Talk:Betty Boop/Archive 1

Jewish?
I have seen websites that assert Betty was Jewish. I was always under the impression, for reasons I am uncertain about, that she was Italian. With a nondescript last name, and a New York accented voice, it's a bit hard to tell what she really was, other than a generic 1920s "flapper" girl. However, there is one possible clue, in this old joke: Q - What's the difference between a Jewish girl and a Catholic girl? A - Catholic girls don't believe in sex before marriage, and Jewish girls don't believe in sex after marriage. Since Betty was apparently protective of her virginity, that would tilt the scales toward the Italian, si? Wahkeenah 02:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Unless we can find a cartoon or Fleischer memo or something that says Betty is Jewish or Italian or Hungarian or whatever, I think it's best to assert no particular ethnicity/religion for her in the article. However, if someone finds a published source that argues her ethnicity (there are lots of analyses of old cartoons these days), that might be worth mentioning. Amcaja 13:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * She was portrayed as Jewish in "Minnie the Moocher".


 * How, specifically? Wahkeenah 00:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * She was portrayed as a German-American Jew


 * In "Minnie the Moocher," her parents are portrayed as being outwardly Jewish. Her mother and father both speak Yiddish in the short. It's not all too much of a surprise, since the Fleischer brothers were Jewish. (Ibaranoff24 23:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC))

I always thought of her being east european. User:khanearl


 * I'm thinking that even if she was initially portrayed as Jewish, unless something was made of that, it doesn't really belong in the article. It's like, Myron Cohen was a Jewish comedian, he told lots of ethnic Jewish stories and jokes. Arguably, Alan King was also. Fran Drescher also milks her ethnicity for her act. But Jerry Seinfeld does not rely a lot on Jewish ethnic humor, right? So is he still a "Jewish comedian"? I might make the same argument about George Burns, who was Jewish and married an Irish woman, Gracie Allen, but I don't think much of their act centered on ethnicity as such. Similarly, is there very much of Betty Boop's humor that centers on her being (maybe) Jewish? Or not? Of course, technically, Betty is not anything religious, because she's only a cartoon character. Wahkeenah 11:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There's an article on this very question here. Unfortunately, it's protected by "Project Muse", which stymies pretty much 75% of Google Scholar searches I do. At any rate, it's probably not out of line to mention this line of thinking in the article and to talk about "Minnie the Moocher". I'd just want to make sure the information was sourced. (As for sources for the rest of the article, I'll try to add them once I get my animation books out of storage.) Amcaja 14:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The most obvious question to ask is, "Why does it matter? Who cares?" Maybe somebody thinks it's important. I don't. So I'll confine my comments to here, and stay out of any pending edit wars. 0:) Wahkeenah 16:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

If someone says in "Minnie" the parents are specifically Yiddish rather than generic MittleEuropean, I'll provisionally take your word for it... but I don't see that this one cartoon makes Betty a "Jewish" character. In various other cartoons from the era she is portrayed as a cabaret dancer, a race-car driver, a Queen, a chess-piece, a Kansas farm-girl... "Minnie" may be a better than average Betty Boop cartoon, but I see no reason to assume that the Betty Boop in this cartoon is somehow more the "real Betty" than that in the other cartoons. Boop, -- Infrogmation 04:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Infrogmation. Trying to find "canon" in short-subject cartoons from this era is a losing proposal. It's the same mentality that periodically has someone add "Dumas" to the Daffy Duck page as his middle name, based simply on a one-off gag. That said, I haven't yet read the links mentioned above, and I have no problem with someone adding a line to the article saying that "In 'Minnie the Moocher', Betty is depicted as a Jewish immigrant" or whatever. Might even elaborate on the Fleischers being Jewish. But please don't change the first sentence to read, "Betty Boop is a Jewish cartoon character . . . . " etc. unless there's more than one cartoon to back it up. --Amcaja 12:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Unless she is specifically and consistently playing an ethnic character, calling her a Jewish character is overstating things. It would be like calling Mickey Mouse a Christian just because he made a cartoon about Christmas. In any case, technically, these are cartoon characters, not human beings. Wahkeenah 02:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Precisely. —Amcaja 03:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Giving Betty a 'fictional Jews' tag when her alleged Jewishness is not referred to in the article is rather misleading. I am prepared to keep an open mind on the issue but could we please discuss this here before sticking the tag back in in order to avert an edit war? Thanks--Edchilvers 17:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a debate that Betty's Jewishness was confirmed by the 'Minnie the Moocher' short. The short can be seen here in it helps peeps to make up their minds http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaZOXF83zBg--Edchilvers 17:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've made an edit to the article discussing the possibility of her Jewishness, but also refering to the only other relative of hers to appear in the shorts, her grandfather, who was not portrayed one way or another as being so--Edchilvers 17:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, rereading the discussion above, consensus seems to have been to not include the "Fictional Jews" category. We probably don't need your addendum about her family, either. I'll take a closer look later today. — Amcaja 22:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

She was also the first truly feminine cartoon character.
I think it's fair to say that she was the first truly sexual cartoon character.

Feminine suggests that she was the first cartoon character that was noticably female, as opposed to androgynous. However, even not meaning female I'm opposed to feminine used here. Plenty of older cartoons have markedly girlish qualities, even though Betty Boop was created relatively early in the history of animation.

Disney had a long series that ran from 1923-1927 called "Alice in Cartoon Land". Alice is noticably female, she is neither masculine nor androgynous. This followed by Minne mouse in 1928, who is feminine by any definition, really.

In 1915 there was a film short called Women's styles produced by the Gaumont Company ; animator, Harry S. Palmer Based on the newspaper comic strip by "Pop" Mormand, featuring a husband oppressed by his wife's obsession with high society and consumer fashion. In 1916 there were two shorts called The phable of a busted romance and The phable of the phat woman which had distinctly female characters.

Mary and Gretel in 1917 is a short that is all about the two title characters on a mystical weird journey.

The shorts come from http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/oahtml/oahome.html

Lotusduck 20:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I have been at a loss to understand what the author of that comment is getting at. I think that he's talking in euphemisms, that what he really means is that Betty is the first "sexy" cartoon character. There is little question that Betty is sexy, but maybe he can cite a source or two that assert that she is indeed the first sexy character, after actually researching it, instead of just "assuming it's true". Wahkeenah 20:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry it's not clear what I'm talking about. The article says that "She is also the first truly feminine cartoon character." and frecklefairie removed that bit, because it isn't true. Someone reverted that edit, asking for justification in the talk page. This is that justification. She's not the first feminine cartoon character by any standard. frecklefairie poster was right, and it should go back to the way frecklefairie changed it to.
 * Bingo. However, this still leaves the question open, as to whether Betty is the first truly "sexy" or "sexual" cartoon character, either verifiably or at least by consensus of those who have studied the matter at some obsessive depth. :) Wahkeenah 21:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether or not Betty was the very first sexual cartoon character, although it's a simpler distinction to make than 'feminine'. There's nothing in the public domain databases that's remotely sexual, and that's stuff from before 1923. Maybe someone made a busty suggestive cartoon between 1923 and 1930, I've tried to look it up, and I've gotten nothing.
 * Here's where that "first feminine" bit probably comes: "In many ways, Betty was the first truly feminine animated character. Up to this point, cartoon females had essentially been males with long eyelashes, high-heeled shoes and a few dainty gestures. Ms. Boop had a decidedly female shape and, more importantly, a convincing feminine grace to her movements." It's from p. 74 of The History of Animation: Enchanted Drawings by Charles Solomon (1994). As for pre-Betty females listed above, Alice was played by a live-action little girl and doesn't count. Minnie was, as Solomon is suggesting, merely Mickey in drag. As for the other examples cited, I am unfamiliar with them. Can someone point to direct links to them rather than the main page of that site?
 * But assuming they disprove Betty's primacy, Betty became a star and those characters didn't. So perhaps Betty was the first truly feminine cartoon star whose design was not based on a more popular male character? I think there's something worth making of this (rather than just deleting it altogether as Frecklefairy did), but I'm unsure how best to word it. —Amcaja 22:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Minnie has a feminine role in her cartoons, and a feminine voice. Betty was originally a female version of a male dog character. So the difference between her and minnie is that she's a busty female version of a male character while minnie is a flat or young version of a male character. So she's the first character with breasts and a specific girly wiggle that Solomon places above the aforementioned few dainty movements. But I prefer to use the most clear and straightforward definition of "feminine" which is that feminine means having qualities like a female. I don't think we can assume that veiwers saw Minnie as androgynous and Betty as female.
 * Well, she wasn't based on a male character. In her earliest form, she was (according to an interview with Natwick quoted in Solomon) "a pair of pretty girl's legs [added] to a cute little dog" with "spit curls . . . inspired by the hairdo of the popular singer Helen Kane." From the beginning, it seems, she was intended to be sexy. The paragraph after the one I quoted above further defines Solomon's "feminine" statement by describing Betty's sex appeal; perhaps that's what he really means. Wahkeenah suggested as much above.
 * For his part, Jerry Beck, in Hollywood Cartoons: American Animation in Its Golden Age, is less forgiving of Boop. He calls her "a travesty of compliant femininity, with a very large head (its features babylike) atop a mature woman's body". He then calls her "not at all original" but only in reference to her similarity to Helen Kane, not to other cartoons. (Don't forget to sign your comments with four ~ symbols.) —Amcaja 02:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd almost agree with that, I don't hate Betty Boop, but it might be kind of offensive to call her more feminine than minnie mouse because she's more compliant, busty and dumb. I think it's very important to note that she was a very early cartoon in mentioning her primacy in anything. It just wasn't that diverse a genre. It's more important to talk about her as a trend setter, perhaps for all the other anatomically female cartoon characters that sex up cartoons for adult audiences like Tinkerbell, or the girl the pirates try to capture in the Pirates of the Carribean cartoon and subsequent theme park animatronics. 160.94.27.144 21:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Lotusduck

