Talk:Florence Foster Jenkins

message: My heart leapt on reading that a second CD (Even More Glory ...) of Madame Jenkins' art existed but I grieve to report that it doesn't — it was an April Fool hoax perpetrated by MusicWeb.co.uk.
http://www.musicweb.uk.net/classrev/2002/May02/FFJ.htm
Wilus 10:30, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: New CD?

message: What was her actual vocal range? Wider or narrower than an average Jane? I know she sang terrible. But was she still a better singer than many of us? (I really don't think so. Heeeee!) -- Toytoy 04:38, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
I think it quite inaccurate to characterize her range as limited. Though I haven't carefully plotted it out, she performs Der Holle Rache, which requires precisely two octaves, from the F above middle C to the F two octaves above. I presume she could sing lower than that low F - as even the highest sopranos inevitably can - which would make her range more than two octaves, quite good. If no one has any objections, I'm going to change that characterization soon.
--George 03:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, voice range is about usable notes, not the highest and lowest note someone can somehow croak out. I think it's pretty clear that your estimate of her range includes notes that are in no way useful. - Nunh-huh 01:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

text: I don't know. If you miss a high note by as much as third, is that still generally referred to as "flat"? Calling it flat seems like an understatement, at best. If she sang it an octave lower than written would the term still apply? RivertorchFIREWATER 04:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If you aren't within the same semitone, you're not "flat", you've sung the wrong note. If we call the wrong note "flat", a musician is going to think we're pretty ignorant. - Nunh-huh 01:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. In looking over the sentence again, it looks as if it's not explicitly equating being flat with "deviating from the proper pitch", so I'm not sure what to do. I do know that FJJ was often flat, occasionally sharp, and just plain way off the mark too many times to count. I suppose I should go look for sources. RivertorchFIREWATER 05:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

text: Well, no.  "Singing the wrong note" implies singing a note different from the one printed in the score, as opposed to trying for the correct note, but missing it.  By all the accounts that I've read, FloJo thought she was hitting the correct notes.  I realize that when one misses by more than a semitone it amounts to the same thing; but I'm confident that musicians (the ones I know, anyway) know what we mean, and do not think us "Ignorant" for describing her intonation as "flat". I do have a problem with the change to "as much as a third", however; first, because most non-musician readers won't know what a "third" is; and second, because none of the cited sources use that terminology, or any other tonic measurement (such as "semitone").  They only say that her intonation was often flat, sometimes considerably so --  and we can only say what sources say. So I'm going to fix that. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singing ability? 

message: Just saw a play by Stephen Temperley at the Berkshire Theater Festival in Stockbridge, Mass. It stars the wonderful Judy Kaye and Donald Coren, was seen in NYC at the York a year or so ago, and is set for Broadway in the fall. I don't think it will make it on the big stage, but it would be great in an off-B'way setting. It follows the bio given here in Wikipedia very closely, so I assume it's true to life. It takes a real singer to mimic the FFJ sound,and Kaye not only does it briliiantly, she gets a chance to sing in her own voice at the end of the show. Recommended for all FFJ fans. [[Nlipman] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.140.107 (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Omitted name of play: Souvenir

message: An anonymous user completely rewrote this page, removing a good deal of useful content while de-wikifying the article. You can see the last version of the page before the rewriting at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Florence_Foster_Jenkins&oldid=22663907. The two versions need to be compared and combined, but I don't have the time to do it right now. - EurekaLott 21:06, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page rewritten 

