunkMonk (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Classification
The first part of the section on classification gives facts from primary sources and mentions a "multiregional hypothesis", circa 1946?, with a link to Multiregional origin of modern humans, which [fwiw] states "The multiregional hypothesis was first proposed in 1984, and then revised in 2003". Do other sources elaborate on these theories and cite these authorities? ~ cygnis insignis 06:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Multiregional origin of modern humans refers to Weidenreich's model as polycentricism. I see some sources trying to distinguish Weidenreich's polycentrism and Wolpoff's multiregional, and other's credit multiregional to Weidenreich making no distinction at all  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "… other's credit multiregional to Weidenreich making no distinction at all" What sources do that? ~ cygnis insignis 11:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * just doing a quick google search,,   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gigantopithecus


text:
Allegany

Allegany is the name of several places in the United States:

Communities

 * Allegany County, Maryland
 * Allegany College of Maryland
 * Allegany County, New York
 * Allegany (town), New York, in Cattaraugus County
 * Allegany (village), New York, in the above town
 * Allegany Indian Reservation, in Cattaraugus County, New York
 * Allegany State Park, a New York state park in Cattaraugus County on the Pennsylvania border
 * Allegany, Oregon, an unincorporated community in Coos County
 * Allegany Township, Pennsylvania

Other

 * Allegany Ballistics Laboratory

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Allegany


text:
Talk:War on poverty

i'll do it...later
hey. i wrote my senior seminar paper on the the war on poverty, and i think i am competent to revise/re-write this article. umm, i'll do it when i'm done with my masters thesis (hopefully by august. 24.86.215.144 20:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Article does not mention San Jose, CA had a healthy Model Cities program which paid citizens to be involved in community meetings. One was the Olinder Neighborhood who worked together to create 2 parks in the area, one with a Children's Theatre which was still going strong last I knew in 2015. It is probable still is going strong. I personally knew several members of the group who worked with Model Cities and were very proud of their contributions to their community. I feel the article would benefit by exploring the positives of the program. I personally am sorry it was taken away by the politicians who preferred not to have to deal with the citizens in their own communities. ThinkingL2 (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk prior to mid-2005
Deleted a small sentence that was slapped onto the end after the Stub that said "The War on Poverty was important". Kade 22:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article reads like poorly written conservative propaganda. No mention is made of the successes or even of the attempts to reduce poverty in the United States. The Campaign Results section needs work. The Cato Institute should not be linked here. DirectorStratton 19:36, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Attempts to reduce poverty that were not successes were failures, so you advocate to include those? What successes can be attributed to the War on Poverty? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.184.56.35 (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Needs review by a competent authority
I don't believe this article conveys the true spirit of the War on Poverty. The idea was to get people off of welfare through job training programs and attracting businesses to the center cities; it thus has a lot in common with the 1996 act. It failed primarily because it was set up to work independently of the existing power structure, and thus stepped on political toes.

Please feel free to add to/rewrite this article. Be Bold! DirectorStratton 01:31, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

This is one of the weaker articles I have found
I would tend to agree that this article has a horrendous conservative slant. The entire article seems to be written as a conservative critique, and provides very little information as to the actual substance of the war on poverty itself. More depressing is the lack of any kind of historical or political context information. Unfortunately, if I had the information to offer corrections myself I would not have accessed this article in the first place. I sincerely hope that someone with the proper information will devote their attention to this article in the very near future. In the mean time, I will attempt to research the issue and offer what I feel to be the most solid information regarding it as I pursue graduate work in political science. Please could someone in 'the know' save this poor wayward article?

regards 66.190.68.29 03:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)cfoster (caseyfoster05@gmail.com)

Why Conservative?
I always thought that LBJ was a Democrat, and opposed to conservatism. It also took Ronald Reagan most of his presidency to dismantle it. To my mind, the War on Poverty was well intentioned and was also applauded by many Socialists. As the article states, poverty levels were dramtically affected by the these measures. This is an important article. So can we fix it up and then remove the POV alert? Wallie 13:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

You completely missed his point. Yes, the War on Poverty is generally considered a triumph for liberals. What Foster was trying to say was this topic is being presented with a severe conservative bias, and I totally agree. The arguments and citations under the criticism section are generally of low quality, and I had to completely delete one of them. I thought about deleting the Anderson argument, as the reference is basically a huge ad hominem attack against Paul Krugman, a Princeton University Professor in Economics. The part of his argument mentioned in this entry is probably his strongest evidence, which is pretty sad, since it's purely anecdotal evidence selected from his own personal experience. Is there some Wikipedia standard on the quality of cited material? If so, that whole criticism should be deleted. Danielx (talk) 01:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to add to/rewrite this article. Be Bold! DirectorStratton 03:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the War on Poverty is generally considered a triumph for liberals...huh? You mean a legislative triumph? Or perhaps you mean that liberals consider it a triumph? Certainly you don't mean it's actually had the effect of reducing poverty...

