text:
Talk:Florence Foster Jenkins

Question marks
The ???? is not only part of the title, it is an understatement... -- Someone else 03:02 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ah. My apologies. I'll put them back. RickK 03:06 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

New CD?
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)

Singing ability?
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)

If you actually listen to her recording of Der Holle Rache, she doesn't hit the high F. It's terrible. Dave Foster 04:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

To be exact, the highest note she hit on that aria was a Dflat6, heard when she was attempting the high F. So we can safely assume that's the highest note of her range. Which would actually be pretty darn good - she meets the range criteria for a professional operatic soprano - if it weren't for her unfathomably poor technique. Yikes. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 05:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

 * 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)

Since this recording exhibits her being flat by a third on the high note, I have corrected "sometimes flat by as much as a semitone" to "sometimes flat by as much as a third". Andylatto (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

 * 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? Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   04:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

 * 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)

 * 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. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   05:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

 * 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)

Omitted name of play: Souvenir
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. unsigned comment added by 70.17.140.107 (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Page rewritten
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)

I am rolling back the entire text back to the version mentioned above, on the grounds that the current version of the article is so poor that it is unreadable. Majts 11:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
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)
 * Added the NPOV tag to spur someone to address the above POV objections. --Cab88 06:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

 * 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)

 * 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)

The original comment was completely correct and the last two comments are absurd, suggesting that their authors didn't even read the comment, let alone understand it. -- 184.189.217.200 (talk) 08:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your timely comment opinion. - Nunh-huh 20:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Accuracy
I am an operatic tenor myself, and I believe the opinions expressed about Madame Jenkins are more than slightly accurate. Perhaps you would be appeased if the wording of the article could be changed to "It is said that Mme. Jenkin's career was based entirely on her lack of talent" etcetera etcetera? Perhaps even quoting newspapers from the era which gave her the nickname of "The Mistress Of The Sliding Scale" and "The Diva of Din"
 * That's exactly what I mean. I don't personally dispute the accuracy of the POV, but it shouldn't be there nonetheless. --Staecker 11:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem at hand is that when referring to Florence Foster Jenkins, one cannot accurately portray the very factor that makes her career unique without portraying the dichotomy between her actual performance and the standards of professional operatic performance. The accurate portrayal of this person is the fact that she did not sing well but nonetheless managed to captivate a large fan-based based *precisely* on her lack of talent. Her own accompanist, Cosme McMoon, is interviewed at the end of the CD "The Muse Surmounted", where he eloquently explains the Foster Jenkins phenomenon and the contrast between singer and audience: Foster Jenkins saw herself as the greatest diva of all time despite aural evidence to the contrary, whereas the public saw her as an incredibly amusing vaudeville act. Jenkins was famous for playing her infamous "Der Holle Rache" recording side by side with famous soprano renditions of it at parties, and then passing little note sheets to her guests and asking which of these recordings were better. The guests, usually humoring Jenkins, chose her... very identifiable recording. Once, however, one of her guests (as mentioned by Cosme Mcmoon in his interview) chose another soprano's recording, to which Jenkins replied: "My dear, I believe you are wrong. My voice is so much fuller than hers!" The character of Florence Foster Jenkins fails to be explained accurately without this. It is, in fact, not a violation of Wikipedia's terms because operatic appraisal is not necessarily a subjective discipline as many would have it: By fact alone: 1) Florence Foster Jenkin's technique was completely inadequate for her intended profession, and in fact incomplete. It failed to produce the desired vocal quality and it was obvious that her vocal production was strained and stressed, as evidenced by her screech-like tones which indicated an improper tension of the throat and lack of appogio. She had the innate range to be a colorattura soprano, but she never had the proper trainning. 2) Florence Foster Jenkin's inner ear was entirely defective: she could not sing in pitch, and that is not a subjective assesment or an opinion, but fact: compare her Queen of the Night aria with any other soprano's, and you will see how accurate the nickname "Diva of the Sliding Scale" was. She couldn't even hit the same staccato note twice, but instead progressively descended in pitch (another point of evidence that shows improper apoggio) 3) Florence Foster Jenkin's stage presence was more farsical than anything, coming out in such costumes as "The Angel of Inspiration", a concoction of tulle and schiffon complete with wings and starry tiara, and her famous "Spanish Peasant" with mantilla and carnations basket (said flowerrs she would throw into the audience every time she sang "Clavelitos"). Her public would reportedly erupt into applause in order to mask the hysterical laughter that would surge from these displays. By sterilizing the article into bare bones would, in fact, betray Wikipedia's desire for accurate portrayal. One cannot speak of Florence Foster Jenkins without referring to how the world saw her at the time-- a point of view which remains to this day, not unlike a certain American Idol 'singer' who became famous for his inability to sing in pitch, or at all. It is not by whim alone that he was referred to as suffering from "Florence Foster Jenkins Syndrome" by certain singers. --Same opera singer as above

 * I disagree that "she had the innate range to be a coloratura soprano", on the grounds that I have never heard her hit anything higher than a Dflat6. That is barely enough to be a regular soprano (at least on the professional level), let alone coloratura. You may be misled by the fact that she recorded a rendition of Der Holle Rache, but if you actually listen to the recording you will notice that the highest she goes is on the miserably failed F6, where she only reaches Dflat6. And the poor thing had to squeeze it out with all her might. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 05:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

 * The Idol point is perfect- that's why I linked to William Hung above. Read that article for a great example of how this kind of subject should be treated. We should refer to "how the world saw her at the time" by using their words, not ours. I have classical vocal training myself, and I will admit that there are some objective characteristics of her performance as you point out that can be presented without expressing a POV. We can include these, but actual sourced commentary would be better. I don't want to "sterilize" the article, I just want to put the POV in the mouth of real sources, rather than in the mouth of Wikipedia itself. I think a reference to the Cosme McMoon material you cited would be great. --Staecker 23:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand. The difficulty here, however, is tracking down said commentary. It is not likely to be available in depth (outside of a few citations on the internet) except in the literature specially dedicate to F.F.J -Same tenor, aye.