message: This page has numerous POV statements judging the talent of FFJ. Stuff like "complete lack of singing ability", "From her recordings, it is apparent that Jenkins had little sense of pitch and rhythm and was barely capable of sustaining a note", "patent lack of ability", "well beyond her technical ability". 
I know that FFJ's entire career was based on the fact that she was bad rather than good, and the article must express that fact. But the article should not express the opinion that she was bad, just like the Luciano Pavarotti article never says that he was good (these statements are left to the critics). Leave the criticism of her style in the mouths of the critics. See William Hung for another article about a bad singer, but without POV statements about his (lack of) abilities. --Staecker 13:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Added the NPOV tag to spur someone to address the above POV objections. --Cab88 06:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: errr, she was a bad singer. Terrible, in fact. You can't have an article about someone who is famous solely because of her bad singing without mentioning the fact. That's not POV - it's simply the fact of the matter. --Centauri 07:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the tag, which is ludicrous. She was a bad singer, it's why she was known, and there is no significant alternative view to be represented here. - Nunh-huh 10:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your timely comment opinion. - Nunh-huh 20:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: On the Helpdesk mailing list, we got a message from someone claiming that Cosmé McMoon was his/her great uncle, and that this was his real name (although other family members call themselves McMunn rather than McMoon). I have therefore removed the statement that Cosmé McMoon is a pseudonym. - Andre Engels 07:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cosme McMoon and Edwin McArthur both had the unenviable task of accompanying Florence Foster Jenkins, but they were unquestionably two different men. Niether is a pseudonym.  - Nunh-huh 07:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: According to a radio interview which can be read at , Cosme McMoon was indeed Edwin McArthur.Bogframe
That information is in error. They were two different people. During Jenkins' early concerts both appeared on the same stage, McArthur accompanying her and McMoon playing piano solos. In addition a search of the New York Times online reveals that McMoon played frequent solo recitals in the 1930's, generally to mediocre reviews. Saxophobia 04:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cosmé McMoon 

message: Does anyone know if Florence Foster Jenkins was the inspiration for Susan Alexander character (bad opera singer) in Citizen Kane?
:I'm not aware of any evidence to prove it, but the obvious influence has always seemed pretty clear to me. --Centauri 00:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Marion Davies and Hearst were never married; she was his mistress.  And, I've seen two of her films; she was quite a good actress given the proper role (light comedy) but Hurst kept trying to get her into dramatic roles that were completely unsuitable for her.  JDZeff (talk) 06:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

text: No doubt she was discussed in the papers, on the 1st of avril. YOU must be joking. Nobody is able to sing so awfully.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.185.75.140 (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: She was known well enough to get into Time Magazine, as this November 1934 Time article shows. --Soundwave106 (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inspiration for Susan Alexander character in Citizen Kane 

message: I went to see the current production of Glorious! in Calgary last night. And very entertaining it was too. The audience seemed to enjoy it thoroughly (as did I). Good story, funny writing, good cast, super sets. What more could you ask for! However one thing that caught my eye was the programme. It contains a short biography and credits this article in Wikipedia with a reference. Gosh! -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Canadian Premiere of Glorious!

message: This could possibly be my very favorite article of Wikipedia. Der Holle Rache brings a tear to my eye every time. --Liebs, not actually registered on Wikipedia.
::Funny, I came in here to say the very same thing. Simply wonderful. 85.158.139.99 (talk) 08:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The first sentence is the greatest sentence on WP.  68.82.179.158 (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I just say? 

message: In the Little Bear episode "Diva Hen", Hen (1) sings horribly (2) including an excerpt from "Der Hölle Rache" (3) and is unaware how horrible she is. Sound familiar? If anyone can source this, then please add it to the "in popular culture" section. Emurphy42 (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspected but unsourced reference 

message: New editors should keep in mind that one of the basic premises governing Wikipedia content is verifiability—a policy that is taken very seriously. Its counterpoint is the policy forbidding original research. It is a really good idea to familiarize oneself with those two policies (and their adjunct, the guideline on identifying reliable sources) before making substantive edits to this or any article.
I am very glad to see new editors editing here, especially those with expertise on the subject. However, even experts need to follow policy, and they often do (some make very important contributions to Wikipedia every day).
Having taken the time to open this thread before reverting for the second time, I urge any editors watching this article, including the one who has twice added unsourced content and removed sourced content and references, to engage in discussion here, rather than doing it again. Rivertorch (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiability and sources 

message: I suggest that the article be edited so that the many criticisms of Jenkins can be written without being tagged. Also make sure the criticisms are sourced
Thanks,
RH (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV issue 

