Talk:Joan Crawford/Archive 2

Removal of sources??
I am wondering why the new sources have been removed and find a grave has been added back again despite the concerns raised? I understand that primary sources are not that good... but if we are to have the guesswork in the article it should be sourced and correct (census estimates 1902..not 1901). What is the problem with this source and this source. So more on the guesswork.....1901 is a very hard date to believe for Hal if  there is another sibling also born that year. --Moxy (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, @Moxy: The problem with the LeSueur family is that NONE of their years of birth have been conclusively. No one is sure when Daisy, the eldest child, was born hence (her years of birth and death are usually given as "ƒ1902". Thomas LeSueur's years of birth range from 1866 to 1878. Anna Bell Johnson LeSueur was allegedly born in November 1884, yet if she had her first child in 1901, she would have been 16. Possible, sure, but... Also, other sources cite different years for Anna's birth, including 1878. The ages on the 1910 census are hard if not almost impossible to decipher (due presumably to the enumerator's horrific handwriting), with only young Lucille's age of "5" clear. Hal LeSueur is interesting because everything points to his being born in 1903 yet his marriage certificate in 1931 gives his age as 30, and he could have had no possible reason to lie as he was nowhere near underage. If anything he could have made himself two years younger so as to serve in WWII (a birth year of 1901 might have been prohibitive, but 1903 isn't much better). In short, we have to acknowledge that we can't know everything, and trust me I know how frustrating that is. Yours, Quis separabit?  01:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Lets list the sources and not mention all the guess work ....again why the removal of the sources? I am not frustrated at the problem because I understand it (as seen by past ten years of edit history here)....I am fustared at the sources used and the deletion of others. I am the one that implemented the range ....but the guess work is a bit much ...as in all the stuff about Hal's DOB in this article....all we need to say is that her siblings and parents DOB is also a problem.  Its not just about Hal's DOB that is a problem for Joan's age question-- Moxy (talk) 01:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This source is not particularly reliable as it is user generated. This source is OK for me provided one understands that the census age is the age as of the person's last birthday, so deducing 1902 for Hal would be incorrect, as we have already gone over ad nauseam (and which is why it says "Birth Year (Estimated)".
 * This source is the most important for me and the one I keep citing, dated on September 16, 1931 on his marriage license, which gives his age as of his last birthday (which would have been September 3) as 30, clearly indicating a 1901 year of birth. So, @Moxy, I am with you on most of the sources you cite, except the user-generated one from geni.com. So obviously I did not remove them. I am going to check and will restore as needed. Findagrave in this is not inappropriate as it is not unsourced claims but a photo of Hal's gravestone which is being sourced. I don't see a problem under that circumstance. If there is another way to get an image of his gravestone, fine. Quis separabit?  21:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thats one of the sources you keep deleting when I added it. I dont understand what you are doing. As i have said before we have no need for all this speculation on Hal's age here. All the ages are in question not just Hal's.  Still find it odd that your ok with Hal's DOB from findagrave  but not for Daisy, The article is loosing its credibility,,,, fansite speculation has made it into our lead making the article look like an armature is making a guess based on  different unreliable primary  sources..... over following what the majority of bibliographers say (as sourced).  For example anyone can see that this source  says Birth Year (Estimated)	1902 ...not 1901 as you have personally calculated from the document .. ....you may be right but the source does not stat what your saying.  We have no need to list all the guesswork from non-legible primary sources that dont even have the right name .....because we have secondary sources that state the problem. -- Moxy (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not remove reflinks that I myself support. I don't know what "We have no need to list all the guesswork from non-legible primary sources that dont even have the right name .....because we have secondary sources that state the problem." even means. As far as "Still find it odd that your ok with Hal's DOB from findagrave but not for Daisy" --that would be because, as I have repeated numerous times, his findagrave page has a gravestone (commissioned by his family) with a year of birth (1903). There is no gravestone at Daisy LeSueur's findagrave page, or are you mixing it up with the user-generated geni.com link I referenced above? Do you even check?  However, I suggest we open a discussion for other editors to contribute and state their opinions.  Quis separabit?  00:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree we need others to look at the problem,,,,THAT is.... it ok to have a debate  in the lead with primary sources about a  relatives age in this article over citing secondary sources about the main person this page is about.  --Moxy (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

brothers age
Should the articles lead note contain the debate and conflicting primary sources of her brothers age or should the article only use sources about Joan herself. Does the article need to go into details about her brother DOB ..because  like Joan and the rest of her family the DOB's  are uncertain. -- Moxy (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments

 * Do not include - no need to have all the guess work of her brothers age here. All that needs to be mentioned is that the dates of all her siblings and parents are uncertain. Leave the Hal debate to the Hal page. -- Moxy (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * FINE: in that case do not include any birthdate/birthyear/age for Hal in Crawford's article, only include his date/year of death, which is undisputed. Again, for the rest, it's not guesswork, at least not on MY part. It's called LOGIC. Quis separabit?  15:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No DOB necessary - summoned by bot. I don't see why her brother's date of birth is important for this article. —Мандичка YO 😜 09:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Do not include - I agree with the above user. I don't the think the DOB of the brother is important for this article, especially because it is not even about him.  Solely mention that the births of the family members are uncertain.  Cheers,  Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 18:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: Because if Hal was born in September 1903, it makes Crawford's purported year of birth of 1904 almost biologically impossible. Otherwise let's remove all references, for consistency's sake, to Hal and Daisy's dates/years of birth and death, I have no problem with that. Quis separabit? 14:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Summoned here by bot. Not having looked into this, I'm confused why her brother's DOB would be relevant to her biography. Could the editor(s) who support inclusion of a discussion of the brother's DOB explain its relevance to her article? Lacking that context, I'd be inclined to agree with Wikimandia that it doesn't seem relevant in her biography. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, after further investigation, I see the question is only whether we should include this information in the lead note, and not in the lead itself. That makes a big difference. I also see the interrelationship between her brother's purported DOB and her purported DOB. I don't see any harm in keeping the article as-is as it appears to provide a comprehensive and unobtrusive overview of the best available sources on the matter, and it is clearly of relevance to the article subject as it regards her DOB. So, I support inclusion. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I support inclusion after some investigation as well. I dream of horses (T) @ 02:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes but its all guess work as we have sources that state 4 different dates. In no way is 1903 a firm date as with the rest of her family. Simply not the place for listing all the speculative dates we are not a fan site making guess as to what source is right. 1903 is not a date found in bios on the topic....just on fansites taking guess as to what sources is best. Moxy (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not include - This sort of speculation is unnecessary whether in a note or not. Aparslet (talk) 11:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not include - The discussion about her brother's DOB would be fine for a full-length biography, but it is way too detailed for an encyclopedia article, even as a note. Kaldari (talk) 06:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Moving forward
I guess its clear that the majority don't see a need for the info here. The few that do support the info only one makes an argument for the dates but does not address the speculation  concerns. This is now the 3 or 4th time we have had an RfC on this date stuff...think its clear the source have not changed ...just the same old speculative sources. But we should mention within the article of the date of death and omit date of birth/or say no dates a firm. Bit of a clean up....in the Lead Note we should mention that no siblings DOB is certain nor are her parents. -- Moxy (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Me again so lets redo the note ...--Moxy (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

