Talk:Hedy Lamarr/Archive 1

Archive 1

Name

Changed "Hedy Keisler Markey" to "Hedy Kiesler Markey". I did a google search and the latter wins by a score of 125-31. I suppose it's possible she changed the spelling of her maiden name when she married Markey, but it seems unlikely. Does anyone know something about the issue that I don't? Bill 10:59 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

In any case her name was "Kiesler" -- Otto Normalverbraucher 17:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 21:36, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If this article is still part of a category claiming that Lamarr was homosexual, and if no one has provided a reference to a reliable source confirming this alleged fact (which is false), it should immediately be removed from the category. If the category merely claims that "gay people like her movies", it still needs a reference that provides some sort of proof. Myself, I believe that gay people have likes and dislikes like any other people, not group likes and dislikes. Sexual orientation is independent from taste in movies. Stereotypes, in fact, can be offensive. (See Talk:Gay icon#The idea of gay icons can be an offensive stereotype.) David Spector (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Hedy Lamarr had lesbian/bisexual affairs, published e.g. in her autobiography "Ecstasy and Me" - read more about here and here. I miss this facts in the article but they are important for a well written biographical essay like this wiki article. Susanne Wosnitzka (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Almost certainly these affairs were invented. Her autobiography tells some outrageous stuff, most likely invented by her ghost writer, which she fully repudiated that ever happened. From the entry: "According to her autobiography, Ecstasy and Me (1966), while attempting to flee her husband, Friedrich Mandl, she reputedly slipped into a brothel and hid in an empty room. While her husband searched the brothel, a man entered the room and she had sex with him so she could remain hidden. She was finally successful in escaping when she hired a new maid who resembled her; she drugged the maid and used her uniform as a disguise to escape.[26]/ Lamarr later sued the publisher, saying that many of the anecdotes in the book, which was described by a judge as "filthy, nauseating, and revolting," were fabricated by its ghost writer, Leo Guild."128.65.232.111 (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

From the source given above here: "Q: You surely have read Ecstasy and Me: My Life as a Woman, Hedy’s notorious ghostwritten autobiography. How much of it do you think was ghostwritten? – Larry from New York/ SCHONHAUT: That’s strange! I actually purchased that book in one of these back bookstores…I found it “unputdownable.” It was really salacious. I was wondering, because it has intimations of bisexuality: I remember reading one starlet came on to her in a dressing room and said, “You’re a woman lover! You’re really a lesbian!” Etcetera. It was fascinating to read. I don’t think it’s only 10% true. It’s probably more like 33.3% true…I wonder how true certain things are because I remember the book beginning with her saying she was eating day-old bread that she was able to buy with pennies in a bakery. Really, to think of someone who was at the height of stardom! She was actually a superstar, not merely a run-of-the-mill movie star. She was an absolute legend and her beauty made her that./ ROXBURY: A lot! A lot was ghostwritten, according to Hedy. She told me that personally. She did not like the book at all."128.65.232.111 (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Born in 1914?

Sources usually do support 1913 as her year of birth, but in the 2004 documentary "Calling Hedy Lamarr" her son says she was born in 1914. Is he wrong? I've come across cases of children getting their parents dates of birth incorrect before. Crisso 15:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

(ref)Since we are not sure, and since 1914 would have made her disturbingly young to have appeared in her first movie in 1930, let's leave it at 1913 until definitive proof appears either way. Rms125a@hotmail.com(/ref)

I found some information regarding her date of birth by performing a search here: http://www.familysearch.org. The following are the four entries that turned up regarding Hedy's birth; my thoughts are in parenthesis.

1) Hedwig Eva-marie Kiesler,Female, Birth: 1912, Austria, Death: 19 JAN 2000,Record submitted after 1991 by a member of the LDS Church. (I don't believe this one is correct because the middle name is spelled wrong.

2) Hedwig Kiesler, Female, Birth: 09 Nov 1913, Wien, Wien Austria, Death: 2001, Florida. Record submitted after 1991 by a member of the LDS Church. (I don't believe this is correct because the date of death is wrong.

3) Hedwig Kiesler, Female, Birth: 1913, Austria, Death: 1998. Record submitted after 1991 by a member of the LDS Church. (Again, not correct because date of death is way off.)

4) Hedwig Eva Maria Kiesler, Female, Birth: 09 Nove 1914, Wien, Wien, Austria, Father: Emil Kiesler - born 1880 Lemberg, Ukraine, USSR, Mother: Gertrud Lichtwitz - born 1895 Budapest, Pest, Hungary. Mother and father married 1913, Wien, Wien Austria. Record submitted after 1991 by a member of the LDS Church. (This one gets my vote as the real deal. First, Hedy's full name is a correct. Second, Wien is the German spelling of Hedy's correct birthplace, Vienna. Third, mom and dad's names, birthdates, and places of birth are correct. All of this leads me to believe that this information was taken directly from a birth certificat/official record. Hedy was very young when she filmed Ecstasy. Here's a link to a magazine article written by Hedy, herself, back in December 1938 that is full of interesting information about her life up to that point; it's really a great read. In the article, Hedy says she was 16 and a minor when she filmed ecstasy.http://www.hedy-lamarr.org/apps/blog/show/750643-the-life-and-loves-of-hedy-lamarr http://hedy-lamarr.org/hedy/biography/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.64.85 (talk) 03:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The LDS Church is a good starting point, but we must be very careful as a lot of people input incorrect information about birth and death years etc. how could a copy of her birth cert be obtained? I would say the month and day is correct, but as for the year 1912-1914. (PershingBoy)205.204.248.86 (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Her biographer (Stephen Shearer) and son (Anthony Loder) have confirmed that 1914 is the correct year of birth. Quis separabit? 16:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Add a reference to HalfLife 2?

In the popular video game Half-Life_2, a NPC character Dr. Kleiner has a pet Headcrab called "Hedy Lamarr". Pranab Salian 18:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• This doesn't really need a citation - it's kind of obvious, considering the fact that he calls the headcrab by that name and that this game takes place after the time when she became famous. --V2Blast (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Really!

I find above reference to be completely silly. If one should add a little quality to an entry of this kind, I would have preferred referencing the Mel Brooks film, "Blazing Saddles", in which the chief villain's name is Hedley Lamarr, and (to his great annoyance) the crowd of semi-villains constantly calls him Hedy Lamarr. Henning Blem Nielsen, 1 may 2006.

Book by Hedy

"Ecstacy and Me" was a book written by Hedy, shouldn't we have something here about it? --Yancyfry jr 17:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This book was written by ghost writers that Hedy hired, and she sued them because the book was full of distortions and outright errors. So who knows how much of this book is pure fabrication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.64.85 (talk) 03:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC) True but it put her back into the limelight for a while. She was paid for it and agreed to it at first. something should be said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.204.248.86 (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Patent 'recently' little-known

The patent was little-known until recently because Lamarr applied for it under her then-married name of Hedy Kiesler Markey.

What does "recently" mean? The '80s? The '90s? The 21st century? Familiar frame references are sort of useless in an updating encyclopedia. --64.24.181.62 04:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

completely agreed. So I researched and changed some stuff while providing references. I believe there was a misunderstanding. While she didn't apply for it as 'Hedy Lamarr', I believe it was known she was responsible. So I changed the name explanation (while preserving the fact itself). However, it wasn't *widely* known, apparently because it wasn't really used for 20 years and the original patent had more or less faded from public consciousness. So I substituted that as rationale. I believe what the original author was referring to as 'recently' was the 1997 EFF award, where a claim for 'the general public's "nearly absolute ignorance about it"' is made. So I'd define 'recently' as '1997'. Whether the EFF's claim is true or whether the EFF award popularized it, I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's when it started getting sprayed all over the net and many references to Lamarr now refer to this patent, as well. It's certainly not unknown now. And that's what I suspect the original author had in mind. Anyway - more research might be beneficial, cleaning up the somewhat patchy text might be, and I may have done the 'references' wrong, stylistically, but it's something. 68.221.0.68 19:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Yay!makenna

Hard for it to "[start] getting sprayed all over the net" much before "1997" considering this was approximately the first year of widespread .com popularity--the first year of the bubble at least. TheScotch (talk) 09:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead sentence

I tweeked her nationality. I will probable add back in the Austrian-born part and try to see if her ethnicity is properly noted. Thanks, --Tom 14:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Difficulties after Hollywood

Calling Hedy Lamarr by Georg Misch
Repeated shoplifting: her son, Anthony Loder, said Hedy felt people owed it to her.
Plastic surgeries: too much.
Reclusiveness: communication with the outside world (family and friends) solely via telephone.

Should I include these? --213.216.199.30 14:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This is silly

She obviously got her name added to the patent because she was sleeping with the inventor or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.51.52 (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The co-inventor, George Antheil, said that it was Hedy who came up with the idea and all he did was assist her because he was an expert at synchronizing music.

But no, really, you're quite right -- because she was an attractive woman and a well-known actress, it's obvious she couldn't possibly have had anything to do with the invention. In fact, it's crazy to think she was even smart enough to tie her own shoes! Everyone knows, beautiful women are morons! (You're obviously quite a jerk, 71.37.51.52.) FeRD_NYC (talk) 03:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, according to the French Wikipedia, she did claim that she wasn’t the inventor at all (“Le seul ennui est qu'interrogée sur sa géniale invention, Hedy Lamarr a toujours affirmé n'y être pour rien, même si elle accepta avec joie le prix (très rétroactif) que lui décerna en 1997 l'Electronic Frontier Foundation américaine. C'est Antheil, disait-elle, qui en avait eu l'idée, et qui l'avait associée au brevet par admiration pour elle, comme il aurait pu lui dédier une symphonie.”); if this is true, this important information has to be added to the article. (You’re obviously quite an obnoxious individual to call someone a “jerk” just like that, FeRD_NYC. ) — SniperMaské (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The French language text above should be translated. Quis separabit? 20:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is a translation (from Google) "The only trouble is that questioned his brilliant invention, Hedy Lamarr always said there will be for nothing, even if she gladly accepted the price (very retroactive) that in 1997 he was awarded the American electronic frontier foundation. Antheil is, she said, who had the idea, and had associated with patent admiration for her, as he might have to dedicate a symphony." What I find increasingly troubling (the deeper I look at this) is that while some feminist websites have seized on the idea that Lamarr (alone) invented FHSS - some even claim WiFi, Bluetooth and GPS - Antheil is never mentioned. Moreover, the patent describes a technique for FHSS - not the technology which seems to have been pioneered by Tesla and other early radio pioneers. Let's not take anything from Lamarr, but we must be very wary of revising history to suit our agendas. 82.29.204.131 (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC) Smidoid

Please note that that paragraph in frWP is tagged "[Ref. needed]". --Lexein (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I've done the extra research and there is nothing to suggest that Lamarr actually invented anything. People (unfortunately) believe what they want to and I'm taking a lot of flak for simply challenging accepted wisdom. The hard fact is Lamarr didn't invent FHSS any more than Antheil. The confusion would be unlikely today, but stems from the fact that the patent was granted unchallenged by a "prior art" discovery. In fact, there's a hell of a lot of FHSS going on long before this pair ever got the patent. I'm already running into a LOT of negative remarks from people who want to believe the "accepted" wisdom (per the comment above) but the fact is that there are patents for "hopping" as early as 1903. The only reason I fell over this fact was because i wanted to know more about Lamarr (thinking how cool is this) and this invention and discovered this is one, albeit complex, sequence of events. It's such a compelling cock-up - leading to such trumpeting from the sexists (of both genders) that one could write a book about it. At least once book HAS been written - and the Amazon reviewers there have provided solid evidence (with citations to the relevant patents) that this simply wasn't a new idea. Crucial to this discussion are two things: first that the US military classified the patent (obfuscating it from view and therefore from subsequent rights searches) and second that given the fact most of Europe was at war at the time, it's unlikely the prior art would have shown up. Books such as Hedy's Folly (which some reviewers have described as "thin" http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0307742954 only serve to cement this myth - which is what it is - even harder into the public conscious. Some of this information is already on Wikipedia and I'm more than disappointed (if not that surprised) that this material is still resting here unchallenged. "Pulitzer Prize-winning author Richard Rhodes delivers a remarkable story of science history: how a ravishing film star and an avant-garde composer invented spread-spectrum radio, the technology that made wireless phones, GPS systems, and many other devices possible." Perhaps the nail is already on Wikipedia - here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_spectrum#Invention_of_frequency_hopping where there is a clear discussion of early Spread Spectrum applications and this quote: "Their approach was unique in that frequency coordination was done with paper player piano rolls - a novel approach which was never put in practice." Now while this is a novel way of doing the deed - it's not an invention OF the deed. There's a lot more supporting evidence but it's not my job to find it all as I'm not going to edit the page only to have it redacted seconds later. Can we be absolutely clear here: I don't have a beef with Lamarr (or anyone) only an obsession with facts; and right now I'm starting to feel like John T. Scopes (ref)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Scopes(/ref)Smidoid (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Smidoid

