Talk:Joan Crawford/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Ancestry

Joan's ancestry is incorrect and every time I try to correct it it is reverted back. For the longest time her Wikipedia said she was French-Huguenot and now it says French-Canadian, which is not true, she has no French-Canadian ancestors. Her fifth great-grandfather, David LeSueur Sr., was an immigrant from Cantaleur, Pas de Calais, France. He married Catherine Felle, born in England of French descent, with roots in Saint-Laurent-en-Caux. Their son, David LeSueur II (Joan's fourth great-grandfather) was born in Virginia in 1703. His son, Chastain, was born in Virginia, so was Chastain's son James, as was his son Samuel. Samuel's son James Howell was born in Tennessee, as was Joan's father. The women that Chastain, James, and James Howell married were not of French-Canadian descent either, but of English ancestry. Joan's earliest French ancestors are Pierre LeSueur and Esther Durant, who lived and died in Calais, Pas-de-Calais, Hauts-de-France, France.

Joan's mom, on the other hand, has often been referred to as Scandinavian or Swedish. However, she was predominantly English with apparent Irish, Scottish, and Dutch ancestry. Anna's great-grandfather (Joan's great-great-grandfather) was Samuel van Meter Rhoads. His mother was Alcinda McIntyre van Meter, whos great-grandfather was Joost Jansen van Meter, who was born in Meteren, Netherlands in 1652 and immigrated to New Jersey. Alcinda's great-grandmother was Margaret Mollenaur, whos parents were immigrants from Gelderland, Netherlands. Joan's earliest Dutch ancestor is Gijsbert van Meteren, who was born in 1515. On Anna's English ancestry, her sixth great-grandfather John Stevens Sr. was born in England in 1682, and he married Anna Campbell, who was Scottish. There are no Scandinavian ancestors in Joan's mother's ancestry, and if there is, then it had to be before the 1500s-1600s. I know Joan said that her mom was Swedish, but she also said she was born in 1908, which

obviously isn't true. I think that her mom probably confused her Dutch ancestry with being Scandinavian/Swedish or it became an "urban family legend" via someone else (which is 100% understandable; my mom's grandmother always said we were Russian and Czech, turns out we are 100% Czech).

Please help!! Let's come to an agreement or compromise on this. Velvet (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Please ignore my typo mistake once it gets to "...which obviously isn't true", not sure why wikipedia did me like that lol Velvet (talk) 00:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I provided citations for the information from two biographies, both give French-Canadian ancestry for LeSueur, on page one of Bret and page 20 of Thomas. I am aware of the lineage you've described, as I took the time to read the blogs, and original research you provided, which I also pointed out was problematic in my edit logs. I'm unsure what you are asking for that goes beyond editing policy to include.Jennablurrs7575 (talk) 01:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

The research I provided was not enough on my part IMO, and not how I found out about her ancestral lineage in the first place - it was via another website (not any of the ones I provided - I only didn't add this website in question because I don't know if it's seen as a "reliable source" or not, even though it's 100% accurate) that had a family tree provided by her living LeSueur relatives. She has no French-Canadian or Swedish ancestors, as I already stated above.

David Bret - not trying to badmouth any one but - he isn't the most reliable source. In that book he also positively states Joan was born in 1904 He claims her father is French-Canadian, but he was born in Tennessee, not Canada. This is the first I'm hearing that he was apparently a migrant from Canada, even tho the general consensus for years has been that he was French-Huguenot. I can't find much sources to back my claims up other than the tree that her own family created unfortunately, b/c I guess people aren't into genealogy as much as I am. I just wish her ethnicity would be corrected. Velvet (talk) 06:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

References

If you want to view what website I'm rambling on about: https://www.geni.com/people/Joan-Crawford/6000000006886038227

I know Geni isn't seen as accurate but her family researched all of this themselves. If I can find a better source to back this up I will but it seems no one has taken the time to research Joan's ancestry Velvet (talk) 06:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