It's also perhaps useful to keep in mind that Minnie was a Mouse, not a human... although, technically, no 'toon is an actual human, though some are "drawn that way". Maybe (assuming it' s true) it would be best to say that she's "the first cartoon character drawn to represent a sexy woman". Or something better than that phrasing. Wahkeenah 02:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That would be useful. I think the distinction could be made between her first 1930 appearance as a dog and her first appearance as a human. But while she wasn't pretty in 'Dizzy Dishes', she did have a cinched waist and large breasts. You can google for images of that, they're kind of scary- her human looking face grew a snout whenever she spoke. The Glasgow herald has an article saying she was modeled after Mae West, meaning Betty Boop was meant to be a sex symbol, being created after an Actress who at the time was best known for the Broadway play "Sex" and other similar plays. Although, perhaps I should track down the origin of the claim that betty is modeled after May West, it could have been made up by the creators during their dispute with Helen Kane on whether or not Betty was based on her.

I thought that Lotusduck's change here was pretty good and well supported on this talk page (I assume it was Lotusduck; whoever it was wasn't signed in). Wahkeenah, can you explain why you reverted it? —Amcaja 21:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The user was talking about "sexualizing" Betty "Poop", so I figured it was vandalism. Wahkeenah 22:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah. I see you're right. I'm guessing it was just a typo, but you were right to revert. Lotusduck's gone ahead and made another go of it, anyway. Thanks. --Amcaja 12:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Doonesbury
How is the fact that a character is named "Boopsie" in Doonsbury relevant to this article? No context is given, and if this character is named after Betty Boop, it belongs in the article on Boopsie or Doonesbury, not here. —Amcaja 03:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, overreacted. Disregard. What was needed was some consolidation of information, not deletion. I hope my latest edit is satisfactory. —Amcaja 03:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

attempted change
I have changed the article. Minnie Mouse consistently shows her panties in plane crazy and I don't think audiences saw her as masculine or androgynous. So even if she wasn't as incredibly busty or vulnerable, though exactly as squeeky and about as much of a tease, something basically had to be done. Exactly how relevant other character's naughty bits are to Betty Boop in this article, I do not know. I'm not married to it, anyhow. Lotusduck 02:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It looks pretty good. I still think that it's significant that Betty Boop was the first star character who wasn't drawn to look like a male character in drag, so I may insert a bit of language later to point it up. But the current text is fine for now. --Amcaja 12:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Pudgy/Bimbo
Okay, I'm not disputing that the "tamed" Betty's dog was named Pudgy. But I'm curious — What happened to Bimbo in these shorts? Is he still in them? —Amcaja 20:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sadly, by 1934, the Fleischers were required to cut Bimbo from the series because of the Production Code censorship laws. Since Bimbo was a dog and Betty, his girlfriend was human, it gave implications of bestiality. - Pietro 22:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

betty roocks
betty boop is the best cartoon ever she is different from regular cartoons

Adult magazine
Just removed this bit: "In a recent magazine for adults, Betty Boop was voted as the 3rd sexiest cartoon female of all time. Beating Kim Possible and Daphney from Scooby-Doo. Being beaten by Red Hot Riding Hood and Jessica Rabbit."

Rather than be so vague about it, can we state what magazine this was? We need issue, month, and page number, because this is the kind of thing that needs a reference. Also, can the author who added it try to find a way to integrate it into the flow of the prose rather than putting it in an unneeded "trivia" section? — Amcaja 01:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * --Well it's in a big pile of magazines underneath my brother's bed. I only read the magazine because that article was advertised on the cover. I didn't say the magazine's name nor issue because I don't want people thinking I read adult magazines constantly. But I'll look again for that magazine to find out the needed information-- User:DaffyDuck619 02:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Was it Playboy, because I know they did an article like that before. Not that I'm a pervert... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If you think Playboy is perverted, you need to get out more. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That would make an interesting encyclopedic citation, though: "Skin mag found under brother's bed, p.127" That was from 2 1/2 years ago, so maybe the user is old enough to buy his own now. I bet not many of them have cover stories about Betty Boop, though. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Clara Bow, a possible inspiration for Betty Boop?
For the argument:

Clara Bow, in my opinion bore a great resemblance to the final appearance of Betty Boop. I have attached photos obtained from a Google search to support this.

http://web.umr.edu/~kdrowne/Clara%20Bow%2022.jpg

http://www.gildasattic.com/image28.gif

http://www.nndb.com/people/515/000065320/clara6-sized.jpg

Clara Bow and Betty Boop are both highly sexual. Clara Bow was, as far as I know, the first Cinematic Sex Symbol. I doubt that She would have been unknown to the creators of the Betty Boop character, from Max Fleischer on down. As far as I know, She created a huge impression on theatergoers of that time (the nineteen-twenties).

In 1927 Clara Bow appeared in ‘It’. Afterward She became known as the ‘It’ Girl. In this film She played a character named ‘Betty Lou’.

Against the argument:

The look of Clara Bow, Helen Kane and Betty Boop had a similar appearance. Dark hair, cut short, against a white face with eyebrows and lips penciled in to produce a high-contrast stenciled look.

The resemblance that I perceive between Clara Bow and Betty Boop may be due to a fashion among “flappers” at that time. It may be that, from 80 years distance, all Women adorned this way look alike.

If this is the case, it might be difficult for us to distinguish between a resemblance between Clara Bow and Betty Boop that was due to Clara Bow, and one that was simply the result of a style current in the age of “Flappers”
 * I agree with you that there's a resemblance and that it's difficult to say if it was a Betty-looks-like-Clara thing or a Betty-and-Clara-both-look-like-"flappers" thing. Feel free to add something on this to the article, provided you can find a reference to back it up per source citation policies. — Amcaja 12:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, for the argument:

Here is a YouTube video showing a collection of short moments from Clara Bow’s films: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh1nY3YRK0g

One of the things you will notice is that, absent a soundtrack, Clara Bow ‘acted with Her eyes’. She has very large eyes and uses them to great effect by moving them about in an exaggerated fashion. Betty Boop moves Her eyes in a similar way. Since Clara Bow was the premier female movie star of the 1920’s (judging from the receipts of Her box office and the amount of fan mail She received) and Betty Boop came into existence in the early 1930’s, it doesn’t seem likely that Betty Boop’s appearance and movement are a coincidence.

Another point of view:

I can see the Clara Bow resemblance, but I wonder if other women singers are possibilities as well: I ran across a few pictures of Annette Hanshaw the other day and immediately thought of Boop. Is it possible to narrow the 'archetype' of Betty Boop down to a single singer? It is probably better to consider the many prototypes in real life...