This article (which contains its own citations) appears to debunk the idea that Lamarr invented spread spectrum. http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~trothman/spread_spectrum.html Smidoid (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Scopes or Snopes? (kidding). Thanks for the link. It's chapter 16 from [http://www.amazon.com/Everythings-Relative-Fables-Science-Technology/dp/0471202576#reader_0471202576 Everything's Relative and Other Fables in Science and Technology]. Tony Rothman. Wiley, 2003. It does seem to debunk the "first inventor" claim, though it doesn't debunk that she and Antheil invented their own version of, and patented, an implementation, easily extended, of frequency hopping. It's certainly worth considering, and discussing, from a "quality of source" perspective. Biography vs. research, academic vs popular press. With luck, source quality, attribution and citing will win out over passion, and without hurt feelings, too. Don't despair, relax and enjoy both WP:TIGERS and WP:Etiquette. --Lexein (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Scopes - but I get the irony Lexin nice zinger (and thanks for acknowledging it)! I'm English (we probably *cough*invented*cough* it). I'm taking to Tony Rothman right now about consulting on a documentary my lot are producing about this issue (and patents in general). He's a very knowledgeable chap. I really, honestly wanted to believe Lamarr invented this but it's pretty clear that she didn't. For now though, I think it's worth having a senior editor to remove or seriously revise this claim so that Wikipedia doesn't continue to fuel this mistake. Rothman contends and I concur that the invention was produced separately by a number of people - in fact on this website he acknowledges several inventions prior to the ones even he cited. Patents themselves don't prove a damn thing (as I know from painful experience). From memory there's a least one case (and undoubtedly more) of a patent clark stealing an invention and claiming it as his own. Patents also only apply to the country they were registered in and therefore, are not a reliable source. For truly historical reference we need to look at patents from across the globe and it's fair to say that spready spectrum was already widely in use in Europe long before Antheil adapted the idea to torpedoes. (The claim is that Lamarr had the inventive step for frequency switching - yet the evidence says differently). This is a prior art debacle - and if (for example and as seems the case) Tesla thought of frequency swapping to prevent interference, then Lamarr has no claim at all under patent law. Patent searches are so much easier in the information age that prior art is a real problem - particularly as claims are made for things that haven't even been tested or for which the technology does not yet exist... (hence we have patent trolls aplenty now). Smidoid (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Not really changing the subject, but spread-spectrum and frequency-hopping are two different things. In spread-spectrum, the same signal is encoded on multiple frequencies simultaneously (frequency-division multiplexing) and in frequency-hopping the signal is encoded on multiple frequencies sequentially (time-division multiplexing). I read the Markey/Antheil patent and I don't see any sign of spread-spectrum (FDM) in it. I don't think this diminishes it in any way, but it seems like this article should be technically accurate. In a related note, one of the more clever things in the patent is its use of a one-time pad for encryption, so that would be worth mentioning in addition. However, I see this subject is a little touchy so I thought I'd better discuss it before diving in and making an edit. Comments? Allanamiller (talk) 07:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Frequency Hopping

The play, Frequency Hopping, starring Erica Newhouse as Hedy Lamarr, was presented at a NYC museum during June 2008. It was a multi-media presentation and may yet make it to Broadway. Oddly, Erica Newhouse does not mention it on her own website. [url]http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=hedy-lamarr-not-just-a-pr [/url]

Hedy Lamarr, best known for her film work in the '30s and '40s but also a noted inventor, was the first to develop hCG, astonishing the scientific community with her groundbreaking work. Unfortunately she did not have the foresight to patent her invention, and lived to see General Dynamics appropriate the technology for its own use. While General Dynamics made hCG into a household staple with its ingenious mass production methods, Hedy Lamarr died destitute and raving in an attic room that carried an unfortunate odor of cat urine.

"Hedy Lamarr died destitute and raving in an attic room that carried an unfortunate odor of cat urine." -- this is untrue as she left an estate of some 3 million dollars per her biography by Stephen Shearer. Don't forget that she was also quite litigious as she got older. She certainly didn't die in an attic. Quis separabit? 20:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Hedy Kiesler Markey (LaMarr) and George Anthiel did, in fact, patent the invention. Here is the patent: http://www.ncafe.com/chris/pat2/index.html

http://www.alittlepregnant.com/alittlepregnant/2004/06/no_matter_how_m.html

Babybraindoc (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - Am I missing something but in the middle of the page referenced above this block of text appears...

Elvis Presley demanded that his entourage follow an exacting code of ethics. His henchmen were asked to take an oath to that effect, professing their devotion to "respect for fellow students and instructors," "respect for all styles and techniques," and "freedom from constipation," among other ideals. Upon swearing this oath, each member of the Memphis Mafia was given a 14k gold bracelet bearing Elvis's distinctive "hCG" logo.

Now whilst that may be true - it's weird that it appears in a pregnancy page???

Nick lanzarotemaps 90.194.38.198 (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That's Hedley

I thought in Blazing Saddles, Brooks said "This is 1874. You'll be able to sue her"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.212.182 (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Forced relationship with Adolf Hitler?

On IMDB's news page, there are numerous news articles and a mention of a biography which state that Hedy was forced by her husband to have sex with Hitler. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001443/news#ni0554794 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbozzo (talk • contribs) 05:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Pics or it didn't happen! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.108.118.31 (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I know that these claims sound more then stupid and almost certainly are invented, but they also appear in the nndb site: [1] What is the true about that or by what purpose they invented it? I must remember anyone that Hedy Lamarr was born a Jew and Hitler wasn't very keen on female relashionships, specially with ethnic Jews.85.243.71.190 (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

She had no relationship with Hitler. This is all absurd. And neither IMDb biographies (although not their other content) and NNDb profiles are known for being entirely objective and/or accurate. Quis separabit? 20:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Catholic

I believe that, despite her having had Jewish parents, her religion was Catholic. I've seen online sources which state that, but I don't think they would be considered reliable by Wikipedia standards. Can anyone confirm / prove she was Catholic? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Both of Hedy's parents were Jews and she was brought up Jewish. Hedy's first husband, Fritz Mandl, was also a Jew, but he switched to Catholicism in order to pursue lucrative business with those who would not deal with Jews. When Hedy married Mandl, she also switched to Catholicism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.121.225 (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Any such "switch" was clearly done under duress and she was never a practising Catholic, or Christian even, as far as I can tell, from online sources and her biography by Stephen Shearer. Quis separabit? 20:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Barbara La Marr

The Barbara La Marr article states that said actresss died from tuberculosis and nephritis, not "drug overdose". Maybe someone should check a reliable source to find out the actual cause of death and update both articles accordingly. °!° ANarc (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Scientist?

I'd call her more an engineer than a scientist. Her work was in applied sciences, not the theoretical. 192.91.173.36 (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I would call her a scientist, as biologists and chemists work in both applied and theoretical fields. From Webster's New World Dictionary: Scientist n. 1. a specialist in science, as in biology, chemistry, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

What do reliable sources call her? (Hohum ^@) 00:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources? The best I can figure is "inventor" although that is non-specific nomination. So far as I can tell she has no science or engineering training (formal or otherwise). Smidoid (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

"Mathematician"?

Why? only because she studied some egineering? This needs evidence or references.

"Mathematician" should be removed unless there is some more evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.183.84 (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with this. There is no reference to her college education, without which is hard to be labelled a mathematician. I've looked around a little and found no basis for the label. (Onzie9 (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC))

I also agree. There is no mention of her mathematical ability in the linked blog article that supposedly supports this. The only references to her education I have found online are for ballet school and drama school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.89.180 (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd love to believe that she was a talented mathematician but although there is "common knowledge" there are no reliable sources. Is there anything in Hedy's Folly (ref)hedy's folly(/ref) which seems a potential source? Although that also lays the discovery of frequency hopping at her door too - which is (from my research so far) a fallacy. Smidoid (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Prior Art

The sentence

"Similar patents had been granted to others earlier, like in Germany in 1935 to Telefunken engineers Paul Kotowski and Kurt Dannehl who also received U.S. patent 2,158,662 and U.S. patent 2,211,132 in 1939 and 1940."

was added in this edit in 2007. It was uncited and appears to be original research. Those patents refer to secret communications via masking on a single frequency, and are unrelated to frequency hopping. I don't think they're applicable in this article. Relaxing (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Children

When were her children born? They are referenced in her biography, but only in passing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aschwa5 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Corel Art

" in tribute to her pre-computer scientific discoveries. These pictures were winners in CorelDRAW's yearly software suite cover design contests."

The statements about the nature of the Corel art are incorrect. They were not used as a tribute, they were used because John Corkery won a contest in 1996. The plural of pictures/winners is also incorrect.

Since this is all original research, I can't post it and would need to be corroborated. I won the Corel Channel Partner Contest that year (1996) and was in Ottawa when that art won (October). http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3773896/CorelContest1996.pdf here's some of my documents from the event. Every month, Corel had a magazine where people would submit their vector artwork. The winner for each month would get several thousand dollars worth of prizes (I got the same prize package - software, photo libraries, a dye sub printer, cash, trip to ottawa for the big awards ceremony). At the awards, all the artwork was on display and there was judging on the best, with that winner getting a lot more prizes as well as the cover of the . From a distance, when people saw the Hedy image, they assumed it was pixel based and that's why it won. To date, most vector art was logo work or illustration or technical, so for Corel, it was pretty ground breaking for the time, kind of the opposite of Vexel art. As part of that prize package, the winner's art would go on the next software release (v.8, v.7 being announced at the event).

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/1998/11/16544 http://www.linkedin.com/in/jcorkery - the Artist who did it

MikeSims (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It isn't original research. Your link to Wired backs up your remarks, and I made the changes you suggested. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

'Mathematically talented?'

There doesn't seem to be any evidence for or discussion of her mathematical qualifications and abilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.188.194 (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it unless anyone can source reliable information to support this assertion it has no place here. Smidoid (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The "IDEA", What idea?

The Frequency-hopping spread-spectrum invention is an invention but nowhere in the wikipedia is clear what was her idea to this invention. What was the original invention, the invention at that time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.166.138 (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2013

Please sign entries using four tildes. Please write clearly, so we can understand your question. David Spector (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

See also {{unsignedip2}}. Please WP:DONTBITE newbies doing a passable job of being clear.

