Talk:Hedy Lamarr

GPS/Bluetooth text is misleading

The text about GPS and Bluetooth -- "the principles of their work are incorporated into Bluetooth and GPS technology and are similar to methods used in legacy versions of CDMA and Wi-Fi" -- is misleading. The principles of Frequency Hopping predate Lamarr and Antheil by several decades and there is no evidence their work or any principles of their work were incorporated into GPS and Bluetooth. The sentence as written implies the principles originated with their work, and further implies a lineage from their work to GPS and Bluetooth where no such lineage exists.

The text should be written more clearly "the principles of Frequency Hopping were already well known decades before Lamarr and Antheil's patent. The same principles are used today in GPS and Bluetooth. The novelty of Lamarr and Antheil's patent was to solve the problem using a mechanical device but their solution proved impractical and led nowhere." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.77.147 (talk) 03:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Funny how no-one has even considered the even more blatantly obvious errors, contained within the above-mentioned section of text - that being centred around the fact that CDMA, GPS, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth have simply never used any form of Frequency Hopping in their modulation techniques. 120.157.33.156 (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

This last assertion is incorrect. Bluetooth does indeed use FHSS (Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum). 75.19.156.90 (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Wi-Fi also used FHSS in the original standard Hawerchuk (talk) 04:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, bluetooth does use frequency hopping, but an adaptive scheme. In LaMarr's patent (assuming it could ever work), the hopping sequence is pre-arranged. Chblim (talk) 04:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Here is an excellent article written by a female engineer, dismantling the myth around Lamarr's supposed connection with Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and cellphones

"Women are brilliant at science and technology, and there is an abundance of evidence to support this fact. It isn’t necessary to spread lies about Golden-Age Hollywood movie stars to prove it."

https://kimberlymoravec.medium.com/no-hedy-lamarr-did-not-make-wi-fi-92ac4956b9e

WikiMane11 (talk) 13:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Seems if that article is accurate (and I believe that it is) the claim that Lamarr was an inventor should be removed entirely. This whole mess would be much easier if the actual designer had put his name on the patent rather than people like us having to find them. Lamarr was a liar and a shoplifter remember, this is all recorded including the fact that she tried to blame her companion at the time. Wikipedia really should lead this charge and even lean on the promoters of this myth to remove her name. I know that sounds harsh, but Lamarr can be credited for (for example) selling loads of war bonds just by offering to kiss me for buying them. I'd have been tempted myself - just a few $s to snog a Hollywood icon? As a young man it would have been "Here, take my money!"

Sure this is a little like prostitution, but there is no doubt that it raised a lot of money. I don't have a source to hand but that one is reported in the contemporary newspapers. 92.40.5.83 (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

"Inventor"?

