Talk:Baby Esther

Time to clean this mess up.

This article is the very definition of someone pushing a POV. Certain editors have aggressively guarded their preferred position, and have wailed when others have attempted to include actual reliably sourced information. This article was created out of whole cloth, and was a straight-ahead attack on Helen Kane. Even now, it uses clear OR and SYNTHESIS, as well ommiting RS material. Stuff that has been RS, but had the cabals removing it includes.. 1) The ONLY mention of Kane ever even hearing of Esther before the trial comes from Bolton, who changed his testimony several times while under oath. Kane herself swore on the stand that she had never heard of Esther, and, unlike Bolton, was never caught lying on the stand. 2) Helen Kane could be shown to have been scatting AND singing in baby voice YEARS BEFORE this alleged sighting. 3) Bolton stated that Esther had performed at the Everglades for "four weeks", yet she was performing there in LATE June 1928. This is noteworthy as Kane had been performing at the Paramount since early May. Do the math. 4) All reviews of Esther's Everglades performance refer to her as a "dancer". There is NO MENTION of singing, let alone her supposed Betty Boop act. 5) The "early test film" of Esther used as evidence, was recorded in DECEMBER 1928, long AFTER Kane was doing her act. It's a film of ESTHER IMITATING KANE. Just as ALL the other records(eg. Annette Hanshaw are of people IMITATING HELEN KANE). 6) Esther was never mentioned in the judge's verdict.

This whole article is a series of half-truths, opinions and blatant mistruths stitched together to give a false impression to gullible readers.

At its core is nothing other than a small group of people trying to force a meme.

And, oh yeah, Esther performed as LITTLE Esther, NOT "Baby" Esther.

This article is evidence of how people pushing a blatant agenda on the internet can create "facts" out of nothing. It's alarming that Wiki didn't speedy-delete thus garbage right from the beginning.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.195.36 (talk • contribs) 13:33, September 2, 2021 (UTC)

It's aggressive people placing a series of unrelated "facts"(many of which are not verified) together, to eliberately create a false impression.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.195.36 (talk • contribs) 03:01, September 4, 2021 (UTC)

Not for the first time, you are presenting a case that is not supported by the sources. Bolton stated that Esther performed at the Everglades for "several weeks"; when asked if he could specify "about how many", he replied, "I will try to recall – about eight weeks" (Taylor, 182). When did he ever say it was four weeks? You opine that "All reviews of Esther's Everglades performance refer to her as a "dancer". There is NO MENTION of singing." Please specify what "reviews" you are referring to. Our article cites this Variety article of June 20, 1928 (not a review, but a report about a legal matter) that does not mention her singing. But another article about the same legal issue in the Daily News, June 22, 1928, states that Esther's father and manager were being held on $500 bail "for allowing Esther Jones, 7, colored, to give singing and dancing imitations of the late Florence Mills at the Everglades". Another Variety article published July 4, 1928, says that "on the morning of June 13, [Thomas J.] Kelly went to the Everglades and said he saw Esther Lee Jones, seven-year-old negro child, who was announced as the sensation of Broadway and impersonator of the late Florence Mills, do several dances and sing some songs." Why are you so sure Kane started her engagement at the Paramount in early May? Kane's attorneys stated that she originated the style of performance that she believed had been stolen by the animators of Betty Boop "in or about the month of May, 1928" (Taylor, 71). Kane's own testimony was that her first performance at the Paramount was "in the summer of, I think, 1928, but I do not remember exactly." (Taylor, 137) Summer begins on June 21; she was probably mistaken there, as her first recording came out June 16. And, as already verified by an uninvolved editor at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, it is OR to single out for emphasis something that the verdict in a case does NOT say. ...etc. etc. etc. Ewulp (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

You are pushing a POV. Yes, Esther was brought up by Bolton at the Kane v Fleischer trial, but so what? Numerous singers were brought up at the trial, and they don't have these ridiculous articles. If Esther was so significant, show us where Judge McGoldrick mentioned Esther in his summary and verdict. Otherwise, it's a footnote at best.

You know very well that Esther was a child entertainer who imitated singers of the day. You know that the film of Esther used at the trial was recorded December 1928, and was entered into evidence alongside other recordings of people imitating Helen Kane, to demonstrate that the Kane/Betty Boop style, to demonstrate that it was a popular style, not specific to one performer.