message: Please expand and add sources.
RH (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the section. The content was lifted verbatim from elsewhere in the article, which is sort of pointless. I'm finding myself at a loss as to the benefit of such a section in this article anyway. Rivertorch (talk) 06:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Just for the record, I have now ended up fully reverting everything that happened to the article yesterday/today. What a mess. It might be better if you'd make some proposals first instead of just editing. Rivertorch (talk) 06:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, what a mess, indeed. I was about to revert everything myself when you did it.  I've been trying to work out a way to incorporate some of the information on the "World of Her Own" documentary, which appears to be legitimate, without triggering a reflex revert by someone who hasn't seen it.  It would be nice if there were some corroboration in other sources, but as yet I haven't found any. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 04:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Section Added 

message: So we currently have a paragraph about a "segment of NPR's radio program Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!", but including widely-reported plans for a film by Stephen Frears is considered "promotional"? Even if the film was never made, I think such plans would be notable and worthy of inclusion in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: WP is not the Hollywood Reporter, or any similar billboard for advertising/promoting scheduled or expected future events. The NPR piece on FloFo already took place, several years ago, so it is included. When (and if) this movie is made, it will certainly qualify as a notable addition to the article.  If it is not made (something that happens all the time in the movie industry, as I'm sure you know), news of its cancellation will merit a column-inch of space in the Hollywood Reporter, but not in an encyclopedia. Cheers, DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 18:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I guess "Variety" is often stuffed with the latest gos about Flo. And who the hell is this Frears guy anyway? Probably some kind of dreary home-movie. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Droll, very droll. Frears has assembled a most interesting body of work, and I'm sure the film will be great if he does succeed in getting it made, rumors to the contrary.  I hope he includes some of the details of FloFo's medical history, which I'm preparing to add to the article, once I get the sourcing straight. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 23:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no rule/guideline/policy against mentioning reputably sourced and widely reported film projects. There's even the :category:upcoming films for them. The policy WP:NOTPROMOTION has nothing to do with this matter. I think it should be restored into the article, supported by Playbill, The Guardian, or other reputable sources. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Granted, one editor's upcoming event is another editor's spam; and some upcoming events (the Olympics, for example) are indisputably noteworthy.  I just don't see how mentioning an upcoming movie project, whether or not its promoters have run ads in Playbill or the Hollywood Reporter, improves the article.  In this case, an announcement clearly falls into the category of spam, in my mind.  Once the movie comes out, it will be a noteworthy addition to the article.  In my opinion. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 15:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you'll find any "ads" for the film in The Guardian or the Daily Mail or even at standardexaminer.net. Do you realise how widely this has been reported?  Martinevans123 (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

text: I don't think we should include this at least until the movie is actually in production. The only thing that has happened so far is an announcement in hopes of raising money. That's barely newsworthy, much less encyclopedic. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: My point exactly.  So far, it's all promotion.  WP is not supposed to be a vehicle for that. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 02:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources mentioned by Martinevans123, to which many more could be added, are reputable sources, not promotional vehicles. If an event is reported that widely – and a project involving Meryl Streep and Stephen Frears invariably is – it becomes encyclopedic, even if the film is never made. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No¸ just because something is reported widely does not make it worthy of inclusion. Most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. See WP:NOTNEWS. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That policy can be cited both ways: "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its (Wikipedia's) coverage". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the policy is quite clear and is to be read only one way. "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information... However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion... most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." The question is whether including this info gives it undue weight. I was inclined to say no, but I see now that Variety is reporting the actors and director have been signed and the movie is in "pre-production." I still wouldn't include it myself but I could go along with a sentence sourced to the Variety article. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A single sentence was all that was originally added. But why Variety?Martinevans123 (talk) 09:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: For the reasons I gave. Also the Guardian attributes the news to Variety, and Playbill attributes it to The Daily Mail which is a tabloid. One said "in the works" and the other "in negotiations." But I know very little about the movie biz or whether Variety is considered RS. "Pre-production" could be just as meaningless as "in the works." Anyone know exactly what it means? Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure your reasons are valid. I just thought The Guardian might be more of a secondary source and less tainted by the accusations of "Hollywood gossip" that have been flying round here. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