In my opinion, Ms. Lamarr's contribution, and key innovation, was the "aha" insight of applying automatic tone sequencing technology of the period (piano rolls) to synchronized automatic pseudorandom sequencing of both radio transmitter tuning and radio receiver tuning. In my opinion, if she had not known Antheil, who experimented with piano roll mechanisms, she may still have had the idea, but later. --Lexein (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how to correct the reference to the EFF award (excuse my ignorance, I'm old) but the EFF link has moved to here. http://w2.eff.org/awards/pioneer/1997.php Reading the award nomination (and speaking to the man who made it) there's no evidence that the EFF actually researched their award and simply handed it out based on his well worded recommendation - and the fact that he (Dave Hughes) was a past winner (argument from authority?) I'm guessing the embarrassment that the EFF would feel at realising that mistake would be staggering - but a mistake is what it appears to be. Not as deliberate as the MMR debacle started in the Lancet. One of the striking remarks is in the press release ″"The special award for Lamarr and Antheil is remarkable for other reasons besides its recognition of a woman whose contributions were thought to be solely in the field of entertainment," Godwin said. Partly this is because Lamarr and Antheil had hoped that the military applications of their invention would play a role in the defeat of Nazi Germany. "Ironically," Godwin said, "this tool they developed to defend democracy half a century ago promises to extend democracy in the 21st century."″ I've spoken to Dave (he's 85 now) and remarkably sharp for his years (despite his protestations otherwise) and still insightful. But, and call me a cynic, I can't separate in my mind the potential that he wanted to celebrate Lamarr for reasons other than her "contributions" to engineering. This is one of the two primary sources of information or misinformation which attributes so much of this tech to Lamarr/Antheil - despite an emerging and fairly strong body of evidence that what they did was re-invent an existing wheel. I think the reason this story is so invasive (like a real meme) despite being questionable is that Lamarr was so beautiful. People want to believe that this stunning actress was something that she... well... might not have been. I think if Barbara Cartland had been as stunning, we'd be having this argument over her inventing a glider... which, amazing as that sounds - she has a far better claim to than anything Lamarr does. See this (never mind the shocking pink): http://www.barbaracartland.com/static/life.aspx?from=1 Smidoid (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Another smoking gun (this one unearthed (?) by Tony Rothman) http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~trothman/Zenneck_secrecy.pdf - I think unquestionably destroys ANY claim to spread spectrum invented post 1916. Smidoid (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be conflating "frequency shifting spread spectrum" with simple "frequency shifting" which is a common mistake in all of the sources. It looks like you've battling this for a while, but the claim wasn't originally that Hedy Lamarr invented the bare concept of "frequency hopping"; it's that she co-invented a workable way to eliminate the need for two humans from those communications using frequency-hopping, in a way that devices could be synced. It's the difference between inventing chess and inventing a machine that can play chess. People had suggested using frequency shifting as a cipher code for communication, but not to securely control remote devices, without using the human voice. That's why it was significant technologically and not simple "re-invention". Spread spectrum doesn't just mean varying the frequency, between two humans manually adjusting a crypto-key, it means automating the crypo-key itself, in sync between devices. SIGSALY used a similar method for communication stations (using wax records instead of piano player rolls) as Lamarr/Antheil but they worked on theirs 1942/1943, and Lamarr/Antheil filed for their patent in 1941. Hedy Lamarr didn't invent the concept of frequency shifting any more than Samuel Morse invented the idea of the cypher, but she's still arguably the first person who suggested workable spread spectrum as we know it today. __ E L A Q U E A T E 10:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty clear in Zenneck's 1915 book, page 331 (English edition) (ref)http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~trothman/Zenneck_secrecy.pdf(/ref) "Furthermore the apparatus can be so arranged that the wavelength is easily and rapidly changed in accordance with a pre-arranged program, perhaps automatically." That even Telefunken had tried such a device and it's known that the German military used such a device on in the 1914-18 war. Not only does this (to me as a layman in the field) invalidate the claim, (predating it by at least 20 years) but it also begs the question of if Lamarr even had the idea at all. Lamarr, you will recall, was married to a German ams manufacturer and was present at meetings with high-level officials. Given that Telefunken was immutably German(ref)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telefunken(/ref) as was Zenneck (ref)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Zenneck(/ref) it's highly likely this technology was widely known to the German military and its contractors. This might explain why Zenneck didn't apply for a patent. It's pretty clear from the recorded (by witnesses) discussions between Lamarr, that it was Antheil that created the device. Given the prior art I've cited (ref the automated system) it's pretty clear this patent was just a branch of the technology and not an inventive step.Smidoid (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Clouds of speculation; you're jumping from one guess to another. You're going beyond the question of what ideas were interesting to claiming things you can't know. For instance it's not clear that Antheil "created the device"; this is just seems like a wild smear. You're also mixing up a bunch of similar technologies as if they're the same thing. I don't see your "highly likely" and "pretty clear" conclusion-jumps as being supportable. Like I said frequency shifting isn't the only thing that makes up FHSS__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Lamarr herself, said that Antheil created the device (see the Stars and Stripes interview) (ref)http://patentlawcenter.pli.edu/2011/12/05/the-truth-about-hedy-lamarr/(/ref). It's also quite specific in the 1915 reference which I have quote that the process of automated channel "hopping" within a band was invented by or before 1915 by Zenneck or Telefunken. This isn't speculation - it's in the freely available documentation that we have available. Issac Pacht questioned Lamarr's integrity (in court) when she lost her case. "[Her] reputation for morality, integrity and honest dealing was an is notoriously bad." (ref)http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1817&dat=19660927&id=73ohAAAAIBAJ&sjid=SooFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4084,4060061(/ref) This isn't an argument about conflating similar or dissimilar technologies - the question is about patents. The fact that the Germans had long since invented automatic frequency shifting is prior art that would (today) invalidate a claim such as described in that patent. It's notable (if not a smoking gun) that the Lamarr/Antheil patent does not cite any previous patents or prior art. I'm not jumping to conclusions, I'm following a thread of evidence. Perhaps you would care to examine the patent and cross reference it with the pages I've cited and explain how there is a difference. It's interesting to note that CDMA (which Lamarr/Antheil are credited with creating) was discovered/invented "clean room" much later on and this patent is only cited because it was found as prior art. There's no question that the pair used a pre-programmed channel jumper to avoid a remote-controlled torpedo from being jammed; but to credit that with the invention of mobile phones, WIFI, etc. is simply ludicrous. Is it too much to ask for people to study my arguments rather than assuming I have some axe to grind?Smidoid (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

"I'm following a thread of evidence". Indeed, you are. Which is why you've been told that you are engaging in original research. Get it published elsewhere, and maybe we'll cite it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Whew....what a ride. 1. The Zenneck quote talks about the possibility of changing frequencies, with no method given for doing it. That's not inventing. The footnote about Telefunken is a claim from this textbook that they attempted it, no one in the world says they succeeded. 2. The claim that the Germans did it in WWI is from a book that is said to have other dodgy and conspiratorial theories about General Haig. If it's true that the Germans had a working method all along, why did they completely forget to use it during WWII? This sentence alone: The fact that the Germans had long since invented automatic frequency shifting makes it clear you're passing off speculation from a pop history as cold fact. 3. How is your assertion there was no prior art on the Lamarr/Antheil patent proof against them developing it? And CDMA is a distinct thing, it wasn't created by Lamarr/Antheil; it's a distinct communication method that sometimes incorporates Asynchronous Spread Spectrum in its delivery. Same as GPS which also relies on Spread Spectrum. Of course it was developed independently. and 4. I think you're basing most of your interpretation here on this fellow, probably a great guy who happens to have a failed stage play about Lamarr and Antheil. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'd come to my own conclusions about this long before I saw Tony Rothman's work - and I'm not the only one. The thing about prior art is quite succinct. There a lots of patents based on things that haven't been tested or are even possible - the fact that prior art wasn't doable right then doesn't stop it being prior art. Ironically, this is the leap that many make in crediting this patent with the later developments. My contention is not that the Lamar/Antheil patent exists (as it clearly does) but more that this invention had any affect at all on the subsequent development of CDMA or any of the other technologies. It is, I believe a fact recorded elsewhere, that CDMA was developed entirely without knowledge that the L/A patent even existed. The point is that this patent alone is credited with giving birth to technologies including (but not limited to) mobile phones and WiFi - which it clearly did not. Your point about Zeneck is correct - but that's also acknowledged by Lamar too: ref the Stars and Stripes article. So in by your contention, Lamarr didn't invent whatever that patent describes; Antheil did. Further, so far as I'm aware (an please, do give me a reference if I'm mistaken) Antheil NEVER actually produced a working solution either. A group of German researchers reached this conclusion too. But no matter, I'm going to see how the Germans used this tech in WWI although I expect they dropped in favour of the enigma machines.Smidoid (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

"So in by your contention"? What does that mean? It was co-invented. Both Lamarr and Antheil modestly gave more credit to each other on separate occasions. They also both signed the patent, so I don't know what you think that proves. I think you've moved deeper into fringe theory land. You're trying to simultaneously prove that it wasn't important and that she couldn't do it and other people did it first and you can prove it because it was such a super important discovery to the Germans. But I still I don't see where you've disproved that Sylvania and the Navy used the patent as a basis for 1950s and 1960s navy tech. That's the connection to actual physical application. I think you just need to convince people the Cuban Missle Crisis didn't happen. On a technical note, you keep conflating all frequency switching as FHSS. That's why you keep finding so many examples of it that aren't Spread Spectrum. And I agree that it's a too-common hyperbole to say all modern tech comes from one single origin, whether it's the wheel or the transistor or cypher methods. That doesn't mean the breakthroughs aren't significant. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

A lot of this is down to interpretation of what facts we do know. However, Wikipedia articles are not a place for conjecture (that is part of why there are talk pages). The only thing we can be certain of (and that's only as far as the patent goes) is that Lamarr/Antheil invented a jamming resistant torpedo guidance system. That's it. Lamarr was litigious, a thief whose honesty was questioned in court - a something that she didn't appear to challenge - or if she had, it's not recorded. These facts are not debatable. I never, at any point said it was uber important to the Germans. What I'm trying to demonstrate (and even other Wikipedia articles support this) is that call it what you will, this tech was invented separately on several occasions. Lamarr/Antheil's patent may or may not have influenced the later ones. What's significant is what is claimed on the main page:

• "She and composer George Antheil invented an early technique for spread spectrum communications and frequency hopping, necessary for wireless communication from the pre-computer age to the present day.[3][4][5]"

and

• "Lamarr's and Antheil's frequency-hopping idea serves as a basis for modern spread-spectrum communication technology, such as Bluetooth, COFDM (used in Wi-Fi network connections), and CDMA (used in some cordless and wireless telephones).[14] Blackwell, Martin, and Vernam's 1920 patent[15] seems to lay the communications groundwork for Kiesler and Antheil's patent, which employed the techniques in the autonomous control of torpedoes."

These quotes are more fringe interpretation of the known facts than anything I've suggested. Tony Rothman came to the same conclusions in 2003 - not as failed playwright, but in a book which I have referenced earlier and I do own a copy. I would also ask you keep your opinions about my ability to separate fact from fiction to yourself unless they are relevant to the discussion. As for the reference to "Sylvania and the Navy" - I never mentioned those references - although I was aware of them because - they're not in the article. David Hughes - who proposed Lamarr for the EFF award told me personally. As for conflating all this tech. I can only refer you back to Wikipedia as a ready reference - are you saying the Spread Spectrum(ref)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency-hopping_spread_spectrum(/ref) page is wrong? It seems to me that the basis of the technology (and I do have some background in radio) is to modulate the carrier frequency in pseudo-random jumps: synchronised at the transmitter and receiver. The changing of carrier frequency is frequency hopping and spread spectrum alluding to the way the carrier jumps around the associate frequency band. Manually tuning a receiver (to listen) or a transmitted (to jam) such a signal is extremely difficult as the whole process relies on resonant circuits to achieve the effect. As necessity is the mother of invention it's quite easy to see how these developments could be made quite separately; but I still remain convinced that we should stick to the facts that we know and remove these rather ludicrous leaps crediting Lamarr (alone - Antheil, despite being the one with a history of inventions, is almost always sidelined or left off). This is true going back to at least the 1997 press release from the EFF. I notice the article itself it getting even more bizarre - now she has an "... introduction to the field of applied science and the ground that nurtured her latent talent in the scientific field. [citation needed]" - funny that there's no citation on this one. I think it's interesting that we're told that she wanted to join the NIC but was told to sell War Bonds instead. This seems pretty sexist - but how would being a member of a professional body prevent her from selling War Bonds? Smidoid (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Order of accomplishments in lead