It says on her wikipedia that her father was born in Tennessee as well so I'm not sure how he could also be born in Canada at the same time Velvet (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

To assume others do not care, misses the point entirely. The responsible tracing of genealogy is difficult to do, much less agree upon when obfuscated by certain factors in her case, then limited by editing policy here, which really leaves one to do the utmost best. Two authors that disagree on Crawford's birthdate agree on her ancestry, though Bret is on the 1904 side, and Thomas is on the 1906, both state the same French-Canadian. Another biographer, Spato [1] gives her father's birth place as Canada. LeSueur's family buried him under a marker with an 1868 birthdate, yet whomever attempted to use Find a Grave for the current 1867 change, disregarded the families sufficient knowledge of the genealogy of just one person. There are many editors here that care and work hard doing the exact thing as you do, including family lineage. Why not trust when someone says they have read or have knowledge of research, and do care, but are restricted by accuracy of information or reliability of source? I did look up your research prior to editing, in general, if someone troubles to include a citation I read it, and if they don't, I'll research and cite/update if I find something before removing inaccuracies along with an edit log explaining why.Jennablurrs7575 (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

LeSuer is a Sephardic Name

The article fails to mention Crawford's paternal Jewish ancestry. LuSuer is a French Sephardic Jewish name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:C300:3950:EC35:DC82:24D3:CAC0 (talk) 05:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Betty Hutton witnessing "abuse"

On this article, there is a mention that actress Betty Hutton saw "abuse" however, there is no citation for this information, and after searching online I can find no source for this information anywhere online. I think Hutton's name should be removed from this list due to lack of verifiability. MonicaAng (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@MonicaAng: As you do not need help from an admin for this, I have changed your request to a normal help request. --Belwine (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done I considered merely adding a {{fact}} tag by Hutton's name since both she and Joan Crawford are deceased. However, because the victim of the alleged abuse is still living, I consider this request to be a good-faith challenge to contentious WP:BLP information and deleted it as requested. I would not object to re-adding Hutton's name if it is accompanied by a reliable source. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC) edited 21:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2021

Joan Crawford was born in the year 1904 2001:8003:38B9:7900:2DB9:2372:1FB5:E4E4 (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: see the note on the year – this is not clear cut. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2021

Joan Crawford was born in March 23,1904 74.193.177.206 (talk) 05:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: see above Cannolis (talk) 07:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2021

In the opening summary, the film titles in parentheses, primarily for the first set, should, for clarity, be separated by a semi-colon so there is no ambiguity. It looks as if Dance, Fools, Dance could be one title or three. For consistency, the film titles in the second set of parentheses, might also be separated by a semi-colon, as follows:

(Dance, Fools, Dance; This Modern Age; Letty Lynton; No More Ladies; I Live My Life; Susan and God) or hard-working young women who found romance and success (Our Dancing Daughters; Paid; Laughing Sinners; Grand Hotel; Dancing Lady; Sadie McKee; The Last of Mrs. Cheyney; The Shining Hour; The Bride Wore Red; Mannequin). Manticore32 (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2021

I think "film and television actress" should be changed to just "actress". This is the only article I've seen where "film and television" preface the word actor or actress. It also is just simpler. Nerdy1930 (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Done. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Bolded question mark

Is there a particular reason the question mark representing her unknown birth year is bolded in the lead? Rublov (talk) 02:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey Moxy, you stuck that in. Any particular reason? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 04:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Anna Bell Johnson (age, marriages)