"Crawford maintained that she was born in 1908 (the date on her tombstone). There are no official records before 1910 for any family member. The 1905 date is based on the 1910 U.S. Census, where she was listed as five years old in April of that year.  Most modern biographers cite 1904  as the most likely year with 1903 and 1906 also cited numerous times.      Joan Crawford's daughter Christina, in the 1978 biography Mommie Dearest, firmly states 1904 twice:"'Publicly her birth date was reported as March 23, 1908, but Grandmother told me that she was actually born in 1904.'""'My mother was born Lucille LeSueur in San Antonio, Texas, in 1904, although when she came to Hollywood she lied about her age and changed the year to 1908.'"

Sexuality
Marilyn Monroe stated that she had a sexual affair with Joan Crawford on one occasion and that Crawford "wanted to have another round," but she declined. This was detailed in the book "Goddess." Shouldn't there be a mention of this and other probable instances of bisexuality?109.103.81.34 (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)Vainomoinen


 * Only if the content can be verified and sourced reliably. See WP:REF and WP:VERIFY. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 16:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Allegations of sexual abuse by stepfather
The source provided for this claim is not reliable and the claim should not be included -- certainly not presented as fact. Even the non-reliable source itself makes clear that there is considerable ambiguity and doubt. For example: "'The New Yorker told her childhood story a bit differently and reported that Crawford's second stepfather — Harry Hough — allegedly had sexually assaulted her at age 13. (The writer said that Cassin had treated Crawford well and she went by the name Billie — his nickname for her — Cassin at this time.) With everyone involved no longer living, the truth may never come out, and Feud is a dramatization so it can't be held as fact either.'" Serious discussion needed. Quis separabit? 04:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I also have read the bustle account about the book even the author states its about the second step father"possibly" and that their book uses "Harry a common name for Henry ". The step father allegations should be removed. The account/article seems in regards to the TV program 'the feud' as well, a dramatization of events. Jennablurrs7575 (talk) 10:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Large edit impacting lead
The following edit is responsible for the current, non-grammatical lead sentence.


 * Joan Crawford: Difference between revisions — User:Jennablurrs7575 on 15 November 2018

Joan Crawford (...) was an American actress who began her career as a dancer in traveling theatrical companies before debuting as a chorus girl on Broadway, Crawford signed a motion picture contract with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer in 1925.

This edit is extremely wide ranging and warrants a thorough review. &mdash; MaxEnt 22:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Would you prefer a semi colon or just a new sentence with "Crawford"? Jennablurrs7575 (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for abruptness of comment, it reads as rude. I was just educated on signatures by fellow editor. (Jennablurrs7575 (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC))

Birth year
The books in the current footnote all have the year as 1904. This should not be changed based on original research or synthesis. Find reliable sources that explicitly state Crawford's birth date. --Neil N  talk to me 21:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should word it like some bios do .........this may help all the edit wars if we state a range. -- Moxy (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Good idea. You've got a good source - let's stay away from fansites. --Neil N  talk to me 21:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok added a note and made visible the dates ...no more guess work..lets just state the facts -- Moxy (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have asked the page to be locked up....see if we can get the 2 new single purpose editors to this talk page . -- Moxy (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Still a problem....added more info--Moxy (talk) 07:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Crawford's family data
Not only is Crawford's own year of birth disputed but the date of her father's birth is also disputed. Some sources, including one I just reverted, cite January 21, 1868; however others, and more importantly his gravestone, cite January 2, 1868, so best to leave that out. Also, if Crawford's mother's eldest child was born either in 1901 (as some sources claim Hal Lesueur was) or 1902 (which most sources think her daughter Daisy was), then November 29, 1884 would make her mighty, mighty young to be a mother and may be incorrect. The handwriting of the 1910 censustaker garbled the ages of Thomas and Anna and I can't even make them out, but clearly wrote "9" for Hal (indicating 1901, almost most sources cite 1903), and "5" for Lucille, which is where the 1905 year of birth originates. If Hal was born in September 1903 it is virtually impossible that Lucille was born in March 1904. Quis separabit? 17:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Dont look at fan sites for information. The census says Hal was born in 1902 not 1903. This mistake has been published widely..thus lead to the statements " impossible that Lucille was born in March 1904." They say Hal is 1902 and Joan is 1905. This is the only place 1905 is seen with the wrong address and name....how can we rely on this primary source at all? But I agree its a date that should be mentioned  (as it is).  Perhaps we should mention where the date comes form and the problem with it in the note on dates. -- Moxy (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding "if Crawford's mother's eldest child was born either in 1901 (as some sources claim Hal Lesueur was) or 1902 (which most sources think her daughter Daisy was), then November 29, 1884 would make her mighty, mighty young to be a mother," in that part of the country, at that time, becoming a mother at 16 or 17 was completely normal. Motherhood at 13 or 14 might have seemed "mighty, mighty young." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.8.226 (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The Way I Did It
I just wrote a mini-biography on Joan Crawford for a project I am doing about my twelve favorite actresses (per decade) from the 1930s to the 1950s. In Crawford's biography, I stated "She was born as Lucille Fay LeSueur in San Antonio, Texas around 1905 (or 1904 or 1906, maybe 1908, depending on the source), and worked as a..." Also, what about the spelling of her birth name. Was it Lucille or Lucile? I've seen it spelled both ways in her biographies, however, Lucille seems to be more consistent, so that's they one I've used.