The "neutrality" warning is ludicrous. The only person who thought Ms. Jenkins could sing was Ms. Jenkins. Pretending otherwise is not "neutrality" and pretending that there is any dispute over her singing ability is misleading. - Nunh-huh 06:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That's simply a wrong understanding of what NPOV means. It's totally irrelevant whether or not she could sing. The point is, the article should not assert that she couldn't sing- even if it was a majority viewpoint. The article may (and obviously should) state that this was a majority viewpoint, and a viewpoint that essentially nobody disagreed with. But the article must not say that the viewpoint was correct. Peep this from Neutral point of view:
 * The prevailing Wikipedia understanding is that the neutral point of view is not a point of view at all; according to our understanding, when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular view at all is correct.
 * So let's not debate anymore whether or not FFJ could sing. That's not the point. --Staecker 13:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It is precisely the point, however, that no one whose opinion matters ever debated the fact that she sang badly. NPOV requires that we present this fact, and not distort the situation by pretending that there was someone somewhere sometime who disented from the rest of the known universe. A viewpoint that is universally held is concensus truth. The NPOV of wikipedia, if you read it, results in the inclusions of opinions [1] if they have any importance [2] in roughly the proportion of, and characterized by the relative numbers of those holding these positions. We have so done so in this article. No one says she is a good singer; everyone says she is bad to the point of being amusing. Until a sect devoted to the unearthly beauty of her song is able to proseletive and coerce others to join them, we remain neutral by presenting things just as they are. - Nunh-huh 14:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This still sounds confused to me. What I am advocating is exactly that we do present the fact that "no one whose opinion matters ever debated the fact that she sang badly". What we must not do is to say that this majority POV is the truth. Why oh why can't this one by like William Hung? I don't mean to harp on it, but that style is exactly what I want. Staecker 17:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry you're confused, but NPOV does not mean generate dispute where there is none. "Badly" is necessarily the judgement of other people, in this case universally held. Something that is universally held is as close to truth as we can get. This article is far more interesting and well-written than Hung's. Do you actually have a phrase in this article that you object to, or shall we eliminate your tag? - Nunh-huh 00:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * OK- let's take a breather. I know that nobody disputes FFJ's badness. I don't think that the article should claim or imply that the matter is disputed (because it's not). See my first post here (under the section called "NPOV") for the particular phrases that I don't like. It's unfortunate that the discussion has been retitled "Accuracy," because really I don't dispute the accuracy of the claim that FFJ sings badly. My whole point is that statements claiming FFJ's badness should occur in sourced quotations, rather than in the voice of the article itself. What I like about the Hung article is that, if you read carefully, you'll notice that the article never says that he's a bad singer. It puts the POV where it belongs: in quotations. --Staecker 01:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

You put a tag on the article disputing its "neutrality". This article is perfectly neutral, even in Wikipedia's definition of the term: It gives all sides of any dispute, in proportion to the number of people on each side, and does not take any sides on disputed questions. It conveys facts with which no one disagrees. You call these facts "POV" despite the fact there is no opposing "view". Wikipedia doesn't need to put its facts in quotes: it needs to attribute opinions which someone disputes, not facts which no one disputes. Again I ask: do you actually have a phrase in this article that you object to? - Nunh-huh 04:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes I do have specific phrases that I object to- it's above in my post dated October 22. To call someone a bad singer is a value judgement. Even if there is no dissent, it's still an aesthetic point of view. Whether or not the viewpoint is disputed is irrelevant- it's still based on a value judgement, which is culturally motivated and subjective (although I admit some objectivity as in above comments of Oct 27). See my quote above from NPOV policy: our job is not to support POVs in proportion to their public support, but to present all viewpoints (in this case there is only one), and to support no POV at all. Maybe your upbringing is different from mine, but I have a very hard time believing that consensus POVs should be regarded as facts. That's simply bad documenting. --Staecker 12:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I rather doubt that we need refer to our respective upbringings. You have a problem with the definition of "fact", and Wikipedia is not the place to solve it. Puerile philosophical arguments are not going to improve this article. The phrases you refer back to, then, are:
 * [1] "complete lack of singing ability"
 * you've truncated this: what is actually said is that she "became famous" for her lack of singing ability, which is a statement of fact. It is no different from what you've written yourself, that "FFJ's entire career was based on the fact that she was bad rather than good".

 * [2] "From her recordings, it is apparent that Jenkins had little sense of pitch and rhythm and was barely capable of sustaining a note"
 * these again are facts, not judgments

 * [3] "patent lack of ability"
 * she did indeed lack ability; she in fact could not not sing the arias

 * [4] "well beyond her technical ability".
 * again, an undisputed fact.

The words "bad singer" appear nowhere in the article, though they would be justifiable. All facts are "value judgements". You fundamentally misunderstand our purpose here. We are here to communicate information. We don't exist in order for you to explore your philosophical difficulties with fact and objectivity. Put another way: "good singing" is, precisely, what people have decided good singing is, and "bad singing" is exactly what people believe it to be. If there were any disagreement about it, we'd report it. there isn't. You seem to believe that there can be no aesthetic facts - that's an interesting point of view. Unfortunately, we're here to convey information, and the adoption of your point of view - that aesthetic judgments, even when held universally, are somehow opinions rather than fact - would make writing an encyclopedia impossible. - Nunh-huh 04:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems like we understand each other pretty well, and simply disagree. I really didn't mean to get into a silly philosophical debate (which I agree this has become)- I just didn't expect you to disagree in the way you did. I do indeed believe that there are no "aesthetic facts"... I don't think that an encyclopedia is the place for that sort of thing. That's why we don't say in an encyclopedia that Ice cream is yummy, sunsets are beautiful, etc. I don't think that this at all limits our ability to write an encyclopedia. Jimbo says:
 * Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so.
 * I think we should be honest that what we're presenting here is consensus POV (what everybody believes), rather than objectively measurable fact (what is so). Using the phrase "undispted fact" is just a smokescreen- it presupposes that facts have something to do with "lack of dispute", which is the very center of our disagreement.
 * I think we've both said all we need to. Without any other voices in the discussion, it's hard to measure consensus on this. If you're still not convinced (heh), you may remove the NPOV tag and I'll try not to frequent this page any more. My strong objection is noted here, for what that's worth. Staecker 14:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, that's a fair enough offer. I would ask you to consider this question, though: Is it more informative to know that "Critic X said 'sounds like nails on a chalkboard', critic Y said 'makes me cry for a merciful death'" and critic Z said 'she sings like a cat in heat', or to know that everyone agrees she sang badly? - Nunh-huh 15:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Did I say I wasn't watching anymore? Sorry- couldn't resist. One of the four statements you mention is unverifiable. The other three are verifiable, so I go with them. I suppose you already knew my answer though. Better luck to us both next time- Staecker 16:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe a clue to the real goings-on was provided my Madame Jenkins herself, who once said "Many have said that I cannot sing, but nobody can say that I did not sing." It was  not her inability to sing that brought her fame, but rather the enthusiasm, verve, elan, gusto with which  she rendered  her performances.  She truly believed that she was a great singer, and talented or not, she was a great singer, if this could be defined as a singer who elicits an emotional response from the audience.  She truly did so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.32.4 (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Cosmé McMoon
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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