text: "Pre-production" means that a few principal actors and a writer have been verbally committed (but not actually signed), and announced, as a means for soliciting financial backing.  There isn't even a script yet. ("Nicholas Martin will write the script", according to Entertainment Weekly.)  In other words, it is, in fact, "Hollywood gossip" at this point, a concept in search of money.  Not to belabor the point (which I will now proceed to do), at an equivalent stage of The Sunshine Boys, the announced principals were Jack Benny and Red Skelton; and at this stage of what eventually became Blazing Saddles, the verbally-committed cast members were Richard Pryor as Bart, Gene Wilder as Hedley Lamarr, and Gig Young as the Waco Kid.  So I suggest that we at least wait on a verified financial commitment, an approved script, and a written contract or two before plunging into the hype. WP is not supposed to be a venue for reporting breaking news -- and it isn't even that yet!  DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it "hype". It's an announcement. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Announcing something that hasn't happened yet in hopes that the announcement will make it happen is pretty much the definition of hype. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

text: Variety says "Pathe Intl. has signed Meryl Streep and Hugh Grant" which I took to mean there is a signed contract. Again, I don't know how significant this is but I'd give it more credence than the earlier reports. Source:  Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: So you still "could go along with a sentence sourced to the Variety article", yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What the trades are saying is that Streep and Grant are "attached", which in the lingo means they have signed letters of intent -- not contracts.  But enough's enough; I think I've made my position fairly clear. I'll abide by consensus on this very small issue -- although it's not clear to me at this point what consensus is. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

text: My question was addressed to Kendall-K1, in an attempt to clarify what the consensus is. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm more interested in what Dr. Joe has to say, since he seems to know more about the movie biz than I do. I still wouldn't include this myself. But I'd say we have consensus to include a sentence sourced to Variety and closely following their wording: that the movie is in "pre-production" and the actors have been "signed." Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: DoctorJoeE's opinion "that it isn't even [news] yet" disregards a substantial amount of coverage in reputable sources. As for consensus on this earth-shattering matter: IMO there's DoctorJoeE against, Kendall-K1 neutral, and Martinevans123 and me pro; which, strictly, amounts to "no consensus". RLY? I think I'll go and find something else to do. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

text: As mentioned, we all have a finite amount of time, which could certainly be better served doing something other than arguing this minor point.  But one last time: WP is not a newspaper.  The fact that something is reported, widely or not, does not, per se, make it worthy of inclusion here. That said, Michael is correct -- there is a paper-thin consensus for inclusion, so if someone wants to restore the content, be my guest.  Just don't be surprised if someone else takes it down and the whole tempest in a teapot starts all over again. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If we carry on arguing long enough, someone's bound to get a prize, luvvie. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, great -- so now we're competing against Brad Pitt and a Sherman tank?  Or Jennifer Lawrence in a little red dress? :-) DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems other editors are keen to include it? But I'm not surprised that "someone" has indeed taken it down again. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy that you're not surprised.  Yes, the occasional newbie editor -- this one with a grand total of 3 edits this year -- will, on occasion, read something in the Hollywood Reporter and rush to Wikipedia to include it.  And each time it happens I will point out that WP is not a newspaper.  Let's wait until they start production, at the very least, before you include it.  Can we at least agree on that compromise?  Why would anyone, except "someone" trying to promote the production on WP, want to include it before that? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 21:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine because they'd look at this article and think "why has more not been done with this incredible and bizarre story". That's just a guess, of course. I'm happy to go with "consensus". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too. I'm about to add some more information, including the fact (and yes, it is a fact, apparently) that her first/only husband gave her syphilis, which remained undiagnosed and untreated until it was too late. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 23:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Meryl enjoys a challenge. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

