Talk:Helen Kane/Archive 1

Biography assessment rating comment
WikiProject Biography Assessment

Needs an infobox and more references, but a definite B.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 18:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Photo
How could we get a photo of Helen Kane for this article? Without breaking the law, I mean. Maikel (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Betty Boop
The article says, "Fleischer Studios animator Grim Natwick used Kane as the model for his studio's most famous creation, Betty Boop." But the Betty Boop article says that Betty was based on Clara Bow. Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.169.104 (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I've read through the Grim Natwick, Betty Boop and Helen Kane pages, and tried to make a fairer statement about where the Betty Boop character came from. Common sense would suggest that Natwick was aware of both Clara Bow and Helen Kane; both were fairly famous at the time. Kane didn't prove in court that she was the exclusive inspiration for the character, and I haven't found any documentation to suggest she was, so I feel like the intro here should be less definitive. Unclevinny (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You are right, Betty Boop was a combination now im not going to cite anything but i will just add what i think. For example Clara Bow was naughty in her Silent Movies and somewhat of a Sex Symbol. and Helen Kane was Cute and added naughty lyrics into her songs such as ( Boop Oop a Doop & Boop Boop a Doop). It Was also once stated that Helen Kane & Cara Bow looked alike, Although Clara didnt think that they did. Also for example Clara Bow is mentioned in Hollywood on Parade A8 in the Betty Boop sequence, Although the Actress Bonnie Poe who had played Betty looked nothing like Clara Bow. although Betty did start off her career impersonating Helen Kane from Dizzy Dishes (1930), Helen lost becuse every other girl had the same flapper hairstyle as her & it was noted that a little known african american singer baby esther had booped before kane, so she couldnt prove otherwise that she was the insperation for Betty even though Grim Natwick had used her photograph. It was mostly the people who provided the voices for the Character Betty Boop who took kane's fame. I think kane had sued the wrong people, i think she should have sued the voice over's & impersonators, Although Helen allowed the use of impersonation when paramount held the Helen Kane look-a-like contests, i think Kate Wright, Ann Rothschild & Mae Questel had entered. Mae Questel won first place and was signed a contract. Bayoneta (talk) 13:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 17:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Helen Kane. 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/20100219095623/http://www.louisrosenthalmuseum.org/mae-west--hollywood.html to http://www.louisrosenthalmuseum.org/mae-west--hollywood.html

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) 10:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

It's sourced
Regarding this edit from the IP edit warrior ... the source is right there. What is not sourced is the original research the IP insists on replacing it with, which has already been discussed at WT:NORN. Ewulp (talk) 11:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It's right there. In fact, even mentioning "Baby Esther" concerning the judge's ruling is WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. There is no way around this simple fact...The judge did not mention Esther in his ruling. As stated on that discussion page, this entire thing is a bad internet meme that has gotten WAY out of hand. The actual WP:RS make the reality clear... It's interesting how long this user, Ewulp, allowed the deliberate misquotation of Robert O'Meally to stand. It's also interesting how Ewulp had no problem with photographs of other people to pass for "Baby Esther". Yet someone stating something that is WP:RS is apparently too much for them. Read the judge's actual summary, Esther played no part in his verdict. 197.89.10.25 (talk) 04:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We're not here to discuss internet memes. It's OR to state what the ruling doesn't say according to WP:NOR. I presume you would object if somebody added this line to the article: "In her testimony, Helen Kane never said that she hadn't copied Baby Esther." And you'd be right to object, because to select and emphasize a thing somebody didn't say allows you to introduce your own bias, which you seem eager to do here by emphasizing something the judge's ruling doesn't say. Here's a reliable source that says Kane admitted she stole her act from Esther; I've never used this because I haven't found a second source to corroborate it, which makes me suspect the RS is mistaken. Call me biased.
 * Entertainingly, the diffs       show the exact opposite of what you claim: the editor routinely removing every spurious photo was ... Ewulp (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The Baby Esther article was made out of whole cloth. It had blatant lies, lack of reliable sources, and in fact the one source it used(O'Meally) completely and deliberately lied about what O'Meally actually said. Ewulp has been editing that article for years, yet had NO PROBLEMS with that. Now an attempt is being made to Reliably Source articles related to this issue, and Ewulp, Beyondmyken, and MarenetteD are all objecting to that. Again, if the judge mentioned Esther in the verdict, then link to it.