The claims made under the heading "Inventor" are largely without any authoritative sources, and contradicted by a wealth of evidence. For example, the article claims "Among the few who knew of Lamarr's inventiveness was aviation tycoon Howard Hughes. She suggested he change the rather square design of his aeroplanes (which she thought looked too slow) to a more streamlined shape, based on pictures of the fastest birds and fish she could find." (emphasis added) The source cited for this claim is an article in Vanity Fair -- a periodical that is hardly a reliable source for facts regarding the history of science. And the author of that article -- a 27(-ish) year-old entertainment writer -- provided no sources for her claims (other than an old interview with Lamarr), nor did the writer have any relevant expertise. But Lamarr's claims (repeated in Vanity Fair) are easily shown to be groundless hearsay. Hughes and Lamarr first met in 1938. Three years earlier, Hughes' aircraft design the "H-1" had already established itself as the fastest airplane on earth, and it was as streamlined as any aircraft would be for at least the next 5 years. No one could accurately describe it as un-aerodynamic or "rather square". Furthermore, Hughes' aircraft designs appear to have evolved from the H-1 without any significant deviations brought about by Lamarr's "advice". These fly in the face of Lamarr's later claims that she "showed it to Howard Hughes and he said, 'You're a genius'." (from that Vanity Fair article) Furthermore, every aircraft designer since Leonardo da Vinci, through Otto Lilienthal and the Wright Brothers, up to Hughes himself, had already studied the shapes of birds to draw inspiration for aircraft design. Claiming that Lamarr was in any way original in her suggestion to Hughes (if indeed she ever made such a suggestion -- we are expected to take her word for it) displays an abject ignorance of the history of heavier-than-air craft. Again, the piece in Vanity Fair cannot be considered a reliable source when it comes to the history of scientific invention. Do any credible sources in that domain make any such claim? Not that I have been able to find. The Vanity Fair article claims "Do you like Wi-Fi? You can thank Lamarr for that" -- a claim so laughably ahistoric that it ought to discredit anything else the author writes. There is a reason why neither the WP article on Wi-Fi, nor the one on IEEE 802.11 make any mention whatsoever of Lamarr, and that reason is that she had nothing to do with them. She and George Antheil (who was at least familiar with player piano technology) co-filed a patent on using player piano rolls to skip frequencies on radio-guided torpedoes. Antheil does not seem to have left any documentation as to why he and Lamarr are listed on the patent as co-authors (perhaps he was charmed by her; perhaps he thought her profile would help him commercialize the technology), but the point is moot, since the technology the patent describes was never implemented. This is hardly surprising since electromechanical devices were quickly becoming obsolete in 1942. The final sentence in the "Inventions" section states "In 2014, Lamarr and Antheil were posthumously inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame". At the relevant page on the NIHF website it states that Lamarr "had at one time been married to a munitions manufacturer, giving her the foundation for her knowledge of weapons systems, including torpedo control systems. Again, this is nonsense. Lamarr was indeed (briefly) Married to Friedrich Mandl who inherited the Otto Eberhardt Patronenfabrik from his father. But that company never produced "torpedo control systems"; in fact, the Kriegsmarine never even used radio-controlled torpedoes in WWII; they were all either acoustically-guided, or simply straight-running. So Lamarr could not have had any relevant knowledge from which to draw "expertise" about "torpedo control systems". Bricology (talk) 08:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's been 7 months since I wrote the above, and no one has tried to defend the claims made in the article, so I can only infer that no such defense is forthcoming. I am going to prune out some of the more ridiculous claims from that section. Bricology (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Your concerns are reasonable, but you fall into the same trap of making bold statements with little to back them up (eg. "Antheil does not seem to have left any documentation as to why he and Lamarr are listed on the patent as co-authors (perhaps he was charmed by her; perhaps he thought her profile would help him commercialize the technology), but the point is moot, since the technology the patent describes was never implemented."). If you'd done a smidgen more research, you'd understand that it's most likely Lamarr took the idea to Antheil. I'd consider reading: https://www.americanscientist.org/article/random-paths-to-frequency-hopping

Quote: "Claims and counterclaims have been made as to whether Lamarr originated the frequency-hopping scheme or learned of it in meetings at Fritz Mandl’s firm, the Hirtenberger Patronenfabrik. In Bad Boy, George affirms that she got her education at those meetings, and although he is not exactly the world’s most reliable memoirist, he could hardly have received the information from anyone but Hedy. Robert Price, an engineer at Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Lincoln Laboratory and a pioneer of spread-spectrum technology, interviewed Lamarr. He told me that he came away convinced that she had heard the idea in her husband’s boardroom, and with tongue somewhat planted in cheek, Price called her “the Mata Hari of World War II.” Still, one must be mindful of historical gender roles—of how Lamarr might have presented herself as well as how her statements might have been received."

2.101.247.221 (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Can we confirm whether either of these are in doubt:

• Lamarr and Antheils device is the first documented viable implementation of a frequency hopping device
• Lamarr and Antheil are recognised as the inventors in the patent of the device

If there is no tangible proof against either 1 or 2 above then until further information is forthcoming it seems Lamarr and Antheil are to be recognized as the original inventors of frequency hopping devices? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryFBonds (talk • contribs) 11:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

