Talk:Baby Esther/Archive 1

Archive 1

Better Sources

This website has links to primary sources that could be used to dramatically improve the clarity and accuracy of this article: https://bettyboop.fandom.com/wiki/What_Ever_Happened_to_Baby_Esther%3F Justin Bacon (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

That website (the Betty Boop Fandom wiki) is interesting, but doesn't actually show where most of its primary sources actually come from—or exactly when they date from. A few of its assertions (e. g. about Cab Calloway's group) don't seem to be backed up by any documentation. Over the past day's time, I've tried to definitively source as much of our Wiki article as possible, though there are still big gaps. In many cases I could find no links to online articles except via the pay-per-view ProQuest site, which I can access but non-subscribers can't. (In a few especially upsetting cases, issues of the Baltimore Afro-American which are complete on ProQuest are incomplete on Google News, so I couldn't link to a free source even though one would otherwise think it exists.) Ramapith (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Baby Esther's second name is not Jones it is false information

When Baby Esther went "Viral" on Tumblr her second name was mistaken to have been Jones, which is untrue.

Here is the viral post source: Source

Little Esther another "African American" performer was brought into this "viral" attraction when people wanted to know more about "Baby Esther" so most of them thought "She" was Baby Esther and she was then "mistaken" for being Baby Esther and Esther's second name which was "Jones" was thought to have been Baby Esther's original second name.

Source (Two) -Esther Jones

Esther Phillips also known as Esther Mae Phillips real second name was "Jones" and people have taken that from her and moved it on to Baby Esther. Esther Phillips was a child star performer just like Esther, which made "some" people believe they were the same person.

Also to note in all the trial documents Baby Esther's second name is not mentioned, so where did the Jones part come from? (Little Esther)

Please check into this Wikipedia because the article on "Baby Esther" is 100% only the second name is incorrect information that should be removed, as it is not real information.

If Baby Esther's real second name was Jones you should get the official link.

Also here is a "Powerful Source" to prove what i'm saying is reliable:

Esther Jones Arrested

So Wikipedia please look into this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.249.56.149 (talk) 13:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The image of Baby Esther is not verified-- the image is from James Van der Zee's photography archive and has been labeled "Party Girl" or "College Girl," and depicts a model, not a performer. It is not in fact known if this is an image of Baby Esther working as a model, or of a random model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isabelortiz42 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Baby Esthers real name was Gertrude Saunders

Baby Esther was the "stage name" used when she was a child performer. Her name was not Esther "Jones".

Gertrude debuted at the Cotton Club and is originator of Boop Boop a Dooping made "famous" by Helen Kane.

Source 1:

Source 2:

Gertrude declared it was she who actually started booping before either for them. (Betty Boop & Helen Kane)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.249.56.85 (talk • contribs) 08:47, February 9, 2015 (UTC)

References

Nothing in the source you've given says that Gertrude Saunders used the stage name "Baby Esther"; it only says that she was credited by some of her peers as having originated "booping". That in itself is not enough evidence to conclude that Saunders and Esther are the same person, and the identification is somewhat implausible for the following reasons.

At the time of the trial in 1932, Baby Esther could not be found and was presumed dead; yet Gertrude Saunders (1903-1991) was alive and performing in a Broadway show, Blackberries of 1932, according to Internet Broadway Database and Playbill Vault. Our article states: "Theatrical manager Lou Walton testified for the defense stating that in 1925, he coached a "young negro child" named Esther, teaching her how to interpolate her songs with scat lyrics which she later re-purposed into her trademark "boop oop a doop." Jones' manager testified that he and Kane had seen her act together in April 1928." In 1925, Gertrude Saunders was not a child; she was 22 years old and already established, having starred in the important revue Shuffle Along in 1921 (see Fletcher S. Moon, Black Women of the Harlem Renaissance Era, p. 191 here).

An example of her singing style ca. 1923 can be heard here on YouTube. She has a distinctive kind of hiccupping thing (and scats in a 1945 film appearance here), but her style is not very much like Helen Kane or Betty Boop. Ewulp (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Baby Esther was "presumed" dead in 1934 but she wasn't. Baby Esther was a "child" performer in the early 1920's and that was a "stage name" and was taught by Lou Walton, but her real identity was Gertrude Saunders.

Gertrude Saunders stated that she created "booping" and that she was figured in the $250,000 trial V Helen Kane and Fleischer and that she debuted in the Cotton Club. If all this makes no sense why is she called "The Original Boop Boop a Doop Girl"?

You have fake information on the page anyway to sum things up, her name was "NOT" Jones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.249.56.86 (talk) 13:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Image is Unverified

The image of Baby Esther is unverified. It is in fact an image of a model taken from a collection by the photographer James Van der Zee-- while it could be a picture of Baby Esther working as a model before becoming a performer, it could also be a random photo of a model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isabelortiz42 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The image documentation cites [this flickr page] as a source, but that's not a reliable source. I've removed it; if somebody can provide better information it is easy to put it back. Ewulp (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Ewulp, I put this photo in because I was going through Category:No local image but image on Wikidata. As long as Wikidata says this photo is of her, it's likely to be put back again. Do you know how to fix Wikidata? MB 14:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'm unfamiliar with the world of Wikidata, but I logged in for the first time today and tried editing the entry, which I hope will fix the problem. Ewulp (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Ewulp, Did you notice that at commons, there is a redirect from File:BabyEsther.JPG to the actual file name File:Seated Young Woman 1920s VanDerZee.jpg. You may want to try to get the redirect deleted also. MB 03:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Right again—I've put in a request for deletion. Ewulp (talk) 05:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Esther Jones' manager says that Esther Jones did not die, he thought she was in Paris.

The information listed on Wikipedia is misleading, and inaccurate. Wikipedia won't let me upload anything, and most of those articles are pay-per-view.

1. REDIRECT [Baby Esther (1929)]

I am also having trouble citing references on this website. Cherub11 (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Here's the page from the lawsuit, where "Lou Bolton", Esther's ex-manager states that he thought Esther was still in Paris. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4cQ9DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA175&lpg=PA175&dq=Bolton+indicated+that+he+believed+that+she+was+in+Paris&source=bl&ots=YTKkvBLXjB&sig=2Jll7oQuMoscJ-AYuxufv3e2qks&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwinmpjp3OPdAhUrCMAKHQrqBNEQ6AEwAXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Bolton%20indicated%20that%20he%20believed%20that%20she%20was%20in%20Paris&f=false

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4cQ9DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA185&lpg=PA185&dq=Helen+Kane+and+Betty+Boop:+On+Stage+and+On+Trial+paris&source=bl&ots=YTKkvBMTiF&sig=KjNm4tfx3s0hc5vlb2q_f8onV6A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwif67KE3-PdAhWlAMAKHY_eB8EQ6AEwEXoECAsQAQ#v=snippet&q=Boulton%20indicated&f=false

The valid information is listed on page 175. https://books.google.co.uk/books?redir_esc=y&id=4cQ9DwAAQBAJ&q=Paris#v=snippet&q=Paris&f=false

I don't know how to format the reference from the lawsuit documents to cite on the main article: https://books.google.com/books?id=4cQ9DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA175 Does anyone on Wikipedia know how to? Cherub11 (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for finding all of this; I've fixed the reference format. Where was that image published? Ewulp (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Contradictory information

Note that in the introduction paragraph, Jones is said to have been a regular performer at the Cotton Club. In the third paragraph of the biography section, it’s stated that while she had performed at the Cotton Club, she did not do so regularly, and that the confusion is due to another performer with ‘Baby’ in their name that was a regular. Someone who’s been tending to this wiki ought to suss out which statement is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:CD01:6AC0:DD4D:8B05:D83D:F39E (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I've just been sourcing and footnoting a lot of info for this page, and in the process I found it very suspicious that while I could document most other claims and quotes, I couldn't document a single claim about the Cotton Club or other Calloway-related things. Ramapith (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Queen Victoria

It says that she played for Queen Victoria in 1929. I assume that the intention was to reference the wife of King Alfonso, but it links to Queen Victoria of England, who died in 1901. Aickem (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Article is a lot of hot air

"Baby Esther" is a myth.

In the 1920's Helen Kane created a distinct persona, with voice, attitude etc. Yes, it was not 100% original, but then nothing has ever been.

Fleischer Studios created a character who was obviously a direct copy of Kane's persona...Betty Boop.

As Betty Boop grew in popularity, and earnings, Kane sought legal action against Fleischer Studios. Fleischer Stuiods could not claim that Boop was not a rip-off of Kane, as she obviously was. Their only course of action was claiming that neither was original, and both were 'copied' from an earlier source. Thus, the MYTH of 'Baby Esther'.

Just looking at this article, we can see that photographs of various girls and women have been used, and most have been positively identified as being 'other people.