Revision December 2005
Well, I'm certainly no competent authority, but I think the article should at least follow this structure: (1) Intro: defining WOP and giving context of its place in American history (2) Background - poverty in US at the time, possibly also priorities of Johnson Admin at the time (3) Administration of the WOP and effects, if possible, (4) Criticism, (5) References/Sources. Kaisershatner 20:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)..

This is awful
Okay, I was the one who wrote above that he did his senior seminar paper on the War on Poverty. I still haven't come over here and written this thing. Umm. I'll do it later? Zweifel 02:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Okay, I'll do it now. I'm going to cut and paste a lot of my paper into Wikipedia, and remove all the stupid citations and stuff.
 * What I am worried about is violating the WP:NOR policy. Look, I got an A on this paper at a good school, and in many ways it's based on others' research.  I've just synthesized a lot of it and added a lot of quotes from Johnson and others.  Second, going through and formatting my FIFTY FOUR footnotes seems oppressive.  I will take out my "analysis and conclusion" section because, even though my conclusions are a tad obvious, they still are distinctly original research.  I will put my bibliography at the end.
 * Finally, I only really analyzed the topic to 1968. Some other time I could go back to Lemann and write up some thing for Nixon et al., but not now.  Someone else has to do it.Zweifel 02:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Gah! This is goiing to take forever.  I reverted it and put what I had written on my userpage User:Zweifel/War_on_Poverty.  I'll do it when I get home.  Maybe. Zweifel 03:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

developemntgateway.org external link
This link: War on Poverty Resources

Was added by an editor whose only contributions have been to promote World Bank Group organizations (The Development Gateway Foundation was started by the World Bank). We have recently uncovered significant edits promoting this group of organizations (see this WikiProject Spam discussion). In the interest of our neutral point of view policy and conflict of interest guideline I've moved the link here for other editors to consider. Thanks. -- Siobhan Hansa 13:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Not Over
I didn't read the entire article yet but I notice it refers to the War on Poverty in the past tense its not over--209.181.16.93 (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Peabody Essex Museum
The War on Poverty is alive and well at one of the richest museums in America in 2013, where The president of the Peabody Essex Museum Dan Monroe makes $578,254.00 a year with full benefits while all the guards are part time with no benefits making $9.00 an hour. In 2011, the Total revenue of the Peabody Essex Museum was $53,044,354 & the Total Functional Expenses were $33,021,331 leaving a $20,000,000 spread to pay more than a poverty wage to the security guards, gift shop retail clerks, ticket sellers, catering staff, the Building Maintenance department & janitors  of the Peabody Essex Museum.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.63.254.80 (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't spam this onto multiple pages and don't use WP as a public forum. The source you are using is not a reliable source for the presenation you are making.  We are not allowed to perform original research on WP.  Arzel (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Walmart
In 2001, the average wage for a Walmart Sales Clerk was $8.23 per hour, or $13,861 a year, while the federal poverty line for a family of three was $14,630. Walmart founder Sam Walton once said, "I pay low wages. I can take advantage of that. We're going to be successful, but the basis is a very low-wage, low-benefit model of employment."
 * This is very old information. What is the relavence here?  Arzel (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Assuming $8.23 is correct, at 40 hours/week that's $17,118.40 for the year, above the poverty line for a family of three (assuming the rest of your information is correct).

Does have evidence that the Sam Walton quote above is anything more than a myth? I notice it's spread quite far on the Internet, especially among leftwing websites and blogs, but the "sources" I found all say stuff like, "Sam Walton once said..." or "Sam Walton famously said..." - but it never includes a time, place, to whom he said it, etc. No original source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.184.56.35 (talk) 19:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Something to do with negative income tax?
Just wondering... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.102.26.149 (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag
While I agree with many of the criticisms, I have to say that the extensive nature of the criticism puts this past WP:NPOV. Criticism should always be a small portion of an article, because it's essentially others' reactions to the article's subject, rather than being part of the subject itself. When nearly half of the article is criticism or responses thereto, the article's giving undue weight to controversy; let's reduce the controversy/criticism to a proportional level until/unless the rest gets expanded substantially. Nyttend (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What would you suggest removing, in specific? MilesMoney (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Ryan's corrections to the document
We need a secondary source that declares that Ryan made corrections to the original document. We can't use a primary source for that claim, as it would violate WP:NOR -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Is anyone embarrassed by the inclusion of this line in the article?
"...Conservative claims that the OEO poverty programs were nothing but a waste of money are preposterous ... Eleven of the 12 programs that OEO launched in the mid-'60s are alive, well and funded at an annual rate exceeding $10 billion; apparently legislators believe they're still working."

So we're winning the War on Poverty because Congress continues to fund it? Or the poverty programs are not a waste of money because Congress continues to fund it?

So we were winning the war in Vietnam for many years, because Congress continued to fund it for all of those years, and we lost only because we quit funding the war. And it wasn't a waste of money.