¶ I realize comments on the qualities of her movies are not encouraged, but her last two (at least) - Berserk, and Trog - were stinkers in which she was the only name performer (perhaps taking the jobs simply to demonstrate she wasn't yet retired) and she valiantly attempted to raise the quality of badly conceived, badly written flicks. Sussmanbern (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not true. "Berserk" had Robert Hardy, Michael Gough, and Diana Dors - all well-known people, especially in the UK. "Trog" had Gough again, Thorley Waters and Bernie Kay - hardly unknown actors. While "Trog" has little to be defended, "Berserk" was a fair shocker that wouldn't be called a 'stinker.'  104.169.28.253 (talk) 06:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

According to IMDb she was born March 23 1906 Mzimmerle (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Joan Crawford Birth year
Bryan Johnson has over 20 years researching Joan Crawford and you will find in this link supporting 1906 and separate pages debunking 1904 and 1905 with all the documentation including census and birth records of Hal and much more that has already been cited for the Wikipedia article. --Peliasadventure87 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Junk source....fact is that there is no birth records at that time and the census does not say what this amateur say it says. See first section of this page and all the sources in the article.-- Moxy 🍁 21:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Did you read the source? There is information provided surrounding Stephens College. Joan's year of birth given was 1906 and there is no dispute about that but also there is a letter from August 1977 from the college to author Bob Thomas confirming 1906. Also Donald Spoto's 2008 book Possessed cites 1906 which includes a mention of Life Magazine circa 1937 when Joan was named Queen of the Movies in which the 1906 is given. The 1996 A&E documentary cites 1906 also. And how is Christina Crawford considered a viable source regarding 1904? --Peliasadventure87 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Your source is WP:SELFPUBLISH by an unknown person. In the article we say 1904 with a note ...because .... The 1910 census that is riddled with errors, including a misspelling of the family name, records her age as five years old in April of that year. Crawford herself widely claimed 1908 (the date on her tombstone), but most modern biographers cite 1904 as the most likely year.
 * -- Moxy 🍁 23:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

There are multiple books stated as sources for the 1904 birth year, many biography's other than a tell all memoir and a notation is provided for readers about discrepancy. Moxy has explained this, I have looked over Johnson's site, it reiterated Bob Thomas bio info of a 1906 date, nothing new in his research. Please stop edit warring over same points Moxy has explained. A consensus has been reached in the article. Thanks! Jennablurrs 7575 (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

You are all obsessed and narrow minded. You refuse to accept the truth by citing numerous "reliable" books that do nothing more than to reproduce and recycle false information without any research. Even if there was a birth certificate for Crawford still you would consider it unreliable and not in accordance with Wikipedia's rules! 79.166.145.134 (talk) 11:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

This posting was shared in an online Joan Crawford group, and I think I can offer some insight into this discussion. There are a lot of wrong facts stated above. Firstly, 1904 is NOT the birth year most commonly cited by Joan Crawford biographers. 1906 is the most commonly cited birth year in published biographies of Joan Crawford. Also, it is not true that most modern biographers cite 1904. Actually, 1906 has become the common consensus among modern biographers and scholars for the most likely birth year of Joan Crawford. I offer here FOUR Joan Crawford biographies which explicitly states that Crawford's date of birth was March 23, 1906.

"Conversations With Joan Crawford" by Roy Newquest. (1980) Page 23 cites March 23, 1906.

"Possessed: The Life of Joan Crawford" by Donald Spoto (2010) Page 6 cites March 23, 1906

"Just Joan: A Joan Crawford Appreciation" By Donna Marie Nowak (2015) Page 513 cites March 23, 1906

"Joan Crawford" by Bob Thomas (1978) Page 19 cites March 23, 1906. (I will be happy to upload a page of this if need be.) You also have the actual letter sent to biographer/researcher Bob Thomas from Stephens College confirming Joan Crawford's school records state 1906.

Additionally, I would like to call attention to the Concluding Chapter of Crawford website's page debunking Crawford's birth year. The website presents documents and official records which demonstrate why 1904 is not a possible birth year for Joan Crawford. You now have FOUR Joan Crawford biographies by Joan Crawford researchers which state 1906 as Crawford's year of birth, as opposed to only 2 cited here for 1904. You also have official records. This should be a non issue. I have just presented FULL PROOF that 1906 is the consensus of biographers for Joan Crawford's year of birth, not 1904. The Wiki article for Joan Crawford should be changed to reflect this.KetoBingo11 (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I am also adding an additional NINE published resources which states Joan Crawford's date of birth was March 23, 1906. (This is aside from the already notated four Crawford biographies above). You have a total of 13 published sources stating Joan Crawford's birth year was 1906. I could list more, but this should be more than sufficient.

"The New Biographical Dictionary of Film: Sixth Edition" By David Thomson - Page 226 states March 23, 1906

"The Sound of Silence: Conversations with 16 Film and Stage Personalities who Bridged the Gap Between Silents and Talkies" - Page 186 states March 23, 1906

"The Book of Poisonous Quotes" - Page 132 states March 23, 1906

"High Camp: A Gay Guide to Camp and Cult Films, Volume 2" - Page 2 states March 23, 1906

"Signatures of the Stars: An Insider's Guide to Celebrity Autographs" - Page 44 states March 23, 1906

"Colombo's Hollywood: wit and wisdom of the moviemakers" - Page 27 states March 23, 1906

"Popcorn in paradise: the wit and wisdom of Hollywood" - Page 27 states March 23, 1906

"The Good Housekeeping Woman's Almanac" - Page 336 states March 23, 1906

"Cult movie stars" - Page 119 states March 23, 1906 KetoBingo11 (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You will need to start an WP:RFC to make the change ...not sure how a book on humor or quotes or a camp guide or an almanac is better then sources  from Oxford University Press, University of Michigan or University Press of Kentucky. You can search any year from 1903 to 1909 and get many results...what we are looking for is modern  academic publications that explain the situation. Only a few refs you have provided have any info  about the conflict and the ones that do bases all this on HAl's birth date.  Again your free to ask others to chime in but till we get a consensus for a change we are stuck with or academic books. PS should also read over WP:MULTIPLE-- Moxy 🍁 21:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely, I will be happy to start an RFC. However, I think it is obvious you have a bias opinion regarding this topic, and therefore should remove yourself from further contributions and debates on this topic. You are now attempting to discredit the publication sources, and you cite no reason for doing so. The four biographies that are cited on Crawford are all by reputable publishers, and written by Joan Crawford researchers. Furthermore, I cannot find in any Wikipedia guidelines where it states "modern academic publications" are required for any changes to Wikipedia articles. Can you please cite the guideline you are using? Is appears to be merely your own opinion on the situation. KetoBingo11 (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, this is my only Wikipedia account. I created it today specifically for this reason when it was called to my attention that such egregious behavior is being conduced on this talk page regarding the birth date of Joan Crawford. KetoBingo11 (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Yup your free to ask for help WP:RS AGE....as for bias pls review WP:Single-purpose account.-- Moxy 🍁 23:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

There is a debate on the subject of the year of birth of Joan Crawford. The Wikipedia article has held March 23, 1904 as Crawford's date of birth for quite some time, however, that birth date has been proven to be impossible due to the date of birth of Crawford's sibling, Hal LeSueur, less than seven months prior to the 1904 birth date - - on September 3, 1903. There is an actual online birth record confirming this, as well as Hal's death certificate.

