text:
Talk:Motorcycle helmet

BS standards
Are no longer in force, and haven't been for several years. All countries in the EU are regulated by ECE2205, with each individual testing country indicated by a number outside the E mark circle.
 * I've removed the relevant references. Todd Vierling (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Open face or 3/4 face
No mention of visibility preferences? A lot of people prefer open face, because of greater visibility. Hazard and risk.. /edit.>

I'm not a biker, but I'm researching helmets, and while looking at the websites of motorcycle manufacturers, almost none of them call their helmets 3/4 face. They all said open face. Also, out of the first 10 results of a Google search for 'open face', 4 of the results referred to motorcycle helmets, while a search for 3/4 face only had 1. Thus, it seems to make sense to change the text to refer to open face instead of 3/4 face.

128.187.0.165 01:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been a motorcyclelist for over 30 years. I've taught training classes for the MSN for approx 10 years and wore a helmet for appox 20 years. I do NOT wear one now. Be aware of the helmet manufacturers lobby. There are pro's and con's of use. Head injures in autos are also significant yet non-driver are not compelled to insist that auto occupants wear a helmet. If you asked the average car driver to wear a helmet he would say "that's silly" there hot, uncomfortable, clumsy, obstruct your vision, heavy, itchy, and would lessen the enjoyment of driving. Those are the same reasons some motorcyclist don't want to ware one. Many cyclist have a false sense of security while wearing a helmet. They are given a feeling of safety that just isn't there. They tend to drive faster at inappropriate times: rain dust etc. And contrary to Harry Hurts helmet film your peripheral vision IS effected. In order to look to the side for a lane check, you need to turn your head much further while taking your attention from forward where you should be looking. Helmet weight issues and accident are ignored.--Felpetlin 22:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I have been riding for several years, and wearing a helmet the entire time. While I won't dispute all your points in this forum (although I do not completely agree with them) your comparison to automobile drivers is not a valid point. In most states, it is mandatory that everyone inside of a car wear a safety belt. There is also considerable protection given to the occupants because of the fact that the passenger compartment is enclosed in structural steel and also by the sheer weight of the car. My bikes don't have safety belts, and I wouldn't want them to. If I do put one down, my best chance of survival is for the bike to not come down on top of me. I've never put down a road bike, but I have flipped quads and been seriously injured in the process.

 * My favorite bike weighs 671 pounds when it has a full tank of gas. My truck weighs 4200 pounds. If my bike was in a collision with my truck at 45mph the truck would sustain moderate damage but the driver would probably come out of it with a few bumps and bruises. The bike, on the other hand, would be pulverized and the rider would probably be dead. If wearing a helmet increases my chance of survival by even only 35% (which is the lowest estimate I have seen) I'm going to wear one.

 * In addition, bikers are a danger to both themselves and others when they are unable to keep up with the flow of traffic. I travel 45 miles one way to work and I ride my bike except for in the winter. In order to make the trip in under an hour, I have to go on the interstate for about 30 miles. Even at 75mph not having face protection is both miserable and dangerous. Especially when you consider the number of trucks on the interstate that are throwing sand and stones around. It's even worse if it starts to rain. Rain drops hurt at 35mph. At 75, they are agonizing. Primium mobile (talk) 13:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

DOT "Lax"
DOT standards differ from SNELL standards, however, inadequate evidence exists demonstrating that riders wearing a Snell certified helmet are less injured in similar accidencts than those wearing DOT helmets. Anecdotal evidence may even indicate the opposite; that softer helmets cause lower G's on the brain - a leading cause of damage. 208.59.127.132 21:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

DOT link
the word "DOT" is linked now to the disambiguation page. 216.183.92.253 17:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Quit with the POV-heavy preaching.
In particular, User:65.78.108.234 has changed wording significantly with unsourced claims and severely biased language that is not presented in a factual manner in order to bias the reader. "A Snell helmet is also significantly heavier than a DOT helmet" (as a replacement for a statement indicating that any certification is better than no helmet at all) and "There is anecdotal evidence that heavy helmets have contributed to neck injuries" -- you smoking some of the good stuff lately? Standards don't dictate weight; they dictate allowed G-force and distance of travel to outer shell.