In fact, following the logic in the quote, anything Congress has continued to fund over a period of time has been money well spent. Like the war in Iraq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.184.56.35 (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on War on Poverty. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.pbs.org/fmc/interviews/friedman.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The chart called "Poverty Rate 1959 to 2011" needs to go back at least another decade
Between 1949 and 1965, the poverty rate fell from 35% to 17%. That's quite an amazing accomplishment. And that was before the war on poverty began. This needs to be included in that chart. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FszQelEQ2KY

71.182.249.222 (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

 * Well, at least I moved it up to the correct section. But it seems to show that poverty was already falling before the "war" against it began. After that, it fell for only two more years and then remained steady: going up again and then down, but not by much.

 * We might want to have a section on the pros and cons of the war. Or at least a controversy section where supporters say that how effective it was and why, contrasted with critics saying whatever they say. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on War on Poverty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140326175845/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/1999/9910.califano.html to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/1999/9910.califano.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:War on Cancer which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

N-gram shows upper-cased name
Here is the n-gram showing that upper-casing of the title is correct. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't see that move discussion and moved this page to "War on Poverty". Feel free to revert it back (although I agree, I think War on Poverty is appropriate). Llightex (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Military conflict infobox.
Here is an example of something that should not be added to the article. jp×g 01:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender Welfare and Poverty
— Assignment last updated by Shakaigaku Obasan (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities Assignment
I would like to add to this Wikipedia article on the war on poverty. I would like to provide more information about the implications of the war on poverty on modern policies and safety nets. I would also like to provide more historical context for what inspired the war on poverty. I’m interested in investigating how Johnson’s legislation addressed the multifaceted issues of American poverty and whether his economic policies addressed disadvantaged groups equally. I've come up with 10 citations I would like to add to the content of this article--these are listed on my user page. Efloden (talk) 01:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:War on poverty


text:
Harry (given name)

Harry is a male given name of English, Norse and Germanic origin. Beginning as a Middle English form of Henry and a diminutive form of Harold, Harrison or Harvey, it eventually came into use as its own name and is the 721st most popular boys name as of 2021.