text: The most recent addition used the weasel words "it was announced," which I usually revert on sight, and claimed "a biopic would be made," which is not what the source says. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you do when things really are announced? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You say who did the announcing. "Meryl Streep announced she had been signed...", "MGM announced they would be producing...", etc. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see, yes fine - so a clarification and not a straight revert. I sometimes wish WP:CHRYSTAL was firmer and prohibited mention of any future event (including future Royal babies, asteroid collisions or next weeks' Strictly theme, for example). Martinevans123 (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film "Florence" 

message: It's been years since I've read the book, so I could be wrong here.  However, based on my recollection, portions of the article text appear too similar to her entry in Songs in the Key of Z. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  11:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know that book at all, so the portion that I wrote certainly didn't come from it.  We don't know what the original author drew on -- the article was minimally sourced when I first found it.  But I see that there's a Kindle edition of Chusid's book, so I'll have a look and report back. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 17:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: (Sadly no mention of Margarita Pracatan, it seems.) Martinevans123 (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio? 

message: Quote:  [...] Jenkins received piano lessons as a child, and becoming a child prodigy pianist and performed all over the state of Pennsylvania, appearing in "Saengerfets" and even appeared at the White House.
That's badly phrased, the term "child prodigy" is questionable and weaselish (is she really in the same class as Mozart?), and the term "Saengerfets" is clearly erroneous.  The original German term would be "Sängerfest", plural "Sängerfeste".  An Anglicised plural version would be "Saengerfests".
I would also really like to see more info on her alleged White House appearance.  Thanks, Maikel (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, "child prodigy" does not automatically imply that the person so described is on par with Mozart; nobody is on par with Mozart, IMHO, and there have been lots of "child prodigies" over the years.  That said, I don't know the source of that content.  I've been slowly collecting material as time permits with the eventual aim of rewriting this article, but it has been harder than I anticipated; there simply isn't that much information out there about FloFo.  When I eventually do the rewrite, it will be well sourced, I promise. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 20:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Here is a source for "prodigy": . But I agree that the term is inappropriate, and would favor removing it. I corrected the spelling of "Sänger-fests" to that given in Otto. The White House appearance is mentioned in Otto, but there are no details, and I'm not sure that's a reliable source anyway. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No argument here on the "prodigy" descriptor; I've removed it.  I'll see if I can find any details on the White House gig -- although, as mentioned, FloFo info of any sort is hard to come by. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 21:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Prodigious

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Florence Foster Jenkins. 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/20100316175913/http://www.metoperafamily.org:80/operanews/_archive/601/ffjenkins.601.html to http://www.metoperafamily.org/operanews/_archive/601/ffjenkins.601.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I corrected her birth name to Nascina, and have now re-corrected it following a revert. Ironic that an existing citation in the article (right at my edit), a video documentary titled "Florence Foster Jenkins: A World of Her Own," gives her correct name as Nascina. At the request of the reverter, I have added an additional citation, the Oxford Reference, to further support my edit. paul klenk talk 02:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes a lot more sense. Who would name their daughter "Narcissa"? Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: and yet - she is named Narcissa in the current page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.126.126 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: As discussed below, the majority of sources says "Narcissa". Woodroar (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth name: Nascina Florence, not Narcissa Florence 

message: 'legalized the relationship in a common-law marriage' There is no such legal entity, as many have found to their cost after their "spouse" died.109.159.77.159 (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, of course there is such an entity (see Common-law marriage) ... but ... since New York is not one of the nine states where they are legally recognized ... we should probably take a closer look at the sources.  If Flo and St. Clair were just shackin' up, we should probably just say that. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 03:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no such thing as a "common-law marriage" because Common_law didn't have any rules regarding marriage. It was always of matter for Canon_law and the Ecclesiastical_court. The expression shouldn't be used, but it's probably too common to eradicate. 104.192.232.137 (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Common law marriage' 

message: The "external links" section needs to be trimmed down either by 1)- deletion, 2)- incorporation into the article as references or, 3)- possibly moved to a "Bibliography" or "Further reading" section. Otr500 (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links section 