According to PBS: "Discover the role of women in World War II in this video from the American Masters film Bombshell: The Hedy Lamarr Story. Hedy Lamarr invented frequency hopping—a technology that could have provided a significant advantage to the United States military in the war—but the Navy shelved her idea and told her to sell war bonds instead. By selling war bonds, she engaged in something deemed more appropriate for a woman, especially a glamorous actress." Although you are probably correct that she did not invent frequency hopping, at least she did contribute something to the war effort 🙂 Abricru (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I cut it from the lede. It's clearly not her notability, and the LA Times article cited to support that claim had a tongue-in-cheek headline. That source also stated that the technique she patented "had gone through many permutations with input from various sources" by the time it was incorporated in bluetooth, etc. technology. I'm not qualified to address the extent to which her patent was groundbreaking, but I noticed that the relevant section in this page is called Inventor, not Inventions -- the latter would have been used if she had more than one notable innovation, thus meriting the label "inventor" as a persistent activity. Martindo (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The accuracy of these claims is disputed by people who have read into the history.

The popular culture has been repeated so frequently (no pun intended) that major news organisations cannot be relied upon as we might otherwise do. Tony Rothman has also discussed this in his book "Everything's Relative" which was my starting point. But then I fell into a huge black hole of competing claims, during which time a third "man" appeared as alluded to by Lamarr in Stars and Stripes interview.

I don't see any reference to her claim of rape against Donald Blyth which the man denied and was later awarded some $100,000 (adjusted for 2023) in punitive damages many years later. There's a clipping here but I expect the story was repeated elsewhere - but it's not in "clear text" on the web so it's hard to find. The same applies with that Stars and Stripes interview. I found out who she was referring to, a professor at the local University who never received a lick of credit for his extensive work - WITH ANTHEIL, not Lamarr. This whole mess is due to poor quality (rushed) patent searches conducted a time the world was at war.

We really need a volunteer who isn't under the "it can't be true" spell to nip down to the respective court and find the full paperwork. I think it's New York somewhere, but it will be in the archive. This is highly unpleasant but it goes to show that Lamarr's version of "truth" is variable at best.

This needs extensive correction. For some reason I'm unable to post the line but this should be available via Google, etc.

AN INTERNATIONAL TIMELINE OF FALSE RAPE ALLEGATIONS 1674-2015: HEDY LAMARR (falserapetimeline.org) 92.40.5.83 (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

possible bisexuality

see this link -https://www.intomore.com/culture/the-beautiful-possibly-bisexual-actress-who-helped-invent-wireless-technology/

shouldn't this be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.144.46 (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines place a high bar on stating an individuals sexual preference, both in terms of relevance and quality of sourcing. Neither the above website nor the highly-speculative documentary Bombshell rise to that. There is mention of same-sex encounters in her supposed autobiography, however, Lamarr herself sued her ghostwriters over claims made in the book. Unless better sourcing can be found, no, speculation about her sexual preference should not be mentioned. Peter G Werner (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey Lamarr article

Simple mistake; Ms Lamarr was not considered a great actress, but rather a great beauty 38.77.40.75 (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I just posted the same thing. sorry I didn't see your comment, but I do agree. Abricru (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Hedy Lamar

Why does Hedy Lamar's page read like George Antheil did most of the work on the invention, but George Antheil's page reads like it was a joint venture? 2600:1700:55C1:AB0:60AC:FF8C:57E6:FFF2 (talk) 11:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

How do we determine whether she was a great actress or a great beauty? At least one person is here to give her what she is due. No one gives her credit for all of her work. No one gave her credit at the time. In a phone call to her son, near her death, she discusses her work. He confirms that she never got most patents. A woman discovered the DNA double helix sequence & two guys got the Nobel. So it goes. DawnDMST (talk) 07:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

> A woman discovered the DNA double helix sequence & two guys got the Nobel.

I presume you're talking about Rosalind Franklin. She did not discover the DNA double helix. She worked at the lab which took the earliest photos but she did not take the famous photo herself. Photo 51 was taken by Raymond Gosling. She did not recognise the importance of the photo. She offered no relevant conclusions from the photo. And ultimately she left the lab with the photos shelved. Six months later her successor *did* recognise the importance of the photos, handed them over to Watson and Crick who were already well-known advocates of the double helix theory. They discovered the DNA double helix in those photos.