We now seem to have settled on the name "Jones"(one of the most common surnames in the English-speaking world..) as her last name, though various other last names have been sued over the years.

"Baby Esther" was "born circa 1918". Nobody knows when or how she died. And, at the time, of the Kane-Fleischer trial "baby Esther" was conveniently "in Paris at the time, and couldn't be contacted". Lou Bolton claimed that Kane saw "Baby Esther" with him in 1928, and that's where Kane 'appropriated' the "Baby Esther act". The only problem of course being that Kane was already doing the act before that.

"An early test sound film of Baby Esther's performance was used as evidence.". Er, yeah, and where are the recordings of "Baby Esther" today? For that matter, how convenient that it suddenly appeared during the Kane-Fleischer trial.

Even funnier, we are told she last performed in 1934. When she was 12. Despite being born in 1928. And then, she just vanished "to Paris", or maybe she got sucked into a black hole. Surely, after a level of publicity of the Kane-Fleischer trial, someone would want to make money off her, but no, she had simply blinked out of existence.

And the big joke? The Helen Kane/Betty Boop(and demeanor) voice is a stereotypical, exaggerated New York voice/accent. Helen Kane was born and raised in New York City. "Baby Esther" is said to be from Chicago. Why would someone from Illinois do a Noo Yawk voice, complete with obvious New Yorkisms?

And, it is claimed that Baby Esther did "boo boo boo" and "doo doo doo" sounds, which Kane then "appropriated Jones' style of singing" into the "boop oop a doop". That doesn't even make sense.

Let's cut the garbage. Helen Kane was a strong independent woman. She and she alone created her famous act/persona. Fleischer Studios appropriated Kane's persona/act, and created the Betty Boop character, right down to Betty appearing as Dangerous Nan McGrew and singing songs that Kane had already sung. Kane rightly sued Fleischer Studios.

But, it was the 1930's. Helen Kane was an independent, divorced woman. Fleischer Studios was run by men. The judge in the trial was a sexist misogynist male. The result was a foregone conclusion, thanks to institutional sexism. But, they realized how absurd it would be to claim that Betty Boop wasn't a Helen Kane knock off. Various real women were used as "forerunners" to Helen Kane, none of who could stand up under scrutiny. So, we get "Baby Esther" The trial was in 1934, and Baby Esther "coincidentally" had been performing as recently as 1934, before taking off for Paris and then disappearing forever. She was born in 1918, 7 when she performed in 1928(where Kane allegedly stole her act), but 12 in 1934 when she left for Paris. "Early test sound film" was used. What ever happened to that? Where did it come from? Why was there even "Early test sound film" of "Baby Esther"? And then the chauvinist judge ruled in favor of the male Fleischers over the female divorcee Kane.And the "Legend of Baby Esther" was created.

We know Helen Kane was real. We know the Fleischers were real. We know the character of Betty Boop really existed. "Baby Esther"? Nope. All we have is a ridiculous claim that after Helen Kane was already doing her act, she allegedly saw Baby Esther, and then stole HER act. Baby Esther was 4, 7, 10 (?) years old at the time...

And the whole Helen Kane/Betty Boop act could not possibly be more "New York". Yet an African-American girl from Chicago allegedly came up with it? Where is the audio recording of "Baby Esther"? When was she really born? How convenient was it that she "disappeared" at the same time as the Kane/Fleischer trial? Why are the photographs of "Baby Esther" clearly of different people at different points in time? Hikermark687 (talk) 11:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

That Baby Esther existed is confirmed by numerous sources from the 1920s and '30s, several of which are cited (example: "Bolton Has a Find", Exhibitors Herald-World, March 2, 1929). Her exhibitors seem to have told different stories about her age—not an unusual phenomenon with entertainers. Ewulp (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Good find. But a) she's called "Li'l Esther", not "Baby Esther", b) again she's "The Miniature Florence Mills", with NOTHING AT ALL about what you are claiming elsewhere. So Li'l Esther Lee Jones was a child singer who impersonated Florence Mills. Nobody can deny that. Does that prove any of the vile accusations you matter-of-factly state about Helen Kane though? Nope. 197.83.246.141 (talk) 08:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Bolton had an "Esther (Lee) Jones" who was a Florence Mills impersonator. [1] [2]. But that's something completely different. Everything else on your part is WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTHESIS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.141 (talk) 07:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I have copyedited this article over the last few years but have added very little content, and I have no idea what OR or "vile accusations" you think I've stated. The material relating to Helen Kane is sourced, and mostly describes what Lou Bolton presented at the trial. Your edits have misinterpreted sources to push the idea that Esther's singing style so closely mimicked that of Florence Mills that she could not have provided any inspiration for the "booping" of Helen Kane. That is unsourced POV. For what it's worth, the 30-paragraph long Chicago Defender article "Chicago's Little Esther, Now Petted by Royalty, Wins Over Jim Crowism" (Sept 14, 1929) does not mention the name of Florence Mills. Esther as described there as interpreting American popular songs "with a very seductive mixture of seriousness and childish mischief". Ewulp (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Lou Bolton's testimony was just that. What he said. There was nothing at all to substantiate his claims. Later, a an unmarked, undated sound recording as produced, which was said to be an early test sound recording of "Baby Esther". No evidence could be provided as to where or when it was recorded, or even who it actually was on the recording. And the "Baby Esther" claim was not part of the reason why the judge ruled against Kane. This entire "rediscovery" of "Baby Esther" is entirely of the same line of thinking that claims that Garrett Morgan invented traffic lights and the gas mask. It is actually absurd to even go along with this "Helen Kane stole her act from Baby Esther". Unfortunately, TODAY some people write it as fact in their articles, which under Wiki rules makes it "reliable". But it;s a load of bs. And debunking it with logic and actual contemporaneous evidence is easier than shooting fish in a barrel.

It is also DEEPLY disrespectful and insulting to the legacy of Helen Kane. I sincerely hope the Helen Kane estate takes some sort of legal action against the likes of Gabrielle Bellot. There is NOTHING AT ALL to back up the "Helen Kane stole her signature act from Baby Esther" other than that a bunch of ignorant people with agendas say so. Fact? Proof? 'Oh, some person writing in 2017 said that...' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.141 (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Misunderstanding the judge's verdict

Helen Kane sued Fleischer Studios over the fact that Betty Boop was suspiciously similar to her. The defence consisted of showing that Clara Bow (who predated Kane) had a very similar look. And the verdict was NOT NOT NOT that "Kane had stolen Baby Esther's singing style", in fact that was never even part of the summary, and reason for dismissal of the case. It was that Kane had failed to prove beyond any doubt that she and she alone had originated the singing style. And again... Baby Esther had nothing at all to do with that verdict. And let's not forget: 1) All we have is Lou Bolton's contradictory, and totally unsubstantiated, claims. 2) Helen Kane/Betty Boop both use(d) sexiness/sexuality as a major part of the appeal. Was a 7-year-old Baby Esther using sexiness/sexuality as a major part of her act? 3) Both Helen Kane and Betty Boop had a very unmistakable(and even stereotypical) NEW YORK ACCENT. Which, again, was a MAJOR part of both Helen Kane's and Betty Boop's acts/personas. Baby Esther was born and raised in Illinois. 4) There is no evidence whatsoever that Baby Esther ever used the phrase "Boop oop a doop", part of the central part of the lawsuit. (Unsurprising, as "Boop oop a doop" refers to something sexual). 5) Again, the verdict had nothing to do with Baby Esther. 6) There is no evidence that Baby Esther was anything other than a Florence Mills impersonator. 7) And there are no known photos of Baby Esther today. Whoever that girl at the top of the page is, it ain't Baby Esther.(Or at least it can't be proved that it is her.) 8) The whole idea that "Helen Kane stole her act from baby Esther" is a 21st century revisionist way of looking at the documented evidence. One that has no foundation. 9) Helen Kane's lawsuit actually feel down on her (untruthful) claim that she didn't know about scat. Which was rightly seen to be untrue. That has nothing to do with Baby Esther. 10) The judge's summary and reason for ruling for Fleischer Studios never mentioned Baby Esther as any part of the reason for said decision at all. Did I say that already? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.141 (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• Since I recall hearing and reading about it in the 1980s, it is hardly "21st century revisionist". Yes, it is an oversimplification to say Kane "stole" her act from Baby Esther. But Fleischer specifically presented a copy of a (since unfortunately apparently lost) Baby Esther soundie as evidence - showing that "boop a doop" vocals did not originate with Kane. (The affectation of a cutsie "little girl" type voice for female singers was nothing new either; it was something of a staple of US entertainment, Eva Tanguay being one example.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

And there you just got the wrong end of the stick. The "Baby Esther sound recording" has no part in the judge's decision. None at all. The judge made his ruling base don other things presented in the case. Baby Esther had nothing at all to do with the ruling. Yet today, it was is claimed that Baby Esther was the key to Fleischer's victory, and also (disgustingly, I may add) that "Baby Esther was the original Betty Boop", and that "Helen Kane stole her act from Baby Esther". Yet, there was nothing at all to substantiate either of those claims. Bizarrely, there are even youtube links today [3] claiming to be the "Baby Esther recording". This shows how far gone some people are. And, as noted, there are NO known photos of Baby Esther today, yet there is a photo on this article claiming to be her. This is truly a case of both "believing is seeing", and people stitching stuff together out of whole cloth. Not to mention the major misinterpretation. It would be funny if it wasn't so surreal(and insulting). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.141 (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

And again let's look at how this article was created, by one person...