Should Joan Crawford's birth year remains as "1904"? As notated on this talk page, four Joan Crawford biographies (researched and written over the span of 37 years) cite Crawford's birth year as 1906.

"Joan Crawford" by Bob Thomas (1978) Page 19 cites March 23, 1906.

"Conversations With Joan Crawford" by Roy Newquest. (1980) Page 23 cites March 23, 1906.

"Possessed: The Life of Joan Crawford" by Donald Spoto (2010) Page 6 cites March 23, 1906

"Just Joan: A Joan Crawford Appreciation" By Donna Marie Nowak (2015) Page 513 cites March 23, 1906

Additionally, there are vital records which easily disprove the 1904 birth date with Crawford's family records. Namely the record of birth for Crawford's brother, Hal LeSueur.

1904 has been incorrectly stated in a couple of biographies, and is a birth year commonly used online mainly due to websites such as Wikipedia perpetuating it, even though it could not be more clear it is not Crawford's correct birth year.

Two Crawford biographies ("Joan Crawford: The Essential Biography" and "Joan Crawford: The Enduring Star") have been cited as resources to confirm a 1904 year of birth, and it has been cited that the publishers are university presses. (which really means nothing) Apparently, this is to hold these sources in a higher regard. However, if we are going to use the credibility game with the sources, please let me call to your attention to the following: In "The Essential Biography," on the same page where Crawford's year of birth is stated as "1904," the author also cites her brother's birth as: "Hal, had been born the previous year." Which would be 1903. Therefore the author's statement on Crawford's birth date of 1904 is totally contradictory. Secondly, in "The Enduring Star," the author does not state "1904" as the year of birth, but rather states: "On March 23, 1908, by her own reckoning (although the real date may have been 1905, or even 1904)" I call your attention to this not even being a source for 1904, since 1905 is also stated within the same statement, and within the same context.

The four above-cited biographies are very clear on the 1906 birth year, and there is no second-guessing within those biographies regarding the correct birth year of Crawford.

I have cited above the Bob Thomas biography, which was written by a man who was a Crawford historian and acclaimed journalist for 50 years. Thomas had written to Crawford's school, Stephens College, and obtained Crawford's year of birth stated on her school records, which was 1906. This letter even exists online of this.

For me, I would think too much evidence exists to disprove the 1904 year of birth, and as mentioned above, FOUR biographies written solely about Joan Crawford cite 1906 as her year of birth. I would think this debate would be a no-brainer. Please excuse any errors made by me in regard to typing this out. I am new to Wikipedia and learning - Thank you! KetoBingo11 (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I do have to say your website you keep quoting is nice but it's what we call WP:OR. But will let others chime in here.-- Moxy 🍁 01:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * BOB THOMAS p.19: "The best evidence points to the birthdate 1906, despite her claim for 50 yrs of 1908; the exact date may never be known as Texas law did not require..."As is currently noted within this article, and as stated previous by Moxy. Several sources you linked to are vanity publications and cannot be used as WP:RS and then some are WP:NPOV source material having bias as well, one didn't even contain a birthdate just gossipy story about Crawford. 1904 date is used per guidelines/citations/WP:RS's and barring an actual birth certificate being found, as there's no new evidence, this is what exists, and its not even my opinion, its the rules of WP:consensus.  Jennablurrs 7575  (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Let us clear some things about Wikipedia and its rules. Apparently we are cherry picking here. No original research is allowed but that didn't prevent this practice in establishing birth years for other individuals. One should look, for example, at the Paulette Goddard  Talk page and see how her true birth year was established. Obviously no academic publications were needed there! Moxy needs reliable academic publications for sources. Apparently like the ones that even today give Sylvia Miles maiden name as Lee,  when her obituaries in ALL major and serious newspapers give it as Scheinwald!! He/She even uses myheritage as a source for Hal Lesueur's birth year. Since when myheritage.com is a reliable source? Hal Lesueur was born beyond any doubt in September 1903 and we don't need publications for the self evident (birth certificate). Since his parents got married in November 1902 (marriage certificate) it is impossible for him to have been born in 1902 or 1901 as stated in the article about him. I believe that Joan Crawford's birth year in the article should have a note stating that..  "Joan Crawford was born in 1906 or 1905  and not in 1908 (as she claimed) or in 1904 (as quite a few books erroneously claim), in San Antonio, Texas.."79.166.145.134 (talk) 06:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In regard to Moxy and Jennablurrs7575 input above, can someone explain why the FOUR Joan Crawford biographies cited above aren't reliable sources? I can understand the Concluding Chapter of Crawford Website's information not being included (even though that website shows the actual recorded Bexar County, Texas vital record for Hal's birth in September 1903), but why are these four biographies not considered reliable? Two of which are written by reputable journalists and researchers; Bob Thomas and Roy Newquist. Another of the biographies is written/researched by Donald Spoto, who is an acclaimed biographer. Bob Thomas and Donald Spot are well-respected biographers - they even have their own Wikipedia articles citing their accomplishments in writing. Their Crawford biographies are published by Simon & Schuster and William Morrow, both of which are very reputable, long-standing publishing houses - - when did these publishers become "vanity" publishers as said above? Again, when it comes to a reliable, published Joan Crawford source, these four biographies are the only reliable sources cited within this entire talk page, and all four sources cite 1906 as Crawford's year of birth. KetoBingo11 (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Child abuse
Crawford was a child abuser.