Franklin didn't take the photos, didn't own the photos, didn't recognize the importance of the photos, and didn't make any meaningful observations from the photos. This is not to say her contribution was zero but you grossly overstate it by claiming she discovered the DNA double helix. 2403:5811:14D6:1:8BC0:9C9E:9199:A811 (talk) 10:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

All of this information is available online if you care to read the original three articles, all published in the same issue of Nature #4 in 1953. The Franklin "denied a Nobel" myth is also debunked in a 2003 Nature article by science writer Brenda Maddox: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature01399

However, it is likely that she would have won a Nobel in CHEMISTRY for her original research in xray crystallography, because her coworker won it for that a few years after she died. Martindo (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Yup she certainly would have been a shoe-in. Same with Kirsty Smitten the UK researcher who has created some new antibiotics and tragically lost her life to heart cancer. F cancer!

The fact is that neither Hedy, who knew next to nothing about the subject, or Antheil created the working prototype (which seems to be lost to history). It was created by Antheil and professor of electronics from the local university, who was recruited by a local lawyer who wanted to develop more patents. This also explains why, when the patent was unearthed by a US Military engineer many years later he commended Hedy/George on the astonishing complexity. Finding the references to this is almost impossible because everyone (well, almost everyone) relies on search engines and take that as gospel.

But it's not, there's loads of information pertaining to this in contemporary newspapers, even Hedy admits that she just looked on while "they" (a direct quote) messed about with the gubbins in someone's front room. The exact quote only seems to appear in a single, post-war quote in Stars and Stripes but it was the one that sent me on a search for who "they" were.

I know all this stuff because I dug it up but since no one seems to take my word for it and my list of sources has always been sniffed at, I would ask that someone with experience searching news and other printed material from the day follows through on this. I've spoken to the guy who proposed Hedy for the Inventors Hall of Fame and even he wasn't aware of this (and I wasn't going to ruin his life by telling him he was wrong).

As I've said elsewhere, I deleted my Wikipedia account after trying to discuss this issue because I got heart sick of being told I'm wrong because "Google said..." but that's the problem, Google, ChatGPT, BING, name your search, all can only access clear text data on the net. Google newspapers is a little more useful though because what it's managed to OCR is searchable.

Google brilliantly thinks I'm in the EU but I'm not so many of my searches might be blocked. Doesn't say what or how many, but even the settlement is hard to find. 92.40.5.83 (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Did Lamarr really invent anything?

The heading state that Lammar laid down the essential priniciples for bluetooth and GPS technologies. I have three main problems with this statement:

1. Lammar most probably wasn't a pioneer and didn't invent frequency hopping, several scientists independently from each other published works that included everything there is in the patent on her name decades before it was subscribed.

2. Is there any reliable source (i.e., from peer reviewed scientific journal that discuss the history of the technology in scientific rigor) that show how Lammars' work is specifically and directly essential and/or part of bluetoothe and GPS technologies? I think exceptional arguements needs exceptional evidence. Such source could also clarify whether she was a pioneer at all.

3. The friend of Lammar who also share with her the patent on the frequency hopping device happened to hold masters degree in electrical engineering. The patent includes many technocal terms etc. Lammar as far as we know to the very least had no formal technological education so her part in the patent should be questioned and verified, yet that no one did it is wondering by itself.

I think Wikipedia articles should be more objective and better informing than popular media reports. Basically this is WP guide lines. Therefore my suggestion is to remove any content that presents her as technological genius (basically glorifying her, against WP policy), pioneer of adavanced technology and inventor of the technology behind bluetooth and GPS unless one can support it with reliable academic source that show she actually pioneered the technology and that her work is essentical for GPS and bluetooth.