[4]

One, a blatant lie, no sources, And she was never a regular at the Cotton Cub either.

[5]

And now an even bigger lie, "Helen Kane saw her act in 1928 and appropriated Jones' 'baby' singing style for a recording of I Wanna Be Loved By You. Via Kane, Jones' style went on to become the inspiration for the voice of Betty Boop.". Sadly this is now believed by many. Maybe 'cause they read it on Wikipedia?

[6]

Still no sources. And TAKE NOT OF THIS: the the entire Baby Esther article is about Helen Kane "appropriating" Baby Esther's act, and the Helen Kane lawsuit! The ONE piece of information that is actually about the title of the article states that "She performed regularly at the The Cotton Club in Harlem", which is not true.

[7]

And that's where the creator of this article left off, no doubt having seen something on YouTube, and feeling a "need" to create this article. Again, the article states NOTHING AT ALL that required a separate article. And the only piece of information about the actual title of the article states that " She performed regularly at the The Cotton Club in Harlem", which is a lie.

And, as people have added, sometimes using reliable sources, everything has been made to warp to fit that original creator's vision. Which contained no sources, factual errors, and possible grounds for a lawsuit.

Now today, we have the article as it stands now. Which is also in desperate need of cleaning up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.141 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

So now quoting what a source actually says is "plagiarism". And instead someone sneakily rewords it to mean something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.141 (talk) 09:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes. See WP:PLAGIARISM: "No in-text attribution, no quotation marks, no change in text, inline citation only" = plagiarism. "Inserting a text—copied word-for-word, or closely paraphrased with very few changes from a copyrighted source—then citing the source in an inline citation after the passage that was copied, without naming the source in the text" = plagiarism. You should peruse WP:AGF as well; to accuse an editor who has accurately papraphrased a source as "sneakily" rewording it "to mean something else" is bad form, as is your characterizarization of this edit as "hate speech". This kind of rubbish does not help your case and could get you blocked. Ewulp (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Is this even Wiki-worthy?

This entire article is based around the misconception that, as the 'Legacy' section states, "Jones is now spoken of mostly in the context of her indirect influence to Betty Boop's vocal stylings."

Except of course that (altogether now)Baby Esther was never mentioned in the judge's ruling in the Kane-Fleischer trial. Lou Bolton testified that he saw Kane at a Baby Esther performance right before Kane started doing her act. But a)there is not one shred of evidence to back that up. b)How did he know when Helen Kane developed her act?..Then there is the "Early sound recording", which was undated, had no writing, and could NOT be verified i)where it was recorded, ii) when it was recorded, and iii) who was actually singing on it. And, as noted, whoever it was singing on it, even if the date and identity of the singer were what is claimed today...was singing songs that Kane herself had recorded PRIOR to this alleged "theft of style".

The judge's ruling relied heavily on Clara Bow, and in the fact that Kane could not prove, beyond any doubt, that she and she alone had developed the Helen Kane/Betty Boop persona, vocal style and catchphrase.

There is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that Li'l Esther(her actual stage name at the time of the alleged 'plagiarism') ever even did a Betty Boop/Helen Kane like performance. Li'l Esther was a child performer who did a Florence Mills impersonation act, and was known as eg. "the Little Florence Mills", "the Miniature Florence Mills". I bold child performer, because a HUGE part of the Helen Kane/Betty Boop act was sexuality. In fact, the key phrase "Boop oop a doop" is itself sexual. So, was a 7-year-old girl's act based on her sexuality?

And, I'll state it again, Baby Esther, played no part whatsoever in the judge's ruling. Trying to link "The judge ruled against Helen Kane" to "Baby Esther is the original Betty Boop, and Helen Kane stole her entire act from her" is the VERY WORST kind of WP:OR and and WP:SYNTHESIS imaginable.

What do we actually have?

Esther (Lee) Jones was born c. 1920. At a young age, she was signed by Louis Bolton. Her act was a Florence Mills impersonator act, and she was known by names such as "The Miniature Florence Mills". In 1928 she got into the papers involving some inappropriate behavior with Bolton involving a minor. She could still make the back pages of newspapers by 1932.

Then, during the Helen Kane/Fleischer Studios lawsuit, "Baby Esther" was used as "Evidence" for the defense. Only a)she could not be found, b)everything hinged entirely on what Lou Bolton said, and could not in any way, shape or form be verified, and most importantly, c) The "Baby Esther evidence" had NOTHING AT ALL to do with the verdict given.

Then, decades later, someone(it's unclear who was first here), put two and two together and got potato. And, ever since then, this preposterous myth has grown and grown. Of note, is that these people equated her with Esther Phillips, who was only born in 1935, ie. after the trial verdict had been given. That these people were so eager to say that they were one and the same shows that they're not interested in facts, they're just interested in pushing their lies and propaganda. Next up, a Ukrainian girl's photo was used as Baby Esther. This was similarly debunked. And then another girl was placed on this very page, and WIKIPEDIA claimed it was Baby Esther. Only it wasn't either. And, that recording from 1934, used at the trial? It has been "lost" too(most probably because a proper scientific analysis of it would prove that it was from 1934, NOT 1928). And yet, despite that, we still get people who believe this..[8]. The person who uploaded this has this recording, plus a photo, only...NO KNOWN RECORDINGS OR PHOTOS OF JONES ARE KNOWN TO EXIST. And then read the comments made by the ignorant people on that video.

By the way, here's the original version of this very article, cut-and-pasted..

[9]

Esther Jones, stage name 'Baby Esther', was a singer and entertainer of the late 1920s. She performed regularly at the The Cotton Club in Harlem. Jones is acknowledged to be one of the originators of the "baby" singing style that Helen Kane later used in her act and was since imitated to create the voice of Betty Boop.

The same person then added

[10]

Esther Jones, stage name 'Baby Esther', was a singer and entertainer of the late 1920s. She performed regularly at the The Cotton Club in Harlem. Helen Kane saw her act in 1928 and appropriated Jones' 'baby' singing style for a recording of I Wanna Be Loved By You. Via Kane, Jones' style went on to become the inspiration for the voice of Betty Boop.

etc.

Is this really worthy of an encyclopedia? This manure should have been deleted there and then.

Baby Esther's "claim to fame" is that she ALLEGEDLY 'inspired' someone, who 'stole her act', only there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that Baby Esther ever even did such an act, and she was NOT part of the verdict of the trial.

Seriously, is this Wikipedia? Or have I stumbled into some Encyclopedia Dramatica type site that is using a very similar name, and I failed to notice the subtle difference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.141 (talk) 11:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you questioning whether L'il Esther is worthy of being on Wikipedia? WHY?

Misty MH (talk) 08:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Your comments seem to imply a sort of omniscience about all of this. WHY?

And it seems like you are acting like you read the entire transcript of the trial to "know" that it didn't include certain information. Did you? Source link?

Also: Did you know that L'il Esther was mentioned in several newspaper articles and periodicals during her time as a performer? Then later, she's mentioned in any number of major magazines, books, and so on. Isn't this noteworthy or Wiki-worthy in your mind?

And whether true or false, one of those publications said that she might be the highest-paid child in her field (or whatever). That's not only NOTEWORTHY, it's worthy of of a major article in a magazine.

Other articles state that she performed before kings and queens.

For ANY child – this and more – would be noteworthy! And for a black girl, in a time of severe racism, this was astounding!

Do you still believe this person was not Wiki-worthy (in your title "Is this even Wiki-worthy?")? WHY?

Misty MH (talk) 08:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a one-issue article. It was only created by someone pushing a pov, with blatant lies, and no sources. Then it grew around those

lies. Even now, most of the article is about something that isn't even true.