There is a note and sourced footnote on the Edwin McArthur page indicating that McMoon and McArthur were definitely different people. -- kosboot (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Inspiration for Susan Alexander character in Citizen Kane
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)

Possibly some influence, but the more direct inspiration was actress Marion Davies. Changing the profession from movie actress to opera singer allowed for greater dramatics, plus the setting of a grand opera house.Saxophobia 03:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the character was inspired by Marion Davies. She was married to newspaper mogul William Randolph Hearst, who did everything to promote her career via his newspapers. By the way "Florence Foster Jenkins" is a hoax, she never existed. The only known source on her ist the CD booklet. 89.51.222.116 12:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

 * 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)

Florence Foster Jenkins existed- that is beyond question. An online search of the New York Times from the 1930's finds her club activities well documented. This is "Original Research" but anyone with access can confirm it. You must be joking. (As an aside, Davies was Hearst's long time Mistress- they were never married.)Saxophobia (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

 * 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)

(I feel it is useless to reply, but....) Florence Foster Jenkins very much existed. As to her singing ability, she was far from unique in that respect. Wealthy Bostonian Tryphosa Bates-Batcheller (on the basis of her one recording) exhibits similar qualities- perhaps more. (Bates-Batcheller was also very real, and published several books)Saxophobia (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

 * 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)

Canadian Premiere of Glorious!
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)

Can I just say?
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)

 * The first sentence is the greatest sentence on WP. 68.82.179.158 (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Suspected but unsourced reference
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)

Verifiability and sources
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)

POV issue
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)

Criticism Section Added
Please expand and add sources.

'''RH''' (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

Film "Florence"
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)

 * 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)
 * 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)

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * A single sentence was all that was originally added. But why Variety?Martinevans123 (talk) 09:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * Why is it "hype". It's an announcement. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * So you still "could go along with a sentence sourced to the Variety article", yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * My question was addressed to Kendall-K1, in an attempt to clarify what the consensus is. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * If we carry on arguing long enough, someone's bound to get a prize, luvvie. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * Meryl enjoys a challenge. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * What do you do when things really are announced? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Copyvio?
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)

 * 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)
 * (Sadly no mention of Margarita Pracatan, it seems.) Martinevans123 (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Prodigious
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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link 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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Birth name: Nascina Florence, not Narcissa Florence
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)

 * Further to my note above, if you search "Nascina Florence Foster", you will find countless references on the Internet to her correct birth name in a wide variety of articles, including Gramophone.co.uk, Oxford Index, Collup.com, and pages devoted to shows about her life. Yes, it is a YUGE change, but the article was not only incorrect before I edited it, a citation supporting my edit already existed on the WP article. paul klenk talk 02:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Makes a lot more sense. Who would name their daughter "Narcissa"? Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

 * 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)
 * As discussed below, the majority of sources says "Narcissa". Woodroar (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

'Common law marriage'
'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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

External links section
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)

Original research
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

 * 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)

