Talk:Joan Crawford/Archive 1

Change of Spouse List
Is there concrete proof for Joan's marriage to James Welton (1923-1924), I thought that this was similar to the uncertainty of her birth date. I do not feel that the reference is sufficient. From my reading of numerous biographies this I had thought hadn't been substanciated. If you could provide a more adewuate reference i would appriciate that. Also I think that it paints an incorrect portrait of her as it infers that James Welton was as important in her life as her four husbands- which he wasn't.

This is an abysmal reference find another or cease citing it: http://movies.go.com/joan-crawford/b916576 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.236.10 (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Change title to JOAN CRAWFORD FAN CLUB
This is one of the most biased biography articles of a non-living person in Wiki-World. This seems to be a strange new world were real life negative aspects are ripped out like weeds. Why no mention of her "Mommie Dearest"? It is easy to document other actors such as Helen Hayes who said that Joan was abusive to her children. Wiki biographies of the dead should include the good, the bad and the child abuse. Benji1996

Pop Culture reference: John Vanderslice
On his 2005 album, Pixel Revolt, John Vanderslice wrote a song that referenced Crawford ("Letter To The East Coast"). The lyrics to the song can be found on SongMeanings.net. Worthy enough for inclusion?
 * I vote yes. It's significant enough to introduce Joan Crawford to people who've never heard of Joan Crawford to introduce the name (and then get it stuck in your head as you're singing the song to yourself).  --LesAziez 02:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Alfred N. Steele
Didn't he get married w/ Ms. Crawford on January 14, 1956 like mentioned on Find-A-Grave. Lincher 22:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The date was MAY 10, 1955. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.173.193.12 (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Edits to article
I've made a few additions to the career section of this article. I thought it would be interesting to highlight the various ups and downs of her career, as well as document the process through which her various film personae emerged over the years.

I also restructured it a bit, so that the discussion of her film career all came in one section, with another section devoted to her personal life.Reichert 22:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Later Roles "Menial"?
Is it really appropriate to say (in "Later Years") that her roles between her Warner's glory days and Baby Jane were "menial"? Even in pictures such as Best of Everything, whatever one can say about the actual quality of the films (and most are better, to be NPOV, than their reputation suggests), the roles she played were either outright star parts or at least highly featured supporting ones. It's not like she was playing bits.... (Robertissimo 20 Jan 2006)


 * I agree and have reworded the section. I also removed some other POV comments. Did you know that by signing four tildes - a tilde is ~ at the end of your comment it will add you user name and date?  That makes it easier for people replying to know who made a comment, and how recently.  Rossrs 01:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Mea culpa! I did indeed know that, but was being more than usually scatterbrained; the above is my whining. Thanks for your elegant revisions, and the reminder.  I wonder if there is some way -- perhaps from drawing on comments made after Crawford's death by friends or biographers -- that could indicate the indomitable way she sailed through her later performances, never giving any indication that things like Berserk were any less worthy than Grand Hotel... Robertissimo 04:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll see what I can find. That's started me thinking that the article as a whole would benefit from some comments from critics/costars etc. throughout her career.  There's also some comments from people following publication of Mommie Dearest (for and against) and I can also recall Bette Davis (of all people) making some very positive remarks about Crawford as an actress. I think quotes are very useful in making a point - if it's a valid comment attributed to someone of note, it prevents POV from creeping into the article.  Rossrs 05:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Joan's date of birth - the sequel
To the anon that keeps reverting Crawford's birth year - I can not believe that the year of Crawford's birth is shaping into an edit war. Stop it now, please.

There is NO categorical evidence for her year of birth to the best of my knowledge. This is because a birth certificate does not exist. A 1910 census shows her as being 5 years of age. Simple arithmetic puts her year of birth therefore as 1905. I have added a source for this. It's been removed, well I'm putting it back. As per Manual of style-Dates of birth and death I have put a "c." before her year of birth, because I accept that it is not certain she was born in 1905, though there is more evidence supporting 1905 than 1904. You should also accept that it's not certain she was born in 1904, or 1906, 1907, 1908 or any other year. If you wish to prove me wrong, that's fine with me, but understand that I am inviting you to prove me wrong. You need to show acceptable evidence to support your view. The only "evidence" I can find is flimsy, I admit, but it's more than anyone else has cited.

Don't remove a sourced piece of information and replace it with an unsourced piece of information. Better still, participate in discussion if you have a point of view you want to convey, and I'll be happy to discuss it further, but please stop anonymously reverting information because you disagree with it.

Please also note that Hal LeSueur (her brother) was (according to his Wikipedia article) born September 3, 1903. If this is true, Joan's birth in 1904 was only 6 months later. Does that seem likely? Perhaps this means Hal wasn't born in 1903 after all, but perhaps it means Joan wasn't born in 1904. Either way, it makes the arbitrary selection of any birth date for her, even more unacceptable. Rossrs 02:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Based on several researched biographies of Joan Crawford I can assure you that the date is 1904, as she was older than most of her contempories even though she did not look it. 1908 is when records went on file and as stated before me she was born after Hal who was born in 1903. She may have turned 1 during the 1905 concencus but this could have happened after 23rd of march and the age given here may simply be a mistake- meaning that she was actually only several months old at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.174.46 (talk) 12:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Just my two cents here:

If you look at the census report, it states Hal was EIGHT at the time, which points to his being born in 1901 as many people have said they thought he was. Also, the census report merely shows the date the information was ENUMERATED, not the dates it was collected. If you go to the site, you can read about how it sometimes took many weeks to collect census data in those days, and how not until after everything was collected was the data transcribed (or enumerated) onto the master forms.

This is certainly not worth arguing about, but I feel fairly comforatable with 1900 as Daisy's birth year, 1901 as Hals, and 1903 0r 1904 as JC's.

-Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.173.193.12 (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

On the 1900 Census, Thomas and Anna LeSueur do not even have children yet. It says that they are married for 4 years. On another Joan Crawford site (legendaryjoancrawford.com), the owner has Hal's birth certificate and he was absolutely born in 1903. The 1900 Census is also displayed on that site too. Either 1905 or 1906 would most likely be Joan's correct birth year. I also saw it on Ancestry.comStutzey (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Stutey

What should we say for her date of birth?
Is she 100? 99? Does it matter? Probably not, but .....

I'm interested in the murky issue of Joan Crawford's date of birth, and notice it's been recently changed here to 1906.

It's an odd situation and various sources have different dates.

who knew Crawford and wrote about her after her death says that San Antonio did not keep birth records until 1908 - Crawford therefore chose 1908 as her official year of birth simply because it was the earliest birth date she could claim without anyone being able to contradict. He says her date of birth could be anywhere between 1904 and 1908 depending on who you believe.
 * The book Joan Crawford: The Last Word by Fred Lawrence Guiles ISBN 1857932684 gives 1905 based on the author's "research" though he doesn't define what his "research" was.
 * gives 1904.
 * Genealogy Mag article assumes birth date to be 1905 based on young Lucille LeSueur being aged 5 in a 1910 census (April, which is after her birthday in March). This is arguably the most authoritative source.
 * Same article as above quotes Charles Kidd, in Debrett Goes to Hollywood, saying Lucille was probably born in 1904.
 * Standard Times online quotes author Karen Swenson, who is researching for a Joan Crawford biography, as saying she believes Crawford was born in 1904 based on the timing of Crawford's birth in relation to other events which can be somewhat more easily verified. (Also states San Angelo as a more likely place of birth than San Antonio).

I find it all interesting and a bit of a mystery - not a solvable one probably - and now 1906 is thrown into the mix, so I'm just curious.

Perhaps the article should not attempt to provide a definitive birth date, but say c. 190- (whatever shows to be the most substantiated date - personally I think c. 1905 based on the 1910 census unless anyone can suggest a more likely option) with perhaps a sentence or two about the doubt about the date. Any suggestions? Rossrs 09:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, well as someone has reverted this back to 1905, have added a paragraph qualifying the basis for this determination along with citing the source. Have changed to c. 1905 in line with Manual of Style, because we can't be, and probably never will be, absolutely certain.Rossrs 12:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Joan was born in 1904 deal with it!! (Unsigned comment by User:Lalonde)
 * You need to offer some kind of evidence. Rossrs 20:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I personally believe her date of birth to be that of 1904, and many biographies substantiate this(The Divine fued, Hollywood Martyr, for example). I also think that it would make sense for her to have been born at the upper end of the 1904-1908 time period. As it has often be stated that although Joan was older than her contemporaries, she always appeared younger than them- for example Bette Davis (born 1908). I also dont want to accept that Joan died aged 69 not 73. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.236.186 (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

She was not born in 1904 when the owner of legendaryjoancrawford.com has Hal's birth certificate, and he was born in September 1903. She was probably born more likely in 1905. On the 1900 Census, Thomas and Anna Le Sueur do not even have any children yet. StutzeyStutzey (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Lesbianism
Should there be some mention of the strong evidence that she had affairs with women, namely the remarks to that effect by other stars in Boze Hadleigh's book Hollywood Lesbians, and the tapes that came to light in late 2004 of Marilyn Monroe talking to a therapist in which she said she'd had sex with Crawford but didn't really like it? And how should the information be presented? (70.16.132.222 31 May 2005)

Well, Ms. Crawford did say that, if she were a lesbian, the one celebrity she'd become one for was Greta Garbo, but I'm not sure if "lesbianism" should be referenced.70.140.227.136 04:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Gay Icon Project
In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script," adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, Joan Crawford is very much a gay icon. Back when she was still making film she was very popular in the gay community and continued to be a favorite in that group even after her death. The fact that entertainers like Charles Pierce would incorporate her persona into his act, as well as the MANY "Mommie Dearest" parties held by gay men yearly, prove that she is indeed a remaining gay icon. Artemisboy 20:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Long Filmography
The filmography is a little lengthy and replicated on the IMDb link. I think it'd be more useful to list maybe about 20 of her most notable roles. I don't know much about Crawford. Anyone else care to take a shot at trimming it? &mdash;Frecklefoot 20:51, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Source?
Can I get a source for these two paragraphs? They make it sound as if Bette Davis was the bitch and Joan Crawford was the poor innocent victim, and knowing both ladies, I HIGHLY doubt either of those two was as innocent as Mary and her little lamb.


 * By the early 1960s, Crawford's status in motion pictures had diminished significantly. She managed to reverse this trend one last time when she accepted the role of Blanche Hudson in the low-budget, but highly successful, What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962), directed by Robert Aldrich. She played the part of a physically disabled woman, a former A-list movie star in conflict with her demented sister. Despite their earlier tensions on the Warners lot, Crawford suggested Bette Davis for the role of Jane.


 * Davis immediately started taking over the set and throwing her weight around, as if she was the producer, director and big boss, and Crawford opposed her authority. The actresses reportedly mutually detested each other, although Davis, who was also famous for her feuds and rivalries with dissenting performers, was the more aggressive in her contempt.