 * And guess what? The 'baby' singing style has been around since before Esther was even born. (Whenever THAT was, as there is NO RS for that either. What does that tell you? Of course,w e have no idea what happened to her after the 1934 trial either, where she ended up, where/when she died. And the "early test film" that was never verified as being accurate, disappeared without trace as well.) The entire Baby Esther article is the very worst of WP:POV, WP:SYNTHESIS, and outright falsehoods. And that has been allowed to contaminate other articles as well, such as this one. 197.89.10.25 (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

AN/I
Readers of this talk page will likely be interested in this discussion on AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Did you know that Helen Kane stole her entire persona, appearance, singing voice, and even her name from Baby Esther, a "negro child" she saw performing in a club in "April or May 1928"? And then Betty Boop was later also a direct rip-off of this same "Baby Esther"? Well, if you read Wikipedia, that's what you'll find out. It's not properly sourced, of course,and there are multiple contemporaneous sources refuting that. The judge's verdict in the Kane vs Fleischer/Paramount trial never mentions Esther at all, but you'll never know that from Wikipedia. And you certainly won't find out that Kane had been performing in a baby singing voice, as well as using interpolations in her songs since at least 1923. As Time Magazine articles about the Kane vs Fleischer trial are NOT relevant in Wikipedia paragraphs about the Kane vs Fleischer trial.Instead, you can get blatant LIES about what Jazz scholar Robert O'Meally said, which actually turn O'Meally's words inside out, and state the exact opposite of what he said. You'll get "April or May 1928" turned into "several years before Helen Kane", and you'll get photos of a cosplayer in 2008 posing as "Baby Esther". You'' find out that "Baby Esther was a regular performer at the Cotton Club", which would have surprised everyone who worked at the Cotton Club, as she never actually performed there. In short, you'll learn that "Baby Esther was the original Helen Kane, and Baby Esther was the original Betty Boop". And DON'T point out with RS that LI'L Esther(her actual performing name) was doing a Florence Mills impersonation act at the time Kane allegedly "stole" her act. Or that Esther was widely known as "The Miniature Florence Mills". Because that would just confuse the issue. And really, someone impersonating someone else doesn't matter if it's RS. Because we don't want RS here, we just want what people uploading YT videos say. Baby Esther invented Jazz. Baby Esther invented scat singing. And we don't need no stinkin RS. 197.87.63.222 (talk) 09:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The complaints here are hallucinatory; for just one example, the Baby Esther article contains no fewer than six references to Esther as a Florence Mills imitator. And the editor should know better than to rely on the old Time article; as has already been explained to them (diff), "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?" In fact Helen Kane herself testified at the 1934 trial that the first time she booped was in 1928. 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, 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). Yet the IP insists that Kane was "using interpolations in her songs since at least 1923", citing a breezy Time article that doesn't actually say that, but who cares about accuracy? Ewulp (talk) 03:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Because that's two different things. She was using interpolations, and baby voices, since 1923. She first used the specific interpolation "Boop boop a doop" in 1928. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.63.222 (talk • contribs) 23:32, May 14, 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I'm glad you're no longer citing the Time article to claim that she was "boop"ing in 1923 (as seen here). Sources agree she sang in a baby voice in the mid-20s, but none that I've seen specifies when she interpolated anything before 1928. Kane's testimony was that "'Boop-boop-a-doop', or similar sounds " began in 1928 at the Paramount Theatre engagement. She should know. Ewulp (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

and funny that you used Taylor. Just skimming..

Testimony of Helen Kane

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

Really, what this all boils down to is...the character of Betty Boop was clearly based on Helen Kane. Kane sued. Paramount/Fleischer won. And only in recent times have a very persistent group of people ruled that that was primarily, or entirely because of Li'L Esther. These same people ignore the testimony about Edith Griffith allegedly "booping" in 1927, and they ignore Getrude Saunders claiming that SHE had been booping for years before even that! Why? Because they have a "Baby Esther" fixation. Of course, one alleged claim is not worth more than another claim without evidence. And the reality is that the first verified use of the phrase "Boop boop a doop" is indeed by Helen Kane, and no one else. I suggest you read the trial transcripts. yes, Lou Bolton could enter anything he wanted into evidence. But then it had to be PROVED exactly what it was evidence OF. And THAT was not as simplistic as these articles make it out to be. All the film proved was that there was a film in 1934. Its origins were never verified. Sadly, some people refuse to acknowledge that.

And note how Beyondmyken was emotional on another page..



Some quotes:


 * ''the influence (or lack of influence) of the entertainer Baby Esther on Helen Kane and Betty Boop. There was a lawsuit about it in 1932 when Kane sued the Fleischer Studios and the defendants brought up Baby Esther.