To be a Fan or Not to be a Fan ...
That is the question. There is nothing in writing to support the personal claims of anyone being a "fan" of Florences Foster Jenkins in their own writing. It has been passed down through time by either association via biographers or attendance at concerts that certain luminaries were "followers" of Ms. Jenkins and therefore have been noted "fans" of her. Recently, Enrico Caruso was deleted from the lede for not being a fan of Ms Jenkins. However, his name, along with Cole Porter and Lily Pons have been synonymous with Florence Foster Jenkins as being fans (not to mention: Sir Thomas Beechum, and those who attended the infamous Carnegie Hall concert: Gian Carlo Menotti, Andre Kostelanetz, Tallulah Bankhead and Kitty Carlisle, et al) The top names however associated with Ms. Jenkins are Cole Porter (who reportedly never missed a concert of Jenkins), Lily Pons and Enrico Caruso. Whether or not this is true, we do not know because nothing was put into writing in his own hand. The only quote we have is presumably what he said to Jenkins back stage following the Carnegie Hall concert, when he diplomatically said that he'd "never heard anything like it!" This being said however, we do not have anything to support the claims for Cole Porter, Lily Pons, or any other celebrity, for that matter. But the number of sources that state the claim that these names were "fans" of Jenkins should either suffice, or all be ruled out completely; depending on how you wish to view this article as an editor. Cole Porter should not stay without a citation; and if he does, Enrico Caruso should be reinstated. So should Lily Pons, Kitty Carlisle ... among others. Maineartists (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In programs of the Verdi Club there are pages on which famous singers congratulates Jenkins. Giovanni Martinelli was one who often appeared on such programs.  I don't think it's fair to make the assumption that he was a fan - only that he has a page in programs of her recitals.  Caruso was out of commission after January 1921 - did he really hear her, which begs the question was she really giving recitals in the teens? - kosboot (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm the IP who recently tried to excise Caruso from the list of FFJ's fans. Like kosboot above, I find his alleged fandom chronologically improbable, and the source apparently used said only that FFJ made him an honorary member of her Verdi club, an "honor" which of course she could bestow on anyone at all without their prior knowledge or consent. Caruso's name was quickly reinstated by DoctorJoeE, who very usefully added a source that provides acceptable bases (a named source regarding Porter, direct quotes regarding Bowie and Menotti, a published interview with Streisand, a Desert Island Discs show with Beecham) for naming several celebrity fans. In the case of Caruso, however, it says only, and without attribution, that he was "supposed to have been an ardent fan", then goes on to contradict that by reporting—again without citing any source—that "he seems only to have attended one of her concerts after which he visited the exhausted songstress backstage and informed her that: 'I’ve never heard anything like it!'" These tentative, untraceable statements have the air of urban myth about them and IMO are not a sufficient basis for including Caruso in the fan roll, so unless someone can come up with something more solid, his name should either be removed or presented in a heavily qualified statement that reflects the uncertainty in this new source. 66.249.172.112 (talk) 08:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thus the reason for this discussion. I think this teeters on the verge of "personal opinion" versus a consensus of cited resources. As I wrote earlier, there is no definitive hand-written proof by any "ardent fan" of Ms Jenkins that they were as such. Yet, in the same breath, these names have been associated with the term (fan) since her "career". We can analyze until we are blue in the face what constitutes a true "fan" by their actions or non actions. The problem we face are the resources that clearly state that they were fans. However, it may assuage the dilemma just a bit if we change the claim with the words: "were said to have be fans of ..." or something to that effect. This deflects the definitive statement of fact that is difficult to prove. Just a thought Maineartists (talk) 11:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record, I would not have included Gian Carlo Menotti; since Lily Pons has more resources for citation of being a true "follower" and Menotti was merely an attendee of the Carnegie Hall concert (along with Gypsy Rose Lee, Marge Champion, et al). Marge Champion is actually quoted: "I'd never heard of her. I don't think the average audience would flock here. These people must have heard of her through the grapevine." Which begs the question: was Carnegie Hall filled with friends and fans, or those who were told: "Oh, you just have to come and hear this lady sing! Although, just to prove a point of name association, Tallulah Bankhead is said to have attended the concert, yet in the biography Prima Donna of Carnegie Hall Martin & Rees write: It is always said that Tallulah Bankhead showed up too, though no newspaper journalist reported her presence. And there were plenty in the house who would not have failed to spot her ... and they list 9 prominent newspapers. Yet she has been called: a fan. So, where is the line? Maineartists (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding Menotti, the new cit quotes Chris (actually Cris) Alexander, a friend and fellow Carnegie Hall '44 veteran, as saying “Gian was a great fan of hers,” and there seems to be ample documentation for naming several other celebrity fans, both contemporary and post mortem, although I'd agree that describing any of them as "ardent" is unwarranted and "teeters on the verge of personal opinion" or leaps over it. In the matter of Caruso, however, the more I dig, the less likely his place seems. A cited November 19, 1934 Time article about Jenkins' latest Ritz-Carlton concert (by the way, it remarks that "... smartly-dressed New Yorkers fairly fought for tickets ...", so apparently those were not invitation-only affairs as has been claimed) says that she has been giving annual recitals for "nearly ten years", which would place the first of them well after Caruso's 1921 death. The backstage scene with Caruso's hyper-tactful "never heard anything like it" comment appears to be exactly that—a scene from a stage play about Jenkins, not a real-world event. So, again, I leave others to hash out the evidential justifications for including other celebrities in a roster of fans, but in the near future I will again attempt to extract Caruso from the fray unless more substantial evidence has been presented. 66.249.175.236 (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Methinks we have a tempest in a teapot. Anyone who has perused the FloFo literature can attest to the difficulty of distinguishing fact from legend in almost every aspect of her life and career, which made my rewrite difficult from the very start.  I'm making corrections as quickly as I can, as time permits.  I'm still not sure who's right about her first name -- Nascina or Narcissa?  Most sources use the latter, but it was changed to the former in the article, mostly at the insistence of one strident editor, not on the basis of convincing evidence, but on the argument, "who would name their child Narcissa?"  I'm still trying to work that one out, along with numerous other points -- so who exactly to designate as a "fan" is a fairly low priority, IMHO.  Nevertheless, I will recheck all of my books and tapes - which are at home - and see if I can come up with more convincing evidence.  I can tell you that most sources agree that FloFo began giving recitals in 1912, obviously well before Caruso's death.  And the thing about New Yorkers "fighting for tickets" refers to the fact that some were resold, despite all of FloFo's precautions.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  19:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course, the counter-argument to "who would name their child Narcissa?" is "who would name their child Nascina?". - Nunh-huh 23:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Doc, and kudos for your valiant efforts. FWIW, the name Narcissa appears to have enjoyed some popularity in the era of hoop skirts, around the time FFJ was born, so it sounds quite plausible to me. Also FWIW, the Caruso ax I have been grinding is one wielded simply in the service of veracity. Caruso was no snob or highbrow in his entertainment tastes and it would bother me not at all to learn that he was indeed a FFJ fan. But knowing that he once walked out of a Tito Schipa concert after fifteen minutes, having reassured himself that the new tenor on the block was no threat to him, it seems very questionable that he would sit through one of FFJ's programs and then call on her afterward to deliver that perfectly worded "compliment" in a non-native tongue he never quite mastered. 66.81.220.62 (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, remember that FloJo's fans "sat through" her concerts not because her voice was good, but because it was not good - that was her entertainment value - so I think it's entirely plausible. But of course, it doesn't matter what we think; all that matters here are sources, and I'll continue my search for better ones. Thanks (both above and below) for the "Narcissa" info -- I'm leaning that way myself, but if I can't get a firm confirmation either way, I'll list them both. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  02:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

 * : the 1870 Federal Census gives it as Narcissa. She doesn't use it in 1880, there is no census for 1890, and by 1900 she is listed as "Florence N. Jenkins." - kosboot (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've revisited every source I could find, and the overwhelming majority use Narcissa -- so I'm changing it back. Still working on the Caruso thing. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/ talk to me!  13:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * A month has now passed, and although the recently added American National Biography Online cit seems like it ought to qualify as a reliable source, it, too, provides no apparent provenance for the claim that Caruso was one of FFJ's "ardent fans". I might accept "caught her act at the Ritz-Carlton once in 1917" on faith alone, but inclusion as an "ardent fan" makes this bit of name-dropping reek of gratuitous embroidery and traditional myth. Several substantial Caruso biographies have been published during the past 95 years, and as a major celebrity his activities were an object of press attention during his lifetime, so if there is anything more than hot air in the claim, surely there is some mention in one of those biographies or a contemporary primary source which could be cited to support it. In the absence of anything of the kind, and in my quixotic quest for absolute truth in Wikipedia, I am again striking his name from the roll call of FFJ fans in the lede. 66.249.175.193 (talk) 10:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