Link relevance
Yesterday, I removed this link from the page: Betty Boop Music Video. It's a music video of a modern song set to old Betty Boop footage. The anonymous editor who added the link contacted me via email to ask why I did so, and I said that I didn't see how the music video added much to the reader's knowledge about Betty Boop. Would anyone else like to comment? Am I right that this is not justifiable under external link guidelines? — Amcaja 14:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Brian also removed a link to ShopAtBettyBoop that I added, citing it as linkspam. Having read the external link guidelines I agree that it does fall foul of the guidelines and I apologise for adding it. -- JonRB 15:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I wonder if we could re-open the debate on ShopAtBettyBoop? This site is run by a Boop enthusiast who started out selling the odd item of Betty Boop memorabilia on eBay, wrote her first website as a tribute to Betty Boop with a link to her eBay shop, then gradually grew the site into a business that is fast becoming the top Betty Boop Memorabilia site in the UK. Would it therefore not be relevant to link to it in the External Links section? It is, after all, a Betty Boop site run by a genuine enthusiast -- JonRB 13:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The site violates at least one of these two External Link guidelines for sites to be avoided: "Links that are added to promote a site. See External link spamming"; "Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services." — Amcaja 13:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess I can't argue with that. :o) Shame though, as the owner really loves Betty Boop. -- JonRB 13:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

All films NOT b/w
I have a tape called Cinderella, and it is in color. Martal Law 05:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you sure it's not just a colorized re-release? What's the copyright date? — Amcaja 09:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Poor Cinderella (not Cinderella) was the one color Betty Boop. See . &mdash;Chowbok 13:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Can that be placed in the article ? Martial Law 16:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Go for it. &mdash;Chowbok 18:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

YouTube links
This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 04:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In regards to point 2, most or all of the Fleischer Boop cartoons are in the public domain, and can also be downloaded from archive.org boffy_b (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The true legend
Betty boop was, if you like, a parody of the overtly sexual Marilyn Monroe; of course, since being censored back in the thirties she had lost her cartoon fame. But as soon as those wild fifties came in she was back on the saddle once again. Seventy years after being created, Betty Boop is on most female shirts,nightgowns,even cups. Contary to popular belief she was not a disney character though. She was part of a film company, the spawn of the ever popular paramount pictures still around today. Betty deserves to get one more shot at the big time. Shove her in a cameo film role, like Who Framed Roger Rabbit, or even give her a telivison show. Millions of cartoons have come and gone. But Betty is here to stay; one whole century and she's still more well known worldwide than Tom and Jerry. So happy birthday for August 28th 1930, and kepp beautiful! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sexyback123 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Betty Boop was around a fair while before Marilyn became famous or even an adult. Boop-oop-a-doop —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boop-oop-a-doop (talk • contribs) 09:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Legend of "nude frame"
Hmm... actually I don't believe in that story. It's possible that Special Frame has been removed before release of "Who framed Roger Rabbit" on video, but if it existed, somebody surely by would have gotten it from the film and placed it on the net or in some magazines. Also, I had heard before the same story but with Jessica Rabbit. It seems to me the mere fascination of the thought that such a drawing existed made some people claim it did. Maybe one should point out the "legendary" nature of this claim more clearly in the text, especially in the light of the Jessica Rabbit issue? Edwing 01:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't heard this one with Betty but I have with Jessica.This rumor apears on the Snopes.com site, its listed as undetermined and the site says it supposedly took place in the scene where Jessica and Bob Hoskins are thrown from a cab and Jessica lands spinning causing her dress to rise. Boop-oop-a-doop —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boop-oop-a-doop (talk • contribs) 10:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your description of the Jessica situation is accurate. The Betty Boop story was fairly widely circulated, but if true, the frame was excised from all home video versions. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Betty's "flash"
I removed these two sentences from the article:
 * In the 1932 animated short Betty Boop's Bamboo Isle, you see a very brief flash of her vagina while she's changing. This is hardly visible as it is in black and white and partly fuzzy.

I don't know whether these statements are true or not; they may be. But they are awkardly placed and poorly worded. What, for instance does "fuzzy" refer to? The film, or Betty herself?

Crispinus211 15:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoever added that may have been thinking of Jessica Rabbit. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

5 hour sex scene & sex addiction
"she also had a 5 hour sex scene with her dog and her grampy. She is a sex addict." - just wondering if this is vandalism (it sure seems like it). Franz T. Speeling 10:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Racism
Why is there NOTHING about the blantant racism in betty boop? There is a cartoon floating around called "Making Stars" where Betty introduces a group known as the colorful three. They are characterized as hairless, monkey like people who are bobby-pinned together and start crying in Civil War era field hollars. Additionally, the plot of the cartoon is such that when an act starts crying, something soothing leads them offstage. In this case, watermelon comes out and the "Colorful Three" become delighted and chase it down.

Following this, the shot goes to the audience, where one "colorful" woman is holding her child, trying to soothe it. The only thing that shuts them up is a piece of watermelon she pulls out of her purse.

That is perhaps one of the most blantant racist things I have ever seen, yet theres nothing about it on the Wiki.
 * Feel free to start an article on that cartoon if one doesn't exist already. The material is probably inappropriate for the article on the Betty Boop character, since that's only one entry in a long series of shorts, and Betty's role in it is very minimal. — Amcaja ( talk ) 01:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It's seems remotely racist, but is it entirely necessary for the article. Betty herself isn't portrayed as racist, only the cartoon. And although I feel very strongly about racism (I don't support it AT ALL, as it's disgusting) it seems a tad too trivial and vague for the article, wouldn't you agree?

Drawn Together
Should there be any mention of her role in the Comedy Central show Drawn Together? Officially the character is named "Toot," but she is clearly based on Betty Boop. PabloSus86 00:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That should be mentioned.

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required
This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 15:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Colour Classic
the colour classic links to the Colour classic computer not the cartoon series should this be fixed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.198.207 (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hooker?
I heard from a dealer in BB collectibles that she started out as a hooker? Anyone h else hear this?

Also, I saw "nude" shots of her taking a bath (as an infant.) There is a full frontal--nothing can be seen but I'm sure it was considered racy for its day. Also, in another, a wave  becomes a hand and touches her buttock. She slaps it away.

I have seen cartoons where her head and mouth was Normal size. Soo Pretty! I was of the impression she evolved the bigger head later, but it seems the other way 'round.68.231.189.108 (talk) 03:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Most of the fliescher studios cartoons had naughty scenes in them like the talkartoon series for example. The Betty Boop Cartoons were full of nude flashes for example Bra's,Underware,Breast. But all of that stopped in (1934) becuse the hayscode kicked in so in Betty's last rude cartoon "Betty Boop's Trial" she flashes her bloomers to the court. Betty Boop wasnt a hooker she was a parody of Helen Kane and most likley Clara Bow. Although with what she got up to in her cartoons i guess you could call her something simuler to that. Also in Dizzy Dishes she flashes her underware but she seems to not be wearing any. Like said before most of the fleischer's early cartoons were for a adult nature.Bayoneta (talk) 10:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Not all public domain
Here I reworded the public domain mention to avoid misleading the reader about the actual copyright status of the Internet Archive collection. For example the Internet Archive claims the 1932 Minnie the Moocher is "public domain", but the Cab Calloway song itself is most probably still copyrighted (he died in 1994). It would be useful if anyone could add reliable sources about the copyright status of various Betty Boop film versions. -84user (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

In the UK the recording has different copyright from the actual sheet music i.e. you can play/sell/sample the recording but the sheet music is copyrighted i.e. you can't record your own version. The same probably applies to the song in this. The sound recording lasts 50 years from creation, films were 50 years but have gone up to 70, and programmes are 50 years from creation. I don't know about the copyright status of other countries though. Sweetie candykim (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Origins
Speaking on Clara Bow, the article says, "Bow kept her grip on her audience through the transition to sound, 1928/1929, and her muted but characteristic Brooklyn accent, singer Helen Kane, effectively caricatured." I can't tell from that sentence whether Bow was caricaturing Kane or vice versa. I could clarify the sentence if I knew which case, if either, was true.