It looks like this edit changed the order of accomplishments in the lead to place the frequency hopping invention first, movie career second. Without meaning to discount the importance of science, I suggest that Lamarr is far more notable for her film career than her contributions to radio engineering, and that the preponderance of her life was spent in the field of acting. Right now the lead reads to me like "Lamarr filed one patent, got some award for it in 1997, and oh yeah was also one of the most famous film actresses of the Golden Age." The invention deserves mention; just perhaps not before the movie career. 2001:4898:80E0:EE43:0:0:0:5 (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed --Light show (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this has just happened again, and I suspect it will in the future. I can understand the sentiment of people wanting to change the order, given that the lead is about her looks and normally I would agree, but in this case the subject has been lauded as "the most beautiful woman in films" and this is what she is famous for. The quality judgments of our generation shouldn't be imposed on those of an earlier one - except by including recent references where people have re-appraised it. Btljs (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

If someone wants to re-work the acting section so it gives a little more (and due) weight to the full measure of her acting career (it wasn't just "looks" and Hollywood was filled with beautiful people that didn't achieve stardom), that would be fine. But she's most widely and frequently sourced as a Hollywood star and that should still be given first notice. Her acting work wasn't trivial. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

And again, over three-quarters of her bio is about her career as an incredibly accomplished and significant actor. The lead could be re-written to frame her acting career better, but it should still be given earlier prominence in the lead.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I've attempted a compromise on the lead. It's not accurate to say that being lauded as the most beautiful woman in film is what she's famous for. It certainly was, but that was in part due to the fact that her main invention was hidden by the government for decades. If you do a Google News search for "Hedy Lamarr" today, there are six English-language links on the front page. All of the linked articles discuss Lamarr as an inventor for a decent chunk of the article, and half reference her as both a beauty and an inventor in the title. One title is solely about her as an inventor and the last is solely about her as a "pin-up". (Later pages in the search show similar results.) Lamarr's reputation is no longer solely based on her films, but seems to be split equally between them and her inventions, on the basis of which she is now being held up as an example of a female inventor. It is likely that many people will come to the page after seeing Lamarr referenced in articles like CNN's recent 10 Female Scientists You Should Know. Therefore, the lead does need to showcase both equally, which it does not currently do. I've updated it to recognize our changing understanding of Lamarr by going roughly chronologically, but with the short list of her major films at the end. I also removed the Reinhardt quote, as it isn't important enough for the lead. Just like with any other entry, we need to incorporate new research into her life into her Wikipedia page. Soraciel (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You've taken a lead that was "half acting/half inventing" and increased the prominence of the inventing. I don't think this is an improvement. Every single source that talks about the patent takes the approach: "Did you know this successful actor famous for her involvement in Hollywood was also an inventor?" There is no source that says, "Did you know this famous inventor also happened to be in some movies?" __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree. IMO, about 90% of her overall notability is actually based on her Hollywood life as an actress. A quick look at the latest [http://www.amazon.com/Beautiful-Lamarr-Stephen-Michael-Shearer/dp/125004183X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1417396509&sr=8-3&keywords=Hedy+Lamarr bio in Amazon], Beautiful, includes good summaries by Publishers Weekly and Booklist, the two top reviewing sites for book dealers. Her invention is treated as noteworthy but secondary, so the lead should reflect the proper ratio, despite the article being heavier on the invention. Why don't we just enhance the career section or trim the invention section? And while we're at it, the tiny Early inventions section could be merged somewhere or demoted.--Light show (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

If you add up the lines in the three lead paragraphs, there are roughly four and a half lines each for the actress/inventor sections. Therefore, it is now roughly half acting/half inventing, and it wasn't before. Also, not all sources take the tack you describe. Websites about inventors (such as the National Inventors Hall of Fame) note that she was an actress, exactly as they note the day job of all inventors listed, but then goes straight into her technical accomplishments. That specific page doesn't say anything about her career as an actress other than introducing her as "Actress Hedy Lamarr... " The Early inventions sections does need more information added. I put it together quickly in an attempt to answer comments earlier on the talk page suggesting that Lamarr's scientific activities were confined to a single co-invention of arguable authenticity. Does anyone have more information on her stoplight invention? I didn't find a source that described it better than by saying it was "improved". Maybe it would be better to have a single section about inventions (named generically) that covers everything? Soraciel (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Soraciel, See WP:LEAD. A lead should reflect the article, not a Google search. She is most notable in the public's eye as being an actress, and a beautiful one at that. Yes, of course we need to cover the invention side of her life, but she will always be first thought of as an actress. Have a look at other encyclopaedias to see how they describe her, and you'll see actor/actress is the primary descriptor used about her. The article isn't the best we have, but at least it has a decent balance between the two sides of her life. - SchroCat (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Dual citizenship

The US Courts have allowed the maintainance of dual citizenship since 1952, see United_States_nationality_law#Dual_citizenship ("a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both. The mere fact he asserts the rights of one citizenship does not without more mean that he renounces the other" (Kawakita v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717) (1952). Since Lamarr was naturalized in 1953, it cannot be assumed that she renounced her Austrian citizenship, unless sourced. Skyerise (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Further, WP:OPENPARA does not say to use the longest-standing nationality, it says to use the nationality under which the subject first became notable. There is a reason for that: we almost always credit the birth nationality unless the subject moved as a child or started a second career after emigrating following a non-notable first career. Biographies are particularly prone to nationalistic hijacking. Americans seem always to come up with a reason to call the subject "American" even though the subject became notable before becoming an American. Technically, according to WP:OPENPARA, Lamarr should be identified as Austrian. "Austrian and American" is a barely acceptable compromise to prevent edit-warring over nationality, as was done with Charlize Theron. Preventing edit-warring should be our primary motivation here. Though crediting the country which nurtured the subject to achieve their initial notablity is a close second. Arguments for nationalistic hijacking (anything other than what OPENPARA says) are misguided at best and may be considered disruptive at worst. I request that Light show desist editing disruptively. Skyerise (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Finally, do not use false edit summaries to justify your edits. Most of Lamarr's active career occurred prior to her naturalization. She made 27 films during the period from 1930-1952, and only 4 films after 1953. That's 22 years as an Austrian and 5 years as an American. Plus her second notability for frequency-hopping spread-spectrum also took place while she was solely an Austrian citizen. She should be described solely as Austrian, which is what WP:OPENPARA requires here. Skyerise (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Her early notability came from her time in Germany and Czechoslovakia when she was 19, and not in Austria. Then she was in Hollywood, under studio contract. It was in Hollywood that she officially changed her name to Hedy Lamarr. I think her upbringing is important, but not more important than her greater life long identification. WP:OPENPARA is not law, and it allows sensible exceptions. Please stop saying that WP:OPENPARA insists on anything above editor consensus. Lamarr was not a mainstay of the Austrian theatre, and a mention of her main citizenship is more informative than it might be in other biographies. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone cares whether she's defined as an American or Austrian actress, they just want accuracy. As stated before, the MOS explains how her nationality as an actress should be defined:

In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable.

From the filmography, she made 5, mostly minor, films in Germany, and 26 in the U.S. She left Germany when she was about 23 and spent the next 50 years in the U.S. Citizenship is only a secondary factor in deciding if she should be considered an American actress, and your reliance on when she became a citizen is less relevant. She was clearly not "mainly notable" for her early career, so technically she would be defined as an American actress, and saying so is not "hijacking" or "disruptive" or based on "false summaries." Use guidelines, not some other actress as a reference. --Light show (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

And while we're completely free to ignore it as they operate independently, it's still somehow interesting to note that the German language Wikipedia page describes her as an Austrian-American. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Please note that it's not the country the subject worked in, it's the citizenship or nationality the subject held while they did the work. Just because Lamarr lived in the US and worked in the US film industry for years before becoming an American citizen did not change her Austrian nationality which she held while becoming notable in the US. She solely held Austrian citizenship when she became notable. Also, please note that "permanent resident" refers to a legal status, it does not refer to just living in a country while working. Sources are needed to show permanent resident status. This is rarely documented by biographers, who have the common sense to use the country of citizenship of which the subject is a national at least until they acquire another citizenship. Lamarr was an Austrian citizen for her whole life. Skyerise (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You want proof that she was not just an illegal alien? --Light show (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly not her whole life. You seem to have gone from saying you don't know whether she gave up her citizenship to saying she kept it for her whole life. To be precise, Lamarr wasn't even born in a politically stable or defined "Austria". And it's a little hard to believe that Lamarr should be considered pure Austrian, having fled the country many years before Austria was annexed by Nazi Germany. It's possible she was stateless for much of this period. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

And on a side note, you could try your arguments over at Arnold Schwarzenegger, a clearly documented case of a currently dual-citizenship actor born in Austria, which leads with "Austrian-born American actor" as well. He was naturalized over a decade after his first American movies and successes, too.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia defines geographical context as nationality, it is as simple as that. She is not an exceptional case in terms of that. Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that this one comment addresses all the points raised, or provides any sources that back up guesses about her "lifetime" nationality. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

What points? The only point you have tried to raise is 'screw MOS and work it out between ourselves'. Well, this is not entirely our call as Wikipedia, as every other encyclopedia, has standards so readers know what to expect. For instance, Estonian encyclopedias have a tradition of stating the ethnicity in the opening paragraph. This has the same relevance as your points about where she spent most of her life or what the German Wikipedia states in the lead. The MOS is there for a reason and only to be ignored when it is clearly irrelevant, which is not the case here. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The MOS is helpful, and is full of good guidance. It very rarely demands a single approach, and then only in narrow circumstance. There's a lot of conjecture about her legal citizenship status here, compared to many sources that describe her as Austrian-American. She wasn't known as Hedy Lamarr until she had abandoned Europe.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Neither her screen name or the sources have any relevance to her nationality. Sources that state her as Austrian-American refer to her ethnicity while we state the nationality. The only relevant source for that is her passport. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Jaan said, "Wikipedia defines geographical context as nationality". This is simply not true. Citizenship is the strongly preferred meaning of nationality and is therefore listed first at WP:OPENPARA. The further clarification "national .. of" strengthens this, "permanent resident" does not just mean "lived there", and all of this is qualified by the "when the person became notable". If you bother to read the associated talk page of WP:OPENPARA, you will find what the actual intent of the way this is worded was. I know, as I was involved in the discussions. To be short, the intent of OPENPARA is and has always been to credit the nationality (based on citizenship) of the person when they first became notable. It has never been "geographical context". That's something you just made up. Skyerise (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit of Lead

I have edited the lead with the intent of making it more concise and shorter. I have removed the flag on the article requesting a rewrite of the lead to better summarize the article. Feel free to comment or improve. Mdukas (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I rephrased a bit, but noticed many unnecessary citations, implying they're not already in the body, where they should be. The lead is just a summary, and unless something is quoted, cites aren't desired there per the MOS -lead. --Light show (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

needs total edit

IMO this article needs re-editing. There are errors. fi: She did not invent spread spectrum, frequency hopping was not used for torpedo's during WOII. Both errors are corrected further on in the article, but still remain in the lead and caption. Allso hearsay is reported as fact. I'm not a wiki writer myself, but do believe this article to need quite some work.94.214.169.209 (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Citation neeededYewneek-naim (talk) 01:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Many citations are missing from the claims already here. Tony Rothman does much to debunk the idea of FHSS [http://www.amazon.com/Everythings-Relative-Fables-Science-Technology/dp/0471202576] and other writers on this talk page have voiced similar concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smidoid (talk • contribs) 14:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits on this article mentioned in news

Recent edits done by new user AnotherNewAccount to this article are mentioned in news in "New Statesman". [2] He/she changed sequence of lead, he preferred stating Lamarr's acting profession before her invention, which is criticised by feminist. We should change the sequence of lead and should restore original version. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 13:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me? That New Statesman article was written some weeks before I started editing this article. I sorted the lede in rough chronological order of her life: she was a famous actress before she invented her frequency-hopping system. Notice the lede actually now has more text about the invention than the film career, as I think that is more interesting. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The revised lede is better balanced than it was before. I'm all in favor of recognizing Lamarr's inventing achievement, but she was better known during her lifetime for her acting, which remains her primary legacy. Overzealous posthumous hagiography would give WP:UNDUE emphasis to the one aspect of her career that happens to be most fashionable at this moment. Reify-tech (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Original Research?