Photo

Yes, so sources agree that there are no known photos of Esther existing today. The main page has an unverified photo, claiming to be her.Someone REALLY wants it there. It's not the first time a photo of someone else was claimed to be "Baby Esther". Nor the second. It should be removed, until someone can VERIFY who that actually is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.141 (talk) 06:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

We have one source that says that there are no known photos. The Chicago Defender ("Chicago's Little Esther, Now Petted by Royalty, Wins Over Jim Crowism"; September 14, 1929) mentions that her picture was on the cover of Vu magazine; a Google search of vu magazine 1929 esther brings up the cover and other news photos of the same girl. For a couple of years she was something of a sensation in Europe; more so than in the US. Given the press attention she received it would be surprising if she were never photographed, and it would be equally surprising if none of the photographs of her have survived. I haven't found a quality, authenticated image that can be used. An image in the infobox would be helpful, if only to prevent Olya or the Van Der Zee photo from reappearing. Ewulp (talk) 08:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Read WP:OR. 197.83.246.141 (talk) 05:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Synthesis in intro

A group of sourced statements. But the way they are put together gives a 100% false impression of the meaning/implication, one that is NOT in any of those sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.141 (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

It's all in Pointer, pp. 99-100, except that he argues more emphatically that the film was the crucial evidence. Which press accounts from the time of the trial also say. Ewulp (talk) 07:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Can you quote that Pointer text here? Of course, the judge's actual ruling never mentioned Baby Esther at all. And, does Pointer give any source as to why "he argues more emphatically that the film was the crucial evidence"?

And of course the article, and the evidence from the trial, states something different:

(c&p'd from article) :

• Theatrical manager Lou Bolton testified for the defense stating that in 1925, he coached a "young negro child" named Esther, teaching her how to interpolate her songs with scat lyrics, "boo-boo-boo" and "doo-doo-doo", which Kane later reinvented as her trademark "boop oop a doop". Jones' manager testified that he and Kane had seen her act together in April 1928, and just a few weeks later, Kane began to "boop". ;

Fish. Barrel. Shotgun... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.141 (talk • contribs) 6:15, November 15, 2020 (UTC)

References

Pointer writes:

On May 2, new evidence was introduced that proved that syllables similar to Helen Kane's were used before. Lou Walton (a.k.a. Lou Bolton), theatrical manager for a black entertainer, Esther Jones, known by her stage name, "Baby Esther", testified that his client had used baby-talk words like "boo-boo-boo," and "doo-doo-doo" in songs at a New York cabaret as early as 1925. Walton continued, stating that Miss Kane and her manager had seen his client's performance in April 1928, and just a few weeks later was seen using the "boop" interpretations in a New York theater ... Paramount and Max Fleischer were very worried about losing the case until an early sound-on-disc test film of "Baby Esther" was discovered. This seemed to be the key element for the defense until it reached the crucial point of the controversial syllables. The film had broken from past use and had been spliced back together in several places. Because the sound was on a separate medium from the film, the relative position of image to sound impulse was lost by fractions of a second due to each splice, throwing the synchronization off at that one important spot ... An optical film soundtrack was transferred from the disc and Lou went to work ... He worked through the night with their film cutter, Kitty Pfister, splicing in black film slugs to replace the right number of lost frames to reposition the film frames and restore the synchronization ...The corrected print was rushed to the Paramount News Lab for a new composite print for a demonstration in court that morning. The film proved that "Baby Esther" was the true originator of the singing style, uttering the syllables, "Boop-oop-a-doo." Justice Edward McGoldrick ruled in favor of Paramount and Fleischer based on this evidence stating, "The plaintiff has failed to sustain either cause or action by proof of sufficient probative force." In his opinion, "the singing style did not originate with Miss Kane."

It was fortunate that the attorneys were not privy to the technical aspects of film because Miss Kane's attorney could have objected on the grounds that the film had been "faked" because of the alterations made to restore the synchronization even though it was an authentic filmed performance. In spite of this, the "Baby Esther" film was the crucial evidence that brought the case to a close.

This can be considered a reliable source, and many reliable sources say the film was the key evidence. Some draw different conclusions (Langer for instance opines about what is "likely") which is why the lead section should summarize the facts—what the published record tells us about Baby Esther—without emphasizing any particular POV. Ewulp (talk) 09:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

And yet, elsewhere Bolton testified that he was the one who taught "Baby Esther" the "boo boo boo" sounds, which Kane "chang[ed] the interpolated words "boo-boo-boo" and "doo-doo-doo" to "boop-boop-a-doop" in a recording of "I Wanna Be Loved By You."

[Interjection from Ewulp: Bolton managed Esther from 1920. No contradiction there. Ewulp (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)] make that 1923-24. Ewulp (talk) 04:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

So, which is it? and again, the article, as per the trial, clearly states that the judge "did not mention Baby Esther in his ruling". And all of that is sourced.

Which means, that what Pointer wrote is his opinion. if the judge did not mention Baby Esther in his ruling, then there must be a reason for that. And "Baby Esther was NOT the true originator of the singing style". and that "similar sounds had been used by other performers prior to the plaintiff". You really are reaching to turn that into "Baby Esther was the original".

[Interjection from Ewulp: I challenge you to show me where I have written "Baby Esther was the original". Ewulp (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)]

You are giving undue weight to Baby Esther. The judge never mentioned Baby esther in his ruling, and the Fleischer defense used multiple singers/performers, of which Esther was only one. The way this article reads, it was Baby Esther and Baby Esther alone, that resulted in the decision going against Kane. Which is blatant bs. 197.83.246.141 (talk) 07:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Now, granted, Pointer wrote that. In 2017(or whenever it was). But that should be under the "Legacy" section, and prefaced with "In the opinion of Ray Pointer...".

And we also see [11] that "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, would that mean Patsy Young [12] was the REAL "original Betty Boop"? Furthermore, the same source tells us, and this needs to be properly summarised for this article, as well as other relevant ones.. In his decision, Judge Edward J. McGoldrick ruled that because the animated cartoon is purely fanciful, because cartoon figures are grotesque while Helen Kane is of normal proportions, and because the Fleischer character did not use Helen Kane’s name, there was no violation of the Civil Rights Law. Because the animated cartoon is sui generis, because the use of nonsense syllables interpolated into songs as “hot licks” had been performed by others before Kane, because Kane was not the copyright proprietor of her songs used in Betty Boop cartoons, because several girls provided the voice for Betty Boop, and because the defendants had no intention of identifying their cartoon character with the plaintiff, there was no unfair competition. McGoldrick ruled that Helen Kane “has no property right in the tones of voice, motions, actions and gestures used by her, nor does she have any property right in the words ‘boop-oop-a-doop’ and its variants, nor does she have the exclusive right to the rendition of songs containing such vocables.”24 The basis of this decision remained for decades until the cases involving Onassis, Carson, Midler and White. The key elements in McGoldrick’s decision seems to have been that he ruled that animated films did not refer in any way to the “real world”. He said that they “were fantastic in plot, incident, character and design; they did not deal or purport to deal with the mundane world; they were unreal and created the illusion of dealing with a sphere of things wholly divorced from every day life.” These cartoons, said McGoldrick, “represented wholly distinct types of entertainment and were not susceptible of identification or resemblance as between themselves.” Since the Betty Boop films were divorced from every day life, they could not, by their very nature, represent Helen Kane in any way. In other words, McGoldrick denied that any indexical link was possible between an animated film and empirical reality. And so, Kane lost her case.

What does ANY of that have to do with Baby Esther? Nothing. Nothing at all. yes Pointer can say he believes something today, but the actual documented FACTS say something else entirely. This article is made from whole cloth. What we have is that Esther Lee Jones was a child performer, known as "Li'l Esther", "Baby Esther" and similar names. She did a Florence Mills impersonator act. She performed in Europe as well. Her name was brought up in the Kane-Fleischer trial, but had no bearing whatsoever on the outcome. If it did, then so did Annette Hanshaw. Yet HER entire article isn't some puff piece, stitched together out of SYNTHESIS and whole cloth. So, we have someone who we don't know where or when she was born, where or when she died, and whose main "Claim to fame" is something that isn't even verified! That's...something.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.141 (talk • contribs) 6:15, November 15, 2020 (UTC)

She is notable because she has been much written about. We summarize what sources say. That Esther "had no bearing whatsoever on the outcome" is unlikely; one of McGoldrick's findings was that "the vocables 'boop-boop-a-doop' and similar sounds had been used by other performers prior to the plaintiff", a conclusion that was informed by testimony from Bolton; the film; Marion Luber's testimony that she had heard Little Esther boop in early 1928; Alfred Evans' testimony that Edith Griffith was booping in 1927; Little Ann Little's testimony, and the rest.