You know that it is ONLY Bolton's claim that places Kane anywhere near any Esther performance in 1928, that Bokton was caught lying on the stand about other issues, and that testimony alone is not enough for a verdict.

You know that when Fleischer's lawyers demonstrated that others had both scattered, and sung in baby voice before Kane, it was other people, NOT Esther, and in those fact other people had done do before Esther was even born.

You know that Kane sued over usage of her image, and that Esther looked nothing like Kane or Boop, being a young child.

You know that Esther primarily performed as LITTLE Esther, and was doing so in 1928

You know that in the 1920's, the time between a song being recorded, and that song being released as a disc was MONTHS. For a record to come out in June 1928, the artist would have had to gave been in the studio no later than April.

Yet you persist in forcing your "facts" together to try and present a FALSE article about "Baby Esther" being both "the original Betty Boop", and being the most(only?) significant point of the Kane v Fleischer trial.

And, as just one example of many, the lead makes it look as though the recording of the Duncan Sisters was used to illustrate that the Duncan Sisters were singing in that style prior to Kane, which is not true at all. Thus...SYNTHESIS.

And, of course, this one WP:RS, which the gangs have to try and blank [1], which disproves their entire SYNTHESIS/OR agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.195.36 (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I misspoke; the record was recorded on June 16 (Taylor, 16). Which you would know if you had done any research instead of jumping to your preferred conclusions based on my error. For the rest, you are arguing mainly about things that are not in the article. The article does not say that Esther was an adult; it is clearly stated that she was a child. The article does not say Esther looked like Kane, or that Esther was the originator of scat singing. We have no RS that says Bolton lied; this seems to be your opinion. We follow reliable sources, and many RSs say that the film of Esther was the turning point of the case. Some go further. In 1975, John Canemaker wrote in Film Comment 11.1 that "Miss Kane lost the ensuing court case when it was revealed that she had picked up the "Boop-Boop-A-Doop" from a lesser-known black singer, Baby Esther". This was published only 41 years after the trial and can not be blamed on internet memes. This RS gives more credit to Esther than our article does; do you see anybody here insisting on quoting Canemaker? Your accusations that other editors are pushing POV sound a bit ... un-selfaware.

You have not named a single instance of actual OR or synthesis in the article. The lead mentions the Duncan Sisters: "Other evidence introduced at the trial included a recording by the Duncan Sisters and testimony from performers such as Bonnie Poe, Margie Hines, and Little Ann Little, who testified that she had been singing in a baby voice and using interpolations such as "bo-de-o-do" for several years." This evidence and this testimony was used in the trial, like it or not, and our article says so, citing the trial transcript, which is a reliable source for the evidence and testimony. The lead does not say that the Duncans sang in the same style as Helen Kane; it mentions several singers by name to make clear to the reader that the Baby Esther film was not the only evidence the judge weighed. Kane herself testified that the Duncans and several others sang in a baby voice before she did: "Q: You have heard of the Duncan Sisters?" A: "Yes". Q: And the Duncan Sisters sang in a baby voice, didn't they?" A: "Yes". Q: "And they preceded you?" A: "Yes". (Taylor, 139).

Can you explain why you are so upset that the article is named "Baby Esther" and not "Little Esther"? Nearly all modern sources call the singer Baby Esther, probably to distinguish her from the better-known Esther "Little Esther" Phillips. As one example, Robert O'Meally, a writer you approve of, calls her Baby Esther – maybe you should complain to O'Meally. Wikipedia follows sources in naming articles. Speaking of O'Meally, it would be proper to include his statement: "if the evidence could be believed ... Boop herself was an imitation of an imitation and had, as it were, a black grandmother in her background." [2] Doesn't it seem POV to mention only the footnote in which he conditions this statement, without mentioning the statement itself? Ewulp (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

“ Yes, Esther was brought up by Bolton at the Kane v Fleischer trial, but so what? Numerous singers were brought up at the trial, and they don't have these ridiculous articles.”

I think Esther’s case is so significant because of how shrouded in mystery she was, and given the timeline we’re dealing with.

She was a black child performer during the 1920s, and vanished from the spotlight by the 1930s.

Her name & image was misattributed to MULTIPLE people, and it was only recently did people find out that she was a CHILD, let alone a BLACK child.

If Helen actually DID see Esther perform that night, then it would actually make sense as to why her name would stand out the most compared to other the big stars at the time, such as Annette Hanshaw. 100.34.231.52 (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I clearly did show SYNTHESIS in the article, but you removed it because of an agenda.