 * 66.249.175.193 Your argument and investigation seems to be substantial, though I am sad to see it so. Thank you for all your hard work. Maineartists (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Well, yes, a month has passed, at least you got that part right; I added a source that even you acknowledge is legitimate; the article describes him as a "fan", not an "ardent fan"; and you have failed to gain any substantial consensus for your change. This is such a minor point, I can't justify using any more of my finite WP time searching for further proof; but I still think you're wrong, and I'll keep my eyes open.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  04:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Hi DoctorJoeE. The "ardent fan" wording is in the source, and it is one of the things which, IMO, flags that source as questionable despite the aegis under which it appears. It is not, AFAIK, written by a widely-acknowledged expert on the subject of FFJ, nor does it provide a scholarly citation that would allow the accuracy of its reporting to be checked by tracing back to an original source, so as a practical matter it is hardly any more reliable than Joe Shmoe's latest blog entry. The point is not that one of us is right and the other wrong—for all I know, perhaps Caruso was a fan, although not likely an "ardent" one—only that there is no basis for making a definitive statement, and about that there appears to be a 3:1 majority consensus among the editors above. Maineartists has helpfully suggested using wording such as "... is said to have been a fan ...", and a statement couched in those terms would be beyond dispute: many sources do, indeed, say that he was a fan, albeit without any apparent basis except rote tradition. 66.81.223.151 (talk) 10:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "...is said to be a fan" is a classic weasel phrase, and thus frowned upon here, and I'm sure you know that consensus is not a vote tally, per se. But I've already conceded the point, pending additional source discovery, so let's move on.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  18:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Parting thought: a "said to be" statement can be de-weaseled by anticipating the natural "by whom?" objection with some included examples, e.g., "Enrico Caruso (1873-1921) is said to have been a fan,[x][y][z] but no original source for that claim is apparent." Of course, such a construction is not appropriate for inclusion in the lede, but as the subject of FFJ's celebrity fandom is clearly of interest to a wider audience than just a few picky Wikipedia editors, a strong argument could be made for adding a new section in which at least some of the wheat and chaff can be sorted out by detailed citations of the most useful sources. 66.249.173.183 (talk) 09:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's not appropriate for the lede, so you've answered your own question -- and is who-was-a-fan-and-who-wasn't really of interest to a wider audience? Certainly no evidence of that here, and as I said from the outset, a low priority IMHO.  If you want to create such a section, be my guest, but it will fail notability guidelines, methinks.  Oh, and I should add that "Enrico Caruso (1873-1921) is said to have been a fan,[x][y][z] but no original source for that claim is apparent" gives the impression that you are perpetuating a rumor, and is thus compounding the weaseling. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  14:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * DoctorJoeE Did you mean the section itself would not pass notability? or the inclusion of Caruso? When this discussion was first started, it questioned what was first thought as an historical fact yet poorly sourced, since the article does not define the nomenclature of "fan", "follower", et al. I must disagree regarding the inclusion of a new section. If the section is titled correctly, written in depth and with great attention to the appropriate reason for inclusion, and sourced reliably, it would prove a great asset to this article. When was the Caruso-link first introduced and adopted into the modern fabric of FFJ's life - and why? how did it spread so far and become so believed that it rivaled that of Porter and Pon's names? It practically is the reason why we're here: who was a fan and who was not ... I have seen in my research it written over again that Bankhead attended the Carnegie Hall performance, yet there is no actual proof to back that claim. However, just like Caruso, it is across the board as anecdotal fact. Why? Marge Champion in particular was said to be a follower of FFJ in one article, and in another was simply brought to the CH concert by a friend, and was quoted to say: "I had no idea who this person was ..." I believe the point-counterpoint case, if proven correctly, could serve as a wonderful addition. IMHO and my interest in this article and FFJ's life. Let's face it, if we're supposed to believe that taxi cab story as scientific proven fact over anecdotal tidbit fiction, we're all drinking the same kool-aid in regards to Caruso.
 * I meant that IMHO, who was or was not a fan is simply not sufficiently important or notable to justify a separate section, even if we had precise documentation which, I think we all agree, we don't. But as always, I could be wrong; if more definitive evidence comes to light, it might be worth a shot. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  06:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Comment: 66.249.173.183 I agree with: Bickford "said that Florence was in on the joke," Schuman said. "She loved the audience reaction and she loved singing. But she knew." How are we to take this serious when so many sources report Florence to be devastated by the Carnegie Hall reviews? Since so much of FFJ's life is hearsay and after the fact commentary, how are we to know what is fact from fiction? The term "fan" in the lede is highly misleading and I believed should not even be included as such in regards to "other celebrities", actually; since so much support is subjective. In my humble, opinion. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't know, which is why we list evidence and opinion on both sides, from various sources, and specify that the question "remains a matter of debate".  Drawing an independent conclusion as to who is correct would be a classic example of WP:OR.  But thank you for pointing out that source; I will incorporate some of that material into that subsection.  The "fans" descriptor is a separate issue; the article describes them as fans because the cited sources do.  Again, we cannot draw our own conclusions, we can only repeat what sources say.   DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  06:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * DoctorJoeE I must heartily agree with you: "...the article describes them as fans because the cited sources do.  Again, we cannot draw our own conclusions, we can only repeat what sources say." Unfortunately, the sources say Caruso was a "fan", just like the rest (in fact, most of the time his name is first - if not second after Porter's); and most editor's refuse to stand behind this simple rule of WP inclusion because they just can't make 1 without the other 1 add up to 2. Whatever we feel or think, if the sources say it, and we include it for Porter, Pons, et al, it must remain for Caruso, no matter how much we doubt in our gut. IMHO 66.249.175.193 I must withdraw my advocacy to your claim. It does not support proper inclusion on WP by way of source consensus; it is just conjecture. Please note this claim in a cited source: (“Gian was a great fan of hers,” Alexander recalled after Menotti’s death) - Caruso is not only listed second, but the claim for Menotti is hearsay. If you list any "fan" by source alone, Caruso must be reinstated without prejudice. On a happier note:  DoctorJoeE  - this might interest you -  "Some said that it was a broken heart, from the terrible reviews, which caused the attack, but her true friends knew better. Close friend Francis Robinson, claimed she died with a "happy heart." Maineartists (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 13:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There are several such speculations in the FloJo literature: "Some say the reviews killed her, some say the heart attack was coincidental." Since there is no way to know for sure, I chose to leave it out and simply report the facts.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  13:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link 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)

Age of St. Clair Bayfield
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)

The Social Security Death Index confirms an 1875 birth year. Probably usable under WP:PRIMARY and about as close to definitive as one can find. Paywall, so no point in posting a link. Coretheapple (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Florence Foster Jenkins


text:
Talk:Flight

Lift-to-drag ratio
Today, Flight was edited to include the following new sentence:
 * Lift-to-drag ratios are usually found using a wind tunnel. See the diff.

The cited source for this sentence is grc.nasa.gov. This website mentions wind tunnels only once. It states Lift and drag coefficients are normally determined experimentally using a wind tunnel.

We now have the situation where Flight states that lift-to-drag ratios are usually found using a wind tunnel, and this is purported to be sourced from a site that talks about wind tunnels only in the context of lift and drag coefficients. Readers of this Talk page will know that lift coefficients and drag coefficients are not the same as lift-to-drag ratios. Wikipedia should not talk about one when it means the other.