Listen, folks, I wear a full face helmet for safety reasons too, but it's not up to us to use an encyclopedic context to preach to the masses. I'm reverting edits back to 30-May-2008 to bring the article back to a more factually neutral state. If you'd like to contribute something useful, how about adding statistics with citations? Todd Vierling (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

 * An unsigned post from User:65.78.108.234 moved from User talk:Todd Vierling to here: "Bias the reader, no shit. The source was an emergency room nurse who told me virtually every patient she saw wearing a Snell had neck injuries. If I find a WRITTEN refeence I'll post it again and you can revert it again. This is a waste of time."

 * "Oh really, now?" A friend of mine works as an ER attending in Atlanta (unfortunate home of excessive novelty helmet use in one particular ethnic community), and has told me that certification appears to have nothing to do with neck injury in all the cases he's worked.  Cases of neck injury, where a full-face helmet was involved, were always related either to improper fit or to unusually excessive speed and impact force (e.g., 135mph on a standard Interstate highway).
 * I crashed at speed just this past May, with broken ulna and internal knee injuries, and enough head impact force to make the soft rubber lip on the base of my full-face helmet gouge a two-inch-long flap out of my chin that had to be Dermabonded back into place. My neck, however, was perfectly intact.  The helmet happened to be DOT+Snell rated, but who's counting?  Remember that helmets are designed to be able to survive as many common impact scenarios as possible -- even while many of us know that there are some oddities to the certification processes.
 * My point here: I leave open the question of what certification process(es) may be "best", and I may personally agree with you that one process may have major drawbacks that adversely affect its certified products.  Regardless, this is a currently active, controversial subject.  So any claims declaring one process to be superior over another must include citations, should explain the cited result in at least a little technical detail to give a "why" background, and should declare that the cited result is not necessarily an industry-wide determination at the current time.  Todd Vierling (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Forgot to reiterate above: Whether a helmet is "heavier" still has absolutely nothing to do with standards processes.  There are plenty of FMVSS-only ("DOT") helmets that weigh more than Snell-rated models of similar size.  The statement is a logical fault as written, as a helmet sold in the US for safety purposes must carry a DOT certification in addition to other certs (such as Snell).  So a Snell helmet is almost always a DOT helmet too, by definition.  Todd Vierling (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Visors
Maybe we could add a section specifically about visors? Cheers. 87.194.223.183 (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Be Bold and add it. Keep in mind that "visor" is generally referring to that forward-pointing, mostly flat piece of plastic extending from the front top of a helmet that has one (off-road, and some of the newer on/off-road hybrid varieties not yet mentioned in this article), but the word is also used to refer to retractable sun tint shields (arguably a valid use of the word), as well as face shields (an improper use of the word).  Todd Vierling (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Visor is one of those weird terms. I've seen it refer to the off-road "peak" or bill, as well as the faceshield. Tedder (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Right -- the "peak" or "bill" (e.g. in a baseball cap, or even the stubby one found on most 3/4 helmets that is sometimes affixed with three metal snaps) is what I referred to above. The term "visor" most properly refers to this part; helmet manufacturers are careful to call a face shield a "face shield" and not a "visor" to avoid exactly this confusion.  Of course, explaining this confusion in the article itself might be worthwhile....  Todd Vierling (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Or even a simple illustration showing these parts.. Tedder (talk) 02:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

In some markets the words "visor" and "face shield" mean the same thing.Face shields have developed considerably since they were first used on open face helmets.The early shield was just a piece of flat plastic bent into a curve and fastened with domes.They often had large gaps which let in rain and cold air and created noise at high speed.The plastic was realitively soft and thin.It could scratch quite easily but was cheap to make and replace.Since the 1990s many face shields have been made from moulded polycarbonate often called Lexan. The moulding gives a streamlined appearance and is much closer fitting to the helmet. The pivot point is often adjustable to make the gaps smaller. Some riders have noted that wet lexan is harder to see through.This may be due to the moulding process or the surface tension of the material itself.One firm that carried out tests found that the material called Plastex or PlastX was excellent in keeping the shield clean compared to other commercial products.They said it is best to reapply the polish every 3 months. Shields come in different colours but clear is the most common.In some countri es it is illegal to use coloured visors at night as they restrict vision. Some shields change their colour with increased light.Recently some manufacturers have produced helmets with both a clear and a tinted visor that can be used together. If the shield fogs, open the shield a little when going slowly or open the vents in the helmet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.152.247 (talk) 03:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Modular chin bar standards testing
So I finally got off of my hump and did the legwork to identify exactly what is tested on modular helmets for the three major standards (DOT, Snell, ECE). Added a bunch of related text and references, and finally linked directly to the FMVSS and ECE standards documents. This should finally clear up the confusion once and for all. Of course, it's unfortunate that Snell has yet to certify a modular of any kind. ECE seems to have it right; though the standard was last updated in 1995, it already covers a distinction between protective and non-protective "lower face covers", allowing a modular to be tested for equivalency to a full-face or not. Todd Vierling (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Motorcyclist magazine Snell testing standards criticism
I'm not smart enough to describe this but I think it is an important study to reference: http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.125.194 (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Already cited in the article.--Dbratland (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Origins
The origins section needs to be replaced. Dr. Cairns did not invent the helmet, he worked to make them required in GB.