And ALL sources from the era refer to her as LITTLE Esther. "Baby" Esther is the name used by people pushing something that they want to be true, but never was.

And now YOU are using OR. I'll post more later when not using phone, but this entire article is full of people stitching together half-truths and their personal desires to create a grotesque monstrosity.

Some more.."ONLY 41 years"? Is that a joke?

And you're wrong again about recordings. On page 15(not 16) it mentions Kane recording her first record for Viktor.

If "The article does not say that Esther was an adult; it is clearly stated that she was a child.", then why did you have to reinsert a category for WOMEN?

And...testimony..read Taylor 187-191

Of course, since you're placing so much weight on testimony

• Pg 100/1101 Q: That brings us down to about 1924, is that correct? A: Yes, sir. Q:What was the next thing that you did theatrically? A:Well, let me see. After that I went into the Paramount-no, I appeared at the Richman Club and George Olsen Club. Q: Before coming to the Paramount did you appear in Philadelphia? A: At the Club Cadix ... Q:How often did you appear there? A:Once a night. Q:Did you sing? A:Yes. Q:In what kind of style or role? A:Same style as I sing right now.

Of course, Fleischer/Paramount could prove that other people were both scatting or using baby voice before 1924. But that did not include Esther. But, if we are placing so much weight on testimony as well as the TIME MAGAZINE article which states Kane started scatting/singing in baby voice in 1923, then obvious question is: "What exactly could Kane have stolen from Esther in 1928?" As you admit that Esther didn't have the look, the sexuality, the accent or anything else that is quintessentially Helen Kane or Betty Boop?

Again..

[3]

Yet, in light of these facts, Helen Kane lost the case. Why? The usual answer given is that Paramount produced a reel of film that was shown in court. This film depicted an African-American singer called Baby Esther, who used the “Boop-oop-a-doop” hot licks in her singing. Conventional wisdom tells us that Kane lost the case because the Baby Esther recording proved that Kane took her signature style from an earlier performer.22 What is omitted from this account is that the film of Baby Esther was taken in 1928, and that in it, Baby Esther sings three songs that were earlier made hits by Helen Kane – “Don’t Be Like That,” “Is There Anything Wrong with That?” and “Wa-da-da.”23 This was hardly proof that Helen Kane derived her singing style from Baby Esther. So despite conventional wisdom about this, it is likely that Kane originated the “Boop-oop-a-doop” phrase.

And the footnote says..

23. Kane v Fleischer et al, pp. 334-339. Recordings of songs sung by Patsy Young and Al Jolson, also recorded after they were first performed by Kane, were entered in evidence by the defence.

And, this is backed up by... These Variety articles..

[4]

So, The October 30 1928 Variety tells us..

• Lil' Esther for Talker

Lil' Esther, child (colored) vaude preformer, ahs been signed for a talking shortby Movietone, booked through William Morris...

And the January 23 1929 Variety [5]

lists "Little Esther" among "talking shorts, either completed or contracted".

So, yes, Langer was correct. " Baby Esther sings three songs that were earlier made hits by Helen Kane –"

As to the film at the trial...

Taylor pp 194-195 (read carefully)

Q: Mr Bolton, did you just see projected on screen with sound the picture of Babyy esther? A: I did, Q: Will you tell me if the sounds which you have described this morning as "hot licks" were the sounds that were used by her prior to the taking of this picture? Mr Weltz: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. The Court: Sustained.

Q: In the performances given at the various theatres that you mentioned this morning, did Baby Esther use the sounds which she used in the picture that was just projected, Defendants' Exhibit V? Mr Weltz: Same objection. The Court: Sustained.

(The Court allows the film itself to be entered into evidence, but NOT any CLAIM that Esther sang like that prior to the actual recording. The film itself(recorded significantly AFTER Helen Kane had popularized her act) is actual evidence, Bolton's wild claims were never entered into evidence, along with the film.

And again...

• " Baby

Esther sings three songs that were earlier made hits by Helen Kane –"

• Kane v Fleischer et al, pp. 334-339. Recordings of songs sung by Patsy

Young and Al Jolson, also recorded after they were first performed by Kane, were entered in evidence by the defence.