Not wishing to sound like a broken record (an I know I do) but from what I can see the only reliable (and that's a dubious one) reference to the invention of Spread Spectrum seems to germinate from the patent. Some Wikipedians have reminded me about original research (which is fine) but I've done some fact checking on the references surrounding this and some if not all are at best questionable as to their reliability. The EFF award is a good case in point. No doubt the award was given but that doesn't actually prove anything and it was driven as much by a popularity contest as it was for some determined technical achievement. What does seem clear from some references is that Lamarr didn't know a hell of a lot about the invention that carried her name. She may have just being playing to the crowd of course - but that's my opinion. The published evidence is different. “Hedy modestly admitted she did only ‘creative work on the invention,’ while the composer and author, George Antheil, ‘did the really important chemical part.‘ Hedy was not too clear about how the device worked, but she remembered that she and Anthiel sat down on her living room rug and were using a silver match box with the matches simulating the wiring of the invented ‘thing.’" (ref) http://patentlawcenter.pli.edu/2011/12/05/the-truth-about-hedy-lamarr/#sthash.zZg1oT5H.dpuf"(/ref)

Did she really say that? Or did a journalist screw up? How does someone whom it is claimed, it smart enough to understand radio to this degree, make such an error? Antheil did the engineering - there are no "chemicals" or chemistry involved here. It's physics and engineering. Smidoid (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

This whole section needs a re write. Consider the following: Lamarr and Antheil discussed the fact that radio-controlled torpedoes, while important in the naval war, could easily be jammed by broadcasting interference at the frequency of the control signal, causing the torpedo to go off course.

World War II torpedoes were NOT radio controlled, most used inertial guidance in which the torpedo ran a preset course determined by gyroscopes that were set prior to it being fired (in other words, it was a "fire and forget" weapon). During the war Germany introduced wire guidance and acoustic homing, which is the method used by all modern torpedoes. In this case the torpedo remains physically connected to the launch platform via a wire which is used to transmit data between the two. Since water is relatively "opaque" to radio waves it is not possible to guide a submerged weapon with broadcast radio waves, and (obviously) also not possible to jam such broadcasts.

Whoever wrote this clearly has no idea what they are talking about. Lexington50 (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Turns out the person in question is whomever drafted the patent application (presumably Antheil) because these claims are contained therein. The writer is trying to provide an example of how the technology could be used but obviously has no practical understanding of how torpedoes actually work. This isn't directly relevant to the feasibility of the technology itself, which seems to be broadly based on exploiting frequency agility to avoid jamming, but it's important to note the specific approach described in the application involves the use of punched paper rolls (explicitly likened to those in a player piano) to achieve this. The claim in the article that "Lamarr's and Antheil's frequency-hopping idea served as a basis for modern spread-spectrum communication technology, such as Bluetooth, COFDM (used in Wi-Fi network connections), and CDMA (used in some cordless and wireless telephones)" implies that Lamarr and Antheil originated the concept, but there is no evidence of that. The specific method they describe in the patent was obviously not used in these technologies (or for that matter by the US Navy during the Cuban Missile Crisis) so there is no direct connection between the two. Lexington50 (talk) 08:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Finally we're getting somewhere. I became something of a "ignorant expert" on the subject as I read up on Lamar and then found corroboration from Professor Tony Rothman who had come to the same conclusion via a different route. Lamar has been accused of being a bit of a liar (to put it mildly). https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1817&dat=19660927&id=73ohAAAAIBAJ&sjid=SooFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4084,4060061&hl=en The big problem remains in challenging this belief is its become dogma, particularly among young Western women who see Lamar as a icon. The EFF would lose a LOT of face if they admitted as much and there are hundreds of articles (mostly written by women) making the same claim. I think it's Rothman who found that Tesla first patented the idea of channel swapping and there's suggestions that the Germans might have used the technique in WW1 to stop the allies snooping on their communications. Wikipedia is so often cited a source of this misinformation, it's time the information was removed because it's simply unverifiable. Smidoid (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Applied science?

Someone has suggested she had an interest in Applied Science - there's no reference to this. Can someone cite this or mark it up for citation? I know this is as popular as a French kiss at a family get-together, but there's a lot of fiction surrounding Lamarr and people seem to add whatever they feel to this to create some mystique. IF it's true, that's great, but if not... well you can see where I'm coming from. This news snippet (I wonder if the court record is available?) https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1817&dat=19660927&id=73ohAAAAIBAJ&sjid=SooFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4084,4060061&hl=en speaks volumes about her from people who heard her speak under oath and had access to the evidence. Smidoid (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2015

Under "Marriages and Relationships" item #2, there's an address listed, 2727 Benedict St, Los Angeles with source listed as Ancestry.com. This is near my house, and is a pretty run down, small house. If you look closely at the census document, the street is listed as Benedict DRIVE, and neighboring streets are Angelo Drive and Hillgrove Drive, which are both in Beverly Hills. The correct address is 2727 Benedict Canyon Drive in Beverly Hills, a much larger and grander house that makes more sense as a residence of one of the most famous movie stars of the time. Ddffgghhjj (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

patents

A paragraph here says the patent expired in 1962 and the patent was purchased in 1988. This should be clarified by someone smarter than I am. 73.180.172.84 (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Imbalanced sections for acting and inventing

After her move to the U.S., the sections covering her acting career and invention are out of balance. Her acting career takes up half as much text as the invention part, and much of that is due to the excessive technical details about the invention. There's already a separate article about that invention, so we should trim off some of the excess and maybe expand a bit on the film career. --Light show (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed --Light show (talk) 02:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Where is the guideline saying that the amount of textual content needs to reflect how much time a person spent doing specific activities? Why should text describing her inventions not be emphasised to the same extent as her acting career? Given MRA's have been known to target this article in the past, and given that you have chosen to emphasise the erotic content of one of her films with at least one very dubious source, I'm calling your edits in bad faith.

I'll be reverting them unless you have a reasonable explanation. --mjog (talk) 08:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The article now includes an equal amount of text devoted to her acting and invention. And I'm not sure what you mean about emphasizing erotic content. Have you read the revised article? What changes are you suggesting? --Light show (talk) 08:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Mjog: WP:SUMMARY. Also, WP:WEIGHT, as a lot more has been written about her acting career. Please also review our policy on assuming good faith as assuming that this is the start of some sort of effort to libel fails to assume the best of other editors. VQuakr (talk) 08:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Considering someone has deleted what was once a very long talk page discussion on this very topic, it's hard not to worry about bad faith edits.Soraciel (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Irrelevant content

There's a sentence, "Between 1939 and the end of World War II in 1945, 3,500 merchant vessels and 175 warships were sunk by German submarines, with 36,200 Allied sailors killed at sea," that seems wholly irrelevant to the topic. German U-boats would not have been defeated or deterred by adopting Lamarrr's invention. 68.174.231.23 (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

This article made the Top 25 Report

This article topped the Wikipedia:Top 25 Report with 2,744,601 views for the week November 8 to 14, 2015. There was a Google Doodle celebrating Lamarr's birthday on November 9, 2015. Congratulations to the editors of this article for the exposure of their work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  16:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect and unsourced info in the Lede

The fourth paragraph of the lede suggests that Lamarr implemented a radio system when in fact she only came up with the idea and patented it. There is no indication a practical implementation (for torpedos or anything else) was implemented by her. Also, frequency hopping and spread spectrum are not the same thing. She independently came up with frequency hopping but that is not synonymous with spread spectrum. Also note several other people independently had the idea for spread spectrum as noted in the wikipedia article Frequency-hopping spread spectrum, And none of that is in the source cited for the sentence. The only thing mentioned is frequency hopping. I put a dubious tag on this but it was removed. The claim in the sentence is not totally untrue, it is just too broad and includes details that are unsupported. Add a source for Lamarr inventing spread-spectrum and for her practical implementation of her design and patent. Also, I don't think a bio snippet from an award press release is really the best source for the info that is there. Klaun (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense. Just rephrase the lede sentences to more accurately summarize the sourced details in the body text.--Light show (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily in disagreement with the aforementioned point; however the resulting text is too detail-heavy for a lede. Plus it ends up with invention claim controversy a central feature about an otherwise extraordinary acting career - I think that this is hardly the case. The invention claim should be toned down in the lede, with some short caveat that points to the main body discussion. I don't really have the time to fix this right now - maybe someone else could? -Wormcast (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

"modern GPS" and more untrue?

"the principles of their work are now incorporated into modern GPS, Wi-Fi, CDMA and Bluetooth technology" is probably giving to much credit. It seems the claims in the article (and elsewhere maybe) are based on her inventing spread spectrum (or maybe anything remotely connected to wireless..).

She made a discovery (or part of) that is now called frequency-hopping spread spectrum; that is one way of doing spread spectrum; another of the major ways is direct-sequence spread spectrum (I happened to work with one of the first devices; at the time thought better than frequency hopping; turned out direct-sequence lost out in the end; probably wasn't better..) works very differently, just with a shared goal:

"the GPS signal has a carrier. It is a spread spectrum carrier, but it provides the features of a carrier and can be used to make carrier phase measurements for additional GPS accuracy or other purposes. The easiest version to understand the concept is probably the frequency hopping scheme. Oversimplified [..] In direct sequence SS, the frequency change of the carrier is continuous rather than discrete steps. That is, instead of jumping from channel http://gpsinformation.net/main/gpscarrier.htm"[3] My reading is that frequency-hopping isn't used; just to explain as it's easier to understand.

Some standards when improved in later versions have gone from using DSSS to FHSS (or maybe in other direction?); or at least a modified version of. I believe this does not apply to GPS, as it may be non-trivial to update all the satellites and millions of GPS devices on earth (and probably not a good reason to do, as the system just works..(?) ); this is done in other contexts where you need to get more effective use of bandwidth.

"Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS) is a method of transmitting radio signals by rapidly switching a carrier among many frequency channels, [..] A sub-type of FHSS used in Bluetooth wireless data transfer is adaptive frequency hopping spread spectrum (AFH). [..]

Multiple inventors

Perhaps the earliest mention of frequency hopping in the open literature [in a book in 1915, when she was one years old]

A Polish engineer and inventor, Leonard Danilewicz, came up with the idea in 1929.[2] Several other patents were taken out in the 1930s, including one by Willem Broertjes (U.S. Patent 1,869,659, issued Aug. 2, 1932).

During World War II, the US Army Signal Corps was inventing a communication system called SIGSALY, which incorporated spread spectrum in a single frequency context. However, SIGSALY was a top-secret communications system, so its existence did not become known until the 1980s.

The most celebrated invention of frequency hopping was a patent awarded to actress Hedy Lamarr and composer George Antheil, who in 1942 received U.S. patent 2,292,387 for their "Secret Communications System". This intended early version of frequency hopping was supposed to use a piano-roll to change among 88 frequencies

[..] Adaptive Frequency-hopping spread spectrum (AFH) (as used in Bluetooth) improves resistance to radio frequency interference by avoiding crowded frequencies in the hopping sequence. This sort of adaptive transmission is easier to implement with FHSS than with DSSS." comp.arch (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeh I somewhat agree, frequency hopping or spread spectrum signals have little to nothing to do with WiFi, CDMA, GPS, or Bluetooth. In fact CDMA has nothing to do with security, and Wifi/Bluetooth use fixed frequencies to broadcast. I could begin citing basically every Tanenbaum text-book and networking text to assert this but I'd rather not have to. 86.40.19.94 (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to cite themselves if they've been published somewhere with the relevant details. But we can't just delete cited text based on OR or personal knowledge. A source stating or contradicting text can be added easily, so readers get the full picture. Journalists, authors, even experts, can publish wrong facts. --Light show (talk) 03:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Though I know nothing about wireless technology I agree that this is an extremely bold claim that makes it sound as if she's the forerunner of all the aforementioned technologies when, according to the article body, all she did was think coming up with some way to more stealthily jam torpedo signals would be a good idea. This really needs to be discussed more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HBBorges (talk • contribs) 06:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@HBBorges: Have you read the supporting citations? I should think that Electronic Frontier Foundation, New Scientist, Wired, The New York Times, & the National Inventors Hall of Fame acknowledgement of her & George Antheil's work & their inclusion in the spread spectrum and frequency hopping articles should put all doubt about the value of their work to rest. But maybe y'all require some additional reading.