The first "helmet" was used by the inventor of the motorcycle, Gottlieb Daimler - he wore a leather skullcap lined with wool. The modern motorcycle helmet was invented by Prof. C.F. "Red" Lombard at the University of Southern California in 1953.

Stevesneed (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Do you have reliable sources for this? It'd certainly be nice to clear it up. It's also interesting that helmets came from the same uni that did the Hurt Report. tedder (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

 * What? The origins section doesn't state that Cairns invented the helmet, it states that his work led to their wider adoption. No claim is made in the article about invention by anyone - and certainly helmets existed long before Lawrence's death. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have seen the New Rear-View helmet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.126.17 (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

On the move?
Since helmets are by no means limited to motorcycles (can you say Formula One, Champ car, NASCAR, NHRA...?), it seems obvious this should be moved to Crash helmet. TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  23:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Oppose Since not all crash helmets are motorcycle helmets, I changed the redirect at Crash helmet to point to Helmet. If you wish to expand Crash helmet and write an article that covers other kinds of motorsport helmets, by all means, go ahead. But Motorcycle helmet is fine where it is. --Dbratland (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reasons as Dbratland. Develop an actual Crash helmet article rather than hijacking this one. AndroidCat (talk) 07:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reasons as the above. No new article is needed, no real improvement is needed either as helmet covers everything related to safety/crash helmets IMHO. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

NBR 7471 external link
I keep trying to edit the article to include an external link to the norm, but people edit it back. There are no official links of it, simply because people have to pay to see it, even thought there is no doubt that the norm text is not copyrightable. Since I'm guessing no one cares about the brazilian norm, no one will discuss this unless I edit the article with the link again, so if you feel like removing the link once more, please include a reason here and let's make this a discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.25.55.168 (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Violates WP:ELNO. It's a link to a nasty spam/adware popup site that makes your web browser go bananas. Also, it's impossible to know the provenance of the PDF file linked to, and it's likely full of PDF viruses. Such links should be kept off Wikipedia. Please do not add it back to the article again. --Dbratland (talk) 01:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Mediafire is one of most known free file hosting services available, and as far as I know, the only one that doesn't have a waiting time for downloading(to free users). I'm not paying to host this single file in a server, this is stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.25.55.168 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 1 January 2011
 * Nobody asked you to host the file. There is no need for a link to it to begin with. The verifiability policy has no requirement that a link to anything be included in order to cite an article. Citing sources has instructions on how to cite a document. --Dbratland (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

If it's not required, how doing it would make it no longer reliable? The sole reason I'm adding the link is that this is a pretty obscurus norm that people should have open access to, even in several motorcycle forums I was the only one that had access to it(since no one would pay what it costs, about $50, just to have acess to it). I can't use it as a citation, as it's not an official link, my intention is to speak about the norm to an extent that can't be on the article as it's too long, which is an acceptable reason to host external links according to wikipedia guidelines, and I believe external links don't need to be verified as citation links must be, if it doesn't contain any virus(which it doesn't, you must be a computer noob by the way you talked about the site and "pdf viruses"), what's the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.25.55.168 (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not the role of an encyclopedia to give legal advice to motorcycle riders. See item #1 at WP:NOTHOW, or Legal disclaimer where it says in big fat letters "Wikipedia does not give legal opinions". All caps, even. If the government of Brazil is not properly publishing their regulations on helmets, the last place to address that is an online encyclopedia.As far as who is or is not a "noob", I think that is obvious .Your best bet to discuss helmet laws in Brazil is to stay away from primary sources anyway. Seek out secondary sources to give layman's explanations, and cite those. If you can't find secondary sources on the subject, be patient and keep looking. Most of the challenge of Wikipedia is locating good sources.--Dbratland (talk) 05:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

There are no secondary sources, no one gives a shit about these norms, only those who have to comply their products to them, so they pay the fee to have access to it. I really had no idea wikipedia had became so full of red tape, I can't even blame you personally, since in all three edits I did it was different person that came to censor it. Guess I will still be the only one end customer with access to the norm. Red tape wins.