message: I've tagged for original research, which this article contains in abundance. See, e.g., the "Recordings" section. There is also an absence of context and incomplete, as there is no reference made to the fact that there was a spurt of attention to her in 1954 when LP records of her performances were released. Coretheapple (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the "OR" tag and the "references needed" tag. You definition of OR does not fit the Wikipedia definition of OR, "absence of context and incomplete" and "no reference made to [the] spurt of attention to her in 1954" are not synonyms for "original research". There is also no need to tag the article as needing more references, every paragraph has a reference attached, if you are disputing a particular fact, add a fact tag to that sentence, not the entire article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with User:Coretheapple that there's way too much opinion substituting for research.  For example, the first sentence of the section "Career": "From her recordings it is apparent that Jenkins had little sense of pitch or rhythm, and was barely capable of sustaining a note."  No encyclopedia would include such a statement. That's an opinion and should either be sourced or removed. Unfortunately, much of the remainder of the article also has similar problems. -- kosboot (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Original research draws new conclusions not in the source documentation, like saying she was a lesbian or a Republican, or would have supported Donald Trump if alive. Describing her as "tone deaf", is not original research ... it is just research based on a primary source, which we do, cautiously. Every film article does the same thing, we generate a plot summary from a primary source, the film itself. The reviews of her singing from reliable sources use the same phrases "tone deaf" and "off key". Just do a Google search of her name and the word in question. What you are describing as OR is handled by the regular editing process, rewriting it so it reads better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously there is no consensus over whether the tags are warranted so please stop edit warring over them. Per WP:BRD and the guideline on template removal the correct procedure is to obtain a consensus on the talk page re the template, as we are doing, and not to revert as you have done. The article is replete with original research throughout, and the inline referencing is insufficient. I would suggest that we step out of this article and let other editors weigh in. Meanwhile I will obtain additional sourcing.Coretheapple (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that BRD means: "1) be bold, 2) revert, 3) discuss", so reverting seems quite proper. Further, I agree with R. A. Norton that omnibus tags at the top of the article are much less helpful to other editors who might want to improve the article than targeted tags within. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you're soliciting additional input, I would first point out that the "R" in "BRD" is "revert" -- you were bold, you were reverted, and now we discuss.  So the correct procedure was indeed followed.  Second, I disagree with both of your assertions, that the article is "replete with original research throughout", and that "the inline referencing is insufficient"; I see nothing that can seriously be considered OR, and nothing insufficient about the existing citations.  That said, no one will object to your contributing additional reliable sources. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Florence Foster Jenkins. 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/20091016095314/http://www.nypl.org/research/lpa/lpa.html to http://www.nypl.org/research/lpa/lpa.html
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) 02:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As widely reported in his obituary and elsewhere, he was NOT "sixteen years younger." Died at ninety-one in May 1967. Birth date August 1875. See New York Times obit, age in headline, so paywall not an issue. See also this book. And the snipped from p. 1904 in this book. We're not robots. When we see something in a source that is contradicted by another source and/or is obviously wrong, we do not use it. Here's a helpful hint: when a "fact" is contradicted by another article, in this case the Bayfield article, it is a good sign that it may be wrong. Coretheapple (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Age of [[St. Clair Bayfield]]

message: :Some things just grow by incremental edits. The "External links" section, one of the optional appendices, had grown to 9 entries. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four links. 
:The problem is that none is needed for article promotion. 
*ELpoints #3) states: 
*LINKFARM states: 
*ELMIN: . -- 
*ELCITE:   
*WP:ELBURDEN: . 
:Some of the current links may include ones that are not needed, giving no benefit to the article, and some that can be included in the article as sources. 
:Per WP:ELBURDEN I have moved those removed from the article here for any possible future discussion:
* Maureen Lipman, "Playing the diva of din", The Guardian, November 3, 2005
* "Tra-la-laughable, but loving it" about the play Glorious!, The Sydney Morning Herald (October 4, 2007)
* 5 People Who Failed Their Way to Fame And Fortune – #2. Florence Foster Jenkins
* 
* 
*   --  Otr500 (talk) 09:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  External  links