People

 * Harry Akst (1894–1963), American songwriter
 * Harry Allen (designer) (born 1964), American industrial and interior designer
 * Harry Allen (musician) (born 1966), American jazz tenor saxophonist
 * Harry Altham (1888–1965), English cricketer
 * Harry Anderson (disambiguation), multiple people
 * Harry Andersson (1913–1996), Swedish football striker
 * Harry Andrews (1911–1989), English film actor
 * Harry Angping (born 1952), Filipino politician
 * Harry Arter (born 1989), professional footballer
 * Harry Atkinson (1831–1892), tenth Premier of New Zealand
 * Harry Bateman (1882–1946), English mathematician
 * Harry Bateman (artist) (1896–1976), English landscape painter
 * Harry Baweja (born 1956), Indian film director and producer
 * Harry Bass (disambiguation), multiple people
 * Harry Beck (1902–1974), English technical draughtsman
 * Harry Beck (footballer) (1901–1979), English footballer
 * Harry Belafonte (1927–2023), American singer, songwriter, actor and social activist
 * Harry Birtwistle (born 2003), Singaporean professional footballer
 * Harry Blackmun (1908–1999), Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
 * Harry Boland (1887–1922), Irish republican politician
 * Harry Bong (1905–1987), Swedish Navy officer
 * Harry Boykoff (1922–2001), American basketball player
 * Harry Bresslau (1848–1926), German historian and scholar of state papers and of historical and literary muniments
 * Harry Brewis (born 1991), English YouTube personality
 * Harry Brook (born 1999), English international cricketer
 * Harry Browne (1933–2006), American writer, politician, and investment analyst
 * Harry E. Burke (1878–1963), American forest entomologist
 * Harry Bush (American cricketer) (born 1989), American first-class cricketer
 * Harry Bush (English cricketer) (1871–1942), English first-class cricketer
 * Harry Callahan (photographer) (1912–1999), American photographer and educator
 * Harry Caray (1914–1998), American radio and television sportscaster
 * Harry Carey (actor) (1878–1947), American actor
 * Harry Carpenter (1925–2010), British BBC sports commentator
 * Harry Carpenter (bishop) (1901–1993), English bishop and theologian
 * Harry Carpenter (priest), Anglican priest
 * Henry Cort Harold Carpenter (1875–1940), British metallurgist and specialist on steels
 * Harry Chapin (1942-1981), American folk singer-songwriter and philanthropist
 * Harry Choates (1922–1951), American fiddler
 * Harry Clarke (1889–1931), Irish stained-glass artist and book illustrator
 * Harry Clarke (footballer, born 2001) (born 2001), English professional footballer
 * Harry Cole (journalist) (born 1986), British journalist
 * Harry Connick Jr. (born 1967), American singer, pianist, composer, actor, and television host
 * Harry Cothliff (1916–1976), English footballer
 * Harry Crider (born 1999), American football player
 * Harry Corbett (1918–1989), English magician, puppeteer and television presenter
 * Harry H. Corbett (1925–1982), English actor and comedian
 * Harry Crosbie (fl. 1990's - 2020's), Irish property developer
 * Harry Crosby (1898–1929), American heir, World War I veteran, bon vivant, poet, and publisher
 * Harry Crosby (businessman) (born 1958), American investment banker and former actor
 * Harry Daghlian (1921–1945), American physicist
 * Harry Danford (born 1939), Canadian politician
 * Harry Danning, American Major League Baseball All-Star catcher
 * Harry Davenport (1866–1949), American actor
 * Harry Dias Bandaranaike (1822-1901), first Sinhala and first indigenous Puisne Justice and acting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka
 * Harry Edward (1898–1973), British runner
 * Harry Eisenstat (1915–2003), Major League Baseball player
 * Harry Enfield (born 1961), English comedian, actor, writer and director
 * Henry Enfield (1849-1923), English cricketer
 * Harry Enten (born 1988), American journalist
 * Harry Eriksson (1892–1957), Swedish diplomat
 * Harry Feldman (1919–1962), Major League Baseball pitcher
 * Harry Wickwire Foster, senior Canadian Army officer who commanded two Canadian divisions during World War II, one of the principal commanders of Aleutian Islands campaign and Operation Cottage
 * Harry Fox (1882–1959), American vaudeville dancer, actor and comedian born Arthur Carringford
 * Harry Frankfurt (1929–2023), American philosopher
 * Harrison Garside (born 1997), Australian boxer
 * Harry Geithner (born 1976), Colombian actor, film director and producer
 * Harry Gesner (1925–2022), American architect
 * Harry Gideonse (1901–1985), American President of Brooklyn College, and Chancellor of the New School for Social Research
 * Harry Giles (basketball) (born 1998), American professional basketball player
 * Harry Giles (footballer) (1911–1986), Australian rules footballer
 * Harry Gilmer (1926–2016), American football halfback and quarterback
 * Harry Goodsir (1819–c. 1848), Scottish physician and naturalist
 * Harry Goonatilake (1929–2008), 5th Commander of the Sri Lanka Air Force
 * Harry Gottsacker (born 1999), American racing driver
 * Harry Grant (cyclist) (1906-1993), British racing cyclist
 * Harry Grant (footballer) (born 1993), English footballer
 * Harry Grant (racing driver) (1877–1915), American auto racing driver
 * Harry Grant (rugby league) (born 1998), Australian professional rugby league footballer
 * Harry Gration (1950–2022), English journalist and broadcaster
 * Harry Gregg (1932–2020), Northern Irish professional footballer and manager
 * Harry Gregson-Williams (born 1961), British composer, conductor, orchestrator, and record producer
 * Harry Grindell Matthews, English inventor who claimed to have invented a death ray in the 1920s
 * Harry Groener (born 1951), German-born American actor and dancer
 * Harry Guardino (1925–1995), American actor
 * Harry Gurney (born 1986), English cricketer