Joan Crawford's mother was NOT born in 1884 and she got married three times. Her first daughter, Daisy, was with her first husband and her surname was not Lesueur but McConnell. Although this information is the result of original research, still it can not be ignored. 78.87.91.47 (talk) 04:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Statements of fact in Wikipedia articles have to be sourced from published reliable sources with a neutral point of view and editorial oversight so, unless information is published in reliable sources that have some form of editorial oversight, like, say...The Times of London, or The Hollywood Reporter, or Variety, or CBS's 60 Minutes, or a book published by Harper Collins/Random House/Oxford University/etc, or any magazine/newspaper/TV news show/online news source that has a reputation for accuracy?....then, yes, "original research" can, will, and should be ignored. Shearonink (talk) 07:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Right! As if 6.317.000 Wikipedia articles follow this rule and only the article about Joan Crawford would have been the exception! 78.87.91.47 (talk) 12:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

This talkpage is only concerned with improving the Joan Crawford article. Wikipedia is the online encyclopedia that anyone - even people who peddle false narratives and people who make all sorts of stuff up - *anyone* can edit, so yes in and of itself Wikipedia itself is not reliable. If you have a published reliable source for these asserted facts then go ahead and add them to the article along with the source. If these asserted facts are 1)information someone verbally told you in some conversation and is unpublished or is 2)information from a personal letter or a diary and is unpublished, then Wikipedia cannot use it. Do mistakes make it into Wikipedia articles? Yes. Should they be in Wikipedia articles? No. That is why sources/references are included so readers can go to the source and check out the source. Wikipedia is a road map to verifiable facts, is is not The Truth itself. Shearonink (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Anna Bell Johnson was born in Nov 1881 and NOT 1884 (that year appeared after she moved to Hollywood with her daughter). She was born in Arkansas and NOT in Texas. She got married 3 times. To C Edgar McConnell in January 1898, to Thomas Lesueur in November 1902 and to Henry Cassin in July 1909. Hal Lesueur was her second child, first with Thomas Lesueur and he was born, undoubtedly, in Sep 1903 and NOT in 1901, as (erroneously) stated in some documents and sources. Therefore, it is obvious that Joan Crawford can NOT have been born in 1904. The fact that this year appears in many "acclaimed" biographies or reference books and Christina Crawford "was told so by her grandmother" does not mean that it is accurate. A lie that it is repeated by a hundred (misinformed) people does not cease to be a lie. What we have here is subjective sources against common sense.78.87.212.170 (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure you have a reliable source to support your assertions. Otherwise, it's not at all helpful, as we do have reliable sources that contradict your assertions. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Really? I would like to know what reliable sources you have that contradict, let's say, Anna Johnson's marriages. 78.87.212.170 (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Baldly stating "something is so" without any supporting reliably-sourced documentation is, as Jpgordon states above, not helpful. This claim seems to be so important to you that you are returning to it again, even after being informed of the pertinent Wikipedia policies...well, the solution is easy...register an account, edit Wikipedia the required number of times, get "old" enough and add the information to the article yourself and see how that all goes... Cheers. Shearonink (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice but obviously it is not that important so to register an account. I just wrote these facts for whomever is interested in the truth. Cheers, 78.87.212.170 (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Important enough for you to post about it a month ago and to revisit the issue but ok. On Wikipedia claims of something being a fact is immaterial without verifiable proof, otherwise Wikipedia just becomes a type of supermarket tabloid, another purveyor of yellow or tabloid journalism. Verifiable proof that readers can check out for themselves means everything to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a webhost, so if someone wants to publish their own written content with unsourced claims and asserted statements that have no references they are always free to get their own website together and do so. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

That's right. truth doesn't win here, verifiability does. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Shearonink (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no credible evidence that Joan Crawford was ever sexually abused in her childhood

The only source for this claim is the book "Joan Crawford: The Essential Biography" by Lawrence J. Quirk, William Schoell.

The book was published in 2003 and is the first and only source for the claim that Joan was abused. Joan Crawford has never talked about being abused nor did anyone who has known her personally.

It is extremely doubtful that Joan has told about her abuse to Quirk, a man who's interest in her life was to get monetary gain.

Schoell has given a statement about it here "https://www.bustle.com/p/joan-crawfords-story-about-having-sex-with-her-stepfather-on-feud-raises-serious-concerns-44813", but his claims aren't trustworthy either.