[Interjection by IP]:Yup, "other PERFORMERS prior to the plaintiff". Edith Griffith is not mentioned in the article at all. And it appears she doesn't even have a Wikipedia article at all. And 1927 is BEFORE 1928. Yet there is no "Defense uses Edith Griffith" section in any article. Why? Because Edith Griffith never went viral on the internet in the 2010's. And the quote is "because the use of nonsense syllables interpolated into songs as “hot licks” had been performed by others before Kane,", which would mean that perhaps Gertrude Saunders was "the original Betty Boop". [13]. I notice you never mention that. But then Gertrude Saunders didn't go viral in the 2010's either. Not Edith Griffith, not Annette Hanshaw, not Gertrude Saunders. No, it was Baby Esther that became an internet meme in the 2010's.And that is why we get nonsense like that article in "The Cut", or the multiple YouTube videos made by ignorant people following a trend. 197.83.246.141 (talk) 07:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The comment now in the lead section—"Esther Jones was not mentioned in the judge's verdict"—is true, but any statement about what is not in a primary source is arguably WP:OR. It means a Wikipedia contributor has examined a source and determined that "x" is not mentioned. The casting of such a statement in negative form can lead to all kinds of POV-pushing. For instance, it would be accurate to say that "In his decision, the judge did not deny that Helen Kane's act was stolen from Esther Jones". Absolutely a true statement—McGoldrick wrote no such denial—but it's (even more obviously than the comment in our lead) POV. It would be better to recast the sentence to describe what is in the decision. I will attempt a fix.

I believe the "Disappeared" parameter in the infobox is to be used for "missing person" cases in the legal sense, which Esther is not, any more than Sven Aggesen is. That's why I removed that, and will do so again. Ewulp (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

And no ruling was given about Esther Jones either. And it was the legal team for HELEN KANE that were trying to locate her. The defense team, as well as Bolton, claimed she was "missing, believed to be in Paris". Why would Helene Kane's attorneys have been the ones who wanted to try and locate her? Surely that would have worked AGAINST them? Bolton "knew" excatly where she was in early 1934, but suddenly had no clue when he was on the stand? Come on, that's beyond obvious. 197.83.246.141 (talk) 07:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

But ultimately, Esther Kane was never mentioned in the final verdict. Yes, the judge DID mention that "other performers had used that style", but for some reason, SOME people today fixate ONLY on Esther. And that's because it was Esther, and not any of the other performers in that style(many of who clearly and undeniably predate Baby Esther), who went viral on the internet in the 2010's. It was Baby Esther who had a photo of a Ukrainian girl taken in 2008 used as "proof", and it is Baby Esther who ignorant people now espouse as "the original Betty Boop, who Helen Kane stole her act from". Going by the evidence, there are some similarities, but in the same way there are also similarities with many other singers/performers of the time, and Baby Esther was NEVER "the original Betty Boop", which isn't what was claimed, and was never ruled as such.

Helen Kane's lawsuit was about how Fleischer had lifted the total package. The Fleischer defense team went after the individual parts. Let's look at it like this...hamburgers have been around since at least Roman times. Arches have been around since at least Egyptian times. Clowns have existed since at least the Middle Ages. But...if I started a hamburger chain that used arches as my logo, used a clown as mascot, and sold "quarter-pounders", would I be able to win a lawsuit if a certain chain came after me? After all, all those individual components are much older than said chain. Well, Fleischer Studios did. The 'Baby Esther' defense was that Baby Esther was ONE of the singers who had performed in a similar style prior to Kane. That doesn't make her "the template for Helen Kane", and it doesn't mean "Helen Kane stole her act from Baby Esther". ANYONE who had used interpolations, such as "Wa wa wa", "ooh ooh ooh" or anything else like that was the "evidence". And part of the ruling that saw Kane lose. This MODERN fixation on how Baby Esther was the deciding factor is surreal.

And a MAJOR part of the lawsuit was that Helen Kane was flesh-and-blood in the real world, whereas Betty Boop only existed as a cartoon, and existed "outside" the real world. 197.83.246.141 (talk) 07:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

LOL. What Robert O'Meally actually said

This all seems to go back to Robert O'Meally and his book Uptown Conversation: The New Jazz Studies (2004).

The person who created this article only used O'Meally as a supposed "source". [14]

The person from The Cut, one Gabrielle Bellot states in her article [15] uses O'Meally as her sole source, and even quotes him. "Baby Esther, it turned out, had invented Helen Kane, and, by extension, Betty Boop. Indeed, as jazz scholar Robert G. O’Meally wrote in the anthology Uptown Conversation: The New Jazz Studies, Betty Boop “had, as it were, a black grandmother in her background.”

--- But what did Robert O'Meally ACTUALLY say"

From Page 290 of Uptown Conversation:

• The climax of the case (a further Ellisonian twist) came when the court viewed archival film brought in by the defense - footage shot in the early days of sound, featuring yet another singer, this time a black cabaret artist billed as Baby Esther, who on film performed a song that contained the heavily debated phrase "boop-boop-a-doop". The Fleischers' lawyers further surprised the court with testimony from Baby Esther's manager, Lou Walton, claiming that Helen Kane and her manager had heard Baby Esther sing in a cabaret in 1928. The point of course was that even if the Fleischers' singer(s) had copied Kane to create Betty Boop, Kane herself, if the evidence could be believed56, was an imitation of black Baby Esther.57 In other words, Boop herself was an imitation of an imitation and had, as it were, a black grandmother in the background.58

Nice, isn't it? But what was that "if the evidence could be believed"? Gabrielle Bellot never quoted THAT, did she? Let's see what Robert O'Meally says under those references at the book. After all, he wouldn't put that there, if it wasn't important, would he? And what about # 57 and # 58? Let us turn to Page 295 of the exact same book, by the exact same author.

• 56. Cabarga, The Fleischer Story makes clear that this evidence might very well have been cooked up by the Fleischers to discredit Kane, whom they later admitted to have been their model for Betty Boop.

• 57. See Klaus Strateman's Louis Armstrong on the Screen (Copenhagen:JazzMedia 1996), pp. 17-26.

• 58. One can only wonder if there was some sort of sideline deal with Mr Walton. Was Miss Esther paid for her presumed loss of revenue?

Now, doesn't THAT put things in perspective? I don't have to wonder why Gabrielle Bellot never quoted THOSE passages from Robert O'Meally's book, do I?

I would also like to know if anyone has the text from either of the books O'Meally mentions. They would prove helpful.

As Robert O'Meally stated those IN THE SAME BOOK that as used for the "Legacy" here, it's only right, we quote it IN CONTEXT. 197.83.246.141 (talk) 09:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

An odd string of coincidences...or garbage?

So, allegedly..

Baby Esther performed at Everglades in 1928.

She started doing "Boop oop a doop" in March 1928.

In 'April or May' 1928 Helen Kane saw her act

In May 1928 Helen Kane started doing 'Boop oop a doop'.

Baby Esther left the USA in 1932, just as the Kane-Fleischer trial was beginning.

Lou Bolton had no idea where she was.

In 1934, right after the verdict of the Kane-Fleischer trial, Baby Esther returned to the US.

During the trial, an "early test sound film" was discovered, featuring Baby Esther, which was recorded in the very specific gap between March 1928 when she started to "boop oop a doop" and April 1928, when Helen Kane saw her. How fortuitous that in the VERY early days of test sound film it was decided to record a 7-year-old "negro" cabaret performer, right after she had introduced a new phrase, and also right before someone else who would use that phrase and gain big success from it. Just think a couple of weeks either way would mean all the difference in the world.

And then that all-important "early test sound film" was unfortunately lost forever, meaning no one could ever do technical examinations of it.

And, despite being "the original Betty Boop", Esther's return to the USA in 1934, RIGHT after the trial had ended, meaning she couldn't be called to the stand, was met with complete indifference.

And Lou Bolton never attempted to sue anyone. Hey, he had the "early test sound film", he was Esther's manager, and he claimed under oath that HE was the one who taught Esther to scat and interpolate. Yet...nothing.

Isn't that interesting?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.141 (talk • contribs) 9:10, November 16, 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTASOAPBOX and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Talk pages are intended for article improvement, and your postings are becoming rather speculative about historical events and the need to set the record straight. All we can hope for is to write an accurate article using best available sources. What the record shows: Esther left the US in 1929. Bolton was quickly fired as manager and replaced by Sidney Garner, and as far as can be determined from news reports Esther toured Europe until April 1931, when she sailed to South America for a tour there. Esther apparently never returned to the US from March 1929 until June1933. In 1933 and 1934 she is documented performing various theaters in Indiana. I can find no sources from that period that confirm that Lou Bolton was ever her manager after March 1929, can you? Sources from the 1980s and later call him her manager at the trial, but they seem to be repeating an error. In his testimony, Bolton says he has lived in Pittsburgh since 1929 where he operates a theatrical school. When asked, "did you have any business relationship with Baby Esther?", he says, yes, beginning in "1923 or 1924". When asked, "What was your relationship with her?", he replies, "I was then her manager". It's all past-tense. As far as I can tell there is no evidence that he had any relationship with her after 1929.