I challenge the accuracy of the statement and I particularly challenge the legitimacy of using this citation to support the statement. I have raised it at the originator’s Talk page but the originator appears to disagree. The conversation is available at User talk:GliderMaven. What do others think? Dolphin ( t ) 02:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

 * After a week nothing has been written here in defence of the above new sentence, so I have deleted it. Dolphin  ( t ) 07:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Hey, here's an idea, how about you make constructive edits to the article?GliderMaven (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I see that GliderMaven has reverted my deletion, without comment or edit summary. See his diff. I have now listed the matter for a third opinion. Dolphin ( t ) 02:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, guys, I'm here form the 3O board. It seems to me that the source does support the statement; it says that "Lift and drag coefficients are normally determined experimentally using a wind tunnel." Since the lift-to-drag ratio is just the lift coefficient divided by the drag coefficient, and there doesn't seem to be any other way that it's measured, I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that the lift-to-ratio is calculated this way. However, in the interest of following the source closely, could we change it to something like: "The lift-to-drag ratio is equivalent to the lift coefficient divided by the drag coefficient, which is usually calculated with wind tunnel data.(source)"? It gives a little more data, and removes even the appearance of OR. Thanks. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Hello Writ Keeper. Thanks for volunteering to provide a third opinion.  To the layman, it must seem reasonable to say that if lift and drag coefficients are normally determined in a wind tunnel, then the ratio of the two must also normally be determined in a wind tunnel.  In science and engineering there are many examples where two numbers can only be determined with difficulty but the ratio of the two can be determined easily.  For example, a mariner may be able to see a coastline with a high mountain but unless he goes ashore with suitable equipment and climbs the mountain he has no idea of its height.  Similarly he has no idea of the distance to the mountain unless he goes ashore and determines the latitude and longitude of its peak.  However, with nothing more than a hand-held sextant and a page of trigonometrical data he can determine the ratio of the height of the mountain to its distance away.  It is simply the tangent of the angle he measured using his sextant.
 * A similar principle applies in the aerodynamics of the aircraft. The relationship between the lift coefficient and the drag coefficient of a particular airfoil section or a design of aircraft is not easily determined, particularly if no aircraft of that design actually exists at the time.  Engineers must sometimes resort to a wind tunnel to obtain the desired data.  But when a prototype of the aircraft is available it is a simple matter to measure its climb angle, or descent angle, across a range of speed and use that data to determine the lift-to-drag ratio at each speed in the range.
 * Building an aerodynamically accurate model of an airfoil or an aircraft and testing it in a wind tunnel is an expensive business. It is an activity used extensively with proposed designs of new military aircraft and the largest civilian passenger aircraft.  The majority of aircraft designs are smaller, civilian designs for carrying up to 9 passengers, flying training, recreation, gliding etc.  These small aircraft are not supported by the budget necessary to build aerodynamically accurate models and test them in wind tunnels.  For these small aircraft, the lift-to-drag ratios over a range of speeds are determined by test flying - measuring the airspeed and rate of descent with the engine at idle power - no wind tunnel necessary!
 * The sentence in question is not saying Lift-to-drag ratios can be determined in several ways and one of them is testing in a wind tunnel. It is saying Lift-to-drag ratios are usually found using a wind tunnel. That is incorrect - lift-to-drag ratios are not usually found in a wind tunnel.  For every military aircraft or passenger jet-aircraft that is given the benefits of testing in a wind tunnel there are many more small civilian aircraft and recreational aircraft that never see the inside of a tunnel.
 * We must focus on the source of the information. At present we have a website that says lift coefficients and drag coefficients are normally determined experimentally using a wind tunnel.  This must not be paraphrased to say lift-to-drag ratios are normally determined experimentally using a wind tunnel.
 * I am happy to participate in this discussion, but be aware there is no burden on me to provide information to support my point of view. There is a burden on the User who inserts material into article-space to provide a reference to adequately support the material.  Dolphin  ( t ) 22:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

 * No, given that the reference supports the assertion, and particularly as Writ Keeper agrees that this is so, I require you to give a reference to support your view, otherwise I will continue to revert your removal of this.GliderMaven (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Far, far too much time has been wasted on this already, please spend your time more profitably improving the article instead of arguing over this kind of thing.GliderMaven (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

 * I have no problem rewriting it as Writ Keeper suggests.GliderMaven (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Dolphin, what do you think about my proposed rewording? I think it addresses your point without requiring the entire removal of the information.  (There is a slight typo in my proposal: it would read "which are usually calculated", rather than "which is usually calculated", since it's the two coefficients that are calculated rather than the ratio itself.)  Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Writ Keeper. Unfortunately your proposal is unacceptable for two reasons – firstly it is technically unsound, and secondly it is remote from the cited source.

Dividing the aircraft lift coefficient by the aircraft drag coefficient is one way of determining the lift-to-drag ratio, but it is not the only way. Doing so using lift and drag coefficient data determined with wind tunnel testing of an aerodynamically accurate model is the minority way of obtaining this data. To imply that anything to do with aircraft is usually determined from wind tunnel data is incorrect. The majority of aircraft are small civilian designs that never see the inside of a wind tunnel.

It would be reasonable to say that if a model of an aircraft is tested in a wind tunnel, lift-to-drag ratio would be one of the characteristics measured. It isn't correct to imply that most aircraft have their lift-to-drag ratio measured in a wind tunnel.

Something like the following is technically sound.

 * The lift-to-drag ratio of an aircraft over a range of speeds can be determined in a number of ways – flight testing, wind tunnel, calculation or comparison against another similar aircraft whose lift-to-drag ratio is known.
 * In flight testing, the glide ratio of the aircraft is measured with the engines at idle thrust or power. With zero thrust or power the lift-to-drag ratio is equal to the glide ratio.
 * A wind tunnel can be used to measure many aerodynamic characteristics of an airfoil, wing or complete aircraft. Lift-to-drag ratio is one of the characteristics determined during testing in a wind tunnel.
 * The lift-to-drag ratio of a proposed design of aircraft can be calculated using the dimensions of the aircraft, its proposed weight, and published aerodynamic characteristics of the airfoil sections used in the wing and horizontal stabiliser.