Are you sure this statement can be allowed without a cite? At present, it carries references to people who believe it to be true, and others who don't. Is that tantamount to proof of a serious crime? Valetude (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * by our IP hoping Vandal fighter.-- Moxy 🍁 03:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Request to Comment: Joan Crawford's Year of Birth

 * What date of birth should the article use if any? At present Wikipedia is saying 1904 with a note (see for sources and note on 1904). However many many publications cite 1906 as listed below.  Question is what date has more credibility and does our note represent the proper weight according to conflicting publications.-- Moxy 🍁 00:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)



Discussion
There is a debate on the subject of the year of birth of Joan Crawford. The Wikipedia article has held March 23, 1904 as Crawford's date of birth for some time, however, that birth date has been proven to be impossible due to the date of birth of Crawford's sibling, Hal LeSueur, less than seven months prior to the 1904 birth date, on September 3, 1903. There is an actual online record of birth for Hal confirming this, as well as Hal's death certificate.

Should Joan Crawford's birth year remains as "1904"? As notated on this talk page, four Joan Crawford biographies (researched and written over the span of 37 years) cite Crawford's birth year as 1906.

"Joan Crawford" by Bob Thomas (1978) Page 19 cites March 23, 1906.

"Conversations With Joan Crawford" by Roy Newquest. (1980) Page 23 cites March 23, 1906.

"Possessed: The Life of Joan Crawford" by Donald Spoto (2010) Page 6 cites March 23, 1906

"Just Joan: A Joan Crawford Appreciation" By Donna Marie Nowak (2015) Page 513 cites March 23, 1906

Additionally, there are vital records which easily disprove the 1904 birth date, as well as Crawford's family records. Namely the record of birth for Crawford's brother, Hal LeSueur.

1904 has been incorrectly stated in a couple of biographies, and is a birth year commonly used online mainly due to websites such as Wikipedia perpetuating it, even though it could not be more clear it is not Crawford's correct birth year. There is no citation or evidence pointing to 1904. However, there are school records online, and notated in "Joan Crawford" by Bob Thomas which state Crawford's year of birth was 1906.

Two Crawford biographies ("Joan Crawford: The Essential Biography" and "Joan Crawford: The Enduring Star") have been cited within this discussion as resources for a 1904 year of birth, and it has been cited that the publishers are university presses. (which really means nothing) Apparently, this is to hold these sources in a higher regard. However, if we are going to use the credibility game with the sources, please let me call to your attention to the following: In "The Essential Biography," on the same book page where Crawford's year of birth is stated as "1904," the author also cites her brother's birth as: "Hal, had been born the previous year." Which would be 1903. Therefore the author's statement on Crawford's birth date of 1904 is totally contradictory. Secondly, in "The Enduring Star," the author does not state "1904" as the year of birth, but rather states: "On March 23, 1908, by her own reckoning (although the real date may have been 1905, or even 1904)" I call your attention to this not even being a source for 1904, since 1905 is also stated within the same statement, and within the same context.

The four above-cited biographies by me are very clear on the 1906 birth year, and there is no second-guessing within those biographies regarding the correct birth year of Crawford. The March 23, 1906 birth date is stated as a matter of fact by the Crawford biographers.

I have cited above the Bob Thomas biography, which was written by a man who was a Crawford historian and acclaimed journalist for 50 years. Thomas had written to Crawford's school, Stephens College, and obtained Crawford's year of birth stated on her school records, which was 1906. This letter even exists online of this.

For me, I would think too much evidence exists to disprove the 1904 year of birth, and as mentioned above, FOUR biographies written solely about Joan Crawford cite 1906 as her year of birth. I would think this debate would be a no-brainer. Please excuse any errors or repetitions made by me in regard to typing this out. I am new to Wikipedia and learning - Thank you! KetoBingo11 (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Non academic amateur at Theconcludingchapterofcrawford that we see here every few years. Think its best we list them all as we do  with a note as we do. And also best to use academic publications for the past decade. I would be ok with 190? and the note. As we have stated before  Hal birth date is all over the map and there is NO birth certificate for Hal as they simply did not have them then.  Your web page is great but its OR to us... odd the messed up census seems to say1902 for Hal not 1903 ...but the uncredited document as seen here is not a good source.-- Moxy 🍁 17:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a big improvement Moxy! From "junk source" written by "an amateur" suddenly the website became "great" and "nice". I would like to inform you that "Registration of births at the state level began in 1903 with the establishment of the State Department of Public Health and Vital Statistics "https://www.tsl.texas.gov/arc/vitalfaq.html So don't be so sure that there is NO birth certificate for Hal. As far as it concerns the website that gives Hal's birth year as 1902, let me inform you that this is a reckoning that these sites do using the age of the individual that is stated in it. The site does not take into account the exact birth month or the reference date of the document (census). If you don't know how to read these documents then don't call upon them. I still believe that you, and user Jennablurrs7575 are narrow minded and biased regarding the Lesueur family vital data.79.166.145.134 (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Still junk source..but site is nice ...should fix MOS:CONTRAST so all can see it though.-- Moxy 🍁 15:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The editor "Moxy" obviously does not want 1904 changed, or removed from the Joan Crawford Wikipedia article for some reason, which has not been explained, being that this same user has a history on this exact topic dating back to at least 2015 - as demonstrated at the top of this article's talk page. This is despite the fact that 1904 has been proven to be an incorrect, and impossible, year of birth for Joan Crawford.

Meanwhile, I think the precedent Moxy is attempting to set here regarding the source for determining Crawford's birth year is totally flawed and questionable. re Moxy's statement that "And also best to use academic publications for the past decade." - To clarify, there have been no "academic publications" regarding Joan Crawford's birth year within the last decade - or, actually, ever.

Moxy has cited "Joan Crawford: The Quintessential Biography" by Lawrence J. Quirk as a source for the 1904 birth year. Let me please call to your attention to the fact that this source also cites the birth year of Joan's brother, Hal LeSueur, as 1903 on the exact same page, and within the exact same sentence - therefore, Quirk actually, very obviously, contradicts himself in this regard, as explained below.

The other Crawford biography cited as a reference by Moxy, "The Enduring Star," does NOT state that Crawford was born in 1904, but rather states "On March 23, 1908, by her own reckoning (although the real date may have been 1905, or even 1904)". I maintain that this is most obviously NOT a validation of the 1904 birth year, being that the author is speculating a variety of years, without the benefit of choosing a birth year for Crawford.

Additionally, I would like to call attention to the fact that "Moxy" has stated some incorrect facts within this discussion, one of which I would like to clarify and correct as to prevent any further confusion.