• Geier, James (2001). Wireless LANs. Indianapolis, IN: Sams. pp. 50–51. ISBN 9780768657746. OCLC 56100400. In the 1950s, Sylvania began experimenting with frequency hopping, using newly developed digital components in place of the initial mechanical system. By then, Lamarr and Antheil's patent had expired. Sylvania, under contract with the U.S. Navy, utilized spread spectrum for the first time on ships sent to blockade Cuba in 1962. In the mid-1980s, the U.S. military declassified spread spectrum technology, and commercial companies began to exploit it for consumer electronics. Of course, today the technology is a key modulation technique that the IEEE 802.11 standard specifies.
• Johnson, Hillary (2013-05-19). "The most beautiful inventor in the world". Medium. Retrieved 2018-04-11. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) See comments by George Zysman, Lucent Technologies’ CTO in 2001
• Christiansen, Donald (April 2012). "From Film Star to Frequency-Hopping Inventor". IEEE. Retrieved 2018-04-11. Robert Price, chief scientist at M/A-COM Linkabit, for a 1983 paper had interviewed Hedy and concluded that the invention was probably more than a score of years ahead of its time. In a 1984 IEEE Spectrum article, Price is quoted as saying he found the invention to be "complete in its potent anti-jamming concept even before Pearl Harbor." {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

While she may not have been the only or earliest contributor to the technology, I think that there are plenty of citations that verify the value of her work. Is there anyone who has citations that seriously question Lamarr's contributions to spread spectrum & frequency hopping? Or are most of the doubts expressed here essentially WP:OR? I am essentially challenging all doubters to "put up or shut up" with regards to sources.

Peaceray (talk) 09:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I should've worded it differently. I don't doubt she had a hand in contributing to those technologies. What I most contend with is the claim that "the principles of their work are arguably incorporated into Bluetooth technology, and are similar to methods used in legacy versions of CDMA and Wi-Fi" which is something I think other users who are well versed in those topics such as the one above should discuss more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HBBorges (talk • contribs) 19:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hedy Lamarr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071016063043/http://w2.eff.org/awards/pioneer/1997.php to http://w2.eff.org/awards/pioneer/1997.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140523211914/http://invent.org/inductees/markey-hedy/ to http://invent.org/inductees/markey-hedy/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100609171612/http://www.inventions.org/culture/female/lamarr.html to http://www.inventions.org/culture/female/lamarr.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hedy Lamarr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160410084732/http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/nic/nic_LamarrNYT.pdf to http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/nic/nic_LamarrNYT.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't like photos, don't like lack of focus on invention

Derailed discussion

You make her look like a slut. She had an intensive career and work in invention, and even had something burned into her eye at one point for her work. I don't think this is appropriate. It's completely disrespectful misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B1CB:4CE0:5D7E:3580:810F:D2D2 (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC) Hedy Lamarr was primarily known as an actress in erotically charged roles. This is a publicity shot. Let's not revise history by subsuming yesterday's mores with today's values. Lamarr celebrated both her sexuality & her intelligence. Let's not engage in slut-shaming around her eroticism. Peaceray (talk) 06:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC) These complaints are baseless, unspecific and derogatory. I'll wrap them in collapse tags. If you have a complaint against a specific picture, Unsigned IP, and can provide a specific rationale let us by all means discuss that. But just throwing around words like "slut" isn't going to end well. Likewise, feel free to start a discussion on the article's focus (or lack thereof) on her scientific achievements - but not like this. CapnZapp (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC) By the way, Peaceray's response isn't much better; the original poster wasn't discussing "yesterday's mores" and there's no need to inflame the allegations. Hopefully my action allows everyone to see the wisdom in me asking everyone to start new discussion sections, this time polite, calm, neutral ones. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Revert

@CapnZapp:, please have in mind that Austria-Hungary is not Austria, the Cisleithania article deals with the Austria between 1867-1918, hence you revert was unnecessary and the result is the same way inaccurate, like the former revert, however, with that user I already discussed the situation. If you are not completely familiar with the situation, please analyze the mentioned articles detailed. Also have in mind, that every Austrian subject in this timeline in case of linking is already or will be linked there, following a common practise in WP regarding infoboxes.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC))

Our previous discussion regarded Lamarr's citizenships (and lack thereof), in particular the fact that she became stateless in 1938 due to the Anschluss and the subsequent implementation of the Nuremberg Laws in Austria, as well as the nature of her citizenships during the Austrian monarchy and various republics prior to the Anschluss. We eventually settled for "Austrian (1914−1938)" and "Stateless (1938−1953)" as to not take up too much space. However, "Austrian-born" linking to the modern-day Second Austrian Republic is completely inaccurate, which is why I changed it to Austria-Hungary. I suppose Cisleithania would also be technically correct, though more contrary to WP:SURPRISE, as noted by another editor. Iroh (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Since Austria-Hungary was monarchy of two states, and Austro-Hungarian citizenship did not exist, and we know she was for a time an Austrian citizen, only the Cisleithania article covers the period of the Austrian Empire from 1867 onwards (earlier also for this period Austrian Empire has been linked, but an admin told me about the timespan of the corresponding article that is not deidicated longer period). After 1918 the Republic of German-Austria (unrecognized state) and after the First Austrian Republic (recognized) follows. Hence, in the framework of WP, between 1867-1918 Cisleithania may only be linked concerning Austria, as it is as well backed by the reliable sources in the already mentioned articles. Moreover, since years Cisleithania is used for linking Austria that period, it has nothing to with EASTEREGG, but very possibly the users did not met with this in other related articles and/or did not have thorough experience with this subject...(KIENGIR (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC))

You are pushing a POV about citizenship for which no concept exists. I searched for "Cisleithanian" in categories. There is no "People of Cisleithanian descent" or "People from Cisleithania".

The Austria-Hungary or Hungary articles may not represent the history as you would like. But any Wikilink marked Hungary should go to Hungary and the corresponding should hold true for Austria-Hungary. I have seen no reference to Cisleithania nationality or citizenship, so leave Cisleithania out the picture please. Do not use [ [Cisleithania|Austria] ] as it is deceptive, whatever your reasoning. Peaceray (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Peaceray:,

No, sorry, I am not POV pushing anything, you are recurrently misinterpreting the things and on the contrary, you are pushing a fixa idea that is because of lack of expertise knowledge on the subject.

- First of all WP categories are rapidly changing and many of them are inaccurate, they are repaired on and on, on the the other hand, I asked you to analyze current articles and anyway not any categories based on your own (original) research that anyway would not be decisive.

- The Austria-Hungary or Hungary articles may not represent the history as you would like -> nope, you did not made a proper analysis, let's see what you missed:

Austria-Hungary article ->

- The Habsburg monarch ruled as Emperor of Austria over the western and northern half of the country that was the Austrian Empire ("Lands Represented in the Imperial Council", or Cisleithania)

- The division between Austria and Hungary was so marked that there was no common citizenship: one was either an Austrian citizen or a Hungarian citizen, never both.

Any wikilink on Hungary i.e. will be always decided which timeline it refers, it cannot be just substituted with Austria-Hungary. It may be Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867), or Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301) etc. For Austria-Hungary, it is substitutable with Kingdom of Hungary or Transleithania if it is about Hungary, and Cisleithania if it matters Austria regarding locations, regarding national affiliations/citizenship not, since Austro-Hungarian nationality and citizenship never existed in world history. And again nobody spoke about Cisleithania nationality or citizenship, it is only your invention and it is a huge surprise you still insist on something that I as well explained to you in my talk page being fallacious assumptions. As you may see Cisleithania is equivavent with the Austrian Empire between 1867-1918, and since Wikipeda has only this page covering Austria solely in this period, this is the proper linking as it is done also regarding other subjects/citizens of Austria that time.

"as it is deceptive, whatever your reasoning" (and also regarding your edit log, that contains the recurrent fallacy of yours) I have to warn you to adhere WP:AGF, I don't deceive anyone, but I am one of the most accurate and professional editors in the field in the topic with many years with heavy experience, so I kindly ask you to change your tone and calm down! Just because you did not know so far that Cisleithania is equivalent with Austria, it does mean you may ignore facts, reliable sources and the professional reasoning behind that.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: You have failed to explain why [ [Cisleithania|Austria] ] is not deceptive. You are displaying a label for one article & directing the user to another. I am not saying that your intent was bad (in this I do AGF), but I am simply pointing out that it is deceptive in practice. Now that I have read your quote about the Hapsburg monarch ruling as the Emperor of Austria, & read it in the context of the article, I do not understand why we do not simply say that Hedy Lamarr was Austrian-born. She was born in the Empire of Austria, so why should we confuse people by labeling a link Austria & going to Cisleithania? To me it is like saying because the colonies of Delaware & Pennsylvania had a joint government from the time of William Penn until 1701, if someone was born in New Castle County at the time we should be wikilinking them as "[ [New Castle County|Delaware] ]-born". To me, that is an absurdity. Peaceray (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, "X-born" usually relates not to citizenship, but to country or physical location. Hedy Lamarr was born in Vienna, Cisleithania, Austria-Hungary. In my opinion, simply writing "Austrian-born" and linking to Austria-Hungary would be the most straightforward option. Cisleithania is rather obscure and in this instance unnessecary, and Austria (as a geographical entity) is too well known to be linked to at all (and, as I have already mentioned, could be mistaken for modern-day Austria as a political entity). Perhaps "Viennese-born" would be another option, though I am not sure whether that would be in line with WP policy. (For the record, when I wrote "various republics" above, I also referred to the Federal State of Austria, of which she was a citizen between 1934 and 1938.) Iroh (talk) 06:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The very first thing the Cisleithania article states is "Cisleithania was a common yet unofficial denotation". Case closed. CapnZapp (talk) 07:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

+1. Unofficial denotations should not be applied to this context. Iroh (talk) 07:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Peaceray:,

I did not fail to explain why it is not deceptive, it should be obvious so far given so many clues for you, and as well your pointing out to be deceptive is really something, it is clear you don't have much experience in many articles about historical linkings, that many users apply since many-many years....(and I don't continue here since I would be just pinpoint and support my astonishment of your approach with tons of proofs contra)

So again: Linking -> [accurate connected WP article|denomination], where denomination is simple, that means we do not write i.e. "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"-born, but "British-born", as we won't write "Cisleithanian/Lands Represented in the Imperial Council"-born or "Kingdom of Hungary"-born, but "Austrian-born" or "Hungarian-born", shall it be anytime British, Austrian or Hungarian state in any timeline or era. accurate connected WP article -> linking that article the corresponds of the state of inlcuding the timline of the subjects birth (as per examples above, I don't list it them since it is obvious)

Since, by earlier administrator notice the Austrian Empire article scope and span ends in 1867, it cannot be linked to a subject born later. As I explained already, the article Cisleithania deals with the Austrian Empire between 1867-1918, hence that is the accurate linking (as I also listed other articles after 1918 concerning Austria, meaning those will be linked subject on later timelines, as subjects before 1804 Archduchy of Austria will be linked if its about national affiliation/place of birth), etc.

Austrian-born is linked with present-day Austria, she was not born in present-day Austria, anyland [[country]] is time-invariantly reflecting the present country with status quo.

Your example with Unites States I don't see comparable, since the scope is about international countries/states, not internal US affairs.

She was born in the Empire of Austria, so why should we confuse people by labeling a link Austria & going to Cisleithania? -> As just explained and demonsrated, multiple times earlier...The Empire of Austria is identical/synonimous/equivalent with Cisleithania, and this article in WP deals with it between 1867-1918, and the subject was born in 1914. Hence the linked article's title is irrelevant anyway - that is a different issue - since any title it may have, if it deals with the Austrian state between the corresponding timeline. (if you don't like, make a consensus to extend the Austrian Empire article's scope further etc., until then this is the only article suitable)

@General Iroh, the Dragon of the West:,

"X-born", usually relates to the country the subject was born, and in the vast majority of cases also aquires automatically the citizenship of it, but what is relevant here and the issue about we speaking is the country of birth primarily.