As you can see, if Wikipedia states that lift-to-drag ratios are usually found using a wind tunnel, Wikipedia is wrong. Dolphin ( t ) 02:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We would need additional sources to say all that. Do you have any?  In the meantime, I don't see how it is remote from the source.  The proposed wording doesn't say that dividing the one by the other is the only method, or the most common method, or that most aircraft do it this way, or anything like that.  It just says that it is a method, and the data for the method (i.e. the lift coefficient and drag coefficient) is usually obtained through wind tunnel testing, which is exactly what the source says.  If you don't like that, how about "One method for determining the lift-to-drag ratio is dividing the lift coefficient by the drag coefficient, which are usually calculated with wind tunnel data.(source)" I'd also have no objection at all to adding another sentence after that to say "the lift-to-drag ratio can also be determined experimentally, through measuring whatever by whatever in-flight; this approach is commonly used with smaller aircraft." or something like that, as long as you have a source for it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Where you propose suggesting that lift coefficients and drag coefficients are usually determined from testing in a wind tunnel, I have a similar objection. For the majority of aircraft, lift coefficients and drag coefficients are not measured in a wind tunnel because the majority of aircraft never see the inside of a wind tunnel.
 * I am happy to continue the discussion, but I have a problem with the way you are handling it. A statement has been added to Wikipedia article-space, and an in-line citation has been appended to it.  I have challenged that statement, and I have challenged the validity of the citation.  The burden is on GliderMaven to justify its retention; not on me to justify its removal.   Throughout this saga I have initiated new threads on Talk pages; I have contributed to discussions; I have asked for a third opinion; I have participated actively in the debate.  GliderMaven has not participated in any meaningful way.  He has not written anything to justify his statement or the source he has cited.   You have volunteered to provide a third opinion but so far it looks like you see your role as being merely to defend the status quo.  The statement should be removed while we discuss its validity.
 * There is a statement at Flight that has been soundly challenged. Let's remove that statement and then continue the debate to see if there is ground for restoring it, or if we can find some alternative wording and citations that are acceptable to the three of us.  Dolphin  ( t ) 02:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My "role", as you put it, is to figure out what's best for the article, based on the reliable sources we have. No more, no less. I have no other interest.  I certainly have no interest to "defend the status quo"; in fact, in a different conversation elsewhere, I've been arguing pretty heavily against it.  Anyway:
 * Read WP:BURDEN a little closer. "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source." (emphasis mine) If the material is backed by a reliable source, then the burden of proof has been satisfied.  I agree that the original sentence is not really supported by the source; all the same, there's a grain of truth in there, so I'm proposing, instead of just axing it, we reword it to follow what the source actually does say.  This statement has an inline citation to a reliable source (at least, you don't seem to be saying that the NASA website is unreliable; that's an entirely different discussion that would be good to have if you do think it's unreliable). That website says direct quote: "Lift and drag coefficients are normally determined experimentally using a wind tunnel." Unless you don't think "normally" means "usually", I don't see what you mean when you say that the source doesn't support this.  If you think the source itself is wrong, that's fine, but you do need a reliable source of your own to refute that reliably-sourced claim. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Thanks. You have hit the nail on the head when you write I agree that the original sentence is not really supported by the source.  We both agree on that.  The source talks about lift and drag coefficients but the sentence in Flight talks about lift-to-drag ratio.  We could discuss the relationships between the various lift coefficients and lift-to-drag ratio but I hope we can agree that these words are not the same.  Where the essential words in an in-line citation are different to those in article space then it is possibly paraphrasing leading to an unintended change in meaning.  There is a burden on whichever User added the words to article space to justify the choice of words, especially if that choice is formally challenged.
 * Perhaps the way ahead is to start with precisely the wording of the relevant sentence in the source, and see what justification can be found for changing those words.
 * (On a side issue, I don't have a high regard for everything in the NASA websites on aerodynamics. They are popular sites with elementary information for enthusiasts.  Some of their statements are ambiguous.  However, at this stage I am not interested in challenging the accuracy of the source so I will leave it as a side issue.)  Dolphin  ( t ) 04:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

 * The problem here seems to be that the statement Lift and drag ratios are normally determined experimentally using a wind tunnel does not mention the other method of calculating L/D. If it was modified to something like Lift and drag ratios are determined experimentally using a wind tunnel or by flight testing and a source was added for the second fact would that calm the waters? As a wind tunnel inhabitant and glider pilot I know that both are true, to my knowledge even the latest glider designs continue to be flight tested by the manufacturer by taking high tows in still air and plotting airspeed against sink rate at varying speeds, wing loadings and flap settings. The results produce the airspeed/sink rate polar curve, the max L/D and speed at which this happens (the glider's selling point) are taken directly from the plot. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    05:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nimbus. In one edit you have managed to capture everything I have been trying to say!  Dolphin  ( t ) 05:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

 * I have reliable sources for glider L/D flight testing. Whatever fix is applied here should also be applied to the Lift-to-drag ratio article as the same statement appears there. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    06:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We also need a reliable published source for the statement that lift-to-drag ratios are determined in a wind tunnel. Dolphin  ( t ) 07:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Would have thought the NASA source would be ok for that, it uses the word 'normally' which I would take to mean that they suggest that there are other methods of finding L/D other than a wind tunnel. A third method of calculating L/D is through computational fluid dynamics, I can cite that but only in relation to motor sport applications (this is a summary article on flight so we should stick to its scope), could be added to the related L/D ratio article though if it's not there already. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    08:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The NASA source says nothing about lift-to-drag ratio. It says lift and drag coefficients are normally determined experimentally using a wind tunnel.  No mention of lift-to-drag ratio.  Dolphin  ( t ) 13:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So it does, I mis-read it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    13:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, guys, Dolphin asked me to come back here and express my opinion again. Let me preface by saying this about 3Os: they're not intended to be authoritative; they don't really mean anything except the opinion of the 3O Wikipedian who provides it. The analogy is that, if two people are arguing about something on the street, 3O is them turning to a random person who happens to be passing by and asking him what he thinks about it. Originally, 3Os were supposed to end there, too; we are usually expected to drop our opinion and then leave. Most of us who frequently provide 3Os end up taking more of a "mediator"-type role, but we're not actual mediators; we don't have any power, authority, superior wisdom, etc. etc. So, don't take this as more than it's worth.