Mike H. That's hot 20:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Source? - again
I have also removed this paragraph. User:Mike Halterman has asked for a source, and this is a perfectly reasonable request. Please don't simply ignore it and restore it to the article.

I have biographies of Davis and of Crawford and well as general reference books relating to films. There is nothing in any of them to say that Davis played the diva. The director Robert Aldrich is on record as saying that he was warned about both actresses before filming started but, to his surprise, they were generally professional and cordial to each other on-set. Their mutual dislike of each other did not display itself because, as he says, they both realized how crucial the film was for them and did not want to spoil what might be their last chance. Biographies of Bette Davis say generally the same thing - Davis's vitriol did not display itself until Crawford lobbied against her Oscar nomination. Likewise Crawford tolerated Davis until Davis quoted a studio head as describing them as "those old broads" in an interview. Crawford misinterpreted that Davis was quoting someone else, and was offended at Davis doing this after Crawford believed that they had gotten along together fairly well during filming. This is all fairly consistent in the material I have, so it's reasonable to ask for a source to be provided if something totally opposite is being said.

Also the paragraph is quite poorly written. "Big boss" is not encyclopedic but even apart from that it's poorly structured. If I believed it was accurate, I would simply rewrite it, but as I don't, I've removed it.

The paragraph was :

"Davis immediately started taking over the set and throwing her weight around, as if she was the producer, director and big boss, and Crawford opposed her authority. The actresses reportedly mutually detested each other, although Davis, who was also famous for her feuds and rivalries with dissenting performers, was the more aggressive in her contempt."

Thanks Rossrs 14:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Year of birth
The year of birth has been established as 1905 as per edit page comments citing CENSUS RECORDS; however some fly-by-night vandal changed it back in the text (without correcting the category). I changed it back and if this keeps recurring the page will need to be protected or someone blocked.

Ciociabasia 21:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have added a reference tag for the birth year that explains the situation, while noting that at least one published source (Mommie Dearest) cites 1904 as Crawford's actual birth year. The Mob Rules 11:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This whole article should really be renamed "REVISIONIST HISTORY BY THE JOAN CRAWFORD FAN CLUB" Benji1996 This is biased and slanted.

Both her death certificate and her grave stone says she was born in 1908. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.182.173.46 (talk) 10:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Mommie Dearest
Shouldn't there be SOME mention of this on Joan Crawford's page? Even if the movie is only based on alleged abuse, shouldn't there be something about it? Robinson0120 16:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean, besides the fact that the entire page reads like half the material was sourced from the book already? Seriously, most sections on the page pretty much include "And according to Christina, _______.  But most other sources say this _____. " 75.46.34.211 10:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly I think there are enough quotes from that woman on this page as it is...Dollvalley 09:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * From "that woman"? Like as in how dare she expose a malevolent, mentally ill child abuser for what she really was and ruin people's image of her? That's the thing with this kind of behavior. There typically aren't any video tapes or photos. I'm absolutely inclined to believe her having a mother who's *exactly* like JC was characterized.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 04:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Move To Warners
"Director Michael Curtiz and producer Jerry Wald developed the property specifically for Crawford.."? I have read several times that not only was Joan Crawford not the first choice for the movie, but that she had to make a screen test for it, and the "moving" story of how Curtiz was so impressed by it she signed Joan rightaway! First in line for the role were also Bette Davis and Barbara Stanwyck if memory serves me right. I find this odd since the rest of the article seems correct. Dollvalley 09:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. From Joan Crawford: The Last Word by Fred Laurence Guiles.  "After both Bette Davis and Barbara Stanwyck had turned down the role of Mildred Pierce in the film of the same name, the producer Jerry Wald learned that Joan was interested". (page 134) (Michael Curtiz) "refused to accept Crawford in the lead, wanting someone who was convincingly real.  Joan agreed to do a screen test, and proved that she was right for the part". (page 135)


 * No mention of Curtiz being so impressed he signed her on the spot (and as director it was not up to him to sign her tough he may have had casting approval, I don't know). I remember reading elsewhere - and I can't remember where - that he gave her a difficult time until several scenes had been filmed and then he accepted that she was suitable after all.   I tend to think it was more Jerry Wald who pushed for her and Curtiz accepted her without great enthusiasm.


 * In any case Dollvalley, I guess your memory is pretty good. Rossrs 09:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Dollvalley you are right I have corrrected the Mildred pierce paragraph; it is now accurate. Crawford was not first choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.174.46 (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I corrected this paragraph. she wasn't first choice it was Davis, then curtiz wanted stanwyck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.162.64 (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Davis was NEVER in the running for MP. The Warners files at USC show this very clearly. The book was bought in 1943 with a verbal understanding that it was for JC. This situation went back and forth until 1944 when Jack Warner kept his word went public that the roles was JC's. Furthermore, there is a memo from early 1944 which lists are the actors being considered for various roles - JC was the FIRST name on the list, BS was the fifth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.173.193.12 (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well my edits on this page are amongst the few which are actually referenced and two or even three biographies support that Bette Davis was offered the role first and that the director wanted Barbara Stanwyck. Perhaps the film was offered to Davis soon after the film rights were purchased after the books publication in 1941 when she was truly Queen of the lot [The novel itself spans a period of nine years (from 1931 to 1940), whereas the action of the film is set in the 1940s and spans only four years.] and prior to Joan's move to Warners. As Joan had turned down various projects after her move and made only a cameo in Hollywood Canteen, it makes sense that by 1944 she was at the top of the list for the part- even over stanwyck following her acclaim in double intemnity- as the studio had a star sitting idle- even though she was thought to be, by some, through and box office poison. JWarner8 (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Cindy Crawford
Although it should be obvious from the date of birth, is it worth editting the article to indicate that Joan's daughter Cindy Crawford is not the supermodel Cindy Crawford? 02:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

A brilliant suggestion! Perhaps, however, we should first ensure that no-one thinks Kate Bush and George Bush are brother and sister. And, likewise, there is plenty of potential for confusion amongst the respective admirers of Stonewall Jackson, Michael Jackson and Gordon Jackson.

Category:Child abuse
I don't think it's appropriate to include this subject in Category:Child abuse. The only other people there are scholars, advocates, or people convicted of child abuse. This subject stands out in the category listing as an anomaly. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 07:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

LGBT Project?
Why is this included in the LGBT project? Crawford was not a lesbian or bisexual, and anything reporting otherwise as at best spurious (Boze Hadleigh stuff). I guess you could include her because of her huge number of gay fans, but is that especially pertinent to this article? Algabal 20:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Gimme a break
It says, "In episode 6.10 of Buffy the Vampire Slayer entitled "Wrecked," Buffy's younger sister Dawn says that Buffy "...is feeling all Joan Crawford 'cause of the other night," due to her incessant calling to check up on Dawn. The comment refers to Joan Crawford's having five adopted children."

DOES IT????? I have my doubts..... 68.158.99.216 00:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Different picture?
Should there be one? To be honest the latest one makes her look like an embalmed corpse. Surely there are better ones out there? 76.235.74.105 (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment
Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Crawford lips
What about her achievement in single-handedly conquering the bee-stung lips look of Mary Pickford, Myrna Loy, and Lillian Gish? In the '20s and '30s, the style was to have an upper lip that tapered sharply to the corners of the mouth. This gave the lips a puckered look. But Crawford painted her lips with a broad smear that ignored natural physiognomy. No human has an upper lip that naturally lacks a taper from middle to ends. The Crawford look became such a rage that every single Hollywood actress in the 1940s had her upper lip drawn à la Joan Crawford, with a wide, untapered, unnatural band of red. This distinguished the younger generation of actresses from the Pickford/Gish era.Lestrade (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Her lips are part of her trademark, and were exaggerated with time- along with her eyes(lashes) and eyebrows. Maxfactor did ignore the natural contures of her lips to create the 'look' but actually it was dental work in the very early 1930s which enlarged her top lip(i could find the reference in the divine fued) she was very pleased with the enlargement and then exaggerated it with makeup afterward. JWarner8 (talk) 01:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The trend even extended to 1958 with Marlene Dietrich in Touch of Evil.Lestrade (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

The contour of her lipstick was an "achievement"? Personally I always felt it looked ugly, only served to enhance the "Mommy Dearest" look. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 13:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Henry Cassin Information
If anyone is interested I have his death date, and his obituary. {StutzeyStutzey (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC))

Overall Improvement of the Entire Article
This page is in need of a great deal of improvement. There are inaccuracies as well as poorly planned out sections, why is Crawford's personal life not intergrated into her overview of career and work. Why aren't there more references? I want this page to be awarded a gold star and become a featured article- instead of obsessing about the year of her birth why not actually improve the article?

Also what bearing does Crawford's residences have- this article is supposed to be informative, where Crawford lived is not so important that it needs an entire section devoted to it describing at great length.

Please could someone explain to me what Mommie Dearest has to do with Crawford's personal life- as her daughter wrote the book after she was DEAD. I have tried to move this section several times to the end of the article- as an appendix as it did not happen in her lifetime- it certainly should not be under the sub heading Personal life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JWarner8 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see your point.  The article needs a lot of work and it would be a good thing to try to improve it.   I think the "Mommie Dearest" section could go under "Personal Life" if looked at as a comment of her alleged personal life OR it could go as its own section after her death, if looked at from the point of view of a post-mortem controversy.   Neither is wrong in my opinion, it's more a question of preference.   I think it would be better after the "death" section, so I agree with you there.   Please note however, that you have made a number of edits to the article without adding any edit summaries, so no matter how well founded or well intentioned your edits may have been, your motivation has not been clear.    Please use edit summaries and also this venue for discussion, and I think you will find that the article will begin to improve.   (Also - new discussions should go on the bottom of the page, so I will move this, and comments should be followed with four tildes to show your name and date of comment - ie ~ .   This makes discussions easier to follow. )


 * As for the structure of the article, yes it needs work.  There is no hard and fast rule, and with even a cursory look through some of the featured articles on entertainers, you will see some variations in structure.    Crawford's residences are included in discussion of her husbands.  I don't think the residences are important, and I prefer the personal relationships to be integrated into the article itself, (as I have done in the Vivien Leigh and Bette Davis articles), but it seems to be very common here to have a seperate section on relationships.     This needs more discussion obviously but once again, I agree with your comment.      Rossrs (talk) 03:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rossrs 100%. The overall article needs improvement, but those improvement and changes need to be discussed first and agreed upon first. Changes to the DOB have been discussed here and were changed repeatedly yesterday with no explanation as to why. Also, when someone jumps onto a page and makes major, unsourced changes with no edit summaries, they will more than likely be reverted. I just got the new Joan Crawford biography that was throughly researched and features interviews with Crawford herself and I think that would make an excellent source. Over the next few days, I do plan to add/remove some content, but I will discuss those changes before doing so. Pinkadelica (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me.  I think the key is that minor and/or obvious changes should be made confidently but always with an edit summary so that we don't get bogged down in discussion, but that the more significant edits and restructuring be discussed here first.   Rossrs (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well actually it was me that raised the point of improving this article severely, not Rossrs. However, I think that judging on Rossrs excellent job on the Bette Dvais article I'm sure that together we could overhaul this article and make it factual, interesting and concise.