Hal LeSueur DOES have a record of birth. It is filed in Bexar County, Texas, and is readily available online through any genealogy website you may choose. Or, it is also available for easy reference on The Concluding Chapter of Crawford website. This birth record was filed in Bexar County, Texas by the attending physician, and clearly states the names of the parents; Thomas LeSueur and Anna LeSueur. It provides the date of birth for the male child as September 3, 1903. This is, unquestionably, Hal LeSueur's record of birth. This document alone totally abolishes the March 23, 1904 birth year for Joan Crawford - which would have been less than seven months between the birth of material siblings. It's not physically possible. This is medical fact, not speculation or opinion. Furthermore, every official record regarding Hal LeSueur notates his birth as September 3, 1903. This is including but not limited to; Hal's Bexar County record of birth; Hal's 1963 death certificate and Hal's 1942 U.S. Army enlistment records. All of these documents and government records cite Hal's birth date as September 3, 1903. All of these records are readily available online through any genealogy website, or, for easier reference, can be found on the Concluding Chapter of Crawford website. Additionally, there is no published reference which has ever stated that Hal was born in any other year than 1903.

There is no document citing 1904 as Crawford's year of birth. The only document available cites Crawford's year of birth as 1906. This is in regard to Crawford's 1922 school records. It should also be noted that 1922 was three year prior to Crawford becoming an actress, and there has been no explained or argued reason as to why Crawford would have had any reason to falsify her age at that time.

Meanwhile, I have seen no argument or reason as to why the FOUR Joan Crawford biographies I cited above, which states Crawford's birth date as "March 23, 1906," are not valid, reliable sources. As stated and exhibited above, three of the biographies were written by well-known, respected journalists and biographers. Two of which have their own Wikipedia articles which cites their achievements in biography research and journalism. Additionally, these four biographies were published over the span of 37 years, and written by four separate Joan Crawford researchers.

In light of the overwhelming about of available, factual, evidence discrediting 1904 as Crawford's birth year, and the four biographies written by reputable, established and regarded historians/researchers/journalists, the best option, and compromise, is to change the birth year of Crawford's Wikipedia article to state her birth date as March 23, 1906, with a notation that other years of birth have been cited by other sources. As I have mentioned previously, this topic seems like a no-brainer. The evidence and documents speak for themselves. KetoBingo11 (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The article HAS THOSE NOTES. You want year changed, per a blog website, y'all have been rudely uweilding as attempts in listening to these requests have been made, I vote 190?. Split the difference. I've gone from no opinion and quoted bio of WP:RS Thomas to actually having one, so 190?, yep, conflict resolution is where both sides go away somewhat unhappy. Jennablurrs 7575 (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Pls review WP:BLOGS.-- Moxy 🍁 15:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I would like to add the website "The concluding chapter" is copyright protected along with all of its reasearch and am wondering about these continued requests that dont want compromise nor accept policy, won't look to any reason given, and is just a continued restatement in support of the change they want, regardless of any source or notation in article. Even creation of an account, while accusing other editors of being narrow minded, and no-brained with genealogy user sites and a Texas library site that has "no results found", and yes I know how to read the documents(if sites have them), lovely insults that they volley about there as well. Jennablurrs 7575  (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * what is your brief and neutral statement? At almost 5,000 bytes, the statement above (from the tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for  to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Requests for comment/Biographies. The RfC will also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have jumped in here to help with the RFC wording. A new editor shouldn't be left in the dust because procedures are complicated.-- Moxy 🍁 00:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Joan Crawford's birth year was 1906. I find that the information provided by Bryan Johnson is accurate and based entirely on his careful research of relevant documents. He states only proven facts, and omits any of his own opinions. His website theconcludingchapterofcrawford.com lists supporting documents to “debunk” many myths that float around about Joan. I am more than satisfied that the year 1904 should be removed as her birth year, due to the evidence provided on Mr Johnson's website.Tripletmomee2010 (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Meatpuppet.-- Moxy 🍁 04:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't see where anyone here has been "rude" or "insulting." I have stated that I feel this issue is a "no-brainer," however, that is not to refer to other editors here as "brainless." I, for one, am not attempting to insult or attack anyone within this discussion. If it has came across that way, please allow me to apologize because that is definitely not my intention. However, in light of your comment, I would like to call attention to the fact that many false facts have been stated within this talk page in support of the 1904 birth year. Namely the claim that Hal LeSueur has no record of birth (which he does). It can be easily located on the genealogy website FamilySearch.org. Here is the actual record of birth for Hal LeSueur. This birth record clearly states that he was born on September 3, 1903 to Tom and Anna LeSueur of San Antonio, Texas. Additionally, from the same genealogy website, is Hal's 1963 death certificate, which also lists his date of birth as September 3, 1903. For me, this is as crystal clear as it can get. These are TWO recorded official government documents verifying Hal LeSueur's birth date as September 3, 1903. There is no question this is Hal's legitimate date of birth. Therefore, it is medically impossible for Joan Crawford to have been born LESS than seven months later on March 23, 1904. Again, this isn't even a matter of opinion, it's total, unadulterated, fact. In light of this factual evidence, and the fact that Joan Crawford's birth date is given as March 23, 1906 in at least FOUR Crawford biographies, all of which were written by Crawford researchers over a near 40 year period of time, I strongly suggest Joan Crawford's date of birth be changed on Wikipedia to reflect March 23, 1906. There is no logical reason I can think of as to why this should not be done. I think a "190" birth year for the Crawford article would be silly, and rather confusing, when so many publications, and documentation, state the exact year of 1906. I do think a citation would be appropriate, perhaps to the effect of "Other years of birth for Crawford have been cited in various sources." KetoBingo11 (talk) 03:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Firstly, i am not a Meatpuppet. Secondly, dear Jennablurrs7575,  the Texas Library site link and the quotation taken from this site,  were given as an answer to user Moxy and his claim that in 1903 Texas did not register births. You weren't supposed to find any records there! I am taking back my accusations of you being narrow minded; I should have said formalist. I am sorry,  but i don't have any other explanation for this approach to Joan Crawford's birth date issue. And please don't use again the argument of Wikipedia policy. I have read dozens of articles in Wikipedia in which birth dates were established using primary sources and OR. If you really want to compromise, then Crawford's birth year should be reverted to 1906, with a note describing the case regarding  other possible birth years. 79.166.145.134 (talk) 06:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