 * Harry Gwala (1920-1995), South African African National Congress and Communist Party of South Africa revolutionary
 * Harry Gyles (1880–1959), Australian rules footballer
 * Harry Harris (boxer) (1880–1959), American world champion bantamweight
 * Harry Harrison (writer) (1925–2012), American science fiction author
 * Harry Hill (born 1964), British comedian - also known as Matthew Keith Hall
 * Harry Hollins (1932–1989), American politician
 * Harry Houdini (1874–1926), American escapologist and stunt performer born Erik Weisz
 * Harry Hughes (disambiguation), multiple people
 * Harry Jerome (1940–1982), Canadian track and field sprinter and physical education teacher
 * Harry Kalas (1936-2009), American sportscaster
 * Harry Kane (born 1993), English footballer
 * Harry Kewell (born 1978), Australian association football coach, manager and former player
 * Harry King (cricketer) (1881-1947), English cricketer
 * Harry King (footballer) (1886-1968), English footballer
 * Harry King (politician) (1902-1981), American politician
 * Harry King (racing driver) (born 2001), English racing driver
 * Harry Kinnard, American general officer, one of the principal commanders of Pleiku Campaign
 * Harry Knowles (born 1971), American film critic and writer
 * Harry Krakow (1910–1991), birth name of King Levinsky, American heavyweight boxer
 * Harold Walter Kroto, known as Harry Kroto (1939–2016), English chemist
 * Harry Landis (1926–2022), British actor and director
 * Harry Richard Landis (1899–2008), American First World War veteran
 * Harry Langdon (1884–1944), American comedian
 * Harry Lauder (1870–1950), Scottish singer and comedian
 * Harry Lawtey (born 1996), English actor
 * Harry Lennix (born 1964), American actor
 * Harry Lewis (boxer) (1886–1956), American world champion welterweight born Harry Besterman
 * Harry Litman, American lawyer, law professor and political commentator
 * Harry Lloyd (born 1983), English actor
 * Harry Lorraine (American actor) (1873–1935), American silent film actor
 * Harry Lorraine (English actor) (1885–1970), actor in English silent films
 * Harry Lorayne (1926–2023), American magician
 * Harry Luff (1856–1916), American Major League Baseball player
 * Harry Maguire (born 1993), English footballer
 * Harry Manser (1874–1955), justice of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court
 * Harry Michael (born 1992), Australian rapper and songwriter, known professionally as Masked Wolf
 * Harry Morgan (1915–2011), American actor
 * Harry S. Morgan (1945–2011), German director and producer of pornographic movies
 * Harry Mosby (1945–1993), Australian Paralympic athlete from the Torres Strait
 * Sir Harry Burrard Neale, British officer of the Royal Navy and Member of Parliament for Lymington
 * Harry Ord (1819–1885), British colonial administrator
 * Harry Pace (1884–1943), American music publisher and insurance executive
 * Harry Partch (1901–1974), American composer, music theorist, and creator of unique musical instruments
 * Harry Patch (1898–2009), English supercentenarian, briefly the oldest man in Europe, and the last surviving trench combat soldier of the First World War from any country
 * Harry Paulet, British sailor
 * Harry Peglar (1812 – c. 1849), English seaman
 * Harry Pollitt (1890-1960), British communist politician, former General Secretary of the CPGB
 * Harry Prendergast (1834–1913), British general, one of the principal commanders of Third Anglo-Burmese War
 * Harry Redknapp (born 1947), English footballer and manager
 * Harry Reems (1947–2013), American pornographic film actor
 * Harry Roque (born 1966), Filipino lawyer and former law professor
 * Harry Sacksioni (born 1950), composer and guitar virtuoso of Dutch origin
 * Herschel Saltzman, known as Harry Saltzman (1915–1994), Canadian theatre and film producer
 * Harry Secombe (1921–2001), Welsh comedian, actor, singer and television presenter
 * Harry Seidler (1923–2006), Austrian-born Australian architect
 * Harry Gordon Selfridge (1858–1947), American retail magnate
 * Harry Sheezel (born 2004), Australian rules footballer
 * Harry Shum (born 1966), Chinese computer scientist
 * Harry Shum Jr. (born 1982), Costa Rican-American actor, singer, dancer, and choreographer
 * Harry Thomas Silcock (1882–1969), English Quaker missionary
 * Harry Smith (disambiguation), multiple people
 * Harry Souttar (born 1998), professional footballer
 * Harry Dean Stanton (1926–2017), American actor, musician, and singer
 * Harry Styles (born 1994), British singer, songwriter, actor as well as member of the boy band One Direction.
 * Harry Stafford (disambiguation), multiple people
 * Harry Sugiyama (born 1985), Japanese television personality and model
 * Harry Swartz (born 1996), American soccer player
 * Harry Taylor (disambiguation), multiple people
 * Harry Alan Towers (1920–2009), British-born radio and independent film producer and screenwriter
 * Harry Traver (1877-1961), American roller coaster and amusement ride engineer
 * Harry Treadaway (born 1984), English actor
 * Harry S. Truman (1884–1972), 33rd President of the United States
 * Harry Vickers (disambiguation), multiple people
 * Harry Warner (1881–1958), American cartoonist and one of the founders of Warner Brothers
 * Harry Weese (1915–1998), American architect
 * Harry Wolff (booking agent) (1890–1934), booking agent for theater and vaudeville performers in the early 20th century
 * Harry Wright (disambiguation), multiple people
 * Harry Winks (born 1993) English footballer
 * Harry Winston (1896–1978), American jeweler
 * H. J. Sterling (Harry John Sterling; 1882–1959), Canadian ice hockey administrator
 * Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex (born 1984), second son of King Charles III of the United Kingdom
 * Harry F. Stimpson Jr., (Harry Farnum Stimpson Junior, 1913–2005), American lawyer and ambassador