Standards Testing
I edited this section in an attempt to give a more professional tone. I do not actually have reference materials for or know much about motorcycle helmet testing standards, so I will leave those improvements to someone more knowledgeable. Eurasian Dreamer (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

POV complaint 2013
This entire article is biased and not supported by any facts. According to the California Highway Patrols own records since the start of the mandatory motorcycle helmet law in 1994 deaths per 1000 motorcycle accidents have INCREASED. You want facts versus "studies" google abate of California. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.118.216 (talk) 03:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Deaths per thousand accidents, by itself, isn't related to helmet laws at all. Deaths **directly from head and neck injury** per thousand could begin to be relevant. But even then, if most people are going a lot faster than they used to, or making a lot more bad decisions than they used to, you'd have to calculate how much of the increase in death rate was purely an issue of impact velocity (in other words, it could have been even still worse without that helmet law), how much was worse skills, etc. A simple glance at one statistic can't give a useful answer. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Jet helmet
Has any native speaker of English ever heard open face (3/4) helmets called 'jet helmets' in English? Would that be understandable or recognized? --Cancun771 (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It dates to 1957, and more recently here and . It's somewhat uncommon, but still it's out there. Even if you've never heard it before, it's self-explanatory. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The term may be more common in Europe, I'm not sure. For instance this online store in Germany uses the term for a whole category: . — Brianhe (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Roemer is German, so perhaps they introduced it -- but it was introduced to the US market by 1957, so it's pretty much global by now. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Jet was widely known and regularly used in 1960s UK. It is still known and used, as here. The earliest citation I can find presently is Motorcycle Mechanics, May 1962:p.17 Corker Full Jet and Corker Grand Prix [Smartly styled half-jet design] (manufacturer's advert)

p.61 Jet style helmet...Britax Jupiter (Shop Talk - new products)

p.69 Mastergard Space Helmet (manufacturer's advert)

p.82 Aviakit Super-Jet (manufacturer's advert) I have a Stadium semi-jet from that time having shallower sides and back with a deeper neck-curtain. My brother had a Kangol Space (or Spaceman, I would have to confirm via an advert) new in 1964, added on to the repayments of a bike. So there was variation - jet, full jet, half-jet, semi-jet, space, etc. and not just a generic descriptive but could be incorporated into the branded name. I don't know the actual origins and date in UK. It's interesting that the Bell TX500 goes back to pre-1960; the earliest I can recall was Mike Duff riding AJS/Matchless I think around 1962, pre-Yamaha.--86.11.200.51 (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I found an earlier source in the house - Motorcycle Mechanics, August 1961:p.5 Dear Ed. (readers' letters) USA Prices. "I have just bought an AGV (Italian) helmet of the 'jet' type...here the price is (including 3% state sales tax) $27.80...a Bell or McHall helmet sells for up to $38..." W.H. Hill. Meriden, Conn, U.S.A.

p.44 Technical Topics by David Frost. "Visor v. Goggles. The thoughtful looking character above is me trying to make up my mind about visors. They became popular with the introduction of the space helmet, but people are using them on ordinary helmets as well".

p.62 Aviakit Super-Jet (manufacturer's advert)--86.11.200.51 (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The concept of "jet helmet" is definitely not self-explanatory, unless it means the helmet has a jet engine attached. Even a very basic word or two on why it's called that would help people who don't already know. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Safety studies
The starting study is absolutly wrong. you are able to compare the REAL datas of the usa before the half US made the laws for wearing helmets and after. the data shows its absolutly wrong that helmets reduce the chance of death about nearly 50% like its written here all over the article. the datas show there is nearly no diffrents at all. for example - see this http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150702/hinpxbup.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.245.78.135 (talk) 08:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't tell where you got that graph but it looks like it's the number of annual motorcycle deaths. The article says helmets reduce the risk of head injury by 69% and death by 42%. It doesn't claim that the number of annual rider deaths will be decreased by that amount. Number of rider deaths is affected by rider behavior, and number of riders and how much they ride, which can be affected by helmet laws. See here for one example of the increase in deaths in the wake of Florida's helmet law repeal. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete complete list of EU helmet codes
Per WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:RAWDATA, we need to delete the extensive list of EU helmet vs country codes in the Motorcycle_helmet section. It's what WP:NOT calls a "Simple listings without context information".