All WP:RS is noted and the biography written by Thomas and by Quirk, the article by Time magazine all go back to source material located at http://archives.nypl.org/the/21628, dated 1908 along with her crypt plaque. They used this material, the authors thanked the attribution, the non RS/copyrighted website referenced here that can't be used, used these books as did many other "debunking" sites, this one is not unique. So why not 1908 then? Match up her grave, the source material and her words? As no one ever registered her birth as she had no certificate. Because OR is against policy. 190?, update notation if needed, don't include website(legal reasons) that re uses Thomas info. Crawford has no single established birthdate, this issue will always be an educated guess. I did not allege that any editor was a puppet, an IP user admittedly generated to a user name account to edit Crawford, creating an account. Jennablurrs 7575 (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I followed the link you gave, and I quote from the text I found there: "By age 19 she was in the chorus line of the Broadway show Innocent Eyes, where MGM executive Harry Rapf discovered her,..". Let me remind you that 'Innocent Eyes' run from May to Aug 1924. That means that, according to this reliable source, Crawford was born in 1905!! Any comments on this?79.166.145.134 (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually, the website you're citing reads "By age 19 she was in the chorus line of the Broadway show Innocent Eyes, where MGM executive Harry Rapf discovered her, and signed her to her first movie contract." So, it's a bit vague on this because it also says "Joan Crawford was born Lucille LeSueur on March 23, 1908." So the author of that source is all over the place with their mathematics, with no explanation as for why. I hope others will agree that at this point, as to stop the "going in circles" dialogue, we should attempt to find a resolution via the process of elimination of impossible or un-cited birth years for Crawford. 1904 and 1905 have no real origins, and have never been cited on any known official documents relating to Joan Crawford -- with the exception of 1905, which is supported by Joan's age of "5" on the 1910 US Census. However, I think is fair to say that Census is an un-creditable source, since that Census also lists Hal as "8" when it's now established that he was in fact 6 at the time. It also lists Joan's mother as "28" years old, which would give her an 1881 date of birth, which is opposing the 1884 date of birth on her death certificate. As for 1904, I think Hal's proven date of birth of September 3, 1903, via an official Bexar County, Texas record of birth, should be more than sufficient to remove 1904 from the equation as an impossibility, and 1905 as un-credible since the 1910 Census is obviously flawed due to the clear establishment of Hal's birth date. There are only TWO birth years for Crawford on official documents; 1) 1906 on Crawford's 1922 Stephen College school records; 2) 1908 on Crawford's 1977 death certificate. I think it's fair to conclude that an academic school and a government agency would require some type of valid documentation for a date of birth. KetoBingo11 (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

In fear of muddying the water futher, I will say that honestly you make a valid point regarding 1908. 1908 is what is on Joan Crawford's death certificate (her death certificate is shown halfway down on that page), and 1908 is what is cited as Crawford's year of birth by the U.S. Social Security Administration. 1908 is Crawford's official birth year by the United Sates government. If it's good enough for the government, it is probably good enough for Wikipedia. Perhaps 1908 would be a best year of birth for Joan on the Wikipedia article, with a citation that 1906 is also a possible year of birth? Though, I do think 1904 should be completely removed from the equation. In light of Hal's 1903 record of birth, is it fair to now conclude that we have, at least, reached the consensus that 1904 is an impossible year of birth for Crawford? KetoBingo11 (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * pls review WP:SYNTHESIS ...Definitely no consensus to remove 1904....all we can do is regurgitate what sources say and cant engage in OR as has been done above and the armature site. As mentioned a few times we could use 190? and add the one source listed above that  is credible and trim 1904 publications to the three academic ones.-- Moxy 🍁 22:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps we can allow some other people here to weight in on the credibility of 1904 before we say there isn't a consensus? After reading over this talk page's history on this topic, and the talk page for the Wikipedia article for Hal Lesueur, I understand you, personally, have a near five year long commitment to upholding the 1904 birth year for Crawford, and the 1901 (or 1902) birth year for her brother, Hal LeSueur. However, the introduction of Hal's official 1903 record of birth from Bexar County, Texas (which was never used here prior as a reference) unarguably abolishes 1904 as a potential birth year for Crawford, and solidly establishes September 3, 1903 as Hal LeSueur's date of birth. There's no question about. Additionally, there is also the matter of FOUR Joan Crawford biographies which state 1906 as Crawford's year of birth. The biographies were written over the span of a 37 year time frame. All were written by respected researchers, three of which are respected journalists. Yet, I have not seen the two parties here opposing 1906 exhibit any reason why these references are not reliable. Actually, these four biographies seem to be receiving a "thumb over the sun" type of treatment. Also - just to clarify, the "three academic" biographies you continue to cite are not even "academic" publications. These were biographies simply published through a college press, they are not cited as being written on any academic level, nor are they cited as being taught in an academic setting. The mere publication of a book through a university press does not automatically make it an "academic publication." University presses are publishers, and at the most basic level, that only means they perform the same tasks as any other publisher. Furthermore, as stated here repeatedly, the three "academic" biographies you continue to cite are not even credible references. (1) "The Essential Biography" contradicts itself in the same sentence - stating Joan was born in 1904, and that Hal was born in 1903 (which is impossible given their day of births). (2) "The Enduring Biography" doesn't state "1904," but rather reads: "On March 23, 1908, by her own reckoning (although the real date may have been 1905, or even 1904)" -- curious how are you getting "1904" from this reference when 1905 and 1908 is also stated? (3) The third "academic biography" you have cited isn't even a Joan Crawford biography, but rather a film guide type book, which has a short bio of Crawford, along with many other actors and actresses. How are these three biographies superior in reliability than the noted four Joan Crawford biographies which state, without hesitation, 1906 as Crawford's year of birth? I am also curious what standard you are using in regard to "OR" because after viewing the talk page for the Hal LeSueur article, and the history regarding this topic on this talk page, there appears to be an enormous amount of "OR" on your part in an attempt to claim Hal LeSueur was born in a year other than 1903. KetoBingo11 (talk) 02:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * pls review WP:Primary and WP:OR-- Moxy 🍁
 * I suggest you review Primary Sources. I'm in contact with seasoned Wikipedia admins, to find a solution regarding this issue. KetoBingo11 (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest you review Primary Sources. I'm in contact with seasoned Wikipedia admins, to find a solution regarding this issue. KetoBingo11 (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * None so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that will not see. I believe that these words describe perfectly Moxy's attitude. You are losing your time trying to make him understand the obvious (1904 as birth year is impossible) . Wikipedia rules, about OR,  apply for the others not him/her! 79.166.145.134 (talk) 06:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that is true. Moxy clearly has an agenda for wanting Crawford's age to remain the same, despite the overwhelming amount of allowed material exhibited here. I'm not an expert at Wikipedia, but I'm learning, and investigating into other means for this issue to be settled. The discussion here on this topic is only going in circles. KetoBingo11 (talk) 05:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * pls review what i have written in the section...never mind will implement the suggestion as 2 of us with knowledge of how things work have suggested it vs 1 and his friends for 1906. PS read over  Avoid personal remarks - Moxy 🍁 07:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * First, I don't see where a consensus was actually reached on this topic as of yet. However, to make Crawford's date of birth as "uncertain" will do until this can be better resolved. I resent this discussion being described as "2 vs 1 and his friends." Clearly this is an issue that is destined for a higher protocol. I have began discussing with a few seasoned Wikipedia editors regarding this issue, and the best route to continue this topic, being there is an obvious element of "bullying" on this discussion - and has been for many years. KetoBingo11 (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Balance (190?)
Original version note ! 1904 - (Wikipedia picks a date that is debatable and emphasize it)