Both Helen Kane & Clara Bow spoke in strong Bronx accent's but Helen Kane used her Baby-Talk and mixed it with her bronx accent which she used for her singing style and in all of her films and tv apperances. Also which comes to mind the orgins are not correct someone has tampered with them. Why does Clara Bow seem to be credited with the creation of Betty Boop? Clara bow wasnt the model for Betty Boop. Betty Boop first appeared in the talkartoon Dizzy dishes (1930) as a Parody of Helen Kane. Clara Bow was most likley another source used with her sexual nature around. Becuse Helen Kane was cute where as Clara Bow was Sexy. Kane's voice and appearance were a likely source for Fleischer Studios animator Grim Natwick when creating Betty Boop, although It-girl Clara Bow is another possible influence. I'll check back upon the Origins again sometime soon becuse it isnt correct. When i get the right resources i'll be back to fix this whole clara bow error. I thought beyond my ken corrected the whole article but then people had to come along and mess it up although the fleischer studios recently blogged about the Helen Kane trial so just mabey someone tampered with it. Neverless i guess we need more Cites from articles from the past. If you look into the history of these famous people of the 1930s im sure you will find something. although i personally already know everything there is to know about these two women but everything on wikipedia needs a cite beside it.Bayoneta (talk) 10:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I am confused how Helen Kane can be cited as the origin of Betty Boop when she lost the court case against this in 1932? That seems a bit contradictory... In the Helen Kane article it says she isn't. Not very consistent.Lecari (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The Grim Natwick "web-exhibition" text posted and presumably written by Stephen Worth at the ASIFA-site seams accurate, but as it challenges the court decision of the 1934 - the Kane vs. Fleischer trail, and Fleischer's explicit testimony, I feel a bit more then a "porch revelation" is called for. "Grim is the greatest animator who ever lived" - Worth also states, and as I see it, casts a gloom over whatever other revelations he presents and the questions the academic virtues of ASIFA. I've asked them to verify their claim; sharpen it up; who-told-who-when-exactly? The Betty Boop - Clara Bow connection is entirely superficial, but have reached acceptance through the years for obvious graphical reasons and the fact that few today knows of Kane. It is as wrong as most people of today believes Louise Brooks to be a major filmstar and icon in the 1920s - which she was not. In Wikipedia we don't expand knowledge. I have heard. Shall we? Parrotistic (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit unclear about what you are suggesting. If you mean, should we do our own original research to determine who the character was based on... the answer is no. If the museum is a reliable source, and I believce it is, we have done our job by reporting what it has said about the origin of the character.  If there is another reliable source that is focused on the actual origin of the character, and not simply a passing reference repeating "common knowledge", which says the character is based on Clara Bow, then we report that as well.  It's not our place to evaluate two competing claims from two sources and pick which one is valid, as long as they are both equally reliable (and equally focused on the subject at hand), we report both of them, no matter which one we feel has the superior claim.  If, at some future time, an authoritative someone evaluates the claims and decides that one is clearly better supported by the facts that the other, and that opinion gains general acceptance, then we can report that as definitive. It's not our during any of this process to "expand knowledge" in any way.  That's not what we're here for. As it stands now, the article reports the information provided by the reliable source, and mentions that state of "common knowledge" concerning Clara Bow as the model for the character.  That's what we know, and that's what it should say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And, incidentally, there is no conflict between a source saying "Grim Natwick did such-and-so" and "Grim Natwick is the best thing since sliced bread." The first is reportage, the second is opinion.  The first we can put into the article as fact is the source is reliable, the second we can only put in as analysis, presuming the source is authoritative: i.e. not "Grim Natwick is the best thing since sliced bread", but something more along the lines of "Mr. Blue, who has so-and-so credentials, calls Natwick 'the best thing since sliced bread.'"  In our world, any reliable schmo can report something, but only an expert can offer an opinion.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of A Little Soap and Water


The article A Little Soap and Water has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * A search for references found a few minor mentions, fails WP:V and WP:N

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of A Little Soap and Water for deletion
The article A Little Soap and Water is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/A Little Soap and Water until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jeepday (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Tara Strong?
Does anyone know when Tara Strong lent her voice to Betty Boop? becuse her name seems to be listed and i see no sources,It state's that she did commercials as the voice of Betty. Although Melissa Fahn also did the voice of Betty Boop in commercials and for Betty Boop Toys & Games. Im just wondering about Tara Strong's credits as Betty Boop becuse she has or had a role on Drawn Together as Toot Braunstein, who is a parody of Betty Boop, im just hoping that the credits on this page as Betty Boop hasnt been mixed up with her role on Drawn Together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayoneta (talk • contribs) 09:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That information was added by the IP editor 72.84.236.114. I've left a Talkback notice on their talk page pointing them to this thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I didn't originally add Tara Strong to the list. I have no idea when or where she voiced the character (but her page does say she voiced the character in some commercials). If you're not sure, remove her. I do know that Desiree Goyetee and Melissa Fahn each voiced the character in at least one TV special each.--72.84.236.114 (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My mistake. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the information beyondmyken i guess i will just leave the credits as they are, was just checking to make sure though.217.39.181.76 (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction
This article states both that Betty Boop was and wasn't a caricature of Helen Kane. Both are very clearly stated and very clearly contradict one another. ManWithAwesomeHats92 (talk) 09:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actuslly, there's no contradiction. Reliable sources show that Kane was the model for Betty, and the article says that.  Reliable sources also show that Kane lost her lawsuit because Kane's look wasn't unique, it had similarities to Clara Bow, so that article says that.  Both facts are true, and they are not contradictory.  Think of it this way: There's Clara Bow, Kane is a spin-off from Bow and Betty is a spin-off from Kane.  Betty is therefore not based on Bow, but on Kane, and Kane's claim that Betty was infringing on her rights was lost because she took too much of her look from Bow.  (To make it more confusing, a court decision doesn't necessarily establish what is true, it simply establishes that given the evidence presented one side or the other did or did not prove its case.  Thus, in a courtroom, if both sides agree that white is black, and the judge is inclined to accept this agreement, for the purposes of that trial, white is black.  Of course the appeals judge may take issue with it.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Beyond My Ken, his comment makes perfect sence. Clara Bow was not The Boop Oop a Doop Girl, she was the It-Girl, she didnt scat sing in a bronx baby voice, and she wasn't plump. Basically if Betty wasn't a caricature of Kane, why on earth would she be entitled the Boop Oop a Doop Girl? which is what Helen Kane called herself. and not the It-Girl. Btw it was the Fliescher Studios who stated that Clara was the model for Betty Boop in court, even though Grim Natwick who first drew Betty, said that he had used Kane's photograph later on in life. Clara Bow had no comment on Betty Boop what so ever becuse she knew,Betty was nothing to do with her, if that would have been true, wouldn't clara have launched a lawsuit? against paramount publix & the fleischer studios? becuse clara wasn't so freindly with the studios. I personally am very happy with this article, becuse it is full of truth, and everyone in the 1930's knew who Betty was a parody of. Some children came up to Helen and adressed her as Betty Boop in the early 30's so what does that tell you? I give this article a 5 stars, becuse its nothing but the truth.Bayoneta (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Last apperance on TV
It seem's to state that Betty's last appearance on a TV advertisement was in {1989} Althought, her last apperance was actually in 2010 for Dan-e. Which can be see on Dan-e's official channel, most likley doesn't air on tv anymore, after all a year has passed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTxafns7zGY Does anyone think the information can be updated?, without anyone thinking people are trying to tamper with the information, becuse that 1989 advert information is outdated. (I have seen the official artworks for the 1989 commercial, but i have never seen the commercial itself). Bayoneta (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is this within the scopes of WikiProject Sexuality?
I think that is very strange; she is a cartoon character, and her cartoons never featured any such happenings (although you could probably make an exception for "The Bum Bandit" and maybe even "Boop-Oop-A-Doop"). This seems pretty embarrassing for this character, too. Anyone care to enlighten me on this? Yes, she is a cartoon sex symbol, but isn't it going a bit far to have her in WikiProject Sexuality? Just curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.6.19 (talk) 06:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You should ask this question on WikiProject Sexuality's talk page, since each WikiProject determines for itself what the scope of their project is. I would imagine, though, that the answer has something to do with this and her inclusion here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I, for one, think Betty is hot. Now, if someone were claiming Minnie Mouse, that might be going too far. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, that mouse is always showing her underpants! Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. You might be on to something. What about the salacious Daisy Duck, who, as I recall, only wears feathers as underpants. And don't even get me started with Broom-Hilda! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think Donald Duck wore anything on his bottom either -- a really kinky couple. (Where do you think those "nephews" came from?) Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. That was a fast response! Gotta give you guys credit - it usually takes days before I get any response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.6.19 (talk) 07:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hollywood Mystery
Why no mention of Betty Boop's Hollywood Mystery of 1989? It's on YouTube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.191.103 (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Look for it at its alternate title The Betty Boop Movie Mystery. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Who Framed Roger Rabbit
Betty Boop was appeared in the film "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" where she is a waitress which she is known for in her cartoons, she is also known for her squeaky voice which is heard in the film "Who Framed Roger Rabbit." Also the clothes she is wearing is what she wears to attract men which shows the side of her as she is used as a sex symbol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chloefreer20 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Her appearance is already mentioned in the article. Please note that this is not a general forum for the discussion of Betty Boop, if a place to discuss improvements to or problems with the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion
I have seen a couple of the early Betty cartoons where she is a poodle. It would be great if we could add a pic from one of those to the origins section. Now, I know that the Byzantine rules of pic use here at WikiP might make this impossible but I thought I would suggest this in case another editor can find one that works. MarnetteD | Talk 22:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Picture of Helen Kane Incorrectly Titled
The article states that the true model for Betty Boop was "Baby Esther", and yet there is a picture of Helen Kane with a line calling her "the original" (incorrectly implicating that Betty Boop was modeled after her). This speaks towards the ongoing and well documented whitewashing of American history. A correction is necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariel.e.shelton (talk • contribs) 00:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Baby Esther
Baby Esther created the scat lyrics Boop-Boop-a-Doop but was not the model for Betty Boop. Somebody needs to fix up this article, because it doesn't add up. Grim Natwick creator of Betty Boop stated he had a song sheet of Helen Kane and the split curls came from her.