So, this article is created out of pure POV. It can be shown, with WP:RS, that Kane was doing both baby voice and scatting since at least as early as 1924, BUT it can be demonstrated that others were doing both before that. So, how exactly would an unproven claim that Kane had seen a child performer in 1928 be at all relevant? And, as demonstrated using trial transcripts, and WP:RS, the film of Esther was recorded significantly AFTER Kane was doing her act, and was a film of Esther singing three Helen Kane songs. The film was entered into evidence, Bolton's claim that Esther had been singing like that before the recording of the film was NOT. And, the film was entered into evidence alongside other performers also doing Helen Kane songs after Kane had popularized them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.195.36 (talk • contribs) 00:40, September 5, 2021 (UTC)

Nobody will read this. See WP:EXHAUST for talk page guidance. You are trying to relitigate the court case; Wikipedia is not the venue for that. In glancing I noticed that you mention Kane's testimony on pp 100/101. It contradicts her testimony on pg 137, where she states that she introduced the new style with interpolations in summer 1928, and the statement by her attorneys that "in May, 1928, when appearing at the ... Paramount Theater, she originated her "Boop-a-doop" style of singing" (Taylor p 77). "Originated a style in 1928" is not "singing in the same style before and after 1928". "Only 41 years" after the trial means within the memory of people in their 60s, and it means before the internet, which you have continually named [6] as the source of Esther misinformation. Your complaint that "ALL sources from the era refer to her as LITTLE Esther. "Baby" Esther is the name used by people pushing something that they want to be true, but never was" is inexplicable. What agenda would this serve??? It's also false; see for example "Baby Esther Returning", The Chicago Defender March 30, 1929.

Bolto's testimony (pp194-195) was preceded by his testimony regarding Esther's performances during 1926-28 (p 181): "Q: Give the sounds. A: 'Boo-did-do-doo'. Q: Were there other sounds [...] A: Yes, quite a few. Q: Will you give us as many as you can remember? A: 'Whad-da-da-da'. Q: Others. A: There are quite a few [...]" And so on. Ewulp (talk) 06:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

In other words, YOU won't read it, because you know it exposes your agenda. Also, please do not edit other people's posts, as you did by inserting words into my earlier post.

But, no, Kane said that she first used the phrase "Boop oop a doop" at the Paramount. She said that she ahd been singing in that style since at least as early as 1924. Two different things.

But, if you aren't even going to read anything on the discussion page, maybe you should just butt out of editing an article, where you refuse to even acknowledge Reliably Sourced material, simply because it says something that doesn't fit into your POV?

And, of course, as YOU were the one who drew attention to the Duncan Sisters singing in baby voice, in 1924, again, what exactly was it that "Baby Esther" was supposed to be the "original" of? Seriously, this entire article is a one-note article, which uses SYNTHESIS to try and promote the case that "Baby Esther" was somehow the "original Betty Boop", even though a)you admit that Esther didn't look, sound, or behave like Betty Boop or Helen Kane, and b) you brought up the facts that at the trial the defense lawyers brought up people singing in baby voice and scatting years before Esther. c) RELIABLE SOURCES say that Kane was using the scat/baby voice style years before Bolton's claim that Kane saw Esther. And, 41 years was long after pretty much everyone involved with the case was dead.

In short, you refuse to read material, you altered what I wrote. In simple, you created an article out of whole cloth. When someone tries to actually use RS, you complain, mass-revert their edits, say you're not even going to read their posts on the discussion page, you CHANGE WHAT THEIR POSTS ON THE DISCUSSION PAGE SAY, and of course, you run off and get other people to defend your unverified position, to give a false impression of a "consensus". Again...what exactly is is about "Baby Esther" that makes her "the original Betty Boop"? What exactly was Kane supposed to have "stolen", IF we take Bolton's contradictory testimony as any sort of evidence? And WHERE in the Judge's verdict was Esther mentioned at all? And IF it can be demonstrated that others were using baby voice or scatting YEARS before Esther was even BORN, how does that make esther the "first" to do anything?

As always, you are objecting to a hallucination. The article does not say Esther was the first to do anything, or that she was the original Betty Boop; it explicitly types her as a Florence Mills imitator. What is one example of reliably sourced material you think I have refused to acknowledge? I do not know why stray characters from my post got into the middle of your post; most likely the cursor got misplaced accidentally while I was typing. I am mortified to find that I also misspelled Bolton as "Bolto"; this was a typo. Please see WP:AGF and perhaps AGF for once; you may find it is good for the spirit. And why not sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~ so I don't always have to do it for you. Ewulp (talk) 08:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

This entire article is built around a blatant mistruth. The person who created it gave us this [7]. A totally unsourced rant. The only alleged source actually stated something completely differrnt! Since then, everything has been people trying to force things to fit that, distort the meanings of simple English words, and reject RS that don't subscribe to that garbage.

