Talk:Hedy Lamarr/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)