How could Baby Esther be the model for Betty Boop when she was unknown? The article makes no sense, yet we know Helen Kane stole the "Boop" from Esther, and you can clearly see she looks nothing like Esther.

Source 1:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0cEAOsLJad8C&pg=PA276&lpg=PA276&dq=grim+natwick+helen+kane&source=bl&ots=yL9JwZBzpp&sig=LotFBFaeCvL4FeGEU32KiNfqne8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9OUIVKDiAsLoOp2ngYgC&ved=0CFgQ6AEwDQ#v=onepage&q=grim%20natwick%20helen%20kane&f=false

Source 2: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=EF2xmI5pEx8C&pg=PA325&lpg=PA325&dq=grim+natwick+helen+kane&source=bl&ots=KF_SFy-h6u&sig=KUM-svLHXnm7Lu-lMkPde2cRnnM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wuYIVIH1NsXHPLqTgYgH&ved=0CCAQ6AEwADgU#v=onepage&q=grim%20natwick%20helen%20kane&f=false

According to animator Grim Natwick, it was he who created and designed this new character while working on Talkartoons. "One morning they put on my desk a copy of thr "Boop-Oop-a-Doop" song sung by "Helen Kane" he told John Canemaker. "At that time there were no designers and no story men. We virtually wrote out own stories and designed our own characters, then animated them, and so it was with Betty. I'm not even sure she was okayed before i animated her. Helen Kane was then working for Paramount at its studio in Astoria. Paramount had already sent the Fleischers another of it's stars Rudy Bellee (a service it would continue in the future) so the interest in Kane is not surprising. What is unusual is that fleischer proceeded to copy Kane's distinctive look and sound without bothering to get her permission first. Despite obvious connections (and Natwick's later admission), Helen Kane lost her lawsuit against the studio when it was revealed that she was not the first boop-oop-a-doop singer in the business.

92.5.235.142 (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for posting this here and for your research. This seems to be related to at least one of the threads above and to the Fleischer v. Kane section of the Baby Esther article. There seems to be contradictory evidence as to what happened back at BB's creation and maybe this needs to be noted in the article. OTOH I am not happy that the NYTimes ref used for the inclusion of the info about BE can't be accessed just by clicking on the link. I would prefer if someone like took a look at this and commented but BMK may not have the time or inclination. You might go to the talk pages for the wikiprojects listed above and leave a message asking their members to come and comment on this. You could  file a WP:RFC to get input from other editors. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 01:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Marnette: I don't think there's any real contradiction in the info we have;
 * (1) Betty Boop was based on Helen Kane, there's no evidence that her creators know about Baby Esther
 * (2) Kane sued on the basis that Boop must have been based on her style, which she claimed was unique
 * (3) She lost because Baby Esther existed, there was some evidence that Kane was aware of her; in any case, her style not being unique, she could not prevail in her suit against Boop
 * (4) But this does not mean that Boop was based on Esther, and saying that she was is a misrepresentation of the evidence. What is true to a legal standard about Esther's influence on Kane says nothing whatsoever about Esther's influence on Boop, except possibly through Kane.
 * (5) The cleanest and clearest thing to say is that Boop was based on (influenced by) Kane, and Kane was based on (or influenced by) Esther, but that there is no evidence that Boop was directly based on (or influenced by) Esther. BMK (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for clearing this up and my apologies to you and the IP for keeping the incorrect info in the article. It is also good to have your comments as we will now be able to point editors to this info should this come up in the future. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 13:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Baby Esther redux
The Wikipedia page located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Esther says that Esther Jones is the original Betty Boop and has a court ruling to prove it making this (the page we are currently looking at) false. But then again, this is Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexacrouch (talk • contribs) 18:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not what the Baby Esther article says. Raise your eyes up to the section immediately above this to see why. BMK (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Betty Boop Bop
Why does Betty's article have no information on her recent appearances? It's like she's done nothing recent. She appeared in her own very game last year, and i really think it needs adding on her Wikipedia. The characters done alot since 2012, and will soon be featured in a new comic strip, and a new movie next year and even Broadway, please keep her Article up to date, those who watch it, because it's out of date.

She made a recent video game appearance in 2014 in a game called Betty Boop Bop also known as Betty Boop Dance Card by Fowl Moon Studios. It was released on Iphone/Ipad - (Itunes), PS Vita (2015-2016-???), Android.

Information:

Betty Boop Bop is fast-paced and fun and it’s designed to be played on multi-touch devices. For the first time, Betty Boop, Bimbo and the Old Man of the Mountain come alive in 3-D and through an original and diverse soundtrack of 21 songs and music tracks inspired by Betty’s unmatched musical legacy showcased in the classic Max Fleischer cartoons.The game is a paid app with no in-app purchases, ads, push notification or the need for internet connection. Betty Boop Bop offers players the complete experience upfront with no hidden costs or intrusive free to play mechanics.

References:

IMDB

Official Betty Boop Website

Google App Store

Official Facebook Page

Official Game Website

Article on PS Vita

Official Twitter

193.82.153.194 (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Betty Boop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130512190244/http://www.moorestudiosinc.com/bettyboop.htm to http://www.moorestudiosinc.com/bettyboop.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Betty Boop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131226192156/http://redheadsaid.com/?page_id=78 to http://redheadsaid.com/?page_id=78

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Betty Boop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131215095845/http://alternativeleagueaccess.com/ufl-pr-betty-boop-official-fantasy-cheerleader-of-ufl/ to http://alternativeleagueaccess.com/ufl-pr-betty-boop-official-fantasy-cheerleader-of-ufl/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Betty as flapper
It's hard for me to see Betty as a typical flapper. The flapper look included loose clothing to allow free movement, not a tight, constricting dress. And the look was flat-chested, not busty. Betty was more Mae West sexpot than tennis-playing, dancing (and smoking) flapper. Betty is actually closer to the previous Gibson Girl look, more full figured, with those big eyes. Think Evelyn Nesbit, the 16 year old showgirl at the bottom of the Thaw-White murder. MarkinBoston (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Reverted edit 22 September 2019‎
Why the revert? According to MOS:FURTHER in the Manual of Style/Layout, the "Suggested Additional Reading" should be "Further reading" section. Mitchumch (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Aw, shoot, I did that thing where I read the diff backwards, and thought you had converted "Further..." to "Suggested additional..." My bad, and my apologies. I've fixed it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. Mitchumch (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oof. I've made that mistake a time or three myself . As Betty might say "Boop Boop a Oops" :-) Sorry I couldn't resist. Thanks for fixing this . MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Protection?
This article gets a lot of improper edits. Should it receive protection? - kosboot (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * At this point in time probably not . The attempts to insert the "based on" info are (probably) in good faith and are a misunderstanding of BBs origins. If there were a large number of edits coming from numerous IPs then we could file a request at WP:RFPP. Now this is just my assessment based on many years of editing and others may feel differently. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The 197 IP
The 197 IP is attempting to force their version of the facts into the article with unreliable sources. Using a book's blurb on amazon.com is not a source we can use, and a court document which has not been published is not only an unwarranted use of a WP:PRIMARY source, it cannot ve verified. Despite this the IP is aggresively edit-warring. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Much of the court document HAS been published, in the book. And it's not "my version", it's fact, reliably sourced.
 * And as the court document is there, in the book, please show us where "Baby Esther" is mentioned in the judge's ruling.
 * Or will you LIE about what is actually stated, as happened with the LIE about what Robert O'Meally said? The blatant falsehood around which the Esthef article was made? 197.89.10.25 (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * There's nothing to "lie" about, since you haven't presented your supposed evidence in a clear and coherent manner with citations to reliable sources. You keep citing unreliable or unverifiable sources and then edit warring over it. It's never going to get into the article that way. You appear to be here to WP:Right great wrongs and believe you are in possession of "the truth", but we deal with verifiable facts , not "truth". Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No. You are using SYNTHESIS. And you are the one pushing a POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.63.7 (talk) 08:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * And do you consider it a "verifiable fact" to DELIBERATELY MISQUOTE what O'Meally wrote in his book? You have DELIBERATELY LIED about what a Reliable Source actually stated. And that blatant LIE about what the respected and revered Robert O'Meally actually wrote in his expert book was exposed...by me. And THAT is the reason you are now lashing out with emotional, rather than encyclopedic, comments. You are the one(and admittedly far from alone) who has propped up an entire article based on mistruths, internet blog posts, and DELIBERATE MISQUOTATIONS OF RELIABLE SOURCES. As the so-called "verified facts"(in reality, nothing but hot air, blog rants and lies) are removed one-by-one and the Reality starts to replace the sad excuse for a wikipedia article that you helped to create, so you resort to tactis look accusing other people of "trying to avoid a ban", and shifting the goalposts.