This source for instance (not in scientific journal but yet detailed) is taking from Lammar most of the credit given to her in this wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilisa (talk • contribs) 09:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

References

I also think Tony Rothman's American Scienctist article thoroughly debunks dubious claims that Lamarr and Antheil made any serious contribution to modern packet-switching technology, never mind WiFi, Bluetooth, and GPS. Quite simply, there were many proposed frequency hopping and other packet-switching proposals, apparently going back to Marconi and Tesla. Modern communications technology uses a version of packet-switching technology, albeit, a very different one than the one proposed in the Lamarr and Antheil patent, and there's really no evidence that any modern wireless networking technology has the Lamarr and Antheil patent in its genealogy. In fact, there's no unambiguous evidence that the US Navy ever tested any technology based Lamarr and Antheil patent.

This claim about Lamarr is so frequently repeated in popular culture that it absolutely needs its own section here. However, it's a claim that needs to be recounted in a contextual and factually-accurate way. The fact is, the Lamarr and Antheil patent was never more than a clever idea, and an interesting footnote in the biography of a glamourous celebrity. Peter G Werner (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, a reminder to not remove the Factual accuracy tag until this dispute is resolved. These claims are legitimately under dispute. Peter G Werner (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

So who removed the "factual accuracy" tag? There is a huge question hanging over this and while I believe I have the answer, it's not what "feminists" want so it attracts a lot of hate. 92.40.5.83 (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I figured out how to put the tag back in and its nice to see that the actual designer is now credited. I thought that was still missing (my error). But the whole story that Lamarr was a talented inventor isn't supported by the facts. I would contest that the only reason she was given all these awards is because Samuel's name was missing from the patent and it's the patent that has driven the entire (and fallacious) story that Lamarr invented FHSS. I'm OK with references to her other (failed) inventions so long as that's clear. But this does not make her an inventor of anything and that does need to be tidied up.

The whole lede of that section makes numerous and sloppy attempts to paint her as some clever inventor. But no one seems to address the question of why the US sub captains were, according to their (Lamarr & Antheil) theory, such terrible shots. I mean could it really be true that US training was so appalling that they were unable to computer a firing solution and hit a ship from a maybe a few 1000 metres? This was the genesis of the idea and was probably quite offensive to the Joint Chiefs if it ever made it that far up the food chain. I'm not a submariner but I've seen enough films and read enough articles on the topic that I just find that too hard to swallow. You literally see (in better movies set in the period) the captain or another officer "compute a firing solution" using the data they have such as the relative speed of the target, distance to the target and so on. It's not complex trig, but it does need to be calculated.

Can you imagine walking into a room full of naval warfare strategists and telling them, "Your submarine crews can't shoot straight, they need our complicated, aeroplane-mounted remote control system so that the torpedo can be steered to its target by a spotter plane!"

They would be laughed all the way out of the building. Did anyone consider how low the spotter would have to fly in order to keep the "fish" in visual range -- or weren't they aware that German shipping would be fitted with AA guns... the whole idea is just stupid and it appears they were so invested in their idea, that the flaws just didn't stand out. 92.40.5.83 (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The patent office recognizes her on the patent issued, therefore in the eyes of the US, she is an inventor. That should not be in dispute here. The text of the section already notes many of the things that have been written in the comments here. Rothman 2018 is also cited in the section. I am failing to understand what you are proposing. Please propose specific changes to the text that incorporate the existing citations. Otherwise it seems that your dispute is with calling Lamarr an inventor at all. Again, this should not be in dispute. There are too many citations from reliable sources that establish that. Peaceray (talk) 05:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I wrote a very long chapter of my book (on toxic charisma) about Lamarr and it's clear from that research in non-digitsed papers that she had very little (if anything to do with it, even alluding to that herself in one case. My suspicions (and that's all they are) based on what we know of Lamarr's pre-Hollywood life, is that this is a case of cryptomnesia. She was present at parties where miltary strategy and arms were discussed with some of Hitler's most important men. And we know that the Nazi's had secretly been developing advanced torpedoes despite agreeing not to after losing WW1. From memory, I believe they had some sort of facility in the Nordic regions where they developed torpedoes that were far more advanced than anything America had at the time; capable of listening for a ship's propellor for example.

I absolutely agree, in the eyes of the US Patent office, she's an inventor, but that only means she has her name on the patent. This might make her sound like an inventor but patents are complex things and this was issued at a time of war for an invention that didn't even work for a problem that didn't exist. I've pointed out at least one failure (there are several) why the US Military didn't adopt the design. Lamarr's defenders have made excuses for it, but the device was too large and too delicate to be used in the existing torpedos. So what they invented was a huge white elephant.