With regard to Pinkadelica's comments, I have read: Joan Crawford: Hollywood Martyr by David Bret, Not the Girl Next Door: Joan Crawford: A Personal Biography & Bette and Joan: The Divine Feud by Shaun Considine. So I do know what I am talking about; and as most of the article is unsourced; at this moment in time, changes which are also unsourced should not be distinguished and excluded from the present article on that basis. Otherweise most of the article may as well be erased.

The edits which I was attempting to make were merely structural and removing padding within the content, e.g Vast descriptions of residences.

I do think that Mommie dearest should be moved to the end of the article, to feature as an appendix rather than an aspect of the personal life section. JWarner8 (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was you that raised the point, and Pinkadelica was only saying that she agreed with my reply to you.    With regards to sourcing, it's agreed that the article as a whole is not fully sourced right now, and that needs to be fixed.   Any new material or changes should be sourced.   Just because previous editors have added material without sourcing, does not mean we should follow their example.    It shouldn't be that difficult though, as you have the necessary resource material.   I also have Joan Crawford: The Last Word by Fred Lawrence Guiles, as well as several other biographies etc in which Joan Crawford is discussed in the context of other performers.  ie Davis, Myrna Loy, Clark Gable, Greta Garbo etc.    I think moving the Mommie Dearest section to the end is fine, but I disagree that "appendix" should be used as part of the header.   Also, more than half of the paragraph is about how badly the film was received and how it damaged Faye Dunaway's career.   This is not relevant to Crawford and could be excised.    One other thing - please use edit summaries.   It's just a courtesy so that those of us who do not possess pyschic powers, have some understanding about the edit.   Thanks Rossrs (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What I want to know is what really was Bette Davis's reaction to "Mommie Dearest". According to "Not The Girl Next Door" by Charlotte Chandler, on pages 283-284: "Joan Crawford was not Bette Davis's favorite person, as Bette told me in one way or another during the years I knew her, but she was outraged by the book. "I was not Miss Crawfords bigest fan, but wisecracks to the contrary, I did and still do respect her talent." "What she did not deserve was that detestable book written by her daughter. I've forgoten her name. Horrible. What a vile way to cash in on her mothers name. Miss Crawford wasn't my close friend, but what her daughter, who I understand was adopted, did was absolutely vile." "I looked at that book, but I did not need to read it. I wouldn't read trash like that, and I think it was a terrible, terrible thing for a daughter to do. An abomination! To do something like that to someone who saved you from the orphanage, foster homes, who knows what. If she didn't like the person who chose to be her mother, she was grown up and could choose her own life." "I felt very sorry for Joan Crawford, but I knew she wouldn't appreciate my pity because thats the last thing she would have wanted-anyone being sorry for her-especially me." "The daughter had waited untill her mother was dead and couldn't speak for herself. What a coward she was, is." "I can understand how hurt Miss Crawford would have been. Well, no, I can't. It's like trying to imagine how I would feel if my own beloved, wonderful daughter, B.D., were to write a bad book about me. Unimaginable. I am grateful for my children and knowing they would never do to me anything like what Miss Crawford's daughter did to her." "Of course dear B.D., of whom I'm so proud, is my natural child, and there always are certain risks in adopting. Gary[Merrill] and I adopted two babies because when we married, I was too old to have our own. We were very pleased with our little boy, Michael, but our adopted daughter, who was a beautiful baby, was brain damaged. I never had regrets, though, because I think we provided for her better than anything else that could have happened to her, and we gave her some happiness in her life. You can't return a baby like you can a carton of cracked eggs." Joan had said: "There was one thing where Bette was one up on me. She'd had a baby, a child of her own. I wanted one, and Bette was so lucky to have been able to have her own daughter, B.D., I think she called her." With "Mommie Dearest" as her insperation, B.D. would later write "Her Mothers Keeper", her attack on her own mother, Bette Davis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silent-film-fan (talk • contribs) 19:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Christina Crawford's allegations in MOMMIE DEAREST are not supported by other Crawford family members, who would certainly have known of these cruel incidents if they actualy occurred. Christina seems to have had a major, lifelong grudge against her more glamorous, successful adoptive mother. Joan Crawford was barely cold before Christina wrote her unsubstantiated memoir--having craftily waited until she could not be sued for defamation. Christina's siblings Cynthia and Cathy have both described the autobiography as fictional. They have no reason to lie about this. Although we will probably never know the complete truth, the preponderance of evidence seems to suggest that Christina Crawford, at the very least, grotesquely exaggerated her claims of abuse. Others who had known Joan Crawford well for many years never saw the cruel, abusive hag that Christina describes. They probably never saw her because she did not exist. Younggoldchip (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

"Mommy Dearest" was a sick joke
That Christina has a rather large chip on her shoulder. On top of being a coward. She waits til the poor woman dies before she slams her with Mommy Dearest. I mean, nothing like attacking someone who can't defend herself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.185.182 (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I mean, nothing like attacking someone who can't defend herself. You mean like a mentally ill control freak attacking a defenseless child? I can tell you exactly what she would have said - she would have denied, rationalized, accused Christina of being ungrateful for all she had done for her etc., etc. The psychology of people like that exists to defend itself. They don't do contrition.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember where, but someone should be able to find that Christina wrote a magazine article first, whilst Joan was still alive, and there was a documented response. When I get to work later, I'll try to find it. It's hard to get a negative book published about a living subject, and there was always that chance for reconciliation whilst Joan was alive. This was something that could have been avoided during Joan's lifetime. Besides, Joan's too dead to care, why do we?97.116.40.132 (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The Revolt of Joan Crawford's Daughter is the article that the person is referring to http://www.joancrawfordbest.com/magredbook.htm. They even state in the article that it was a She Said She Said type thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.127.106 (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Funeral Date Wrong?
The text or the article states that her funeral was on May 10, 1977, which was the SAME DAY she died. Not likely! How many funerals happen on the day of death? Anyone know the correct date?--66.74.99.193 (talk) 06:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:MommieDearestBook.jpg
The image Image:MommieDearestBook.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * Image:VM SY400 SX600 .jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --21:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Mommie Dearest movie "Camp"?
The article characterizes the film as "camp". Not by any definition I'm aware of. They called the book more serious, the film certainly seemed plenty serious.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 06:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

She was a child abuser
Few people would remember this woman if it hadn't been for the book by her daughter and the 1981 film about her child abuse. So that she was a child abuser needs to be featured in the lead. Girlander (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * She would be and will be remembered for her filmography, and the allegations in Mommie Dearest are appropriately noted in the lead already. Otto4711 (talk) 04:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Mommie Dearest is mentioned in the lead with appropriate emphasis. She is remembered for her films (the AFI places her in the top 10 greatest female film stars of all time).   The Mommie Dearest book is an allegation, that has been discredited by some who knew both Joan and Christina Crawford, and critics have noted the inconsistency of Christina Crawford's story.   Aside from associates of Crawford who deny the legitimacy of Christina Crawford's claim, Joan Crawford's other adopted daughters, Cynthia and Cathy, have dismissed Christina's claims as fiction.    If years of extreme cruelty and abuse happened, how did two of the four children in the house fail to notice it?    You can believe whatever you like, and who but the participants actually knows what happened, but an encyclopedia must be critical and discerning in labeling people. Rossrs (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A few things: 1) Critics are there to find fault. It doesn't make them right (or wrong).  It's all POV. 2) Cynthia and Cathy were provided for in the will, no? It's easy to dismiss claims as fiction when you've been paid off. I wasn't there, and I don't know, but I know that I'm quite likely to believe that Cynthia and Cathy might not have been abused at all, because when you have multiple children, it's not uncommon for one or two black sheep to emerge. Perhaps Cynthia and Cathy weren't directly abused, but Christina was treated as an example? You don't know. Granted, I don't either. But I'm open minded. You should try it.97.116.40.132 (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it's my open-mindedness that makes me question Christina Crawford rather than blindly accept her portrayal of events the way some people do and it was the blind acceptance of her version of the story only that I objected to having inserted into the article.   I said "who but the participants actually knows what happened", so telling me that I "don't know" is not enlightening.  My fault for not using italics or bold text, so I guess it was easy to miss.  It's kind of funny that you would talk about open-mindedness and then tell me to try it, as if you have a clue what you're talking about.   I mean, it's rude and you have a nerve saying it, but when I think about how I live my life, it's hilarious.   Just stick to discussion of the subject.   Rossrs (talk) 09:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