If it was true, it is not likely that these two would have waited until 2003 to publish this secret and make profit on it.

2001:14BB:A3:E08A:D11F:FCF3:1421:E51D (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. There is no prior source before Quirk's 2002 biography that Crawford was sexually abused by her stepfather. In addition to this claim, Quirk also made other outrageous claims in his biography that Crawford's brother, Hal Le Sueur, engaged in sexual activities with men. I have tried to find any source for that claim by Quirk, but have failed to find any sustaining source for any these claims. It seems Quirk's objective was to sensationalize his biography with untruths regarding the sexual activity of Crawford and her family. Likewise, it seems that Quirk's co-author, William Schoell, has made false statements about this exact allegation which makes it even more suspect. Schoell claims in that article that Crawford told of this sexual relationship between she and her stepfather in many articles, but I have yet to find one single article of Crawford ever stating this. I move for that claim to either (1) be removed entirely from the article; or (2) the claim be properly sourced to state that this accusation comes from one source only, and that there has never been any substantiating source for this allegation. MonicaAng (talk) 05:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Gay fans

@MonicaAng:

1. Open the link in the reference: https://archive.org/details/joancrawford00lawr/page/235
2. Observe the following:

...During dinner at Joan's apartment in 1973, Joan again asked Quirk if he could explain why some members of the gay community identified with her.

Quirk pointed out that her gay fans identified with her on- and offscreen struggles for career success, love and happiness, and with her romantic and sexual encounters with a variety of men.

Rublov (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The quote was not properly-worded. However, I do not think this is properly sourced. Quirk is not an authority on the gay community. He is not a professor or scholar of such. His singular opinion on this topic is not appropriate within this article. I move for it to be removed due to its lack of actual relevance to the article. MonicaAng (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2021

Pleaser correct her date of birth from "190?" to "23 March 1904" Auricgoldfinger123456 (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The ambiguity in birth year is covered in the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Nonsensical year of birth range

If she was married in 1929, she couldn't have been born in 1908. It would have made her 11! The 1910 census here records her age as 5 and states her DOB as 23/5/1905. I think the only dispute to be had is between 1905, and the 1904 year her daughter claimed. Surely we can trim it to say 1904–1905, rather than 1904–1908? --Jkaharper (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

1908 + 11 = 1919. You may want to review your math. Meanwhile, Crawford's brother, Hal LeSueur, was born in September 1903 (his birth record is online), so it would be physically impossible for Joan to have been born less than seven months later in March 1904. Also, Crawford's school records (which are also online) cite 1906 as her birth year. MonicaAng (talk) 06:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Obviously Crawford was born either in 1905 or in 1906. As simple as that. All the rest is extraneous. 89.210.173.194 (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Birth record located

Hi guys,

So I’ve been researching Joan’s DOB on multiple genealogy websites and it’s been located. The correct date is January 21, 1906 in San Antonio, Texas. The record will be linked below. My question is, is it appropriate to add this date into the article? Thanks

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VXMT-957 Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

That link goes to the birth record of a "male" child. MonicaAng (talk) 08:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The 1905 and 1906 dates is from the 1910 Comanche County census (dated April 20, 1910), which lists someone namef Joan as 5 years old. The problem with this, though, is that it lists her brother Hal as being 8, when it is believed he was actually only 6 or 7 as of that date. The census is riddled with inaccuracies all over and it's why it has not been seen as definitive.Moxy- 02:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Yep. A census isn't a birth record in any useful sense of the word. I've seen consecutive census entries for the same person with differing info; it's just a matter of what human was recording or re-recording the data. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 04:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

1963 Oscars offer to accept

Is it known with certainty that Joan contacted Katharine Hepburn, Lee Remick and Anne Bancroft offering to accept on their behalf? Geraldine Page yes definitely because she's quoted in the book Feud. Can we assume with Bancroft because Crawford accepted her Oscar with 'Here's my little speech dear Joan'? But what of the other two nominees? Should just be assumed and is that right? 2607:FEA8:5CA1:8F40:E8E0:8BF:10FA:3BC4 (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. There is no known source claiming that Joan contacted Hepburn or Remick. MonicaAng (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2022

"please change X to Y".