The actual inventor (if we can call him that was Antheil because he figured out a mechanism to make it work) but it took the university professor Samuel? to designn the thing and write the patent. I've been through this process a couple of times [and it's mighty expensive] so I'm familiar with how it works. But this claim is up there with someone like Elon Musk being an inventor of the electric car (or some such). For security reasons, my name was left off the patent for one of my inventions - so our definition of inventor is a bit warped really. Sonme commentators have assumed that since the patent was so techical that Lamarr was some kind of mathematical wunderkind, but the opposite it more likely.

The problem with patents is that anyone can file (and receive) a patent for anything provided it shows some inventive step (but often as not those things are based on prior, referenced artwork). There was loads of prior art kicking about that was never examined because, you know, war...

So let's say I "invent" a wooden mobile with a wind up power, and get a patent on it (which is possible if the idea is wacky enough) I can claim to be an inventor even though my invention doesn't work. No one ever checks... the whole system is rotten to the core because it assumes good faith (and I'm sure we both know of one famous name who did precisely that).

Tesla was an inventor - his inventions actually worked. Same with countless others from James Dyson to Bob Widlar. I believe it's an insult to refer to someone as an inventor simply because they fenagled their name onto a patent - and a non-functional one at that). There are many female inventors that are similarly overlooked, probably because they weren't or aren't celebrities. Like the lady who invented (I believe it's called) spanning tree protocol which is part of the Internet's backbone. Do you know her name without googling? I don't, but I can picture her face.

So she might (and that's a stretch) have come up with the idea of FHSS - and I'm willing to be she didn't come up with that- but many, many citable articles and books credit her with everything from inventing BT and WiFi and some even got as far as claiming FHSS was at the centre of solving the Bay of Pigs crisis and more. It's ridiculous and I expect it's as offensive to other people who have actually done the work of inventing something, designing and testing it, to assign the same "credit" to the bloke who suggestet "XYX" would be great. I'm spitballing here would you credit the boss who wanted a mobile phone to charge wirelessly with the invention of a wireless phone charger? By the measure proposed here, that boss gets as much credit as the team who actually figured out how to make short-range inductive charging a reality. This happened to me, my ex manager's name is on the patent but I'm not - so he invented it when in fact, my colleague and I did all the figuring out of how to make a crazy idea into a functional product. I'm still under an NDA which is a bind or I'd cite the darn thing.

It's notable that while you reply to me questioning her credit as an inventor (which I maintain has been overblown, including by Lamarr herself) you didn't want to add the part where she nearly put a guy in prison for a very long stretch by lying about an alleged rape. This is the most egregious lie I'm familiar with but it's been airbrushed out of history leaving her to appear like some sort of goddess. 92.41.104.151 (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the U.S. Patent Office recognizes here as an inventor & she has been recognized by the National Inventors Hall of Fame. I think we can safely accept their authority on the matter. What you present here appears to be original research. Without verification from a reliable source, original research carries little to no weight here. Peaceray (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the tag unless someone can explain specifically what is currently wrong with the section as it currently stands. All of the points raised in the original comment above have long been addressed in subsequent revisions. Thanks.. WikiMane11 (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Lamarr has been described as one of the greatest movie actresses of all time?

While Hedy Lamar is universally considered one of the most strikingly beautiful movie stars of all time, it is a bit of a stretch to call her one of the greatest actresses of all time.

She never won nor was nominated for any of the major acting awards such as the Academy Award, Golden Globe, SAG, etc.

I think it would be more accurate to say she was one of the most beautiful actresses of all times. Abricru (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

That’s your personal opinion, which isn’t a source. On the other hand, several sources mention her being one of the greatest actresses of all time. Soyouy553 (talk) 06:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

My reading of books on Lamarr have frequently referenced her looks; indeed that was precisely why she was hired. Men would bring their sweethearts to the movies but a bit of eye-candy was a great way to get them to part with cash for what otherwise be 2nd-rate films (I'm not a scholar of that period but I do recall Victor Mature being annyoyed at Lamarr's lack of ability, simply because English was a second language). This makes it very difficult to understand the character's motives and thoughts. While modern eyes might rightly look at this with a sense of skepticsm and even snarl at this patriarchal view, we have to remember these were very different times.