 * E1: Germany
 * E2: France
 * E3: Italy
 * E4: the Netherlands
 * E5: Sweden
 * E6: Belgium
 * E7: Hungary
 * E8: Czech Republic
 * E9: Spain
 * E10: Yugoslavia
 * E11: United Kingdom
 * E12: Austria
 * E13: Luxembourg
 * E14: Switzerland
 * E16: Norway
 * E17: Finland
 * E18: Denmark
 * E19: Romania
 * E20: Poland
 * E21: Portugal
 * E22: Russia
 * E23: Greece
 * E24: Ireland
 * E25: Croatia
 * E26: Slovenia
 * E27: Slovakia
 * E28: Belarus
 * E29: Estonia
 * E31: Bosnia and Herzegovina
 * E32: Latvia
 * E34: Bulgaria
 * E36: Lithuania
 * E37: Turkey
 * E39: Azerbaijan
 * E40: Macedonia
 * E42: European Community (unused, as approvals are made by the member states)
 * E43: Japan
 * E45: Australia
 * E46: Ukraine
 * E47: South Africa
 * E48: New Zealand

 * 05: The series of amendments (effectively, the version number) of the standard tested (at present, normally 05)
 * bbbb: The approval number issued by the approving authority
 * c: The type of helmet:
 * "J" if the helmet does not have a lower face cover ("jet-style helmet")
 * "P" if the helmet has a protective lower face cover
 * "NP" if the helmet has a non-protective lower face cover

 * dddd: The continuous production serial number of the individual helmet

We can replace this with a summary of what the EU system is and what purpose it serves. There's no reason why an encyclopedia needs to tell anyone whether or not their helmet is certified by Macedonia or France. Even if this is useful for helmet shoppers, Wikipedia is not a shopping guide, per NOTSALES.The section above, lisging the name of the regulation or legal code in each country is similarly a list of context-free information:

 * ACU gold or silver badge (Auto-Cycle Union, UK)
 * AS/NZS 1698, (Australia and New Zealand)
 * BSI 6658 (British Standards Institute, UK)
 * CMVSS (Canada)
 * CRASH (Consumer Rating and Assessment of Safety Helmets, Australia)
 * CSA CAN3-D230-M85 (Canadian Standards Association, they no longer certify motorcycle helmets since )
 * DOT FMVSS 218 (USA)
 * ECE Regulation 22 (Europe)
 * GOST R 41.22-2001 (ГОСТ Р 41.22-2001, based on ECE 22.05, Russia)
 * ICC, (Import Commodity Clearance, Philippines)
 * IS 4151 (Indian Standard, Bureau of Indian Standards, India)
 * JIS T 8133:2000 (Japanese Industrial Standards, Japan)
 * MS 1:2011(Previously MS 1:1996. Revised standard based on ECE 22 but with added penetration test. Department of Standards Malaysia, Malaysia)
 * NBR 7471 (Norma Brasileira by Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas, Brazil)
 * SHARP (UK)
 * Snell M2005 & M2010 (USA)
 * SNI (Standar Nasional Indonesia)
 * TCVN 5756:2001 (test and certify by QUATEST 3) (Vietnam)

It is encyclopedic to discuss and summarize differences or contradictions between overlapping standards, such as in the US, Snell and DOT. If there were any similar issues where JIS conflicts with SHARP. Without saying anything about the names of each of these countries' helmet standards, the information is meaningless labels. If we had reason to think that this information could be added to in some what that would make it relevant and meaningful, then it's worth keeping to build upon. But what would that be? And why wouldn't we tag it as Overly detailed to let editors know it needs work? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

 * It's not context-free information. The text around it gives it context. It's also not a shopping list. You can't buy things from it. As an encyclopedia, we cover things people want to look up. This includes interpreting labels on helmets. It might save somebody's life.  Sandstein   22:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

New Hampshire update
I could be mistaken, but I believe that in New Hampshire, you are required to wear a helmet if you are under the age of 18.

This is as per http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xxi/265/265-122.htm

173.44.81.115 (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Motorcycle helmet


text:
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)

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

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)

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

title: Talk:Hedy Lamarr