The IP editor 197.87.63.222 has been arguing on the talk pages of these articles since September November 2020 that Baby Esther had no influence on Kane. Their position is very pro-Kane and very anti-Esther. They've made these arguments on the talk pages of all three articles, but has never convinced anyone''

Notice the simplistic tone. "Never convinced anyone"? No. Read the discussion pages. Others have agreed. And note the ultra-simplistic phrasing..  There was a lawsuit about it in 1932 when Kane sued the Fleischer Studios and the defendants brought up Baby Esther.

Yes, but they also brought up MULTIPLE other people, written statements, and issues. And, as repeatedly noted(but blanked).. Esther was NEVER mentioned in the judge's verdict, not even in passing. And note this..

I understand that you feel strongly about this issue, but you simply cannot keep attempting to skew the articles in order to have them show that Helen Kane was the precursor to Betty Boop, and that Baby Esther was irrelevant. That's your personal viewpoint, which you're allowed to have, but you're not allowed to edit Wikipedia in such a way as to have our articles represent you views''
 * ''Don't be absurd, the trial is obviously relevant. The question is how much material on the trial should be in the article, and what kind. It's clear that you want the Time material to be in because it strengthens the hypothesis that Kane was the major influence on the invention of Betty Boop, and, in fact, in order to do that you're cherry-picking facts from the Time article that emphasize points of similarity between them.

That is backwards. Grim Natwick admitted that Helen Kane was THE influence on Betty Boop. Grim Natwick, the guy who created the Betty Boop character.

And repeat this, because it says it all..

Sorry, but the creator of Betty Boop himself stated that Helen Kane was the direct influence on Betty Boop, and never mentioned Esther even in passing. That's not me "skewing" anything. That's plain fact. The only "skewing" is people trying to force the idea that Esther was "the precursor to Betty Boop". Yet, who got blocked?

Again, Grim Natwick, who created Betty Boop, stated outright that Betty Bop was influenced by Helen Kane. He never mentioned Esther at all. That is Reliably Sourced, yet I'm sure Beyondmyken and MarnetteD would consider that "unreliable" or "undue" and remove it. They are the ones skewing these articles, to force a personal belief of theirs. The facts, including Time Magazine, show that REALITY is very different to their personal beliefs. Was Esther "Brought up at the trial"? Absolutely? Was Esther in any way significant in the outcome of the trial? Well, read the judge's verdict? Did he mention Esther at all in his verdict? No, no, and thrice no.

Again, that Time article was only removed because their entire fiction had been exposed. And they guard these articles like watchdogs, to defend their totally unsourced WP:OR/WP:SYNTHESIS positon that "Baby Esther was the precursor to Betty Boop".

So, in short, a small group of people keep constant surveillance on the Helen Kane, Betty Boop and Baby Esther articles, and dedicate themselves to defending the UNSOURCED and UNVERIFIED tale that "Baby Esther was the original Betty Boop. Helen Kane saw Esther, and stole her entire act and persona. And then Fleishcer Studios, directly or indirectly, stole Baby Esther's entire act and persona when they created Betty Boop". They outright lie about what actual sources say (eg. Robert O'Meally), they claim that "Kane stole Esther's entire act" is plain fact, when it's just the claim of one man (Lou Bolton), a man with a known criminal record. And in fact one of their Esther newspaper articles illustrates that Bolton also lied about Esther in that very article!

But...anyone attempting to remove the unsourced allegations, to use actual WP:RS like Time Magazine, to correctly quote actual WP:RS like O'Meally etc. will be harassed, bullied, and attacked. And if that fails, they'll go running to the Admin Noticeboards, and cry about a "consensus". In fact, THEY are a tiny group. Of course, they realize this, so they drive people away one at a time. Beyondmyken's emotional outburst about you simply cannot keep attempting to skew the articles in order to have them show that Helen Kane was the precursor to Betty Boop, and that Baby Esther was irrelevant, says it all. Beyondmyken will defend to the end his/her POV that Esther was "relevant". Regardless of what actual WP:RS really say. Hey, I proved that they blatantly misrepresented what O'Meally said. And now, a Time article, that was actually found by the helpful editor Ewulp proves beyond any shadow of doubt that their position is NOT supported by either facts, or by WP:RS. So, they had to blank it, rant that it was "undue", and then get me blocked from editing the articles in question. Because those WP:RS prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the blatant pro-Esther, and anti-Kane POV that Beyondmyken is pushing...does not belong in anything that would deserve the name "Encyclopedia". 197.87.63.222 (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

We were ALL mistaken


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 located, but can't now locate, a clipping showing Gertrude Saunders was claiming to be "booping" since at least 1924.

This phrase "boop boopa 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. 197.87.63.222 (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)