As a reply to the first post in this section, I would like to point out that if there hadn't been the book, JC might not have a part in popular culture like she has today, which is denigratory anyway, but she would still have a part in movie history. She was always the always glamorous leading lady, and if not for the book, her name would have still be likened to her "arch nemesis" Bette Davis, not to mention that most stars of the Golden Age of Hollywood benefitted from the introduction of home videos, even Norma Shearer was almost forgotten and came back thanks to the medium. Bottom line, Joan Crawford's place in movie history was guaranteed sans-christina scandal. Dollvalley (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As a person with great appreciation for films born in 1980s, I have never seen any of her films, I don't know any films she has been in, and if it weren't for Mommie Dearest, I would never have heard of her. I figure only very old people and people with special interest for old movies remember Crawford for anything else than child abuse and erratic behaviour. Mommie Dearest, however, is an iconic film and classic. Girlander (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * (Toned down from my original posting) I was born in 1977 and I know, and have always known, who Joan Crawford is. She was a tremendous star, far from forgotten. Just because YOU aren't familiar with something or someone, it doesn't mean that it has been forgotten. It just means you are ignorant of that particular subject. You underline your lack of qualification for commenting when you say you "don't know any films she has been in." That proves my point right there. You've never heard of "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?" or "Mildred Pierce?" Perhaps you need some more exposure to culture before you decide to comment upon it and suggesting arbitrary changes to articles on subjects you know nothing about. In case you've missed my point: the fact that you are young and don't know anything about Joan Crawford, doesn't mean that every other person on this planet is as unaware of her as you are. And you don't have to be "very old" or have a "special interest" in old movies to know of Joan Crawford. HillbillyProfane (talk) 10:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:CIVIL, personal attacks are not allowed here. Please consider striking your comments above. Also, we're here to write an encyclopedia, not debate personal veiws of subjects of articles, and this section is pretty much useless. I'll archive it or hat it soon. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair point I will tone down my above statements, but how does this statement by Girlander add to the discussion in any way: "I figure only very old people and people with special interest for old movies remember Crawford for anything else than child abuse and erratic behaviour. Mommie Dearest, however, is an iconic film and classic." Before hopping on me for putting this person in their place, why not call them out on cluttering the discussion page with ridiculous statements? Their assertion is, a 1980s film ABOUT Joan Crawford is somehow more notable than Crawford herself, simply because THEY are more familiar with the film than the woman. People like her will continue to litter Wikipedia unless they are, gently, corrected on occasion. HillbillyProfane (talk) 10:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Girlander's comment didn't add to the discussion, but that was 5 months ago and Girlander hasn't been editing since then. There's no point in talking to someone who's not here. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of abuse
By all accounts I can find, Helen Hayes supported the allegations in Mommie Dearest, and spoke of the abuse; however her name was removed today with the edit summary "placing hayes here implies that the position attributed to davis is also attributed to hayes, which is inaccurate." Which part is inaccurate? Hayes supported the charges. Further, whittling down the supporters of the abuse allegations to one seems rather POV... Firsfron of Ronchester 02:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed Hayes because the sentence into which her name was inserted is sourced to Considine, which does not include mention of Hayes. By putting Hayes's name in that sentence, it implies that Considine includes mention of Hayes and that Hayes's reasons for believing it were the same as Davis's. This is not accurate. I have no objection to including Hayes, as long as it can be properly sourced. Otto4711 (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I did not source Helen Hayes' name to Considine. I included a reference, which you removed with the edit summary ["placing hayes here implies that the position attributed to davis is also attributed to hayes, which is inaccurate." It is not inaccurate. Please restore the text you incorrectly removed. [[User:Firsfron| Firsfron of Ronchester ]] 01:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no indication that the source you cite is reliable, and even if it were a bare list of books that include mention of JC doesn't appropriately source Helen Hayes's supposed opinion on the subject of Mommie Dearest. I won't be adding back the material so if you want it included I suggest you find an appropriate source. Otto4711 (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait... did you remove the name Helen Hayes because because the position attributed to Davis was also attributed to Hayes (your first reason, in the edit summary, which is wrong), or because I incorrectly sourced the claim to Considine (your second reason, which is also wrong), or, now, because the source isn't reliable? You keep coming up with excuses on why the content may not be included. I think there are ownership issues here... I also think you should reconsider how you revert other editors contributions, Otto. If this is how you treat an experienced editor who includes sources with each contribution, I can only imagine how you treat newbies who don't know better. When you revert another editor's contributions (with an incorrect edit summary), and that editor asks for an explanation on the talk page, and then you go on to use passive-aggressive language like "I suggest you...", you are not contributing to a collaborative environment.
 * The fact, is, Helen Hayes always supported the allegations, and called Joan a "cruel" mother; in fact, she made additional claims about the abuse in her own book, My Life in Three Acts, that didn't appear in Christina's book. It is not NPOV to make a list of detractors to Christina Crawford's book and include only one name which supports the book. If you need a full reference, it's: Hayes, Helen & Hatch, Katherine (1990). My Life in Three Acts Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich ISBN 0151636958. Firsfron of Ronchester  02:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So add the info with the source. Is that really so difficult? Why are you making this an issue? In the time that it's taken you to type out your little diatribes you could have added the material with proper sourcing yet instead you want to have a fight about it. An "experienced editor" would probably just get on with it. Otto4711 (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just done so. Thanks for making the process of adding two words as pleasant as possible. I'm so glad I could follow the dispute process, take the disputed material to the talk page, and get a reasonable explanation for why my edit was removed; one which didn't keep changing. It's been great collaborating with you. Firsfron of Ronchester  12:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh climb down off the cross honey. Otto4711 (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Current main photo
I think the 1948 photo that is currently used is wonderful and great choice for this article, let's try and not lose it.Dollvalley (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Crawford and Bow
From Kansas City Star, November 16, 1933: reporter: Clara then looked out the window and giggled as she recalled her days as a flapper. "It's funny. I really learned a lot during those dizzy years when Joan (Crawford) and I were running around town as the two hey-hey girls of Hollywood..." "Anyhow, we got what we wanted out of it." reporter: She then spoke about her present off-screen life and that of her fellow flapper: "Joan (Crawford) called me up the other day and I didn't know her. She had one of those trick English accents and a Lady Vere-de-Vere voice. She's been married to the son of the royal family and she's running around with Franchot Tone, who they tell me represents the spirit of Cornell and aristocracy on the hoof. Joan's gone a long way from the Charleston contests and you can bet your life she's got what she wants".Parrotistic (talk) 05:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Born in 1906
http://www.legendaryjoancrawford.com/factsmyths.html "Joan Crawford's birth year is probably -- till this day -- one of the biggest unsolved mysteries and causes for speculation surrounding Joan. Her tombstone says 1908, a census report from 1910 says she was born in 1905 and many books say 1904 - but what year was Joan really born in? There's really only one date that makes the most sense, 1906. There are problems with every other date stating with 1905 - the census report that was taken in 1910 is riddled with errors... Hal's age is wrong, Anna's age is wrong, and the address to where the family lived is questionable. Even the family name is misspelled. With so many crucial errors in one document, the credibility is questionable at best.

We all know that Joan shaved two years off of her birth year and claimed that her birth year was 1908. 1908 is probably not accurate; however, it does help us to understand the confusion. If Joan did shave two years off, with which year do you start? One of the reasons the birth year 1904 became so popular is because many people already knew of Joan's birth year as 1906 and assumed since she shaved two years off then she must have been born in 1904. BUT 1904 is not viable because Joan's brother Hal was born in September 1903; Joan would have born six months later, which is almost impossible.

So that leaves us with 1906. This year is the most concrete date for one big reason. Joan registered at Stephens College in 1922 and gave her birth year as 1906. Joan at this time in her life was only sixteen years old and had no reason to lie about her age or try to make herself appear younger, if anything she would want to try to be older like most teenagers.