 * See Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus


 * We know for a fact that you lied about what O'Meally actually said about the trial, and about the origin of Betty Boop in his book. You were caught in a lie.


 * Therefore, we can not believe any other "verified fact" that you try and use to prop up your obvious POV argument.


 * And, now you are also stating that a published book, which uses actual transcripts for the trial is not Reliable? Only because it shatters the illusion of what you wish to believe.


 * As you have been proved to have deliberately and intentionally misquoted a WP:RS, and claimed that it stated the exact opposite of what it really did, whatever you say from now on is known to be POV, and most probably deliberately untrue as well.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.63.7 (talk) 08:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * There is only one person involved in this discussion who has an WP:NPOV problem, and it ain't me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Baby Esther?
Someone posted this on another page, but I'll summarise..

1) Baby Esther's age has fluctuated wildly. She was apparently born in 1918, 7 when performing in 1928, yet was 12 in 1934.

2) There was no trace of this 'Baby Esther' at the time of the Kane-Fleischer trial. She had apparently been performing in the USA into 1934, yet had disappeared "probably to Paris", right as the trial was underway.

3) Photographs of 'Baby Esther' show different people at different times.

4) There was an Esther Jones, but that was Esther Phillips, who couldn't possibly have been the inspiration here.

5) And, surely after having been "identified" as "the original Betty Boop", she would have gained some degree of fame at the time? Nope. In fact, nobody knows where she was, or when, or where, she passed away.

6) All this "Baby Esther" stuff was "found" decades after the event

7) The trial summary failed to mention "Baby Esther" as any sort of inspiration.

8) Even in the official version of this story, Baby Esther never sang "Boop Oop A Doop" and the big 2

9) Both Helen Kane and Betty Boop couldn't possibly have been more 'Noo Yawk' if you tried. Helen Kane was born and raised in New York. "Baby Esther" was said to come from Illinois. So why would she be doing a New Yorker act?

10) Both Helen Kane and, especially, Betty Boop relied on sexiness/sexuality as a key part of their act. Did Baby Esther? Well, if she was 12 in 1934, then in 1928 when Kane allegedly "Stole her act", she would have been either 5 or 6 years old.

"Baby Esther, the original Betty Boop" is made from whole cloth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.141 (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with this, but as with everything on Wikipedia, you have to have sources that back up the contention. - kosboot (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup, but what is a RS? That's the problem. All these sources for this are RECENT. There's no contemporaneous evidence. However, all it takes is someone in say 2017 making a claim in an internet article. And the only difference between Joe Putz writing on his internet website is that wiki considers that website "reliable". But where's HIS source? That is the problem. If a "reliable" source CLAIMS something, THEY don't have to show their evidence. Because wiki laws just ASSUME that 'if it's there', there must be something to back it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.141 (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please sign your comments by typing four tildes (i.e.  ~ ) at the end. The system, will then automatically append your IP address (or account name, if you make an account) and a date/time stamp.As for reliable sources, in general we're not looking for primary sources, we're looking for reliable secondary sources, see WP:RS and WP:Primary sources. And, no, someone making a claim in a 2017 Internet article would not be a reliable source, unless the person is a recognized subject expert. Editors here are good about removing information which is supported by unreliable sources. Your "Joe Putz" would be considered just as unreliable as, well as you are in your comment above.  We couldn't possibly, for instance, quote your comment as "proof" that "'Baby Esther, the original Betty Boop' is made from whole cloth," nor would we cite Joe Putz for the opposite conclusion.If there's a specific source used in the article which you think is not an RS, then list it here, and someone will certainly look into it, but generalized (and unsupported) remarks about unwarranted assumptions being a part of the Wikipedia system aren't really helpful at all, considering that the contention is generally untrue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you made my point for me. Two people each writing something in 2017. Dealing with an issue from the 1920's/1930's. The point wasn't whether wiki found those 2 2017 sources "reliable", it was just asking where THEY got their information from? But, as you said, wiki doesn't care. Wiki just accepts it as fact. And it's entirely possible that one of the 2017 sources used the other as its own reference point. So, "secodnary sources" trump actual primary evidence, and common sense. Got it.


 * So, I've looked over those sources. The one is a "Fashion and Beauty" site, which offers no sources for its information. It merely states it matter-of-factly. It also sues terms like "male gaze". And it also says "That the white Kane took the black Jones’s style of singing and attempted to claim it as her own is one of the most common, frustrating narratives in America." I honestly hope Kane's relatives take legal action for that outrageous, and totally unsourced and unfounded, claim. Crucially, it has no information about Baby Esther, other than it makes the claim that she is the inspiration for Betty Boop. Wow. Nothing. And another article on the "Fashion and Beauty" website by the same author is entitled "When Will Black Women See Justice?" . It's clear what motivates this person. And is "The Cut" even a reliable source in the first place?


 * The other source is for a printed book, but some pages is viewable online. It does state that Lou Boulton "Was the manager of ..Baby Esther". And that he "believed her to be in Paris" at the time. Some manager, eh? Here the plot thickens, as Boulton was the one who claimed he took Kane to see this "Baby Esther". And the book also states "It would appear that Esther was issued a subpoena to appear in court". Why not?.....Notable too is she was "12 in 1934", yet he "taught her to sing and dance", and she doing so in 1923 and 1924. Bolton also had a conveniently swiss-cheesed memory. The real "frustrating narrative" is the obvious miscarriage of justice here. It would be one thing to deny Helen Kane the legacy she deserves, but to then create this obvious falsehood, and accuse her of being the plagiarist? Vile.
 * Maybe one solution would be to have a section on Baby Esther, bringing all the evidence and thereby strongly inferring that there is no basis for associating her with Helen Kane or Betty Boop. - kosboot (talk) 12:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * On phone now, but read the description of Taylor's book on Amazon. It DEBUNKS the "Baby Esther" claim. I'll c&p it on here in next 24 hours.


 * Ok, the book which is supposedly used for "evidence" of the whole "Baby Esther" thing only claims that Lou Bolton said the Baby Esther thing, not that it is true. Meanwhile, the actual Helen Kane page states that " However, recent research reveals that Esther's act at The Everglades consisted entirely of an impersonation of the late Florence Mills", with two contemporaneous sources..  . Actually, the three articles, this one, the Helen Kane one, and the Baby Esther one show three different things.

Lou Bolton and his fascinating facts
The entire "Baby Esther" aspect comes from one man..Lou Bolton. On the stand in 1934 he claimed

1. He had a client called Baby Esther

2. This Baby Esther performed in a style similar to Kane, prior to Kane.

3. He remembered seeing Kane at one of Baby Esther's performances. No date given, only that it was before Kane started performing in that style.

4. He had no idea where Baby Esther was at the time of the trial, and he was unable to contact her. But she was probably in Paris.

Proof? Evidence? Who needs 'em?

Shortly afterwards Bolton appeared with a sound recording. There was no name, no date. Bolton claimed it was a recording of Baby Esther that predated Kane singing in that style. But it could not be shown when it was actually recorded, or even who it was singing on the recording.

There were no studio records, logs, notes etc. to back up these claims.

Nobody ever found Baby Esther, in Paris, or anywhere else.

The trial went to the Fleischers. Baby Esther was not included in the summary.