I have found a verifiable photograph of Esther which you may be able to view online using ProQuest. It was published in the Chicago Defender, January 2, 1932, p. 20, under the headline, "Brazil Greets 'Little Esther'". I'm sure there are many others.

Also, I would like to point out that the same source you rely on for the statement that no confirmed photos of Jones are known to exist also says, in the same article, "Fleischer Studios provided a screen test—now lost—of Jones that convinced the judge Kane had copied the singer." I presume you wouldn't want to quote her on that? I suggest we remove the bit about the photos.

When posting here please sign your statement with four tildes (~~~~) so people can tell who said what. Ewulp (talk) 03:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Deeply ironic that you post about "the need to set the record straight" and "repeating an error". Whether you like it or not, "Baby Esther"(actually Li'l Esther) was not mentioned in the judge's verdict at all. And his verdict focused on the difference between the "real world" Helen Kane vs. the "fantasy world" Betty Boop. He stated that other singers(plural) had performed in a similar style to Kane.

Then in 2004 a book by a respected scholar was published. What he wrote is VERY clear. However, c. 2014 someone completely misrepresented what O'Meally said. From there this deliberate LIE went viral, leading to those YouTube videos and "articles" like the one from The Cut. My "soapbox" was just to highlight the absurdity, no impossibility, of this story. Of course, that wasn't necessary, as this article is built out of opinions, synthesis, and DELIBERATE MISREPRESENTATION of the actual sources. Oh yeah, and STOP your "interjections", reply AFTER the post. You are messing up the format. 197.83.246.141 (talk) 05:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Our article states unambiguously that other singers heard in the trial were shown to have performed in the style of Kane. I'm not seeing the irony here.

If you can find a source that says Esther was not mentioned in the decision, it would be fine to cite that. Citing the trial transcript for something that's not there is OR. Ewulp (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The irony was made clear. Or maybe, like the people who blatantly lie about what Robert O'Meally said, you got that wrong. And "our article"? What? This article was built on lies. Go back and read the original article, where pretty much everything was a blatant lie. And the garbage has continued to be piled on top of that.

And here's the thing. The judge doesn't mention Esther in the summary. Which means, you can't link Esther to the verdict. As that would be WP:OR. We don't need to find such a source. As it is a clear Wiki transgression to ASSUME what you are ASSUMING. As such, we can mention Esther used in the trial, but we can't use WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:OR to push your obvious agenda. This article has been a collection of lies, synthesis, agendas, and possible legal grounds for too long. Now someone is trying to attempt to bring it to WP standards, and you are resisting that at every step. 197.83.246.141 (talk) 06:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

And here's the thing. Li'l Esther worked with Cab Calloway. She performed for royal families. She gained a degree of fame. Yet, this entire article was built on a DELIBERATE FALSIFICATION as to what someone in the 21st century had actually written. Again, read O'Meally, and then read the outright LIE that this article originally stated(and what hacks like Bellot repeated). In other words, this was never an article about the performer Esther Lee Jones. No, it was an incoherent, unreliably sourced attack on Helen Kane. And the foundation stone was a BLATANT LIE about what Robert O'Meally had written. Now, Esther Lee Jones may be noteworthy enough for her own Wikipedia article, but this isn't it. 197.83.246.141 (talk) 06:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Time article.

You need a subscription to read the whole Time article from 1934 that someone else linked to, but there is a preview. It contains

• "In 1923, a plump, impudent artfully infantile young woman named Helen Kane began to appear in vaudeville. In her songs she usually replaced the lyrics with extraordinary noises. Presently her favorite noise, "Boop-Boop-a-Doop," became a recognized word in Vaudeville's nonsense language. By 1928, Helen Kane had innumerable imitators."

And that is the source Ewulp linked to. I shan't deny him/her that that is a reliable source. Thank you for providing it/uploading it for us. 197.87.143.7 (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome, but paraphrase it accurately please. It does not say she "booped" in 1923. "Presently" means either "now" or "soon afterward". In this context, "soon afterward" seems likelier, but the date is not specified, and we can only say that it refers to some time between 1923 and 1928. Taylor (a reliable source) says 1928, as do most sources. You approve of Taylor when he seems to favor your case (as you say here); why in this instance do you prefer a rather slapdash Time article (I presume you realize that Kane's stage career began before 1923!) to Taylor's scholarship?

Here's a reliable source that I have avoided using because it says Kane admitted that she borrowed Esther's act, and I have reason to believe this is erroneous. [16]

You have added the Erin Blakemore article as a reliable source, yet you don't seem to agree with her statement that it was "a screen test—now lost—of Jones that convinced the judge Kane had copied the singer." Should we consider this an unquestioned fact, or add it only with attribution? In my opinion, Blakemore is correct about there being no known recordings, possibly wrong about the impact of the film on the verdict (although this is the consensus opinion and should be treated as such), and certainly wrong about the photos. It is better to use several sources rather than hanging your entire argument on a single source that you know to be an outlier. Ewulp (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a problem with wiki. It is well-known, as well as common sense tells us, that multiple statements that are "reliably sourced" are actually a load of bs. And this works both ways. Again, Kane obviously didn't invent interpolations/scatting( Hello Louis), but neither did she "steal" anything from Esther Jones. If we actually read the verdict, the verdict stems from the facts that a) the judge ruled that Helen Kane was real world vs Betty Boop existing in a fictional world, and b) you can't copyright a style. Helen Kane sued because Betty Boop was too close to her, but that would be like whoever first rapped suing everyone who ever rapped after that. Plus c) the judge ruled that the "boop boop a doop" phrase couldn't be owned. (I wonder what he'd make of "I'm loving it" or "Just do it"?) Much of this article is sourced from MODERN DAY sources, who are clearly pushing an agenda. And much of what these sources state is quite frankly bs. And some deliberately misquote other sources. Thus, by using "RS", a bizarre article has emerged. Of course this article was only created in 2014, where the entire article was inaccurate. That speaks volumes.197.87.143.7 (talk) 05:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The more I research this, the more apparent it is that the story of the Esther film being the turning point in the trial has been pervasive for decades. We have to report fairly what sources say. It may be a mistake to rely too heavily on the trial transcript—it reports only the words spoken, not the body language, the fist pumps, the flop sweat, the air going out of the room. Observers who were there may have been the sources for historians of the importance of the Baby Esther film. Grim Natwick lived until 1990, others who observed the trial may have been interviewed; we don't know. The literature on Helen Kane is pretty consistent on this matter even if we ignore the less-credible stuff (sites illustrated with Olya photos or whatever). For instance, I'm looking at a 45-year-old article (Canemaker, John. "Grim Natwick." Film Comment 11.1 (1975): 57-61) that says "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". That was published closer to 1934 than to 2020. I don't agree that the current article is bizarre; User:Ramapith did excellent work earlier this year tracking down sources and trimming fluff. The first state of the article in 2014 is of no concern now. Ewulp (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The points were that, first, the article as originally created was founded on lies. And next, some statements were there until very recently.. If we look at the article as it was just TWO MONTHS AGO, compared to now, we see some startling mistruths that were only removed very recently. [17] And, went Esther went 'viral' in the 2010's, it was with the image of a girl taken in 2008. The matter-pf-fact stated "Kane stole her act from Esther" is also something that is stated in sources, yet was never ruled as such by the court, and can not possibly be actually verified. I am also trying to locate a copy of Leslie Cabarga's book on Fleischer Studios, the one that actually brought Betty Boop back to public awareness from obscurity. As it apparently gives a very different version of events relating to the trial.

And really that's the problem. If Time or CNN or whoever were, hypothetically speaking, to declare that Donald Trump was a Martian, would it thus be considered a WP:RS for Wikipedia? It is extremely easy to spot factual errors in sources that are considered RS. In particular, an article by a Gabrielle Bellot could have been used as some sort of 'Spot the Mistake' game. ..We must also, again, understand WHY and WHEN this article was created. If we view the first 4 edits, all by the same

person, we see NOT a Wikipedia article, but rather some sort of internet garbage, which only contained one RS, one that completely and utterly misquoted the actual source. Ramapith may have started cleaning up this article, but it has a LONG way to go. Ultimately, what the person who created this article wanted..was to say that 'Baby Esther was the original Betty Boop. Helen Kane stole her act from Baby Esther, and then the Fleischers stole that act from Helen Kane'. And everything was twisted, misrepresented, and fabricated, to back up that position. Now, there are some sources which say something along similar lines, but there are also sources saying that that is not the case at all. In addition, because this article was actually more about Helen Kane/Betty Boop, it wasn't really about Baby Esther at all. I think this article NEEDS more on her time in Europe, more on her early years etc., rather than just "She's the Real Betty Boop!" Especially, when the source used for that (O'Meally) states very clearly that he was very dubious about that. (And it is also interesting to see how many of these "sources" use the exact same wording, like they're c&p'ing from one source. Could that have been the original, factually inaccurate, Wikipedia article?) 197.87.143.7 (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

People were stating as fact that "Kane stole the act". And using misquotes, and emotional outbursts to show that. However, we could just as easily use Natwick's quotes, the evidence(I don't know what) in Cabarga's book to show that the Baby Esther film was faked, O'Meally's agreement with that, the fact that Esther was never mentioned by name in the verdict, and a quote(I' don't know the exact source) from Natwick again...