Fictional characters

 * Harry, a main character in Harry and His Bucket Full of Dinosaurs
 * Harry Potter, the title character in Harry Potter series by J. K. Rowling
 * Sheriff Harry S. Truman, a character in the American television series Twin Peaks
 * Dr. Harry Bertram, a character in the 1989 American science-fiction drama movie Beyond the Stars
 * Harry Black, in Mark Millar's and Greg Capullo's comic book series Reborn
 * Harry Callahan, Clint Eastwood's character in the Dirty Harry film series
 * Harry Callahan, a minor character in Diane Duane's Young Wizards series
 * Harry Lyme (Joe Pesci), an antagonist in the Home Alone series
 * Harry Solomon, a character on the sitcom 3rd Rock from the Sun
 * Harry Fisher, a former character in the BBC drama Waterloo Road
 * Harry Coleman, a character in the 2003 film Freaky Friday
 * Harry Bailey, George Bailey's younger brother in the movie It's A Wonderful Life
 * Harry Haller, the protagonist in Hermann Hesse's Steppenwolf
 * Harry Hart, a character in the Kingsman film series
 * Sir Harry Pearce, a character in the BBC spy drama Spooks
 * Sir Harry Paget Flashman, main and eponymous character in the "Flashman" series by George MacDonald Fraser
 * Harry Mason, protagonist in the 1999 survival horror video game Silent Hill
 * Judge Harold "Harry" T. Stone in the TV series Night Court
 * Harry Sullivan, a companion to Tom Baker's Doctor in the British television series Doctor Who
 * Harry Dresden, the title character Jim Butcher's urban fantasy series, The Dresden Files and in The Dresden Files (TV series)
 * Harry the Hobo, a character played by Bilal Shahid in the British web series Corner Shop Show
 * Harry the Horse, a character in the Broadway Musical Guys and Dolls
 * Harry Hewitt, a character from Coronation Street
 * Harry Osborn, a character from Spider-Man
 * Harry Sultenfuss, a character 1991 and 1994 American coming-of-age comedy-drama movies My Girl and My Girl 2 played by Dan Aykroyd
 * Harry Watling, a character from Inside Man, played by David Tennant
 * Harry Wells, a character from the Arrowverse franchise
 * Harry Keogh, the main character in Brian Lumley's series of horror novels, Necroscope
 * Henry's cousin in Henry Hugglemonster

title: Harry (given name)


text:
User talk:Chaotixtm

test

title: User talk:Chaotixtm


text:
Hell's Angels (film)

Hell's Angels is a 1930 American pre-Code independent epic war film directed and produced by Howard Hughes and director of dialogue James Whale. Written by Harry Behn and Howard Estabrook and starring Ben Lyon, James Hall and Jean Harlow, it was released through United Artists. It follows two dissimilar brothers, both members of the British Royal Flying Corps during the First World War.

The film was originally shot as a silent film. The Jazz Singer, which ushered in the sound era, premiered several weeks before the start of principal photography for Hell's Angels and left the public clamoring for talking pictures. A year and a half later, Hughes decided to convert his film to sound. The original female lead, Norwegian-American Greta Nissen, had to be replaced due to her accent. Jean Harlow became a major star as her successor. The production took three years (1927–1930) and Hughes spared no expense, so that despite being one of the highest-grossing films of the early sound era, it did not recoup its exorbitant $2.8 million cost.

Hughes and pilot Harry Parry designed many of the stunts for the dogfighting scenes. When Paul Mantz, the principal stunt pilot, informed Hughes that a stunt in the final scene was too dangerous, Hughes piloted the aircraft himself, but crashed; he suffered a skull fracture and had to undergo facial surgery as well. Three stunt pilots and a mechanic died in accidents during filming.

Most of the footage is black-and-white, but there are several one-color-tinted scenes for dramatic effect, such as a nighttime gun duel; part-screen full-color for the flames consuming a German Zeppelin; and full-screen full-color for one sequence, which is the only color footage of Harlow's career.

In spite of all the difficulties, it was and is today considered a landmark of early sound and color use, and of the epic action film genre.

Plot

Roy and Monte Rutledge are very different British brothers. Straight-laced Roy loves and idealizes the supposedly demure Helen, but Monte is a womanizer. Their German friend and fellow University of Oxford student Karl is against the idea of having to fight England if another war breaks out.

Meanwhile, in Munich, the oblivious Monte is caught in the arms of a woman by her German officer husband, who insists upon a duel the next morning. Monte flees that night. When Roy is mistaken for his brother, he goes ahead with the duel and is shot in the arm.

Karl is conscripted into the German Navy, and the two British brothers enlist in the Royal Flying Corps. Monte gets a kiss from a girl at the recruiting station.

When Roy finally introduces Monte to Helen, she invites Monte to her flat. Monte tries to rebuff her advances for his brother's sake but gives in. The next morning, however, he is for once ashamed of himself.

Meanwhile, Karl is an officer aboard a Zeppelin airship sent to bomb Trafalgar Square, London. As the bombardier-observer, he is lowered below the clouds in a spy basket. He deliberately guides the Zeppelin over water, where the bombs have no effect. Four RFC fighters are sent to intercept the Zeppelin. Roy pilots one, with Monte as his gunner. To gain altitude and speed more quickly, the airship commander decides to sacrifice Karl by cutting the cable that secures his pod. When that is not enough, he orders everything possible to be jettisoned. He then accepts the advice of another officer; the officer and other crewmen obediently leap to their deaths "for Kaiser and fatherland." German machine gunners shoot down three aircraft; Roy and Monte survive a crash landing. After his machine guns jam or run out of ammunition, the last British pilot aloft dives his fighter into the dirigible, setting it ablaze. The brothers narrowly avoid being killed by the crashing Zeppelin.