Indeed, "Beautiful: The Life of Hedy Lamarr" by Stephen Michael Shearer rather sums that up in a nutshell. Although beauty is in the eye of the beholder, there are some things that make us more (or less) attractive. I think if we look at her dispassionately we can agree that she was one of the most (if not the most) attractive actors of her generation, but plenty around were head and shoulders better: Ginger Rogers; Ingrid Bergman; Joan Crawford; Bette Davis; Lauren Bacall and more. Anyone who believes she's a great actress should sit down and watch Samson and Delilah - you can almost hear Victor Mature's teeth grind as he waits for his next cue, the harem scene is particularly painful in that regard.

But the sources that describe her as a great actress are probably not written by movie experts who are authoratitive on her (lack) of acting chops. Although I've only directed amateurs I have a feel for what consitutes a great performance and Lamarr is often excruitatingly awful (my opinion of course). 92.41.104.151 (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Since I can not find any statement in the article that says see was a great actress, I do not understand why we are discussing this. Peaceray (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 20-Austria-Lamarr.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Alleged autobiography?

If this is bogus, why quote from it so often? 125.209.157.246 (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Marriages and children

This section is not internally consistent. It states that she and her husband adopted James. Later we learn that James was her biological son born out of wedlock. I suggest restructuring this section ordered by date of marriage, divorce, or birth. Rklawton (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

False rape allegation, Lamarr loses suit.

Ruth Barton's 2010 book makes a very short reference to Lamarr accusing a repairman that she had been dating for some months of raping her at gunpoint. I have no idea of how to put this in the main page but it does show Lamarr in a totally different light. On page 217. The coverage is very brief but it is backed by other sources I've seen. Why this keeps getting overlooked make me question if some volunteers don't want to include negative information.

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Hedy_Lamarr/ypCyObpZaGoC?hl=en&gbpv=0&kptab=overview 92.40.5.83 (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Barton's source for this information is different to the one I've seen. She cites: New York Herald Tribine, 21 Janurary 1958. Perhaps someone would be good enough to check if someone has digitised that and pop the citation in. I'd do it myself but it should be clear from my discussion that I'm pretty much useless at editing articles because I don't have the encyclopaedic knowledge of all the tags and requirements. Surely this citation found in a citation (so the original source in effect) is enough. I've already tagged another story that covered this and the fact that Lamarr lost spectacularly, though nowhere near the damages that Blyth sought. It also seems to be the case that Blyth was, perhaps, a little "odd" as referenced here. But the fact this woman, worshipped by so many for her beauty and "inventions" almost put a man away for many years based on just her word (or was prepared to) speaks volumes about the inner workings of a complex and damaged human being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.5.83 (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Add "Inventor" to First Sentence in Lede

The fact that she was inducted into the "Inventors Hall of Fame" is enough for her to be considered an "Inventor" by Wikipedia. If you have a problem with that, take it up with them. It's not Wikipedia's job to 2nd guess the decisions made by these types of organizations.

2600:1700:10DE:30C0:350D:51D1:C028:353B (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Birth year

It seems odd to specify that she was born in 1914, not 1913, without giving any context as to why that's significant. It would be pretty weird if every biography opened with "she was born this year, not that year." I see that some references give 1913, but it should be explained in the article, I shouldn't have to go search for it. Philologick (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Text in Invention section is misleading

The way the text ends implies that the technology developed by Lamar and Antheil never saw any use after the fact. This feels contradictory to Antheil’s article where it is given mention that the technology was implemented in at least one instance in 1962. In addition, while I understand that the mention of her involvement in the eventual development of Wi-Fi is because that claim is currently being disputed, given the amount of attention regarding that idea I believe it should at minimum be given a comment in popular culture. At this point it at least bares mention Weevilabout (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)