Anyway, my opinion is this: The original sentence, as it was worded, was unsupported by the source. Not egregiously unsupported, mind you; had I noticed the discrepancy on my own (unlikely), I probably would've just said "eh", shrugged, and went on my way. However, the sentence has been challenged and it is indeed unsupported by the source, so it has to either be removed or reworked to be in line with what the source says. To that end, I suggested a rewording of the sentence to read something to the effect of: "One method for determining the lift-to-drag ratio is by calculation of the lift coefficient and drag coefficient which, when divided, form the lift-to-drag ratio. These two coefficients are usually found with data from wind tunnels." The exact wording wasn't really important here; the meaning is what I was trying to get across. I (still) think that this rewording is clearly supported by the source, which reads: "the L/D ratio is also equal to the ratio of the lift and drag coefficients. [...] Lift and drag coefficients are normally determined experimentally using a wind tunnel." In my mind, the best-case scenario for this rewording is that Dolphin (or whoever) provides a reliable source saying that the lift-to-drag ratio is also commonly found experimentally in test flights, and adds a sentence to that effect immediately after. That would require a new reliable source, though. Even without Dolphin's hypothetical addition, though, I think the rewording (although not the original wording) is good enough to stand alone; it's clearly supported by the reliable source that we have.

TL;DR version: original wording was unsupported by the source; it must be removed or reworded. I suggest a rewording to emphasize that it's the coefficients that are usually found in wind tunnels, and that it is but one way to find the L/D ratio. If someone can add a reliably-sourced sentence that discusses other ways of calculating it, great, but it's not necessary for the rewording to stand.

Again, I feel that I've said all I can usefully say at this point; I freely admit that this is not my area of expertise. If you need further clarification, please post on my talk page (I'll be watching this page for a day or so, but I'm going out of town late tomorrow, so I won't be on reliably for a while after that, so a post to my user talk page will probably be necessary at that point). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Thanks Writ Keeper. I have altered the sentence so that it now states: "Lift-to-drag ratios can be determined by flight test, by calculation or by testing in a wind tunnel."  We must now turn our attention to provide ini-line citations that genuinely support this statement.  To ensure we don't overlook it I have added "Fact" tag immediately after the sentence.  Dolphin  ( t ) 04:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

 * I know I am alittle late to the conversation but don't you think that everybody has ignored the operator in the NASA sentence experimentally. i.e. when determined experimentally they use a wind tunnel. Semantics.Petebutt (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What was challenged was the statement that 'Lift-to-drag ratios are usually found using a wind tunnel. This was sourced from a reputable document that merely said lift-to-drag ratios are normally determined experimentally using a wind tunnel. There was no objection to the statement in the reputable source because it is true that, experimentally, lift-to-drag ratios are determined using a wind tunnel. The objection was with the statement added to Wikipedia that lift-to-drag ratios are usually found using a wind tunnel. The former is talking about lift-to-drag ratios determined experimentally, but the latter is talking about lift-to-drag ratios in general. The issue appears to have been resolved satisfactorily. Dolphin ( t ) 13:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Lift
Shouldn't this article answer the question: how does a wing lift? When I was a kid my Dad explained it to me this way. The air over the top of the wing (convex surface) has to flow farther than the air over the bottom of the wing, so the air pressure is lower on the top and higher on the bottom. He said it's Bernoulli's principle. Was he right? If he was right then shouldn't an article on flight feature Bernoulli's principle prominently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LFlagg (talk • contribs) 19:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

 * The answer is found at the Lift (force) article, which is linked from here.GliderMaven (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

 * There is also coverage of the topic at Bernoulli's principle. Dolphin  ( t ) 00:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flight. 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/20081226181400/http://www.tmth.edu.gr/en/aet/1/14.html to http://www.tmth.edu.gr/en/aet/1/14.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) 17:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flight. 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/20080920052758/http://centennialofflight.gov/essay/Prehistory/Cayley/PH2.htm to http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Prehistory/Cayley/PH2.htm

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) 08:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Flight. 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/20061031082245/http://www.trumpeterswansociety.org/id.htm to http://www.trumpeterswansociety.org/id.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090203074439/http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/aerosim/Manual/fsim0020.htm to http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/aerosim/Manual/fsim0020.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425070933/http://lorien.ncl.ac.uk/ming/particle/cpe124p2.html to http://lorien.ncl.ac.uk/ming/particle/cpe124p2.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) 10:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Gliding flight: plants do it too
Just leaving this here for your consideration and comment: Winged seeds (samaras) and seeds with fibrous tufts, such as those of the common dandelion, use aerodynamic shapes to delay their descent. Neither this article nor the one on gliding flight mention this. Just plain Bill (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Technically, neither are "gliding". An aerial descent with a glide angle of less than 45 degrees (or more drag than lift) is considered "parachuting" (see "gliding" ants), and dandelion seeds are more akin to spider ballooning. HCA (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Gliding" implies intent and control. Humans, birds and squirrels etc glide with intent, using a controlled process. What plant seeds do is more like "falling untidily". Wdford (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The question of whether dipterous insects such as midges or gnats, or odonatans such as dragonflies, are capable of forming intent is one for the philosophers, presumably right after they nail down the hard problem of consciousness in terms acceptable to all. I suppose the intent of the builder and operator of an autonomous drone transfers to the device itself, or at least it would be difficult to argue otherwise with a straight face. It's complicated.

 * The dispersal of maple seeds does not seem particularly untidy; it seems more like elaborate, maybe even refined falling. Proliferation of weedy maple saplings is another matter.

 * Early designs for re-entry vehicles of the "flying bathtub" type had low lift/drag ratios, and may have relied on ballistic effects to get acceptable glide slopes. "Falling with style" is one way to describe those proposals.

 * I have no wish to press this issue into a WP article without consensus; your comments are thought-provoking. Thank you, Just plain Bill (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

 * Paper aeroplanes have no intent or control, and yet they seem to glide just fine. Is it not gliding if I drop a paper aeroplane and it flies? And yet I would lack intent as well. I don't see what intent has to do with it.GliderMaven (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Flight


text:
UCF (disambiguation)

UCF most commonly stands for the University of Central Florida, a metropolitan public research university located in Orlando, Florida, United States.

It may also refer to:

 * ucf (Update Configuration File), a Unix utility for preserving user changes to configuration files
 * UCF Knights, the athletic program of the University of Central Florida
 * Ulster Cycling Federation, a member of Cycling Ireland
 * Uniform Contract Format, a standardized contract structure for Government procurement in the United States
 * United Citizen Federation, a fictional world government of Earth in the 1997 film Starship Troopers
 * United Civil Front, a social movement in Russia founded and led by chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov
 * Universal conductance fluctuations, a phenomenon encountered in quantum physics in electrical transport experiments in mesoscopic species
 * Universal Communication Format, a communication protocol developed by the IEEE for multimedia communication

title: UCF (disambiguation)