Later, Monte is branded a coward in France for shirking his duty when another pilot takes his place and is shot down. Roy and Monte step up when a staff colonel asks for two volunteers for a suicide mission. They are to destroy a vital enemy munitions depot. They will sneak in using a captured German bomber the next morning so that a British brigade will have a chance in their otherwise hopeless afternoon attack.

Roy discovers a drunk Helen in a nightclub with Captain Redfield that night. When he tries to take her home, she turns on him, revealing that she never loved him, that she was, in fact, not the young innocent he believed her to be. Devastated, Roy joins Monte for some carousing. Monte decides not to go on the mission and nearly persuades Roy to do the same, but in the end, Roy drags Monte back to the airfield.

They blow up the German munitions dump but get caught in the act by the Imperial German Flying Corps squadron nicknamed the Flying Circus and led by the legendary "Red Baron" - Manfred von Richthofen. Monte defends the bomber with a machine gun until their squadron arrives, and a dogfight breaks out. Their buddy "Baldy" shoots down the one German still targeting the bomber, but then von Richthofen swoops in and shoots the brothers down. They are captured.

As their use of a German plane violated the laws and customs of war, the brothers have the option of talking or facing a firing squad by none other than Roy's old dueling opponent. Monte decides to reveal all he knows of the attack to save his own life. Unable to change his brother's mind, Roy convinces Monte that he should speak with the German general alone. He offers to tell what he knows on the condition that there is no witness to his treason but demands a pistol to kill Monte so no one will know of his cowardice. The general gives him his gun and one bullet. Roy cannot persuade Monte to do the right thing and has no choice but to shoot his brother in the back. Afterward, Roy is executed. The British attack gets off to a successful start.

Cast

 * In order of the opening credits

Production
Hell's Angels had been originally conceived as a silent, with James Hall and Ben Lyon as Roy and Monte Rutledge, and Norwegian silent film star Greta Nissen cast as Helen, the female lead, and was to be directed by Marshall Neilan. Principal photography began on October 31, 1927, with interiors shot at the Metropolitan Studio in Hollywood. A few weeks into production, however, Hughes' overbearing production techniques forced Neilan to quit. Hughes first hired Luther Reed, on loan from Paramount but still was in conflict over directing roles before hiring a more pliable director, Edmund Goulding, but took over the directing reins when it came to the frenetic aerial battle scenes.

The advent of the sound motion picture came with the arrival of The Jazz Singer, which premiered several weeks before the start of Hell's Angels principal photography. This left the public clamoring for talking pictures and a year and a half into production, after divorcing his wife, the death of two stunt pilots and a mechanic, going through two directors and 2 million dollars, Hughes incorporated the new technology into the half-finished film, but Greta Nissen became the first casualty of the sound age, due to her pronounced Norwegian accent. He paid her for her work and cooperation, and replaced her, because her accent would make her role as a British aristocrat ludicrous. The role was soon filled with a teenage up-and-coming star found by Hall in a revue, and hired by Hughes himself, Jean Harlow.

When Hughes made the decision to turn Hell's Angels into a talkie, he hired a then-unknown James Whale, who had just arrived in Hollywood following a successful turn directing the play Journey's End in London and on Broadway, to direct the talking sequences; it was Whale's film debut, and arguably prepared him for the later success he would have with the feature version of Journey's End, Waterloo Bridge, and, most famously, the 1931 version of Frankenstein. Unhappy with the script, Whale brought in Joseph Moncure March to re-write it. Hughes later gave March the Luger pistol used in the famous execution scene near the film's ending.

One talking scene, filmed in Multicolor but printed by Technicolor, provides the only color film footage of Jean Harlow. (Multicolor was not prepared to print the number of inserts needed for the wide release Hughes wanted.) The inexperienced actress, just 18 years old at the time she was cast, required a great deal of attention from Whale, who shut down production for three days while he worked Harlow through her scenes.

During principal photography, Hughes, along with pilot Harry Parry, designed many of the aerial stunts for the dogfighting scenes. Pioneering aerial cinematographer Elmer Dyer captured many of the aerial scenes with Paul Mantz flying as the principal stunt pilot, leading the team of actual World War I pilots hired by Hughes. Hughes, himself an accomplished aviator, personally directed the aerial scenes from overhead, using radio control to coordinate the flying maneuvers.

Mantz considered the final scene, in which an aircraft had to make a steep pullout after a strafing mission, too dangerous, and reported that his pilots would not be able to do the maneuver safely. Hughes piloted the aircraft himself, but as Mantz had predicted, he failed to pull out, crashed and was seriously injured with a skull fracture. He spent the next few days recuperating in the hospital, where he underwent facial surgery. Three other aviators and a mechanic were killed during the film's production. Pilot Al Johnson crashed after hitting wires while landing at Caddo Field, near Van Nuys, California, where most of the location filming took place. Pilot C. K. Phillips crashed while delivering an S.E.5 fighter to the Oakland shooting location. Rupert Syme Macalister, an Australian pilot, was also killed, and mechanic Phil Jones died during production after he failed to bail out before the crash of a German Gotha bomber, piloted by Al Wilson, which had been doubled by Igor Sikorsky's Sikorsky S-29-A, his first biplane built after his arrival in the United States. In total, 137 pilots were used in filming the last major flying scene.