Joan's birth year was 1906 and should be recorded as that."--98.226.9.223 (talk) 11:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Blue Oyster Cult
Song called "Joan Crawford", inspired by the book "mommie dearest" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_%C3%96yster_Cult#Commercial_success http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHzIG_iZRWY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.247.169 (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Addition of link
As this issue is becoming more and more troublesome (so much so that the page is now protected), I believe we can get a clear consensus about either including or excluding it once and for all. The link in question is The Best of Everything: A Joan Crawford Encyclopedia. On the face of it, this link appears to be a fansite written by a fan. WP:ELNO is pretty clear on the addition of fansites - unless written by an authorized authority, these links should be avoided. As far as I can tell, the site is not written or maintained by an authorized authority as evidenced by the "About" page linked above. User:128.83.244.249 and User:Missou2 (which may or may not be the same person) have repeatedly stated that said link is referenced by biographers thus justifying its inclusion. I'm not sure that's a compelling enough reason to disregard WP:ELNO. Additional thoughts on the matter are appreciated.  Pinkadelica ♣  20:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. Enter the "About This Website"  page and you are met by an ardent and self declared fan of Crawford gushing her love for JC and stating at the end:"'On this site, I don't just want to show pretty pictures from the '30s or make fun of her grand guignol era; instead, I want to show where Joan Crawford came from as well as every step of her journey, including what she had to say about what was going on around her. The woman had a brain and guts and opinions and talent as well as a face, and her longevity as an actress was hardly reliant solely on lucky breaks or pure sex appeal; she worked to get to the pinnacle of her field and subsequently worked to maintain her career and status long beyond what anyone thought tenable.'" It further goes onto say:"'In addition, the now-defunct Joan Crawford Online website has also been an invaluable source of information. After the webmaster took JCO down in December 2003, he sent me a disc with the complete contents of his site, which proved helpful while starting this site.'" Proof if needed that this site was set up by a fan for fans of JC.  There is nothing wrong with that, but it certainly has no place on WP.  Nowhere does it prove that the site administrator/founder is of an "authorised authority", but merely a fan with an agenda to sell a book, tell the world how much she admires JC and to advertise the website!  With this in mind,  I would also consider this inclusion in the EL section to be possible spam and possibly advertising as donations are being sought by the site administrators.  Also there are a list of books given on the "About" page...so! .... It does not make the text given reliable as nothing is referenced inline with the text. -- CassiantoTalk 21:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue of spamming might be relevant as I have found this link included on at least four Crawford film articles.  Pinkadelica ♣  00:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Were they deleted? And if so did it result in warring such as this? This is the second time I have been involved in such an issue. A few months back,  was told repeatedly to stop adding information which was seen to be advertising The Music Hall Guilf of Great Britain. They continually kept adding a reference and an EL to the charity on articles of persons who they had just commissioned work on such as the restoration of graves and erection's of blue plaque's.  Albeit slightly different, this ip and user name have a motive in relation to the JC fansite.  I'm sure of it! -- CassiantoTalk 07:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed the links myself as I was updating the infoboxes for the film articles anyway. Nobody has tried to put them back in as of yet. I think with this particular link and these users, it's just a case of someone wanting to promote their website or (and I'm stretching here) a website they really, really like. I've dealt with this issue on various articles before. It usually happens on articles about old stars for some reason. I'm a bit disheartened that neither the IP user nor the account has showed up here to comment. I believe once protection ends, the edit warring will begin again.  Pinkadelica ♣  14:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * TBH, I didn't really expect the IP address or the user to show up.  made steps to report them to the admin's but nothing happened and they wasn't very helpful.  If it starts up again then the tree of us should approach an admin.  It is a blatant attempt to advertise.  I'm becoming more and more convinced of that as the days rumble on.  -- CassiantoTalk 16:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh my god it's started again. This is unbelievable... -- Lobo (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no other choice. Admin's it is. I will back you up 100%.  -- CassiantoTalk 20:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not something I can initiate right now, I'm afraid. Are you possibly able to? Otherwise, I'll try and get to it tomorrow. -- Lobo (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a go. BRB -- CassiantoTalk 20:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Now done. -- CassiantoTalk 21:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cassianto. -- Lobo (talk) 06:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this should send a clear message :-) Let's revert, if not already done. -- Cassianto</b>Talk 08:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment regarding (alleged) bisexuality
As per the suggestion of User:Pinkadelica, I am putting up a request for comment regarding Crawford's (alleged) bisexuality. I would like to include a mention of it in the article and place her into the LGBT categories. Asarelah (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to mention that I have multiple reliable sources, including one from a respected film historian. Asarelah (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My problem with this content being added is not so much the sources or even the subject matter, but the way you initially presented it. In this edit you added the information in a section that doesn't even discuss her sex life, personality or relationships. Just "Crawford was bisexual". Full stop - end of. Not alleged or rumored to be or any further information to support the claim. I know this rumor about Crawford has been going around for years now and I'm not denying that it may very well be true (where there's smoke blah, blah), but is it correct to categorize someone as bisexual based on hearsay and speculation - even if that speculation is from a respected film historian? I don't think so. Barbara Stanwyck is/was the subject of the same rumors and they are addressed in her article but she is not categorized as bisexual and the statements are pretty well explained. If the content is included, I think it should at least be explained in fuller terms and not just thrown out there as if it's fact.  Pinkadelica <sup style="color:black;">♣  01:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that an entire paragraph would have been a better choice on my part (my bad). Anyway, when it comes to the sexual orientation of a deceased historical figure like Crawford, researchers rely upon what they can piece together from their sources, and an academic consensus is created among them from that. Alexander the Great never publicly declared himself to be gay or bisexual either, yet the academic consensus is that he was. I am quite willing to demonstrate academic consensus regarding Crawford's orientation by referencing and describing the content of the multiple sources that describe her as bisexual. Asarelah (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In Alexander the Great's case, I can understand why academics piece together history and draw conclusions. They don't have a choice because of the lack of media, transparency, etc. In the case of a modern figure like Crawford, I don't think we should have to piece together sources to draw a conclusion. As I said above, I can see including text that presents the rumors but to make a definitive call on the category is a bit much IMO.  Pinkadelica <sup style="color:black;">♣  11:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. It would be helpful if the proposed content and sources could be posted to this RfC. FWIW including the content of persistent rumors might be accepted if the rumors themselves are notable, if her same-sex lovers make unambiguous claims which are not really refuted, etc. Insomesia (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Response' Sure. I've got this source from the List of bisexual people: Quirk, Lawrence J., Joan Crawford: The Essential Biography, (2002), University of Kentucky Press. Lawrence J. Quirk is a film historian who has over 30 books published. His source includes confirmations from Jerry Asher, a press agent and journalist who was a friend of Crawford's. His source also states that Martha Raye also stated that they had an affair while they both worked at the USO. He also states that Barbara Stanwyck's press agent confirmed to him that Stanwyck had been intimate with Crawford. Furthermore, according the book "Queers in History", Marilyn Monroe's therapist has a recording of her describing a one night stand she had with Crawford, saying that she didn't enjoy "doing it with a woman". Two reliable sources, not refuted by anyone. Is this adequate or should more be included? Asarelah (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there any links to these so others can look? It may help. Otherwise quotes should likely be included. Also what does the now proposed content look like? I have a feeling with the comments so far that a visit to the WP:RSN might be needed if any mention is disputed. What your stating so far does seem to merit at least a few sentences. Insomesia (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I don't see much merit to the so-called "academic consensus" argument. It might be reasonable to speculate about "academic consensus" for someone who died 2000 years ago, but not someone who died 35 years ago. I could accept a minimum of discussion of rumors if very well sourced and identified as rumors (one or two sentences at the most). But that should be sufficient, and no placing her in LGBT categories. She is dead, but her death is still recent enough that we need to keep WP:BLP in mind. Cresix (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Response I don't know how WP:BLP can apply since all the women she was allegedly involved with are long dead. Asarelah (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Cresix, even presently LGBT people do not have equal rights in the vast majority of the world, even in the US where Crawford is from. LGBT relationships, even intimate sexual ones are still seen as illegal and the material only for scandal sheets. We could have the same discussions if she had died yesterday. There are still many LGBT people who do not disclose their status for fear of reprisals, attacks, violence, loss of employment, and death. It is little surprise that a major celebrity would not want this information made public, even after their death. In LGBT history most peoples sexuality and gender non-conformity is hidden, the very rare case is someone who was unambiguous that they are LGBT. Insomesia (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Prejudice against LGBT people and the fact that many LGBT feel that they must hide their sexual orientation in no way mitigates the policies Wikipedia has about separating rumor from objective fact, reliable sourcing, and appropriate weight that is given to a topic. If we use as our standard "LGBT are discriminated against, and therefore we don't need to follow the same encyclopedic standards in determining that someone is bisexual", then we could conclude that virtually everyone who has not specifically denied that he/she is bisexual is, in fact, bisexual. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a website dedicated to social activism. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia, or any objective encyclopedia, to correct social injustices, except through impartially presenting the facts and letting people draw their own conclusions about what is just and unjust. Cresix (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting we go against policies in any way. We do have to look at the sourcing through the filters of reality. Is it likely that even if Crawford were bisexual she would make any statement of that fact? Not really. Is it more likely that after her death people would be more likely to reveal that in fact she was bisexual? Probably. What I stating is that we have to use the sources available on the subject and see what they state and how they state it, "biographer _____ states Crawford was most likely bisexual due to her romantic relationships with _____." In this way we are stating what sources state in Wikipedia's voice. No one is correcting injustices here just getting at the facts of her biography. We let the sources lead the content. Insomesia (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we are largely in agreement. I would again emphasize the importance of WP:WEIGHT in "letting the sources lead the content". If almost every notable and reliable biographer comments about her possible bisexuality, that would justify a more extensive discussion of the issue compared to a small minority of such biographers discussing the issue. As an example, let's consider Rock Hudson's homosexuality. He never publicly acknowledged his homosexuality if I remember correctly (or perhaps he did so near the time of his death), but the issue is discussed in some detail in his article because it has been widely discussed by reliable sources. In Crawford's case, I haven't seen (so far) enough credible evidence to justify more than a sentence or two. Cresix (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read my comments again. I said we should keep BLP in mind. Even BLP notes that it applies to "living persons (or recently deceased)". "Long dead" is a relative term. Alexander the Great is long dead. Joan Crawford to many of us who have been around a few decades is not "long dead". Someone's death does not give us an instant license to ignore BLP and similar guidelines. Many of the same principles of BLP continue to apply by Wikipedia's general standards. We don't engage in speculation, and we do not imply or hint that a rumor is a fact. We can report on what reliable sources say about rumors, but we clearly identify them as rumors, and we give consideration to WP:WEIGHT in determining how lengthily we report such rumors. As I said, one or two reliably sourced sentences about rumors that are clearly identified as rumors should be sufficient, and that is true regardless of the fact that she is dead. Cresix (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Response Why do we have to identify them as "rumors" in this context? Why not simply write the claims and refer to who made them? Furthermore, what would be adequate proof regarding Crawford's bisexuality? I noticed that Josephine Baker is categorized as bisexual and I presume its due to the fact that her son stated outright that she was. Christine Crawford stated that Joan had lesbian affairs in Mommie Dearest, and while her other daughters Cindy and Cathy Crawford denied the allegations of abuse, they have yet to deny Crawford's alleged lesbianism. Asarelah (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We present them as rumors because they are rumors. If I claim that you stole something from me but can't prove it, it is no more than my word against yours even if you actually did it, and that's no better than a rumor. Now, I'm not saying that we literally have to use the word "rumor", but if we don't use that word we need to make it extremely clear that we are not talking about an objective fact or something that Joan Crawford acknowledged as true; using the word "rumor" may be the best way (but not necessarily the only way) to do that.
 * Christine Crawford's declaration about her mother does not make it a fact; AGAIN, we can report what people close to her state, but we don't present it as fact. And PLEASE, someone not denying something is certainly not proof of anything; let's try to use a bit of elementary logic; if I accuse you of being an atheist but your children do not deny that you are an atheist, that does not make you an atheist. I understand why you raised this issue in an RfC because it is a legitimate point of discussion, and I think something very carefully and succinctly worded should eventually end up in the article. But you don't help your case by pushing something as fact when there's no solid evidence that it is fact. Cresix (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, then lets report what people who were close to her state regarding her orientation. I'm also frankly baffled as to why Josephine Baker gets put into the category on the basis that people close to her stated she was bisexual and yet Crawford doesn't. In regards to the atheist comparison, one does not "accuse" a person that they were close to of being an atheist. The individuals in question were interviewed and told of their personal experiences with Crawford, and with the sole exception of her daughter, I have no idea how statements describing Crawford's bisexuality can be construed as "accusations". An accusation carries an element of malice. The people interviewed had no malice towards Crawford, they were her closest friends. Why would they lie about it? My point regarding her family was not that their silence somehow tacitly validates the rumors, my point was that Crawford's estate clearly does not care a jot if she is posthumously characterized as a bisexual. And if her estate doesn't care, then why should we be up in arms about BLP in this case? Asarelah (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Several comments and I'm not beating this dead horse any more until others express an opinion. If you want to challenge anything in the Josephine Baker article, by all means please do so; but "other stuff exists" is not a basis for what goes in Joan Crawford's article. The atheism analogy applies quite well; for example, if I state that Billy Graham or the Pope is an atheist, that can be construed as an accusation. "Why would they lie about it?" That's not up to us to decide; people lie for many, many reasons; people sometimes tell the truth; I'm not arguing either way; I'm simply stating that someone such as Christine Crawford claiming something doesn't make it true, and as an encyclopedia rather than a tabloid Wikipedia has standards that must be followed. And finally, neither you, nor I, nor anyone can read the mind of anyone involved with Crawford's "estate", so claiming that her "estate clearly does not care" is entirely beside the point unless you can provide a reliable source from the official manager of her estate that they "don't care". Cresix (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I find your analogy of calling the Pope and/or Billy Graham atheist to be very flawed, as the Pope and Graham make it quite clear that they are believers. In fact, their entire lives pivot around it. The crux of the accusation would be in the alleged dishonesty of the individuals involved. Anyway, I will await further commentary from other users regarding this matter. Asarelah (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