• ", which was that he had been given a sheet music of Helen Kane and they told him, hey, do a take off of her. What happened was err... Helen's lawyer kept bringing up these facts and he kept being overruled by a Judge that was brought by Paramount. So he, the "Judge" was in Paramount's pocket, he was in money's pocket. Which never happens to this day it never happens. So it was an anomaly then and unheard of now. The fairness of honesty and justice wins out all the time as we know in the American way but not back then. So every time Helen's lawyer would try to bring up an objection, state a fact he would be overruled. It became where he recognized how ridiculous this was and was almost kind of mocking it, saying I don't have a chance here."

Now, I can't access the links to the articles about Esther from 1934 [18] [19]. Esther is apparently mentioned in these articles. Is she mentioned as being 'the person who inspired Helen Kane'(or something similar)? What about here [20] That's remarkable as she was such a "key part of the trial" AT THAT TIME. 197.87.143.7 (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Another article..

[21]

clearly states

• "Kane’s career break came in 1927, when she appeared in a musical called A Night in Spain. It ran from May 3, 1927, through Nov 12, 1927, for a total of 174 performances, at the 44th Street Theater in NYC. Subsequently, Paul Ash, a band conductor, put Kane’s name forward for a performance at New York’s Paramount Theater.Kane’s first performance at the Paramount Theater in Times Square proved to be her career’s launching point. She was singing “That’s My Weakness Now”, when she interpolated the scat lyrics “boop-boop-a-doop”. This resonated with the flapper culture, and four days later, Helen Kane’s name went up in lights."

See? So Kane had introduced "Boop boop a doop" in 1927. Bolton/Walton's testimony rests on Helen Kane seeing Baby Esther in "April or May 1928" and then "appropriating" it from then. But, if Kane was already doing "Boop boop a doop" in 1927, how could she 'steal' anything? Did she take a time machine back to 1927?

And while it is definitely not a RS, I will quote one of the comments after that article, as it sums it up reality..

• There are many mistakes in that article, and I know it for sure because the transcript of the trial still exists. It lasted two weeks in April 1934 Lou BOLTON , manager of the young impersonator Esther Jones was paid by Fleischer & Paramount Publix to build a big hoax. Helen really invented the character ( and the scat ) first, and even awarded the girls who voiced Betty Boop ( Mae Questel, Margie Hines, Bonnie Poe ) at an official Paramount contest. It happened before the launch of the cartoon. The court inexplicably dismissed FIFTY witnesses and Miss Kane should have won. The cartoonist Grim Natwick who drew Betty Boop admitted to have been inspired by a photo of Helen from a sheet music , and Fleischer always avoided to quote the girls who dubbed Betty in cartoons titles, in order to make the audience believe that was the original HK's singing voice. A real case of exploitation of character and persona, since they never asked Kane permission to do it.

and again, the articles about Baby Esther from 1934 don't mention anything about Helen Kane/Betty Boop. if Baby Esther really was "the original Betty Boop", you'd think someone would have exploited that in 1934. But, no. And, if you actually read the trial transcripts, it is clear that it was HELEN KANE'S LAWYERS, not the Fleischer lawyers, who were desperate to locate Baby Esther and put her on the stand under oath. Why do you suppose that is? Again, per O'Meally(p 290, 295):

• . The point of course was that even if the Fleischers' singer(s) had copied Kane to create Betty Boop, Kane herself, if the evidence could be believed56, was an imitation of black Baby Esther.57 In other words, Boop herself was an imitation of an imitation and had, as it were, a black grandmother in the background.58 Cabarga, The Fleischer Story makes clear that this evidence might very well have been cooked up by the Fleischers to discredit Kane, whom they later admitted to have been their model for Betty Boop. One can only wonder if there was some sort of sideline deal with Mr Walton. Was Miss Esther paid for her presumed loss of revenue?

And per Natwick(still looking for original source)...

• ", which was that he had been given a sheet music of Helen Kane and they told him, hey, do a take off of her. What happened was err... Helen's lawyer kept bringing up these facts and he kept being overruled by a Judge that was brought by Paramount. So he, the "Judge" was in Paramount's pocket, he was in money's pocket. Which never happens to this day it never happens. So it was an anomaly then and unheard of now. The fairness of honesty and justice wins out all the time as we know in the American way but not back then. So every time Helen's lawyer would try to bring up an objection, state a fact he would be overruled. It became where he recognized how ridiculous this was and was almost kind of mocking it, saying I don't have a chance here."

This is borne out by the utter DESIRE for people today to believe this, resulting in a photograph of Olya, taken in 2008, being used as "Baby Esther". Anyone could have immediately checked that, and found it to be WRONG, but they didn't want to check it, they just wanted to believe. And the Olya photo is still used for articles proclaiming "the original Betty Boop was an African American child singer", or words to that effect.

Presumably a seven-year-old girl was the original inspiration for this.. [22] [23] [24] [25]

197.87.143.7 (talk) 10:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The source you're using, The Vintage News, says what other sources say: Kane played in A Night in Spain in 1927 at the 44th Street Theater and, "Subsequently [my emphasis], Paul Ash ... put Kane’s name forward for a performance at New York’s Paramount Theater. Kane’s first performance at the Paramount Theater in Times Square proved to be her career’s launching point. She was singing "That’s My Weakness Now", when she interpolated the scat lyrics 'boop-boop-a-doop'." So her first use of "boop-boop-a-doop" was during her run at the Paramount Theater, which was in 1928. The Helen Kane article in The Dictionary of American Biography (Gale, 1988) quotes Kane on this: "An Atlantic City singing engagement won her a part in bandleader Paul Ashe's new review at the Paramount in 1928. At a rehearsal she inserted 'boop-boop-a-doop' into her song 'That's My Weakness Now,' and the phrase was added for the show. 'I don't know why I did it,' she later remarked. 'It just came out that way.' " Ewulp (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Questions: Misty MH (talk) 07:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

1) On what date did Kane say this, and where did she say it? Was it on the stand during the trial? 2) When was this rehearsal? 3) When was the "new review at the Paramount in 1928", and what was it called? 4) The article you mention, is that available online and for free (link)? Misty MH (talk) 07:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The quote above doesn't seem to be from the trial; the Helen Kane article in The Dictionary of American Biography, which I accessed through my local library, doesn't specify when she said it. Her testimony at the trial was that "I never used the words "Boop-Boop-a-Doop" before I appeared at the Paramount Theatre in New York.", which she estimated was in the summer of 1928. (Taylor, p. 137) No source I can find specifies the date of the rehearsal or even the opening and closing dates of the show. The statement by her lawyers included this: "The facts constituting plaintiff's claim might be summarized as follows: During the month of May, 1928, while the plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant Paramount as a performer at its Paramount Theater in New York City, she originated a unique style of singing and acting, consisting of singing and talking in a baby voice accompanied by coy and flirtatious mannerisms and gesticulations ... distinguishing features of her performance were that at rhythmic intervals throughout her dialogue and singing she interpolated the expressions 'Boop-boop-a-doop' and 'Boop' ... The plaintiff from then on met with tremendous, spectacular success on the radio, in vaudeville, on phonograph records and in motion pictures ..." (Taylor, pp. 63–64) So her lawyers' position was that her singing style originated in May 1928. The sources don't indicate any name for her act at the Paramount. She appeared there as an individual act for six weeks, for 180 performances. (Taylor, p. 15) Ewulp (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

AGES, and Additional Sources

The article cites sources that claim contradictory ages for her. So, as a potential aid to researchers and Wikipedia editors, the following link has actual clips from newspapers etc. with additional age information. Not all that is listed at that page is perfect, but the clips from newspapers may help to nail down the mystery. I may collate some of the dates at a later time (if I have the time, energy, and brainpower, which I don't right at this moment). Here's the link: https://bettyboop.fandom.com/wiki/Baby_Esther_Jones Enjoy! Misty MH (talk) 07:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

This article needs pruning

People adding claims, people just adding stuff.

And NOT SOURCED.

No source? Then it should go.

This entire article was created around a BLATANT LIE in the first place, someone deliberately MISQUOTING its one original source. And then the layers of extra manure have just been piled on top of that. Really, it should have been speedily deleted back when it was created.