And the really sad thing is that this article actually does an injustice to Esther. The REAL Esther Jones was a talented child performer, who at one point was the highest-grossing child performer in the world. She had to battle racism both FROM BOLTON, and made headlines after being refused service in Europe. Yet, this is a one-note article, based around the "Betty Boop" myth. Why not have an article about her actual achievements, rather than using a distorted load of garbage as the spine? At best, Bolton(the same person who Jim Crow'd Esther) giving vague and misleading statements ABOUT Esther is a brief paragraph, not the lead.

PBS retracts their story, admits ERROR

https://www.pbs.org/publiceditor/blogs/pbs-public-editor/betty-oops/

Just a pity it took them so long. I wonder how many people have used that erroneous PBS article as "evidence". (Of course, the apoligy/retraction still contains factual errors, but it's a start...)

I changed "PBS retracted the story, admitted that the 'Baby Esther' portion of the article was never true, and apologized for spreading misinformation." to "PBS retracted the story, explaining that the 'Baby Esther' portion of the article was 'not entirely true', and apologized for spreading misinformation." This change was reverted. The original version of the sentence implies that the PBS story was completely untrue. In actuality, it was partially true and partially false. I think my version of this sentence is more accurate and will cause less confusion. I propose that the wording of the sentence be changed back to my version unless someone has a good argument why the original version is better. Nosferattus (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that your edit more accurately summarizes the source. Ewulp (talk) 01:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Has no one found anything about her after 1934? How could someone this famous be completely missing?

How could someone this famous be completely missing? Has no one found anything at all about her after 1934? (The dates stop there in the article, at which point the article focuses on the lawsuit.) Who was managing her in 1934? If she was born in 1918, then she could have been perhaps 17 and no longer "little" in 1935; if born in 1921, then she could have been perhaps 14 in 1935, and, again, perhaps no longer "little". Does no one lay claim to being of the same family? Might the rich, not wanting to lose a lawsuit, have wished her away? Her grandmother was mentioned in the Kane trial, but she was not named. What was her name? And the rest of her family? Misty MH (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

No one "wished her away". Esther likely just retired from performing. And, who would "lose a lawsuit"? A lawsuit over what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.63.175 (talk) 05:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Of interest to Editors: Kane trial documents

Perhaps of interest to Editors: Kane trial documents, and were free to read. Note that the first part was 1,384 "pages". And then there are more pages. One can use the Search to look for "Jones", "Esther", and more. These documents are here: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Supreme_Court_Appellate_Division_First_D/_lfli1cCqE8C?gbpv=1&bsq=Esther Misty MH (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Good points here(with RS)

https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/rlhqti/the_betty_boop_plagiarism_myth_not_based_on_black/ 197.87.135.56 (talk) 10:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Date of death unknown

Recent edits stating that Esther Jones died in 1984 from liver and kidney ailments are confusing Esther Jones with Esther Phillips, who was also known as "Little Esther". The source of the misinformation is an article at blackpast.org, which cites this article from harlemworldmagazine.com as a source but badly misreads it (and tops it off by mistaking a photo of the model Olya for Esther Jones). Ewulp (talk) 08:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

It also states that Esther performed at the Cotton Club, and sang "I Wanna Be Loved By You" before Helen Kane. This is what's wrong with "internet experts". And I would definitely say that "YouTube experts" is its own whole (sub)category. The "Esther was the original Betty Boop" myth has been thoroughly and utterly debunked from different angles. Yet the will for it to be true seems to keep growing. Various photos of clearly different woman are all said to be Esther. Her being "a Jazz singer who performed regularly at the Cotton Club" is now taken as plain truth by many. She apparently wrote and was the original performer of I Wanna Be Loved By You. Even the totally unfounded claim that Kane was at the Everglades, sorry the Cotton Club when Esther was allegedly singing songs from the Dangerous Nan McGrew soundtrack is taken as being truth. In some versions, the Fleischers had Esther killed in a hit, to prevent her from successfully suing them. Just because someone posted some "hidden fact" on the internet shouldn't make it a RS. I believe there should be a sort of "False in one, false in all" rule. If there's a glaring inaccuracy in an article, the whole article should be non-RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.143.165 (talk) 08:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)