You miss the point entirely. Let me try to simplify and speak literally rather than through analogies. I responded to your statement: "while her other daughters Cindy and Cathy Crawford denied the allegations of abuse, they have yet to deny Crawford's alleged lesbianism." If someone says something about Crawford, or you, or me, the fact that Crawford's (or your, or my) children don't deny it does not make it true. So, to simplify even further, even if Crawford was bisexual (or even if she wasn't), silence by her children (or anyone else for that matter) has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether it is true. People can be silent about something for thousands of reasons that have nothing to do with whether they agree or disagree. Now, I'm not sure I can simplify any further, so if you don't get my point, perhaps someone else can jump in and try to explain it. Cresix (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I get your point, I merely took issue with the analogy. Anyway, I'm going to stop beating this dead horse until someone new weighs in. Asarelah (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support: Mention it. However, I can't contribute to the discussion, I just state my point of view. Sources seem legitimate and as Joan died more then three decades ago, I doubt that mentioning it would harm anyone's day-to-day life. Jesus Presley (talk) 09:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Limited Support. It would be appropriate to mention the specific reliable sources that make the claim as long as it doesn't become a gossip page or a "my source is better than your source" fight. (Uninvolved editor answering RFC.) Andrew (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong objection to the RFC as written. No, we don't add allegations to an article about a notable person and then add them to a list that seems to make it a factual claim. Yes, I have heard or read these rumors and they really don't have a lot of relevence in my opinion, other than to mention the allegations or "rumors" but that has no strength to add the person to a list of known homosexual or bisexual subjects. A little research shows that there is no statement that can be used from the subject herself and the most I find are some statements that appear to be Ms. Crawfords attempt at dry humor when referring to the subject at all.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: It deserves discussion, since there are several sources which state she was bisexual. By the same token, if there are print sources which refute the allegations, they should also be included. It doesn't have to be long or in-depth, but a Good article should be "broad in its coverage". Firsfron of Ronchester  06:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So you support the listing of Joan Crawford under LGBT listing?--Amadscientist (talk) 07:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. I've read several books about Joan Crawford; it doesn't seem that controversial or unknown. As I said, if there are print sources which refute the allegations, those should also definitely be included. But, above, Asarelah has already provided sources which state she was bisexual. Are there sources which state it is categorically untrue? The article should be balanced, but so far, the discussion has only covered books which state she did have lesbian encounters, in addition to affairs with men. What are these other sources? Firsfron of Ronchester  07:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Balance does not mean you must add allegations and counter them. Balance is: "When reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint" This is not a disinterested manner. We are asking to add the information in order to list the subject as an LGBT figure as far as sexyuality and that is not prominant in the overall biographical information of Crawford. There is clear POV at work here. Why is this any different than adding the same information about John Travolta? We recently had this discussion and the outcome was, we don't just add rumors because they are in print.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) I'm waiting for discussion of sources which categorically deny any sort of bisexuality. So far, they haven't been forthcoming in this discussion. Pinkadelica was absolutely justified in reverting this somewhat inelegant edit, but the source itself seems valid. And you must be aware that, unlike John Travolta, this article is not a biography of a living person. Firsfron of Ronchester  08:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, in "Joan Crawford: The Essential Biography" there is no actual claim that she IS bisexual, just stating rumors and hearsay from others. Its opinion and would absolutely need attribution to use as an opinion and not as fact. There is no source that I am aware of that states Crawford was bisexual as a fact that we can use on Wikipedia as a reliable source. It seems to all be the opinion of the authors or they are just making assumptions.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * One other thing I would like to mention. I find it disturbing that when one does a google search of "Joan Crawford bisexual" the number one return is a wikipedia article called "Sewing circles which is referenced by a gossip columnist. That is just ridiculous and flies in the face of Wikipedia policy and guidleines. Regardless of the fact that Crawford is deceased does not negate the fact that we do not spread gossip. I also found the analogy using Alexander the Great to be really stretching things. Joan Crawford is not a historic figure in the same way and does not require peicing information together by historians or academics. Besides there is more than speculation in regards to that figures sexuality as well as figures such as Julius Caesar.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I was invited by the RFCBot to checkout this discussion. I have taken some time to review the comments already posted. I am drawing my comments primariy from the discussion that has taken place and from related wikipedia policy/guide references. I have not personally done research on Joan Crawford regarding this issue.
 * Regarding inline content: It would seem appropriate to include verifiable quotes from reliable sources that other have made about Joan, however the context should be consistent with that in which the quote was made - something along the lines of "While X and Y were working on film title together, in her (x)'s biography that they were intimate [reference] " or whatever is accurate. Anybody can claim something about themselves, true or not, and they should be able to do so in reliable sources, as per BLP for the person who is the subject of a biography. To say that person "X" is a "Z" when they say so in their bio would be appropriate on their page. Actually BLPSPS holds a stronger view that self-published sources (including bios) should only be used when "it does not involve claims about third parties." As such, we need to be very careful about presuming that what someone said about their relationship with someone is true; especially if the material was published after the other person died, precluding the possibility of refuting those claims. I will add, since it was mentioned above, the failure of the family to deny these claims does not make these statements true - to not comment, is specifically that, neither confirming nor denying. It would be OR and synthesis to presume otherwise.
 * Regarding placement of content: This should be placed under the appropriate sections as it related to the specific time of her life. It would appear to be undue to have a specific section dedicated to it. It would probably be even in appropriate to have a section called "bisexual rumors" unless that specific topic, the "rumors" are notable in themselves, which I don't believe they are. Rather the most appropriate place would be to include them inline with the main article when the timeline is appropriate.
 * Regarding category inclusion: While I do believe there is sufficient reliable sources to include that people have claimed to have bisexual relationships with Joan, we cannot confirm that so the category inclusion would be inappropriate at this time. We also cannot simply use the fact that other people have the category applied as a rational case for including it here, perhaps it should be removed from the other examples provided by other editors. About the only value we could glean from other articles is if they went through a similar RFC regarding the category inclusion in a similar situation, and then we might be able to use at as precedent. But I don't believe that is the case with the examples provided by pro-category-inclusion editors.
 * A possible place for both: A reason where we might be able meet the original posters thoughts is if there was a reliable source, where the primary subject is on Joan, and in which, it specifically states that Joan was bisexual (not engaged in such activities, or the primary subject is of one of her lovers, etc), then we could consider it for inclusion. But I don't believe there is such a document because it if came up previously the discussion could have ended there with support for inclusion.
 * Tiggerjay (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Date of birth
While it is true that many articles about people do not include DOB, many do. In the case of JC, this is an issue that has been debated since the 1920s and remains debateable because there is no birth certificate, or at least not one that has been found. The Bureau of Statistics states very clearly on their website that the Census dates are suspect for many reason. As such, it is a guide, not a proof.

I believe this is an important issue that needs details (all sides of arguments) because of the nature of the issue and the person it is about. The debate has endured - the article should make an attempt to provide SOME level of understanding as to why.

Also, while it is true I used a link to a fansite, that link was to show the 1910 census. And that is all it showed. Surely this is NOT using a fansite to bolster an argument, but rather to support a fact (that Hal's age was 8YO at the time when his bc shows it was 7)? Why is there an issue with this? If it is only because the image of the form was on a fan site, I find it hard to believe that the link was inappropriate.Tal1962 (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Box Office Poison
The information as it stands now that, once again, my additions were undone, is at best, incomplete as well as misleading. There is concrete proof that she was on the list from 1930 and multiple sources for this information. The comment has been made (perhaps rightfully so) that there were too many ORs. Fair enough. What is the suggestion as to how best clean up this area?

There is far too much evidence on hand - direct from the studio files - to prove her films were doing exceptionally well prior to one film, Bride Wore Red, as well as the one that followed it, Last of Mrs. Cheyney, to simply leave this portion so thinly written.Tal1962 (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Mommie Dearest
This area is SORELY lacking in correct information. Example, Liz Smith has NEVER gone on record as saying she believes CC. in fact, quite the opposite. The article that was sourced did not claim she said otherwise. The same was true of Rex Reed's comments. The notion that he was witness to events that allegedly transpired between 1947 and and 1959 is incorrect - the man was born and raised in Texas in 1938 and did not move away until the late 1950s. Most certainly he was not in LA during that period.

This portion as it stands is a tidbit, not something that is well sourced or evenly writen about. The facts are that over more than ten years, hundreds of people came forward in defense of JC, as opposed to the dozens who sided with CC. This should be made clear, otherwise the notion that most people sided with CC persists. Tal1962 (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Later years
This portion of the article is based on what Bob Thomas write in his 1978 book about JC and has been disputed by friends of JC from the later years of her life. I had used multiple sources to corroborate what I wrote. Using a link to one of the newspaper articles, which is the ONLY way to verify her appearance on that 1975 program (so far) does not seem out of line or indeed against Wiki guidelines.

Furthermore, the statement she was alleged to have made about "won't see me again" has actually never been verified and crops up in at least four forms in four seperate sources. Leaving it as it is lends far too much credibility to it, especially in light of considerably well documented evidence to the contrary elsewhere by those who actually knew her.

I am hopeful there will be some instructive discussion about this. I will wait a few days to see the responses before I write anything for potential revision. Tal1962 (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Tal1962
I don't know where to begin. The edits I removed from you include weaselly POV unnecessary critique of the US Census. Any edit that restores comments related to that without seeking consensus on the talk page will be removed. I'm concerned that this article does an exceedingly poor job of using reliable sources for the information on her birth as it stands, and will probably recommend delisting it if we can't get some good sources for the information soon. It screams OR right now. This source is not reliable and shouldn't be included; although the others may be. The birth and death dates are not normally included in Wikipedia biographies any ways. "Possibly", for her birth location, needs an explanation from you. You later included the same POV related to Mommie Dearest here as you did in Mommie Dearest. The failure of me to mention something here does not necessarily mean I support that aspect of the edit, so I think at this time you should begin discussing your edits before making them. It would be helpful if you could attempt to address one issue at a time. Ryan Vesey 10:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ryan, I agree that this is not a reliable source: it's user-generated content. The content it was supposed to source is "Her older siblings were Daisy LeSueur, born in 1901 and died in 1904". If that date can be verified through better sourcing, that material could go back in the article (with proper, full citation). Firsfron of Ronchester  07:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I have actually asked for some help elsewhere but the last thing I am interested in is these absured edit wars that so many of you seem to enjoy. You way of undoing without discussion is in direct opposition to wiki rules. We should be trying to improve this article, which as it stands right now is so full of inaccuracies it is laughable. This is not an opinion but a verifyable fact. I may have gone overboard with it, I admit - as you say, the OR is or was over the top. But the issue of her birth date IS important due to the fact that it is so widely debated, and that there is no concrete proof. While I understand your point about the census comments, the fact is the Bureau says exactly the same thing - which is why I inculded the links.

Not sure why you consider MY additions about MD to be a POV and not the original - example, Liz Smith has NEVER stated she believed Christina's story and a link to that article is not inappropriate.

Likewise the addition of information that she did not simply stop doing anything from Oct. 1974. The whole concept came from a badly researched book about her, and many people's comments have been recorded in print that dispell that myth. Why would you revert to something that is inaccurate merely because there are some flaws in the presentation of it without asking that it be cleaned up as per Wiki rules?