But now, people have pieced together fragments from real sources. However, this is still very much a one-issue article. And there isn't really anything to verify that one issue...

Really, the article, the way it was created, should have been deleted, then taken outside, shot in the head, and buried in a lead-lined box, with any possibility of re-creating it locked.

This article is a bad internet meme that has gotten way out of hand.

And it's time to tidy it up. All the "it could be" and all the synthesis needs to be wiped away, to leave what would be left...a stump about a child singer who impersonated Florence Mills in the late 20's/early 30's.

And then the question asked: Is that worthy of Wikipedia? 197.89.10.25 (talk) 08:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Photo

What is the WP:RS that a photo of a girl with a dog is actually "Baby Esther"? How do we know it's not another Olya or Esther Phillips? 197.89.10.25 (talk) 10:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

It was published in The Afro-American, Baltimore, Maryland (US), Sunday August 16, 1930, page 8, seen here. Ewulp (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, that's a source. It's interesting to note that a) she isn't referred to as "Baby Esther"( just as the articles from 28/29 don't refer to her as "Baby Esther" either) b) she of course looks nothing at all like the Helen Kane/Betty Boop look. (And as she was from Illinois, not New York, and because she was a little girl not a sexualized adult, her singing voice would be nothing at all like the Helen Kane/Betty Boop singing voice either. Of course Walton/Bolton "lost" that "early film test", so se can't confirm or deny that anyway...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.89.10.25 (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

An international celebrity?

Anyone got a WP:RS for that?

And it is telling that the first time people at the time were made aware of her was when Walton/Bolton(a man with a criminal record) claimed, without any evidence of course, that Helen Kane had seen Esther performing in 1928, something Kane rightly said was a load of bs.

And for all that "international celebrity", nobody knew where she was. And nobody knows what ever happened to her.

And surely being "the original Betty Boop"(try not to laugh) would have won her fame in 1934. But nope, nothing.

And the only reason this article even exists is because someone blatantly lied, misquoted a RS, and filled the original stub article with factual errors.

Again, this is not an article about Li'l Esther. Rather it's an article about Esther's ALLEGED role in the Helen Kane/Fleischer Studios lawsuit. Made even more surreal because the judge never mentioned Esther in his ruling.( A FACT someone is very eager to try and erase.)

But, back ot, where is a RS saying that Esther was ever an "international celebrity"? You ain't got any, you can't put some wild claim like that in the lead. Simple as that. 197.89.10.25 (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

still nothing, and the same 2 people are still pushing their pov. As stated elsewhere on this discussion page, this isn't even an article about "Baby Esther"(her actual stage name was Li'l Esther). This whole article is about LI'L Esther's ALLEGED role in the outcome of the Kane vs Fleischer trial. And, as much as some folks deny it, Li'l Esther was NEVER mentioned in the judge's verdict, not even in passing. So, what is left? A misnamed article that is really a one-issue "biography", and even that one issue was never mentioned in the judge's verdict. 197.87.63.222 (talk) 06:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Synthesis

The way that paragraph reads makes it look like Bolton's (retracted) claim and the film directly led(in whole or in part) to the judge's verdict. In fact, altogether now, Esther was never mentioned in the judge's verdict.

It is clear SYNTHESIS, and possible OR the way it is written. 197.87.63.222 (talk) 06:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

AN/I

Readers of this talk page will likely be interested in this discussion on AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Well done, I have been blocked for 6 months from editing this article So, go back, and say "Baby Esther" was a regular at the Cotton Club, upload that photo of Esther Bigelou, and say it's "Baby Esther", say that Robert O'Meally called Esther "Betty Boop's black grandmother". Say that Helen Kane stole everything from "Baby Esther", including her New York accent. Say that "Baby Esther" was bigger than Diana Ross later became. You know who doesn't care anymore? Me. Thanks for proving to me what the power of a forced internet meme, and relentless trolling can do. I am blocked for 6 months, for trying to IMPROVE articles, by removing your unsourced lies, and adding actual RS. While you are free to force your POV into articles as you see fit. The truth is out there, as anyone who actually reads O'Meally, or Taylor, or the trial transcripts, or articles from the time actually say. But then, I guess most people DON'T read that stuff. And you're a shining example of that. 197.87.63.222 (talk) 09:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The earliest VERIFIED use of "Boop boop a doop". We were all wrong.

[26]

The difference is I can admit it. And again...

Helen Kane was using baby voice as well as interpolations since at least 1923

I also have seen in the past, but can't now locate, a clipping showing Gertrude Saunders was claiming to be "booping" since at least 1924.

This phrase "boop boop a doop" was around in 1926. (Note, this is a newspaper from the Northeast, and Saunders performed in..the Northeast.)

Helen Kane was using the specific phrase "Boop boop a doop" since 1928.

The Fleischers "brought up Baby Esther at the trial"...but so what? Bolton was a proven liar, changed his testimony on the stand, and it was never verified where or when the "now lost" film recording was from. Again, Esther played no part whatsoever in the judge's verdict.

I can admit I was wrong. The earliest VERIFIED use of "boop boop a doop" was in 1926. And,a s it's from the Northeast, the best guess is it's from Gertrude Saunders. And this predates when "Baby Esther" was ALLEGED to have started using it.

So, Helen Kane may not have coined "Boop boop a doop", but neither did "Baby" Esther.

And we can prove(via Time Magazine ) that Kane was using both interpolations, as well as "baby" singing voice since before Esther had even started performing.

So, no, Kane wasn't first.

But neither was Esther.

We can prove that Bolton had lied about Esther before the trial.

And, oh yeah, Esther was never mentioned in the judge's verdict, either directly or indirectly.

(Oddly enough, even IF Bolton was telling the truth(which is unlikely in and of itself)), there is a clear chain.

1. Gertrude Saunders starts doing interpolations, including ehr claims that she had been "booping" since the first half of the 1920's. (And I'd take Saunders' word over Bolton's any day.)

2. Saunders was replaced in one of her roles by Florence Mills.

3. Li'l Esther was known as "The Miniature Florence Mills"( a fact certain Wikipedia editors were increasingly desperate to remove), because her singing act consisted entirely of imitating Florence Mills.

See? of course, that's just my guess. Just as we can't take Bolton's word for granted, Saunders wasn't necessarily being truthful either. We can't VERIFY what she said. We can only know that she claimed it.

And, despite what certain people would have you believe, there is NOTHING AT ALL to place Kane anywhere near an Esther performance in 1928, apart from the word of a known liar and racist(Bolton).

It is still entirely possible that someone else was using "boop boop a doop"

For example, Louis Armstrong went to the Northeast in 1924, and he is after all the one who popularized the style of "Scat singing".

(In fact, for those who actually read Robert O'Meally properly, the point he was actually making was that "Baby Esther" WAS NOT "Betty Boop's black grandmother", but rather that she DID have "a secret black grandfather"...Louis Armstrong. Go on, read that section of O'Meally properly, see what he ACTUALLY says, compared to the oft-misquoted MYTH of what people wish he had said. The same myth that infested this very article for years, before I replaced it with the truth.)

So? Did Helen Kane coin the phrase "Boop boop a doop"? No. And that plays into why she lost the trial against Fleischer/Paramount.

But..did "Baby" Esther coin the phrase "Boop boop a doop"? No. The phrase was clearly around BEFORE she is alleged to have first used it. (And while we know for a fact that Kane DID definitely use the phrase, there is still not a single shred of actual evidence that Esther ever used the phrase at all...)

So, this entire article is based on a proven myth. That Esther came up with "boop boop a doop", that Kane saw her at a club in 1928, and then stole that from her. And that Esther is thus "the original Betty Boop". In reality, NONE of that is true, and it can be proved that it's all pure FICTION.

Having said that, a proper article about the REAL Esther Jones(Li'l Esther aka The Miniature Florence Mills) SHOULD be on Wikipedia. The dancer, acrobat, and Florence Mills impersonator. The one who performed for the Royal families of Sweden and Spain. The one who was treated like subhuman by her racist manager Lou Bolton. And the one who broke down racial barriers. The one who played to sold out houses in Europe and South America. That Esther definitely deserves a Wikipedia article.

What DOESN'T belong in Wikipedia is the repeatedly debunked garbage about "Baby Esther is the original Betty Boop. Baby Esther performed at the Cotton Club. Baby Esther coined the trademark phrase Boop boop a doop." Because THAT Esther never existed, and is the result of internet trolls in the 2010's and 2020's.

This article needs a complete overhaul(and probably needs to be renamed too, as she never actually used the name "Baby Esther" to perform.)

But I can't edit it for 6 months.

And I sincerely doubt the usual gang will allow anyone else to edit it either... 197.87.63.222 (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)