Only very recently have people 'rediscovered' Baby Esther. At one stage it was stated as fact that she was the same person as a singer born in 1935. Another time people proudly produced the image of a Ukrainian girl. And people like the writer from The Cut make these statements as fact, with nothing to back them up.

It turns out there was a child singer called Esther in the 1920's. Only she never did the Kane/Boop act. She was known as "the little Florence Mills". And that was her act. A Florence Mills impersonator.

The way this article, and others, state matter-of-factly that Kane stole or borrowed someone else's act, and how Kane was proved to be wrong...is vile and disgusting.

And in many cases the sources don't actually state what they are claimed to say.

And how the hell is Cut even a RS anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.141 (talk) 06:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Esther (Lee) Jones was a Florence Mills impersonator:, . 197.83.246.141 (talk) 06:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I just thought to look at the article Baby Esther where it still seems to suggest that Kane stole the idea from Baby Esther. Perhaps you should also edit that article and make it clear that this was a style of singing.  (I'm tempted to compile a list of singers that used that baby voice in recordings.) Btw, the real culprit is YouTube, where there are many videos saying that the original Boop-oop-a-doop girl was Baby Esther.  If you repeat a falsehood often enough, people believe it's true. - kosboot (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that advice. Yes, that article is a textbook example of WP:SYNTHESIS And, it's surreal that as no known recordings of Esther Jones are known to exist today, there are YT videos with music that is matter-of-fact claimed to be Baby Esther singing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.141 (talk) 05:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Explanation for removal of sentence
A claim made by one Gabrielle Bellot of The Cut] has been removed. I did it. And I shall explain why. The article it is from makes some very bold statements. Yet there appears to be just one solitary source. In the article Bellot says :

"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.”

Not only that, but the Baby Esther article, as originally created used the same statement. The editor who created that article stated:

" Jazz studies scholar Robert O'Meally has referred to Jones as 'Betty Boop's black grandmother.' "

(In fact, it may be entirely possible that as the Wikipedia article was created that way in 2014, and Bellot's article is from 2017, that Bellot got that FROM Wikipedia in the first place. And that original version of that article was an unsourced attack on Kane, which also repeated the long-debunked "[Esther] performed regularly at the The Cotton Club in Harlem". )

Of course, there is one not insignificant problem with that.

Here is what Robert O'Meally ACTUALLY said. From Page 290 of Uptown Conversation: The New Jazz Studies (2004):


 * 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

and what of those footnotes? From Page 295 of the same book:


 * 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, it IMMEDIATELY becomes clear that what O'Meally said on the one hand, and what Bellot(and the creator of the baby Esther article) say he said on the other hand, could hardly be more different.

O'Meally clearly states that it was the FLEISCHERS(along with their legal team) who wanted to portray Helen Kane as an imitation of Baby Esther, thus, as it were, making Baby Esther "Betty Boop's black grandmother". And O'Meally ALSO states, not just the key phrase "if the evidence could be believed", he also then goes on to state " 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." And he then weighs in with his own thoughts on the matter with "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?"

Got that? Now compare that to Bellot's simplistic, and utterly inaccurate, statement claims "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.”"

Oh no he didn't. And that is obvious to anyone who actually reads O'Meally. Thus we are faced with a choice as to WHY Bellot wrote that statement. There appear to be 3 possible reasons..

i) An innocent reason. Bellot simply lacked the comprehension skills to understand what O'Meally had written. This may be due to some sort of handicap, or Bellot's first language may not be English. This is harmless enough, unless we try and use what such a person claims as being a 'reliable source'. Imagine if YOU were reading a historical book by a learned scholar in a language that you didn't understand.

2) A deliberate agenda. Bellot read O'Meally's book, fully comprehended what he had said, and what he had meant, but then deliberately misrepresented what he had said, giving a false quote to O'Meally. One that WILDLY differed from both the quote itself, and the meaning behind the original quote. And this has now "gone viral", with O'Meally being used as 'evidence' based on something that he NEVER said in the first place. This would then be part of a deliberate agenda to spread misinformation on the part of Bellot. This would make Bellot's writings not fact, but rather propaganda,

3) Bellot never actually read O'Meally. Rather, Bellot heard or read what O'Meally had said somewhere else, and then wrote it into that article, with no attempt whatsoever to verify the claim. This can be put down to either laziness, or simply not being a professional journalist. If you're writing a quote from someone, the first rule of an actual journalist is to make sure that the person actually made that quote. Especially if that person is alive and well, and the source of that alleged quote is easy to track down. This would then mean that Bellot is not a journalist, but rather a hack writing internet fiction.

So, which is it? 1, 2, or 3? I can't say, as I don't know enough. But, whichever it is, we have now demonstrated, beyond any shadow of doubt, that Gabrielle Bellot based an entire emotionally-charged article around an idea, and the one seeming cornerstone of "fact" in that article is where Bellot FALSELY put words into the mouth of someone who NEVER said those words at all. (And as noted, Bellot may have picked up that blatant lie from the Wikipedia article in the first place, only for Wikipedia to then use Bellot as a "source", resulting in circular logic. But that's just a "may have".)

And, whether it was 1, 2, or 3, NOBODY at the website The Cut itself bothered fact-checking either. But then, The Cut is NOT about facts, is it? As we read: "The Cut is a site for women who want to view the latest fashion trends; read provocative takes on issues that matter, from politics to relationships;..."

Yes, Gabrielle Bellot wrote "a provocative take" all right. One that, as demonstrated, OUTRIGHT LIED about something in that provocative article. Robert O"Meally NEVER stated what Bellot claims he stated. In fact, his statements show his take was pretty much the exact opposite of what Bellot FALSELY claims O'Meally wrote.

As such, Bellot has been caught in a lie. Bellot writes "provocative"(as per The Cut's website) articles, and we can see that things like fact-checking and verifying quotes have NO PLACE whatsoever for Gabrielle Bellot or The Cut.

And that's why Gabrielle Bellot's statement from the exact same factually-inaccurate article(it was proved right here to be such), is deleted. 197.83.246.141 (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The Kane vs Fleischer section
Needs to be rewritten. As it stands it falsely makes it appear that the Li'l Esther film(which was never proven to date from 1928, look it up) was the deciding factor. Yet, as stated before, Li'l Esther was never mentioned in the judge's verdict, not even in passing. The actual reasons Kane lost the lawsuit are out there, and they 100% do not include Lou Bolton's retracted statement, nor the dubious film.

In fact, an accurate section on the trial, including exactly why Kane lost,would not, and in fact should not, include mention of Li'l Esther at all.

This is an internet meme that has gotten WAY out of hand. Wikipedia should be held to a higher standard.

To summarise.. 1) Helen Kane never actually wrote any songs. The songwriting credits, plus publishing royalties, belonged to others. 2) Helen Kane was not a producer, screenwriter, nor investor in any of the movies she appeared in. In fact, the movies were produced by(and thus the property of) Paramount, the very people she was suing. 3) Helen Kane had never attempted to trademark, copyright etc. anything. 4) Further to the above, Kane was 100% aware that others had been doing her act for years. And had even encouraged it. 5) More so, Mae Questel, Bonnie Pie and Margie Hines had all got their break impersonating Helen Kane. And the one who rewarded them with prizes for doing so? Helen Kane. 6) Crucially, Kane was too sick to perform at a club in 1929. Her spot was filled by Questel. In other words, Kane had given her blessing to Questel performing as Helen Kane, and being paid to do so. She even gave Questel a photograph on which she had written "To Mae Questel, the other Helen Kane". This was before Betty Boop ever existed. 7) Betty Boop was never called "Helen Kane", or any variant of that. 8) Seems odd now, but as Helen Kane is flesh-and-blood, and Betty Boop exists only in animation, the judge ruled there could be no confusion. 9) Another "Huh?" moment from a modern perspective, but the judge ruled that no one can own a phrase. 10) Lastly, no one can own a musical style.

There you go. Nothing to do with Li'l Esther.

What's more, as Esther was doing a Florence Mills impersonation, even if there was any truth to these claims, that would then obviously make Mills, not Esther, the so-called "inspiration for Betty Boop".