In any event, I have asked for arbitration on the matter of HOW Firsfron does things. While I understand much of your reasoning, the METHOD is in question. Tal1962 (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comment regarding multiple issues
As per the Abritration, I am going to try to work within their suggestions. That said...I too hardly know where to start because the issues within this article, despite it having been labeled a good one, are many. So as to make it a bit easier (I hope) I will divide them.Tal1962 (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you have your terminology mixed up. There's a difference between arbitration and a request for comment. What you're looking for is WP:RFC. If you want to open an RFC, you should follow that link and follow the directions on how to open an RFC. You need to create a one centralized discussion for all the changes you're proposing - all these different sections are terribly confusing and it is highly unlikely that anyone is going to comment on every single section and attempt to carry on multiple conversations about four or five different proposals. Try breaking down what you want to change into sizable chunks so other editors can follow along and you can get your point across. Your first source of contention appears to be the Crawford's date of birth. I understand your frustration but no matter what date is chosen, someone will always complain that it's wrong. The date that is currently in the article was chosen by consensus some time ago presumably because that's what the community agreed upon. Bear in mind, this article is about Joan Crawford and what makes her notable, not about how the census was inaccurate or suspect in the early 20th century. If you have a specific date of birth you would like to add, bring it up and explain why you think it's accurate - how you got to that conclusion does not belong in the article. While it is tempting to add your own finds/research into articles, we need to stick what reliable sources report only. Also, the fansite link you added twice (and was removed by me twice) is in fact inappropriate. That link was spammed throughout the project and the community decided to remove it for that reason. It may be a fine site (I have no idea as I haven't looked at it at length) but Wikipedia isn't here to promote someone's fansite. If there is information there that supports content you want to add, I suggest you try to find an alternative reliable source instead. Lastly, while I also understand your frustration over your edits being reverted, no one violated any Wikipedia rules here. You boldly added some content and other editors reverted it because most of it violated WP:OR. From the looks of it, both editors who reverted you also approached you to explain why you were reverted, tried to steer you in the right direction and opened up a discussion about the matter. That's exactly what editors should do per WP:BRD. It might not be a method you personally agree with but it certainly wasn't out of line or against any rule.  Pinkadelica <sup style="color:black;">♣  03:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I echo Pinkadelica's comments here: I certainly made an effort to request page numbers for your sources (and better sourcing altogether): "I encourage you to improve the article. However, you must include a full citation for the content you are adding, and remove sources for content which no longer verify what you've replaced. It's not possible for other editors to verify much of what you've written on the article without relevant page numbers for books." That request was made at 18:12 on January 6th. Starting at 19:24 (over an hour later) you reverted back to the unsourced version and even added new sourceless content, including several blatant WP:BLP violations. The content about Rex Reed absolutely cannot remain without a solid source: placing your unsourced allegation (that he couldn't have witnessed abuse) against his claim (that he did) is a WP:BLP violation. The content about various other stars' opinions need specific page numbers and issue numbers: we can't verify what you've said otherwise (what, are we supposed to look through a decade's worth of issues?), and that content cannot be included until it is well-sourced, per WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion".
 * Also, the Request For Arbitration was highly premature, as I think you must know by now. I encourage you to listen to Pinkadelica, and his/her advice on the matter. Firsfron of Ronchester  06:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've struck out the first portion of my comment because I was unaware that an arbitration case was opened over this issue. I saw this back and forth going on with the article last night and figured this was going to escalate but I didn't expect an arbitration case. Anyhow, I took a better look at the content that was added (and reverted) and yes, it is problematic. I'll wait to comment further on the issues until a proper RfC is opened.  Pinkadelica <sup style="color:black;">♣  07:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate all of your comments, Pinkadelica. The reason for my breaking this up was in fact NOT to cause confusion, and also partially in response to a comment that I should bring these issues up one at a time. I am not clear what is confusing about seperating the issues. Yes, it is one article. But the issues are many and I had thought it would be easier this way. As I have said in Arb and on Firsron's talk page, I do see that I jumped the gun with Arb. Tal1962 (talk) 13:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Firsron: As I have said elsewhere, I never wrote anything that indicated Mr. Reed was not telling the truth. MD and the alleged issues within it takes place largely in the years 1942 to 1952 or thereabouts. Mr. Reed did not live in California during this time. It is obvious he could have witnessed anything during this period. That's is all my comment referred to. I conceed that it might have been unclear.Tal1962 (talk) 13:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what edition of Mommie Dearest you've read, Tal1962, but the version on my shelf (the 30th Anniversary edition) covers the period from the 1920s to June 24, 1977. The book was based in part on the Redbook article from 1960, so the statement that it "takes place largely in the years 1942 to 1952 or thereabouts" is demonstrably incorrect. Halfway through the book (p. 225), which is sequential, is a letter written by Joan Crawford from September 17, 1956. Nor would it be necessary for Mr. Reed to be in California, as a good portion of the book takes place in New York. I applaud you for taking your concerns to the talk page, but "largely between 1942 to 1952" is quite incorrect. Firsfron of Ronchester  14:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Pinkadelica: I forgot to add that my other reason for doing it this way has to do with what I read on the Wikipedia page for it. Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it always helps to first discuss the matter with the other parties on the related talk page. Are you saying you feel it is not better to discuss this here? I was hoping to be able to hash it out in a more simple fashion.

As to what you wrote about the reverting being per wiki, I beg to differ. ''Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page being restored to a previous version. However, reverting good-faith actions of other editors may be disruptive and can even lead to the reverter being temporarily blocked from editing. Read the three-revert rule (part of the Edit warring policy).''

Also, ''The MediaWiki software sometimes enables editors to easily revert (or "undo") a single edit from the history of a page, without simultaneously undoing all constructive changes that have been made since. To do this, view the page history or the diff for the edit, then click on "undo" next to the edit in question. The software will attempt to create an edit page with a version of the article in which the undesirable edit has been removed, but all later edits are retained. There is a default edit summary, but this can be modified before saving.''

Finally, ''Edit summaries, always a good practice, are particularly important when reverting. Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion. Try to remain available for dialogue, especially in the half-day or so after reverting.

''A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith. This is one of the most common causes of an edit war. A substantive explanation also promotes consensus by alerting the reverted editor to the problem with the original edit. The reverted editor may then be able to revise the edit to correct the perceived problem. The result will be an improved article, a more knowledgeable editor and greater harmony.''

''If your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in an edit summary, leave a note on the article's Talk page. It is sometimes best to leave a note on the Talk page first and then revert, rather than the other way around; thus giving the other editor a chance to agree with you and revise their edit appropriately. Conversely, if another editor reverts your change without any apparent explanation, you may wish to wait a few minutes to see if they explain their actions on the article's or your user's talk page.''

''Revert wars are considered harmful[edit] ReasonsRevert wars are usually considered harmful, for the following reasons: They cause ill-will between users, negatively destabilize articles and make other editors wary of contributing. They waste space in the database, make the page history less useful and flood the recent changes and watchlists. Some editors may be sensitive and to them, a revert is "a bit like a slap in the face"; for example: "I worked hard on those edits and someone just rolled it all back".''

They often produce inconsistencies in an article's content, because the editors involved focus only on one part of the article without considering other sections or articles that depend on it.

''Editors should not revert simply because of disagreement. Instead, explore alternative methods, such as raising objections on a talk page or following the processes in dispute resolution.''

As the Arb clearly pointed out and as is clear from all of the above, the talk page should have been the first step, not the revert. Tal1962 (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Firsron: As I've said a few times, I have zero issues with you questioning anything I write - please do. it is the reversions that I object to and with good reason, as I have tried to point out above by copying and pasting them as they are written. Perhaps the problem is that we need to consider the guidelines as whole, not cherry pick them to anyone's advantage - IMO we all lose this way. So...

I read what Wiki said about Contentious material, and of course you are quite right - it says "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion".

However, that same article also provides a link to what is verifiable. ''In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors.'' The information you refer to WAS published. I went through all of those issues and verified it. So can others. As such, it is at least a debateable point. Tal1962 (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Before I redo the Rfc, I believe two issues need resolution - the matter of reverting and the matter of what constitutes verifiability. It seems pointless to create the Rfc until we can settle this between us. One thing I want to say is that Wikipedia does allow for multiple methods of doing things - Arbcom pointed this out in no undertain terms. Going strictly by the book is fine provided the door is open for thinking about it. But, it there is to be what I call "stickler points" then it is incument upon all of us to review ALL Wiki guides, not merely to pick the ones that support a partricular arguement. Tal1962 (talk)
 * Wow...ok, that wall of text is really unnecessary. A simple link to what you were talking about would have sufficed although I'm fairly certain we all know policy. If I need a refresher course I know what to look up but thanks for the tip. Anyhow, the reverting thing is over. With all due respect, you seem to be dwelling on it like it's a personal affront when it's not personal. We've all been reverted at some point in time. It happens. As I said above, I don't think the two editors that reverted you were wrong. I looked at the edits you made and they were in fact problematic. If Firsfron or Ryan hadn't reverted you, I can guarantee you someone else would have (likely me). There were numerous issues with what you added and yes, those issues were explained to you via edit summaries and on your talk page. You just added whatever you wanted back without even an edit summary. I know this because I removed a link you added with a pretty clear explanation as to why and you added it back because, evidently, you felt like it wasn't an inappropriate link. Well, yeah it is or else I wouldn't have removed it citing a previous consensus. Again, it's Bold, revert, discussion. BRD doesn't mean one person gets to keep on adding whatever they want until the reverting party breaks down and starts a discussion. The onus is on you (the person who adds the material) to provide a proper source at the time the content is added. It's also your responsibility to make sure all the content is in line with policy if you want the content to stick around. Nearly everyone involved did the right thing - there was no cherry picking of rules or bad admins at work. I understand that you don't agree with some of the content that is in the article at the present time, but the fact still remains that this was named a Good Article. I'm not saying things can't be changed but trying to overhaul a Good Article with nary an edit summary to explain what you're adding and/or removing is bound to draw attention. I suggest you go ahead with an RfC. I have a feeling this will derail without some sort of organization. Additional community input won't hurt anything either.  Pinkadelica <sup style="color:black;">♣  18:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC Closure
I have closed the RfC regarding Ms. Crawford's putative bisexuality. --j⚛e deckertalk 02:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Date of birth take 2
I noticed the talk above about her birth date (i agree) - our current refs are not very good. In her bios most say 1904. I think we should change this as per the real refs over a guess work ref about stats and a news story. Pls see sources below. If no reply in the next few days will change it.Moxy (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * These are great, Moxy. Thanks for providing sources. Firsfron of Ronchester  03:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * All this is simply by chance - I happen to be reading this copy from 1947 of LIFE and notice that there was a debate over her date of birth (had long forgotten about the debate). So as an avid Wikipedian (lol) I came here to see what we had to say about this. First thing i noticed is we have a date of 1905 that happens to be a date not seen mentioned in the LIFE article. As you can see in the link provided they happen to skip 1905 altogether. Meaning  to me that 1905 was not a date even debated back then (late 1940s). So did some looking around at fan sites - proper bios(as seen above) - and old news articles - and discovered 1904 seems to be the norm. Rarely is 1905 mentioned except when referring to the guess work from statistics from 1910. Moxy (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, I have no issue with the date of birth being changed. I don't know if changing it without a proper RfC is a good idea though. I just envision three people (or a similarly small number) agreeing to change it and someone popping up and complaining that there wasn't a "real" consensus. I guess I'm just trying to avoid more complaints about this particular article, but that will likely happen no matter what we do so it's just a thought. If it is changed, I think we need to remove all the content about the census stuff. For one, it is not cited. Also, that kind of content just bugs me to no end - it just screams "amateur genealogist with an ancestry.com account". Records of births, etc. were pretty dubious back in the early 20th century so I've no idea why people continue to count on the census to prove some movie star shaved/added years off his/her age. One point though, I would be very hesitant to use the first source you gave. Bret's books are, shall we say...a bit on the sensationalized side. It is currently listed in the ref section but I don't see it cited anywhere within the article which means it probably could be removed. The rest of the refs seem solid.  Pinkadelica <sup style="color:black;">♣  06:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just going to change it.Moxy (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Changed back to 1905, as per census data. Quis separabit?  00:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have restored the date as per all the refs that are there - The census data is a WP:SYNTHESIS of information. If you have references that are reliable pls present them here Moxy (talk)
 * All this is simply by chance - I happen to be reading this copy from 1947 of LIFE and notice that there was a debate over her date of birth (had long forgotten about the debate). So as an avid Wikipedian (lol) I came here to see what we had to say about this. First thing i noticed is we have a date of 1905 that happens to be a date not seen mentioned in the LIFE article. As you can see in the link provided they happen to skip 1905 altogether. Meaning  to me that 1905 was not a date even debated back then (late 1940s). So did some looking around at fan sites - proper bios(as seen above) - and old news articles - and discovered 1904 seems to be the norm. Rarely is 1905 mentioned except when referring to the guess work from statistics from 1910. Moxy (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, I have no issue with the date of birth being changed. I don't know if changing it without a proper RfC is a good idea though. I just envision three people (or a similarly small number) agreeing to change it and someone popping up and complaining that there wasn't a "real" consensus. I guess I'm just trying to avoid more complaints about this particular article, but that will likely happen no matter what we do so it's just a thought. If it is changed, I think we need to remove all the content about the census stuff. For one, it is not cited. Also, that kind of content just bugs me to no end - it just screams "amateur genealogist with an ancestry.com account". Records of births, etc. were pretty dubious back in the early 20th century so I've no idea why people continue to count on the census to prove some movie star shaved/added years off his/her age. One point though, I would be very hesitant to use the first source you gave. Bret's books are, shall we say...a bit on the sensationalized side. It is currently listed in the ref section but I don't see it cited anywhere within the article which means it probably could be removed. The rest of the refs seem solid.  Pinkadelica <sup style="color:black;">♣  06:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just going to change it.Moxy (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Changed back to 1905, as per census data. Quis separabit?  00:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have restored the date as per all the refs that are there - The census data is a WP:SYNTHESIS of information. If you have references that are reliable pls present them here Moxy (talk)