Neutral version note? - 190? - (let the sources talk -  Wikipedia does not pick a side in the debate):

Not going to get far with using a hard number I see or eliminating a number based on original research above....so compromise edit...190?....See  for a listing of WP:BESTSOURCES used for various dates as per WP:BALANCED.- with no WP:SYNTHESIS of  WP:PRIMARY. sources. Moxy 🍁 05:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * OK then we compromise; the birth year, in the article,  changes into 1906 with a note stating other claimed birth years (1908,1905,1904) according to various sources.79.166.145.134 (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thinking that still leaves us with WP:WEIGHT problems related to picking a number and a definitive age of death in the infobox. Let the reader make their own conclusion based on the various sources that can all be seen in the note.- Moxy 🍁 07:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I would like to point out that "original research" was not used as a means to eliminate 1904 from the equation, but rather published information from four Joan Crawford biographies, which the two opposing editors in this discussion refused to acknowledge - - Particularly Moxy, who has a near 5 year long history of attempting to keep the Wikipedia birth year for Crawford as 1904. (Please see prior birth year discussions here dating back to 2015). Additionally, there is a record of birth for Crawford's brother, Hal LeSueur, who was born on September 3, 1903, thus making Crawford's birth on March 23, 1904 medically impossible. This record, which was presented here on this talk page from a genealogy website, was ignored by user Moxy, however, Moxy has a history of using online genealogy records pertaining to Crawford's brother, Hal LeSueur, as to keep Hal's date of birth in a state of uncertainty on Hal's Wikipedia article. This is in spite of the fact that no published source has ever listed Hal LeSueur's birth year as anything other than "1903." KetoBingo11 (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Its clear to anyone reading the page and sources its not so clear cut. So I see above you now agree no firm dates ok for now until others involved ...great to see you move a bit on your POV. On a side note pls review  WP:USERGENERATED about genealogy websites...also best read the sources in the article already  like this one before claiming no sources say 1902. I understand you think you got it right but what we do here is regurgitate sources...not make our own conclusions.  -- Moxy 🍁 02:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What you should do here is not regurgitate sources. You should regurgitate RELIABLE sources. David Bret's book does not belong into this category. A book that, among other facts, claims that, the Cassins moved to Kansas city in 1913(!), Henry J Cassin died in 1918(!) and, worst of all - although he gives Crawford's birth year as 1904-  writes that  "Billie graduated from the Rockingham Academy in March 1923 -  the month she turned eighteen"(!!). This is hardly a reliable source for Hal Lesueur's birth year. And something else; what we have here is not "2 vs 1 and his friends" but "Reasoning vs Moxy". 79.166.145.134 (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I would have no problem removing that sources if others think is no good....but Hal B-day does not help us here with all the other sources about Joan. Not sure why presenting all the dates is such a problem for you guys. By the logic above of Hal B-day 1905 sounds good...why 1906 based on Hal?...all guess work.

-- Moxy 🍁 16:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Consensus was reached of 190?, the note edited down. Bret has written several biographies, if you disagree with his research contact him, sorry if some feel unsatisfied, but this is really forcing a point, wanting 1906. Hal's b-day as "unknown male" in a registration, also has been debated in many biographies and articles too. Hardly a fixed point of comparison. Here's a published source that gives Hal's b-day as possibly 1904 https://books.google.com/books so, lets stick with consensus, the note looks better, is there anything missing?(the acknowledged and expressed need of 1906 notwithstanding)    Jennablurrs 7575  (talk) 05:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC) sorry, try this link:

https://books.google.com/books?id=A0kCYqNFw9sC&pg=PT30&lpg=PT30&dq=hal+lesueur+born+1904&source=bl&ots=PBWQJe5nLO&sig=ACfU3U00hEg66bGEriI9HgHd-anW4VEkvw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwieoczDmKDmAhXYITQIHaECDHsQ6AEwEnoECA0QAQ#v=onepage&q=hal%20lesueur%20born%201904&f=

Even her brother's DOB is unknown. The 1910 Census lists her as 5 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.110.241.33 (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Original version note '''! '''1904

Neutral version note? 190?

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020
Edit the birthdate to 1904.this was confirmed by her daughter, Christina,in Mommie Dearest. 87.119.102.198 (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Already mentioned in the footnote. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Joan Crawford's alleged sexual relationship with her stepfather
There is an issue in this Wiki article on Joan Crawford. An article from Bustle is cited as the source for an alleged sexual relationship between Joan Crawford and her stepfather. However, it is flawed. The Bustle article is written to coincide with what was depicted in the fictional series "Feud: Bette & Joan" in 2017. The information in the Bustle article (and given here on Wikipedia) is the claim that Joan had an ongoing relationship with her stepfather. This information is totally unsourced and without merit. This information is not found in any Crawford biography, and the biography cited in the Bustle article actually gives the stepfather's name as "HARRY" - not "Henry" as in "Henry Cassin," who was Joan's stepfather. The biography is referring to Harry Hough, who was a suitor to Joan's mother AFTER she had divorced Cassin. Joan mentions in her own biography "A Portrait of Joan" (1962) that Harry Hough tried to be inappropriate with her but that she turned down his advances. This was in Kansas City when Joan was 14, not 11. I have read the biography cited along with all other Crawford biographies, and this information is completely inaccurate. The author of the Bustle article seems confused, and is using what was depicted in a fictional series as "fact" when it hasn't even been alleged in a biography - - - much less proven. MonicaAng (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)