Due to the delay while Hughes tinkered with the flying scenes, Whale managed to entirely shoot his film adaptation of Journey's End and release it a month before Hell's Angels was released; the gap between completion of the dialogue scenes and completion of the aerial combat stunts allowed Whale to be paid, sail back to England, and begin work on the subsequent project, making Hell's Angels, Whale's actual (albeit uncredited) cinema debut, but his second film to be released.

With the majority of the film shot and in editing, Hughes realized a similar film, Darryl F. Zanuck's The Dawn Patrol, would become a competitor at the box office. After attempting to lease all available period aircraft to stall his competitor, Hughes brought a lawsuit through the Caddo Company and the Gainsborough Corporation, that alleged that the screenplay of Hell's Angels was plagiarized. The lawsuit resulted in The Dawn Patrol being rushed through post-production in order to be in theaters before Hell's Angels. In late 1930, Warner Bros. and Zanuck won the suit.

The film was widely reported as being one of the most expensive films ever made, by contemporary sources, with a reputed budget of $4 million. However, this is a myth created by Hughes to publicise the film, and the accounts for Hell's Angels reveal that it in fact cost only $2.8 million, considerably less than the $4 million cost of Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ, released three years earlier.

Reception
Hell's Angels received its premiere at Grauman's Chinese Theatre in Hollywood on May 27, 1930. All the stars and makers of the film attended, as well as Cecil B. DeMille, Buster Keaton, Gloria Swanson, Dolores del Río, Loretta Young and Grant Withers, Norma Talmadge, Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks, Billie Dove, Joe E. Brown, Joel McCrea, Bebe Daniels, Charles Farrell, Ruth Roland and Ben Bard, Mary Brian, Jackie Coogan, Sally Eilers and Hoot Gibson, Lawrence Tibbett, Sally Blane, Wheeler and Woolsey, Joseph Schildkraut, and Charlie Chaplin with his girlfriend Georgia Hale. A program with leather cover was designed for the premiere by famed aviation illustrator Clayton Knight. Reviews were universal in acclaim for the flying scenes but the mundane plot and maudlin characterizations were also noted. The Hell's Angels screening revealed many traits of pre-code Hollywood. In addition to some fairly frank sexuality, there was a surprising amount of adult language (for the time) during the final dogfight sequence, e.g. "son of a bitch", "goddamn it", and "for Christ's sake", along with the words "ass", "hell", and a few uses of "God" in other scenes.

While Harlow, Lyon and Hall received mixed reviews for their acting, Hughes was praised for his hard work on the filming and aircraft sequences. Morduant Hall, reviewer for The New York Times, was especially critical about Harlow's performance, saying, "his film is absorbing and exciting. But while she is the center of attraction, the picture is a most mediocre piece of work."

Harlow had top billing on the posters but in the film itself, she was billed third under Lyon and Hall.

It earned $2.5 million for its backers at the box office, which made it one of the highest grossing sound films of its era, but still slightly less than its $2.8 million production costs.

Tony Gaudio and Harry Perry were nominated for the Academy Award for Best Cinematography.

Legacy

 * In 1962, film director Stanley Kubrick cited Hell's Angels as one of his 10 favorite films that influenced his later career.

 * The 1977 TV film The Amazing Howard Hughes has one passage where Hughes (Tommy Lee Jones) directs the Zeppelin segment over and over in non-stop takes: although he did repeated takes, Hughes, in reality, shot the Zeppelin scenes and left the partially shot footage untouched except for adding sound. According to film experts, he did not do any retakes of the Zeppelin sequence.

 * Martin Scorsese's The Aviator, a 2004 biopic of Hughes, during the opening act portrays the making of Hell's Angels and later its premiere at Grauman's Chinese Theatre.

 * The line "Would you be shocked if I put on something more comfortable?", spoken by Jean Harlow, was nominated for the American Film Institute 2005 list AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes.

Hell's Angels has been re-released on VHS and DVD formats by Universal Studios, which in later years acquired the rights to the film. In its original British release, the censor cut more than 30 minutes from the film.

The involvement of Howard Hughes in Hell's Angels spawned a niche within enthusiasts in entertainment, aviation and militaria collectibles groups. Aviation enthusiasts have referenced the quality and authenticity of World War I aviation in the film.

title: Hell's Angels (film)


text:
Giovanni Battista Draghi

Giovanni Batista (or Battista) Draghi may refer to:

 * Giovanni Battista Draghi (composer) (c. 1640–1708), Italian composer and keyboard player
 * Giovanni Evangelista Draghi (1657–1712), Italian painter of the Baroque period, sometimes mistakenly called Giovanni Battista

title: Giovanni Battista Draghi