In my opinion, simply writing "Austrian-born" and linking to Austria-Hungary would be the most straightforward option. -> false approach, since Austria-Hungary is not Austria, and not even a country, but a monarchy, anyway we don't use such inaccurate linkings. As long as it is written Austrian-born, it should link to an Austrian state...(your further concluison and care are ok, but the in the lead we use the country of birth, not the city of birth)

Cisleithania is rather obscure and in this instance unnessecary -> It cannot be since this is the only WP article of the country of Austria the time of the subject's birth, just because the article's title bothers you is not an argument.

@CapnZapp:,

no, the case is not closed, please do not confuse the article title's with the usage of the title, the two is not the same. In the English Wikipedia i.e. Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301) denotes the Hungarian state between a current timeline, but Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301) has never been the official name of the state. Similarly, the Austrian Empire's official name was Kaisertum Österreich, etc. The fact the in the English WP the Austrian state is covered between 1867-1918 by the Cisleithania article has not any connection to the official name, as majority if the articles in the English WP (like Soviet Union, Nazi Germany up to the infinite...Dragon of the West, should we unlink hundreds of thousands of articles in the English WP because the article titles does not follow official names? Naming issues are a different issues, and again since any linked article is not visible to the reader, but only it's denomination, it is out of scope of this discussion.)(KIENGIR (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC))

You pinged me, but I don't have anything to add. CapnZapp (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I see - it just reinforce the things I reflected.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: You have failed to convince me (or any other respondent at this point) in any way that the obscure Cisleithania should be considered as the "country" that it never was & thus the country of Hedy Lamarr's birth. Therefore [ [Cisleithania|Austria] ] would be deceptive in a way that [ [Austria-Hungary|Austria] ] is not, & a WP:SURPRISE as well. My advice to you would be to review the WP:SNOWBALL, WP:MINORITY, & Wikipedia:Minority viewpoints, and then to move on. You could be doing much more useful editing than continuously flogging a dead horse. Peaceray (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Peaceray:,

Sorry, convincing you is a personal point of yours, apart from that a succesfully demonstrated in the framework of WP in accordance with all rules and long time practise the flawless validity of my argumentation (contrary to yours, that all the time failed in the end, even regarding basic and everyday usuall appliances on the subject and the broader field). Futhermore:

obscure Cisleithania -> your personal opinion

as the "country" that it never was & thus the country of Hedy Lamarr's birth. -> False and against reliable sources and facts, the Austrian Empire (or Cistleithania) was a country, the Austrian state, one of the constituent component of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy

Therefore, your personal conclusion is - that is the repeat of your anyway disproved inference - is as well the same way fallacious, nothing to do with WP:SURPRISE, since it is also in broader term a long practise in Wikipedia

Last but not least, the listed WP policies you advised to me ro review (anyway I know all them) has not any connection of the happenings here - anyway you and a recently two editors apparently lack of relevant experience and knowlegde in this field - is unfortunately looking a deterioration from the point, that your argumentation is failed and and also now instead of acknowledging, you repeated an already disproved argument (and it gives much concern you deny the existence of the Austrian state in that period).

Hence my advice is to you:

- it is not a shame if somebody is not qualified enough in special subject, that's why we do discussions, and because someone is reflecting, correcting, enlighting others of a mistake or false inference regarding that is not a continous flogging a dead horse i.e. - a lame excuse from you to quit from the discussion - as this is the normal procedure of talk page discussions. (As in case if I do a mistake or don't know anything of something, or don't know properly, I won't get hurt but learn from it)

- Unfortunetaly your stance here is typically the case of Wikipedia:I just don't like it, since again to my recent answer you could not do any reaction, just repeating an already disproved POV of yours. (and really you should not approach this issue because of any possible pride of not acknowledging your mistakes)

As a conclusion, according to the rules you may here in this page oppose that particular linking, but in reality you don't achieve anything, but making the article less accurate (though, even the current linking has no consensus and if the proper solution is not supported, will be better unlinked.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: some points:

• I may not be an expert on Austrian history, but I do know how to read. There is no mention in the Cisleithanian article of being a distinct country, let alone being its own state or nation. Thus there is no verification of this.
• You have not offered a single citation that Cistleithania is a state or nation. Therefore, your arguments are what I consider original research & against Wikipedia policy.
• Regardless of how I feel, you have not gotten consensus. Consensus is a Wikipedia policy. Where are the other Cisleithanian editors? I see no one else arguing that Cistleithania is a state or nation.

You style yourself as a subject matter expert, but all that I perceive is you portraying your sole opinion as fact. Until you present citations & have other Cistleithania editors agreeing with you, & I see the requisite verified changes in the Cisleithanian article to reflect its (alleged) nation-state status, your arguments are unimportant to me.

Look, you have made many of thousands of edits. I have not encountered your work until now, but I assume that you have done good work. In the future, please provide verification of your claims from reliable sources, get consensus, & avoid original research.

Peaceray (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

 Note: Consensus is spelled with an "s". Yes, WP:CONCENSUS works, but that's only because somebody thought it would be helpful to encourage misspellings. Cheers! CapnZapp (talk) 07:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Peaceray, please note: KIENGIR isn't claiming Cistleithania is a nation (not prominently at least). He's claiming Cisleithania is the best/proper article to link to for citizenship; that it is the only/main article covering the country/nation/citizenship during the time Lamarr lived there. (Just pointing out you're confronting him on a different issue). Cheers! CapnZapp (talk) 07:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@CapnZapp:,

Thank for you comment, unfortunately @Peaceray: still ignoring the details of the discussion and the point what you already grasped, and unfortunately he stated many thing that are incorrect:

There is no mention in the Cisleithanian article of being a distinct country' -> Please reiterate the material I already cited from the Austria-Hungary article, the monarchy was composed from two states, the Austrian Empire (also referred as Cisleithania) and the Kingdom of Hungary (also referred as Transleithania). The other material a cited in again proves that there was no common citizenship, a subject was Austrian, or Hungarian citizen of the respective states. For this you don't even have to be an expert, this is the minimum knowlegde of the subject nobody debates. WP:V exist in the article which is sourced and you ignore.

I have to inform you, I know very well WP:CONSENSUS, I was the first one who referred to it, so I don't see why you make you appear if I would not understand, please read back the last sentence on my former answer. Cisleithanian editors -> ? Excuse me, in Wikipedia we are all Wikipedians, and I never said Cisletihania would be a nation, what I said that is that CapnZapp finally understood and reinforced that article deal with the Austrian Empire between the period of 1867-1918 (on the other hand the terminology is identical and synonimous of it). Other editors may be busy or not especially working in this page, you wish to have a greater publicity on this? Not this linking is the greatest problem of my life, the but the outcome is not question, if you try, but it is alarming that you operate with continous straw-man argumentations as others already noticed and you completely disregard the facts and other proofs contrary to your statements.

I perceive is you portraying your sole opinion as fact. -> No, I provided you all the information with references, that you ignore. The phrase Cistleithania editors I still cannot interpret, such does not exist. Again, not the article Cisleithania decides this question, it is linked in the Austria-Hungary article, and you ignore the sources and material there. "your arguments are unimportant to me" -> simply impolite, but the problem is you ignore all the proofs and sources presented as well.

I also did not encounter you until know, but you are the first one in almost ten years who wish to deny an elementary fact that has been never denied so far like this, and in the scope if the earlier mentioned, it unfortunately original research as well is something not I am doing right now. With all my good faith and respect I have to warn you, it is very sad and inconvenient you don't realize by denying the existence of Austrian state between 1867-1918 just because it is also referred by a name you don't like, you put your self in an unresolvable contradiction, since in the infobox as it is presented, nobody denies he was an Austrian citizen from 1914 onwards, and Austrian citizenship was valid for the Austrian Empire/Lands Represented in the Imperial Council/Cisleithania, and the capital of this state was Vienna, where Hedy Lamarr was born. With this I finished this discussion on this historical demonstration, it is obvious, and any third party should understand properly the case, it is anyway overdiscussed, but just because of your reluctance to see some things. Having no consensus for any alternatives, I will make the unlinking, until new consensus is built. (though I don't wish to overreact the issue, but I inform also an administrator of our discussion, who anyway is interested in history, and an other editor maybe, just to see this discussion as striking example that should have been avoided regarding a simple issue.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC))

@CapnZapp:

• Thank you for noting my spelling correction. I am prone to misspelling & consensus is one of my problem words. I have corrected that.
• I do not think I am far off the mark with KEINGIR's original edit of [[Cisleithani|Austria]]. I think that we all understand that the Austria-Hungarian Empire was an amalgamation of more than one nation & that the modern common understanding of Austria is as a nation state. However, when a person clicks on a link stating Austria & lands at one of its regions, that is simply incorrect.
• I think we agree that Lamarr was [[Austrians|Austrian]]
• I would have no problems with one of the following changes

• Changing "[[Austria-Hungary|Austria]]n-born American actress" to "[[Austrians|Austria]]-American actress"
• Changing "[[Austria-Hungary|Austria]]n-born American actress" to "an American actress born in the [[Cisleithani]] region of [[Austria-Hungary|Austria]]".

@KIENGIR: I have nothing else to say to you here that I have not already written or that another has written.

Peaceray (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Peaceray:,

Sorry, no way, you still misinterpreting the things, we don't discuss about amalgamation of more than one nation or the that the modern common understanding of Austria is as a nation state. We discuss about the subject country of birth, that gave her citizenship. That time the Austrian Empire (Cisletihania) was the Austrian state, and their subjects were Austrian citizens, why you reject the nth time to understand this very simple fact?

Again, we did not discuss about the her ethnicity, but birthplace & a subject of that country. If we speak about Austria, that was distinct from Hungary, you cannot link for that Austria-Hungary, do you understand? Also do you understand the per other WP guide lines we don't necessarily reflect the persons ethnicity, but natinality? (Austrians is for ethnicity). Finally, Cisleithania was not a region of Austria-Hungary, it was the Austrian state itself...hence you proposals do not work in such a way.

I have nothing else to say to you here that I have not already written or that another has written -> too bad, because you still did not fully understand main thing we are discussing about

What is concerning, you made a revert by a fallacious claim in the edit log, since you reverted to a version that does not have a consensus either, I my unlinking was neutral, did not support my version, so worst case you should have reverted to a version before any of the users mentioned here touched the page, so I will do that know. Please listen much more carefully in the future, too much misinterpretations you did already. Thank You (KIENGIR (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC))

@Peaceray: Regarding your first option, the Wikipedia article Austrians—as KIENGIR pointed out—opens with "Austrians (German: Österreicher) are a Germanic nation and ethnic group"; Lamarr was part of another ethnic group. Austrian-American, on the other hand, might be a preferable alternative (Lamarr is already listed in Austrian Americans#Notable people).

Regarding your second option, I belive it would simply be too in-depth for the opening sentence of this article, or any article for that matter. Also, "Austria" would have to be spelled out as "Austria-Hungary" in order for "Cisleithanian region of" to make sense. Iroh (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Now the article is locked for a week, which will at least stop the Cisleithania nonsense. (If KIENGIR wants us to accept that as a valid citizenry, the first step would be to edit the Cisleithania article. That is, don't badger us here with your sources. Find acceptance for them over at that article first. Thank you)

Regarding other suggestions for the Austria link, let's remind ourselves that if consensus on a link can't be achieved, it's often possible to rewrite the sentence or paragraph (offering more context perhaps) and proceed that way. CapnZapp (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

General Iroh, Good points, regarding the second option [[Austria-Hungary|Austro-Hungarian]]-born is used in more articles, but I don't endorse it too much, since the subject could born (and be citizen) only in one of the constituent countries (usually such solutions is endorsed by some editors i.e. they does not make to appear the subject solely Hungarian-born, because of the possible dislike towards Hungarians, btw.). Again we don't have to mention Cisleithenia at all (that is a constituent state on the first place, not a region), only to link it in case Austria appear as a birthplace.

CapnZapp,

I see your points, i would only add your wish is not an obligation, since the Austria-Hungary article is well sourced about this. However, I am fine with simply have Austrian with no link.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC))

Propsal for resolution

I did not participate in this edit war. I was however planning to edit other parts of this article, but now I will have to wait for a week.

My proposal: Begin this article with "Hedy Lamarr was an Austrian-American...".