Anyone pushing this Esther pov is part of the problem, not part of the solution. 197.87.63.222 (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editor
Now an editor is removing a cited source from Time Magazine which refers to the Fleischer Studios vs Helen Kane lawsuit because he/she doesn't like what it says. 197.87.63.222 (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your changes to the article have been disputed by a number of editors over the least six months or more. You have not been able to gain a WP:CONSENSUS for these edits on various talk pages, and yet you continue to make them.  Your commentary makes it very obvious that you have strong opinions about Betty Boop, Helen Kane, and Baby Esther, and your goal is obviously to skew the articles involved (this one, Helen Kane and Baby Esther) to match your personal opinions.  That is not going to happen, and your edits will continue to be deleted as long as you continue to edit in a PoV manner and without consensus. You're quite close to being reported to admins for sanctioning, so I would advise you to back off, stop edit warring, and engage in civil discussion about this subject.  Any behavior here, or on the other articles, which is anything but that will get you reported for WP:Disruptive editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * But WHY would anyone simply blank 100% relevant information from Time Magazine that is actually FROM 1934, WITHOUT EXPLAINING WHY, unless they are deliberately trying to push a POV? Give ONE good reason why something sourced from a contemporaneous Time Magazine should NOT be included, or just drop it. 197.87.63.222 (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Because this article is about Betty Boop, and not about Helen Kane, something that MarnetteD explained to you in an Edit Summary here. I also pointed out on my talk page  the policy WP:UNDUE, which basically says that simply because information is reliably source is no guarantee that it must appear in an article.  Whether it should or not is a matter of editorial discretion, and that is determined by a WP:CONSENSUS discussion, and not by edit-warring, which has been your approach. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * How is an article ABOUT the Betty Boop lawsuit from the time of the Betty Boop lawsuit "undue"? It is clear because a proper source like Time Magazine says something that exposes your entire WP:SYNTHESIS article for what it is.

You also keep on blanking the sections that state that Judge McGoldrick never mentioned Esther in the official verdict. And the reality is here. There is a deliberate attempt to skew information to push a POV going on here, but not from my side. 197.87.63.222 (talk) 07:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC) But that IS to do with the Betty Boop lawsuit. Period. Otherwise, we can also remove all the information about everyone else in this article that is "not to do with Betty Boop". 197.87.63.222 (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * By the way, this is what the Time Magazine states:

'' Again, Boop 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.''

Now, it becomes clear why Beyondmyken is desperate to remove that from this article. Because a RS states that Helen Kane was both replacing lyrics with "noises", as well being having an "infantile"(ie. baby-like) voice, since 1923. So, if Helen Kane was both singing in a baby voice AND using interpolations in place of lyrics from 1923, she could't possibly have "stolen" those from someone who she ALLEGEDLY saw in "April or May 1928". Easy, eh?

Of course, Helen Kane was not the first person to do either. "Baby singing" had been around since at least 1903, and "scatting" since at least 1921.

Bu removing the fact that Kane had been doing both since 1923 is clearly pushing a POV. 197.87.63.222 (talk) 08:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

AN/I discussion
Readers of this talk page will likely be interested in this discussion on AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, someone has blocked me from editing these articles for 6 months. Yup, 6 months. So, to all the trolls, vandals and liars...knock yourself out. Add all the unsourced bs you like. Put that photo of Olya back up, and claim it's "Baby Esther", claim Helen Kane wrote an autobiography where she admitted she stole her entire act(including her New York accent) from "Baby Esther". Claim "Baby Esther" wrote "I Wanna be Loved by You". Claim Louis Armstrong stole HIS scatting from "Baby Esther". Claim Gertrude Saunders and Florence Mills were also just "Baby Esther" copycats. Claim "Baby esther" invented Jazz Music entirely. I honestly don't care anymore.

Here are the RS

Helen Kane was singing in a baby voice AND using "noises" in place of lyrics since 1923.

In 1930 Fleischer Studios created a Helen Kane caricature called Betty Boop.

In 1932 Helen Kane sued Fleischer Studios

The trial only took place in 1934.

Fleischer won the trial. Kane lost. "Baby Esther" played NO part in the ruling/verdict.

In the 2010's some internet trolls forced "Baby Esther" as a meme, misrepresenting facts, and otherwise simply making up garbage.

Sadly, Wikipedia's relevant articles went largely unchecked when it comes to this garbage, until last year, when I attempted to clean them up. Sadly, Beyondmyken would have NONE of this, and INSISTS that "Baby Esther is the original Betty Boop". Anyone trying to use actual FACTS as to the lives of LI'L ESTHER or Helen Kane, or the creatin of Betty Boop, gets his/her ire.

A Time Magazine article from the time of the trial ABOUT THE TRIAL is somehow "not relevant"? Why? Because the FACTS it establishes don't gel with what Beyondmyken WANTS to be true.

So, these relevant articles now reads like someone's BLOG, rather than Wikipedia articles. And will do forever now, I guess. 197.87.63.222 (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The old Time article is at odds with more authoritative sources, among them Helen Kane herself. She testified at the 1934 trial that she created the persona she is known for, and began adding nonsense syllables to songs, in 1928, not in 1923. In reference to her appearance at the Paramount Theatre that summer, she was asked, "Was that the first time that you sang the songs with the interpolation 'Boop-boop-a-doop', or similar sounds?" Her reply was "Yes, sir." She was asked, "Are you sure about that?"; she answered "Quite sure." (Taylor, Helen Kane and Betty Boop: On Stage and On Trial, 137). A statement by Kane's lawyers confirmed this: "That in or about the month of May, 1928, the plaintiff originated a unique style of singing and acting consisting of the portrayal of the role of a flirtatious young female of mature figure, talking and singing in a childish voice, pouting and employing other mannerisms of a little girl as contrasted with her being an adult; and an important and distinguishing feature of plaintiff's said act was the interpolation of the expressions 'boop,', 'boop-a-doop,', and 'boop-boop-a-doop' at rhythmic intervals throughout her song and dialogue." (Taylor, 71). Ewulp (talk) 04:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * That's not at odds. Clearly, Kane started using interpolation in 1923, but first used the specific interpolation "Boop boop a doop" in 1928. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.63.222 (talk) 04:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Her testimony was that she never used "the interpolation 'Boop-boop-a-doop', or similar sounds" (emphasis added) before May 1928. What interpolations did she make in 1923 then? The Time article does not specify the year Kane began interpolating, and we know that article is mistaken about the year she first appeared in vaudeville. Ewulp (talk) 05:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say. And it would be WP:OR to try and say something. Of course, there are numerous different interpolations. The "Boop Boop a Doop" would be entirely different from "Cha cha cha", or from "Wa wa wa". All that we know is a WP:RS (and you don't get much more RS than Time Magazine) says it. It is not our place to dismiss a RS simply because it doesn't fit in with preconceived notions. Seriously, which is more trustworthy..a Time Magazine article written during the trial...or 2 users(Beyondmyken and MarnetteD) who have shown clear emotional/personal reasons for wanting to "Defend their position"?


 * And, of course, Esther was never mentioned in the judge's verdict. How many times does that need to be repeated? The Fleischer/Paramount lawyers proved that other people had been doing interpolations in their songs before Kane(eg. Clarence Williams and Gertrude Saunders), and that was before 1923. The Fleischer/Paramount lawyers proved that other people had been doing "baby voice singing" since before Kane was even born. While Kane's iconic image that clearly directly inspired Betty Boop(and Esther looked NOTHING like that, btw) was not completely dissimilar from the way Clara Bow(for one) looked.

Again, other people had been doing both "baby voice" and "interpolations"(though not together...) before 1923. That is undeniable. Those facts were brought up at the trial. And, repeated again...Esther was never mentioned in the judge's verdict at all, not even in passing. You could make a MUCH stronger case that eg. Gertrude Saunders could lay claim than Esther. In fact, before Esther went viral on the internet in recent years, this wouldn't have even been an issue. And it's one blatant mistruth on top of another, eg. "She performed regularly at the Cotton Club", "She was found dead in 1934", or posting photos of curvy adult women and FALSELY claiming that they are of "Baby Esther". Even the name "Baby Esther" is a lie. She performed as "LI'L Esther", as actual documentation from the time shows. But they need to call her "BABY Esther", as we can draw a connection between the name "Baby" Esther and Kane's childlike voice. (Even though Kane played a child in her Marx Brothers show, in the early 1920's...) But again, even IF there's one word of truth in what Bolton said...many other people were performing by singing in a baby voice since at least 1903(and likely earlier too). This whole thing is pure WP:OR, WP:POV and WP:SYNTHESIS. And then aggressively defended from anyone trying to properly source and cite anthing, and properly sourcing and citing anything destroys the myth. 197.87.63.222 (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Ann Landers 1926


I was wrong. Beyondmyken and MarnetteD were both wrong. 197.87.63.222 (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)