 * OK, presenting: this 1910 census extract from April 1910 giving young Lucille's age as 5. Any reason her family would make her a year younger? Quis separabit?  01:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, Moxy:


 * The link you provided, about Crawford, while interesting, doesn't answer the question.
 * "except when referring to the guess work from statistics from 1910." Say what now. The U.S. census is guesswork??
 * I thought the issue had been settled, so I am looking for the archive threads (which I guess are "take 1" for you). but from what I remember, the date of birth of her elder brother in 1903, indicated that little Lucille would have had to have been born at six months, i.e. three months premature. Seems unlikely.  Quis separabit?  01:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure what your saying - all the books used as references are linked above and in the article under reference # 2 now. The book you have linked  was used  to demonstrate the fact that the year 1905 was not even a consideration back in the late 1940s. Most sources say Lucille was born in  1904 including her two daughters that  published books years ago. As for the census data we have to look at it as a whole for credibility. There is so  many errors in that  document that the  credibility has been called into questionable for many years -  Hals and Annas age is wrong from what we know. Even the family name is misspelled and the address to where the family is listed as lived is wrong. Is this even the right family?. That all said there is no reason we cant have a few sentences in the article that explains all this, Moxy (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The references you cite are sterling but the biodata they contain is recycled from other sources obviously. Reference books normally don't engage in OR.
 * "That all said there is no reason we cant have a few sentences in the article that explains all this" -- exactly. That's why I thought that the compromise I referred to, which left 1904 as the primary cited year of birth with a few words regarding the 1905 year discerned from the census, is ideal. Yours, Quis separabit?  16:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your solution is great - but if others agree - we could talk about this in more detail - like the fact her tombstone says 1908 and in 1922 she gave a birth date of  1906 when she registered for school at the age of 16.Moxy (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah. She always lied about her age, just like some other actresses. She gave years such as 1906, 1908 and even 1909 (the last when she married her first husband, Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., who actually was born in 1909), but I don't know if all that has to be included in the article, but I am not passionate either way. Quis separabit?  16:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As indicated above I am ok with how it is now - just wonder if our readers would find more info educational. I do find it odd at the age of fifteen or sixteen or seventeen whatever - she would lie on some random school registration form - what would be the reason?Moxy (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no way she was born in 1904, because her brother, Hal, was born on September 3, 1903. Therefore, she could not have been born in March 1904. Impossible. Hal's birth record has been online for years: http://www.legendaryjoancrawford.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.legendaryjoancrawford.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/halbirthcertif.gif&target=tlx_newStutzey (talk)Stutzey


 * I agree personally that Crawford was born in 1905, but the purported birth record of her brother you have found, while interesting, doesn't even contain the child's name, and the handwritten parts are mostly illegible. Quis separabit?  22:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Pls see WP:SYNTHESIS.Moxy (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

== Crawford's mother's year of birth (1881, not 1884) == If Anna LeSueur's eldest child, Daisy, was born before 1901; Hal in 1901 and Joan (Lucille) in 1904, and Anna's age in the April 1910 census was 28 (Anna's birthday was November 29), it is almost biologically impossible for 1884 to be accurate, hence the more accuracte "circa 1881". In shaving some years off their years of birth, Crawford and mother shared at least one habit. Quis separabit? 16:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Mother, father and brother's years of birth

 * Whoa, it seems not only Joan Crawford fibbed about her year of birth, her parents and brother have discrepancies, also. The 1900 census gives Anna LeSueur (Crawford's mother)'s month/year of birth as October 1879. Her father is listed as a year older (1878, then, not 1868 as usually cited). Hal LeSueur's age in the 1910 census is given as 8, indicating a year of birth circa 1901, but his Army Enlistment papers, California Death Record papers and gravestone all show 1903. As his birthday was in September, it is almost biologically impossible for Crawford to have been born in March 1904, which is why it has to be either 1905 or 1906. Comment as you see fit. Quis separabit?  00:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why the page is protected but a request
Not sure why the page is protected because editors are trying to remove a fan site http://joancrawfordbest.com/... So guess will ask formally - could we get someone to remove the fan site as   editors have been trying to do before this page was lock. Would be best to confront the disruptive editor before a page lock is implemented. -- Moxy (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The website may actually have to be blacklisted, because there's a history on this article of it constantly being added. It's very difficult to keep on top of. -- Loeba (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Bearian, can you comment on this? I'm reluctant to remove the link when it (seems to be?) the issue for which the page was protected. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 09:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In the absence of a response by Bearian, I have removed the link. To me it seems a straightforward violation of WP:ELNO, and Bearian's note in the block log "DOB" makes me suspect that the link issue wasn't such a big factor in the protection. If addition of the link is becoming a long-term problem that can't be solved with blocks, blacklisting it might be a good idea. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 01:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, busy in real life. Stradivarius, you are correct.  The only reason for my protection was the edit-warring over her DOB. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no edit war over her age from what I can see...just an addition from an IP back on the 5th that was only noticed on the 10th and fixed. From the page history looks like the fan site was the problem....anyways better safe then sorry all looks ok now to me. -- Moxy (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Theater Actress??
Re: Lede: She was a dancer in the chorus line of some early musical revues, but I'm not aware of anything else. (She did build a small theater on the grounds of her home, and performed plays there for friends with her third husband, but I'm not sure that makes one a "theater actress"...does it?)Codenamemary (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

1st Guest Tonight Show w/ Johnny Carson???
I think it is an significant bit of television history to note that Joan Crawford definitely appeared on the Tonight Show w/ Johnny Carson, and may have been the first guest. It is hard to tell for certain, because the VT of that show was wiped. Groucho Marx warmed up the audience that night, October 1, 1962. Mel Brooks was also on that first show. Once again, it is a significant bit of TV history.User:JCHeverly 22:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Fansite link....again.
I have just removed the link to "A Joan Crawford Encyclopedia: The Best of Everything" as it was decided some time ago that the link should not be included because it is a fansite not written by a recognized authority, it was being spammed on several Crawford-related articles and there was suspicion of whomever keeps adding this having a conflict of interest. The link should not be added back unless a new consensus is reached. If the bulldog tactics continue, I will seek protection for the page and also seek to get the link blacklisted. This foolishness has been going on for years.  Pinkadelica <sup style="color:black;">♣  02:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Birth year
It's a cliched stereotype that women lie or refuse to answer questions about their age. This article has a citation stating Miss Crawford was born in 1905. I agree with those that believe 1904 as inaccurate, but I think there may be some truth to her being born in 1906. I know there are citations about the 1910 and 1920 census records stating her birth year as 1905, but could that have been a mistake. When you think about it, it's not that likely. I mean, if a mother was asked about the birth of her child, she'd know when she gave birth to that child, would she not? So, maybe 1905 is the most accurate, but I can definitely see why many would argue 1906. Of course, 1908 is too late, which would have made her only a young teenage girl when she became a major player in silent films in the mid-1920s. In an interview on YouTube, her infamous daughter Christina states that her "mother" was never opened about her past, especially her age. If I remember correctly, Christina her mother was "72 or 73" when she died. She had no idea really.

'When was Joan Crawford born? What year is right, 1905 or 1906? Does anyone have concrete information supporting either year? If so, the information should be added to this article. Thanks...' — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClassicEditor97 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

More information please
Joan Crawford was, and is, one of the greatest stars of old Hollywood. Her early life is thoroughly detailed, but there is often little or somewhat confusing information during the "Career" sections of her biography. The "Early career" and "Self-promotion and early success" sections have relatively little notable or factual information. But these sections seem superb when compared to the "From Queen of the Movies to Box Office Poison" section that follows. This section is very choppy and mentions few of Crawford's screen triumphs during the 1930s. I believe this section should be split into two separate sections: the first titled "Transition to sound" or "Success in the 1930s", and the second part could simply be called "Box Office Poison" (a section with this title is included in Marlene Dietrich's biography). It is common knowledge to the Crawford fan that she was considered "poison at the box office" in the late 1930s, because most (if not all) of her films lost money at the box office.

It should be stated that The Ice Follies of 1939 (1939) offered the first time she appeared on-screen in Technicolor, and that she was horrified at her appearance and refused to be photographed in color again until Torch Song in 1953, her last MGM movie. It should also be noted that while The Women (1939) revived her career, she was practically in a supporting role and that the film lost money at the box office (because of its high budget) despite is universally positive acclaim. The "Move to Warner Bros." section could be expanded and titled "Revival and move to Warner Brothers".

In the 1950s, Crawford worked steadily, but in what could be called B-pictures. Some of them were good and quite successful though. This should be mentioned. She expected an Oscar nod for The Story of Esther Costello (1957), but it didn't happen.

'There is a lot of information needed to expand this article. Joan Crawford, Miss Crawford, was a great star for several decades, and her career needs to be discussed in deeper detail. She was, and is, more than just "Mommie Dearest".' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.233.135 (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Archive
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joan_Crawford/Archive_1

Some details...
Joan became a real star before the 20s were over, her costarring with MGMs top male actors and her imprints at Graumans Chinese Theatre (1929) attest to that. The prior lead paragraph suggests she gained popularity later in the 1930s. She was never trained as a dancer, she was self trained, and when initially signed to contract she was unknown and reportedly unnoticed by management until later that year ('25), when a contest was held for her new name. It wasn't until 1928 and "our dancing daughters" that MGM realized she would make a good flapper. (Brettsomers 6 Jan 2006)