If you do not agree with my option, please present your own. Could we just please reach a conclusion to this? Iroh (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, the case of edit war is arguable, none of us went far beyond that clear-cut phase, but it is good an administrator calmed down the waters. You proposal is acceptable for me if it is in the form ''was an [[Austrian Americans|Austrian-American]] actress, inventor and film producer.''(KIENGIR (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC))\

Yes, Iroh, I am fine with that. Perhaps we can add a more details in the Early life section, as long as the wikilinks are clearly labled to reflect the target. Peaceray (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Great! Now we only need CapnZapp's input, and then it should qualify as consensus if he agrees. I also agree that expanding Early life would be a good idea, and yes, KIENGIR, that was the format I intended. Iroh (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

This is not the only article where the particulars of Austrian history creates difficulty (cf Peter Handke). In this case, however, remember Wikipedia isn't (to paraphrase) "about truth, but verifiability". Even if Hedy Lamarr was born on the Moon, we would still write what our sources say since anything else is OR. Since our sources say she's an Austrian and not a Cisleithanian, there really isn't much to argue about.

Note the Austrian American article discusses "Americans of Austrian descent". That includes second generation immigrants (see Immigrant generations for how imprecise this terminology is). Lamarr sure became an Austrian American but she was still born an Austrian, in Austria. Our lead should not leave out this fact just because there is some disagreement over linkage, since it opens up the possibility of a reader just reading the lead walks away thinking she was born in America! My counter-proposal is to do what was decided in the Peter Handke case - that is, to state Austria without linking it. CapnZapp (talk) 08:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what the point of your comparison is. Peter Handke is not an American, and his article does link to Austria in its opening sentence. Better comparisons might be Arnold Schwarzenegger and Felix Frankfurter, both descirbed as Austrian-Americans in their articles' opening sentences. As for possible confusion about Lamarr's place of birth, the infobox of this article clearly states "Vienna, Austria-Hungary". Iroh (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep in mind this talk page section is about me reverting KIENGIR's change to Lamarr being born in "Cisleithania". The point of comparison is that someone tried changing Handke's birthplace from "Austria" to something "more historically accurate". I won't mention what, since I do not want to compare KIENGIR to that/those editors in any other respect. My input is to suggest when editors can't agree what to replace "Austria" with for births preceding what our Austria article covers, maybe keep it unlinked, but not remove it altogether. CapnZapp (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I see. I, too, would rather keep "Austrian" unlinked than link to Austria, though I still prefer "Austrian-American" to "Austrian-born American", seeing as it is shorter and actually allows us to link to something accurate and relevant without any controversy. Iroh (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: Handke is fairly linked to present-day Austria (regardless he was not born in it), because he is still alive and an Austrian citizen of the present-day country (in other words, he belongs recently to this country). Regarding dead persons, the practise may be different, if born in one of the historical states. I have anyway no problem with the unlinked Austria proposal, on the other hand I understand CapnZapp's concern how to distuiguish i.e. Austrian-American who were born not in the US vs. American-borns, though I've never met having problem just mentioning simply Austrian-American as by the famous examples General Iroh mentioned here...also many Hungarian-American is put in the lead for persons, who were born in Hungary, or I would say, the vast majority under this dedignation was born in Hungary and later immigrated/emigrated to the US (however, I would have no problem if "Austrian-born Austrian American" is used, though such would be quite rare solution, with an apparent duplication of "Austrian" as manual of style...). All in all, it is always connected to persons own life an biography, that "x-born y person" is in the lead vs. "x-y person". E.g. Philipp Lenard was a Hungarian-born German physicist, this is used better since he had ethnic German roots, but was a Hungarian citizen even were tied to the Hungarian culture, he is even better known as a German (later German citizen and major career there), while Edward Teller, is described as Hungarian-American, since he had a famous career in the U.S., and despite having Jewish roots he adhered proudly to the Hungarian identity, culture and language, even in the US. So maybe these circumstances should be summarized regarding Hamarr and Austria.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC))

At this point, it might be useful to consider the starting point. With this edit [4], I reverted KIENGIR, making him take the discussion to talk here. (Thank you for that) Maybe it's more constructive to ask him (and anyone else of course) if they have any objections to that revision, now that I sense that KIENGIR has quietly dropped the Cisleithania idea? I mean, I might be wrong, but if the source of the edit war (and this subsequent discussion) has settled, maybe we're running on idle here? Regards CapnZapp (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I did not drop anything, Cisleithania is an accuarate and proper linking, as demonstrated, though there may be other solutions as dicussed and agreed above. As I said, if someone support without linking, I may accept it also, or the proposal General Iroh made (Austrian-American). We are definetly not running idle, since any version earlier was innaccurate (both linking present Austria, or Austria-Hungary), so definetly needs a new consensus, which depends only you right now, since so far all of us agreed except you on the Austrian-American solution. So take your choice.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC))

I further propose changing the beginning of the second paragraph of the lead to:

"Lamarr was born in Vienna, Austria-Hungary, and acted in a number of Austrian, German and Czech films in her brief early career, including the controversial Ecstasy (1933). She later fled from her husband, a wealthy Austrian ammunition manufacturer, and secretly moved to Paris in 1937."

Aside from clarifying and correcting certain errors, this will hopefully satisfy CapnZapp's concern that describing Lamarr as "Austrian-American" in the article's first sentence might lead readers to belive she was born in America. Iroh (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

her career

I think it's better to phrase it as *after* her "brief early" film career. Without the "after", the paragraph reads slightly wonkily, since no "brief early film career" has been previously defined. Twice now you've changed this Gen Iroh, so I'm giving you this opportunity to discuss. CapnZapp (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The main reason I reverted was the Czechoslovakia inaccuracy. I don't regard this as a very important issue, though I think writing "after" would make this sentence too long (and the previous one too short), seeing as it would require(?) merging the 'early film' part with the 'escape from husband' sentence. Iroh (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Your current version is good. Iroh (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Good job guys Halo1204 (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Autobiography?

Surely it is impossible for the book Ecstasy And Me to be an autobiography? Autobiographies are written by the subject. Lemar didn't write the book, so therefore the book is a biography and not an autobiography. --82.21.97.70 (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It's ghosted. Many, many autobiographies and a lot of other work, is written by ghosts (as in uncredited writers). 81.97.100.208 (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Misunderstanding again

@CapnZapp:,

I don't understand your edit summary, but let's see detailed what happened:

1. It has been long standingly wriiten the her father was born in the Austrian Empire (note without link!)

2. @General Iroh, the Dragon of the West:, removed it more times without any comment (though the usual format is born in "contempcity" "contempcountry" (now currentcity, currentcountry)

3. After I reinserted, Iroh claimed the Austrian Empire was succeeded in 1867 (yes, in case the linked article cares the subject between 1804-1867), but did not give any substitute, though according to his argumentation Austria-Hungary/Cisleithania could have follow...

4. I've made my edit to the supposedly more favored Austria-Hungary, but then I realized the father's time of birth, i recalled deliberately was written Austrian Empire without link, otherwise the linked article would be out of timespan, but between 1867-1918, the country may fairly called Austrian Empire as well - as we discussed also this above -, it is another thing only the Cisleithania article we have for it explicitly....

5. Your remark "Austria-Hungary since it was dissolved before Kiesler was born; edit professes to "correct" this while actually reintroducing the error)" -> false, since Austria-Hungary was NOT dissolved before Kiesler was born, on the countrary, in 1880 Austria-Hungary existed already since 13 years and were dissolved only 38 years later....hence I could not reintroduce any error...

Conclusion: Both of you decide if you favor "Austria-Hungary" or "Austrian Empire" (again, without link, Cisleithania I don't offer :-) ), otherwise I may fairly revert to simply to the latter as last stable and as well accurate version.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC))

I support either just "Lemberg" or "Lemberg, Austria-Hungary" without linking, as Austria-Hungary is already linked to in the Early life section as Hedy's country of birth, and Lemberg (Lviv) is already linked to in the parentheses as her father's city of birth. Perhaps we should also write "Budapest, Austria-Hungary" as her mother's place of birth for the sake of consistency, though writing "Austria-Hungary" thrice in the same short section might be a bit redundant. Iroh (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: if we should also be consistent with applying the (now: X), it would look like this:

"Lamarr was born Hedwig Eva Maria Kiesler in 1914 in Vienna, Austria-Hungary (now Austria)(unnessecary?), the only child of Emil Kiesler (1880–1935) and Gertrud "Trude" Kiesler (née Lichtwitz; 1894–1977). Her father was born to a Galician-Jewish family in Lemberg, Austria-Hungary (now Lviv, Ukraine), and was a successful bank manager. Her mother was a pianist, born in Budapest, Austria-Hungary (now Hungary)(unnessecary?) to an upper-class Hungarian-Jewish family." Iroh (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@General Iroh, the Dragon of the West:,

redundantly we should not mention things if possible or too stucked. So this version i'd say fine (no need three times Austria-Hungary, just without linking Austria and Hungary is enough:

"Lamarr was born Hedwig Eva Maria Kiesler in 1914 in Vienna, Austria-Hungary, the only child of Emil Kiesler (1880–1935) and Gertrud "Trude" Kiesler (née Lichtwitz; 1894–1977). Her father was born to a Galician-Jewish family in Lemberg, Austrian Empire (now Lviv, Ukraine), and was a successful bank manager. Her mother was a pianist, born in Budapest, Hungary to an upper-class Hungarian-Jewish family."(KIENGIR (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC))

Will you stop it with the "Lemberg, Austrian Empire" bit, Kiengir? General Iroh removed it with the edit comment "The Austrian Empire was succeeded in 1867"! I do agree there's no need to write Austria-Hungary three times. Since all three births took place in Austria-Hungary (1894 Budapest and 1880 Lemberg belonged to the same entity as 1914 Vienna!), I propose we simply leave out "Austria-Hungary" from either one. That is, accomplishing the edits both I and General Iroh have been making. CapnZapp (talk) 06:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

+1. Iroh (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@CapnZapp:,

please read back, as I demonstrated the edit comment you referred was ambigous, since also after 1867 the Austrian Empire is valid term for the Austrian half of Austria-Hungary, regardless in case the (linked) wiki article is meant only until 1867 (and it is not about I should stop with anything a bit, something was removed what has been part of the article, and in case there are some inaccuracies or mistaken argumentation - as you did, i.e. -, you may expect clarification). The current state may be accepted as you relalized all birthplaces were in the same era, but in the future both of you should be twice as careful regarding Austria issues.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC))

False rape allegation?

Why isn't this mentioned? Desert Sun, Volume 41, Number 16, 23 August 1967 mentions this </ref>https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=DS19670823.2.27&e=-------en--20--1--txt-txIN--------1</ref>

Blyth later successfully sued Lamarr (and won, albeit a small settlement, see "Hedy Lamarr: The Most Beautiful Woman in Film" Barton, Ruth. p. 217).

This is an ugly chapter but it should be included even if it leaves a bitter taste. I've said before we should all question her claim to FHSS (per. Dr. Tony Rothman's book, Everything's Relative) but it appears to me that people here don't want to see her name dragged through some fine toothed comb but this sort of thing goes to her questionable character (if her autobiography wasn't lurid enough). 81.97.100.208 (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Choosing to drop one's charges isn't the same as admitting them to be false (as per your source: “Miss Lamarr said she did not wish the man to go to jail and she did not wish to continue with the matter for her own physical and mental well being.”) Whether or not the rape allegation and/or the subsequent "loss of reputation" lawsuit would qualify as WP:DUE, and I'm not sure that they would, I think we ought to be very careful not to make potentially libelous statements regarding either person.

From what I've read by Rothman, he isn't denying Lamarr and Antheil's contributions to the development of FHSS, but rather argues that the lesser-known contributions of other inventors should be granted more recognition. I think this article's description of Lamarr as having "co-invented an early version of frequency-hopping spread spectrum" is perfectly reasonable. Along with the aforelinked article, spread spectrum is also linked to in this article, both of which, albeit incompletely, mention other inventors as well (some of whom adapted or based their models on Lamarr and Antheil's model). Iroh (talk) 13:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)