X: Crawford contacted each of the other Oscar nominees in the category (Katharine Hepburn, Lee Remick, Geraldine Page, and Anne Bancroft, all East Coast-based actresses)

Y: Crawford contacted at least two of the other Oscar nominees in the category (Geraldine Page and Anne Bancroft, all East Coast-based actresses)

[Geraldine Page confirmed this in the book Feud and Crawford accepted the Oscar for Bancroft with, 'Here's my little speech dear Joan'] 2607:FEA8:5CA1:8F40:10DC:9EAD:57EE:DFDD (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Hepburn lived in Pennsylvania - Pennsylvania is an east coast state. Crawford accepting the award on Bancroft's behalf does not mean that she actually contacted Bancroft. It is always possible that Bancroft contacted Crawford, or that the Academy itself asked Joan to accept on behalf of Bancroft since she was already a presenter at the ceremony. There has never been any evidence to prove this was not the actual circumstances. Most of the "facts" about this situation comes from the opinion and conjecture of laymen observers. MonicaAng (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It does not appear that there is consensus to include this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

If she is the 2nd of two children

why does she have a brother and a sister? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.180.103.25 (talk) 04:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Abuse by Stepfather Cassin

Issue: Cassin allegedly began sexually abusing her when she was 11, and continued until she was sent to St. Agnes Academy, a Catholic girls' school.

Fix: Lawrence Quirks book is not a credible source. Joan Crawford never stated anywhere that she was sexually abused by Cassin. Joan did however state in her 1962 autobiography that one of her mother's gentlemen friends named Harry Hough was inappropriate with her. Quirk is mistaken. 2607:FEA8:5CA1:8F40:485C:FD70:B672:5A34 (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2022

Issue with this statement: Cassin allegedly began sexually abusing her when she was 11, and continued until she was sent to St. Agnes Academy, a Catholic girls' school.

Fix: Lawrence Quirks book is not a credible source. Joan Crawford never stated anywhere that she was sexually abused by Cassin. Joan did however state in her 1962 autobiography that one of her mother's gentlemen friends named Harry Hough was inappropriate with her. Quirk is mistaken. 2607:FEA8:5CA1:8F40:485C:FD70:B672:5A34 (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2022

Personal Life section missing. Various excerpts from Personal Life are scattered throughout article. Personal Life section needs to be rebuilt and article edited to clear stray sentences and paragraphs 24.35.60.193 (talk) 03:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2022

Joan Crawford was born on March 23 1904. 82.28.25.246 (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Nthep (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

"The series streams on Amazon."

Feud does not stream on Amazon everywhere, and where it does, it won't forever. Please delete, and in fact, at some point, there should probably be a rule against putting "perishable" info about where things stream on Wikipedia. 89.19.88.176 (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2022

In the section “FINAL YEARS”, Joan Crawford visited the Stephens College on May 12 & 13, 1970.

https://www.joancrawfordbest.com/stephenscollegearticles.htm 2601:586:4B03:9C40:C0C4:CABE:77DE:F38F (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RealAspects (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Adding the dates requested will make a separation between the information of when she visited in 1970 and when she went to school there. 2603:6080:4E04:0:414B:7C20:5295:4280 (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2023

Change "Children: 4, including Christina" in the table to" Children: Christopher Crawford, Christina Crawford, Cathy Crawford LaLonde, Cynthia (Cindy) Crawford Jordan" Goldduxxt (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

This article lists her children names. https://www.romper.com/entertainment/where-are-joan-crawfords-twins-now-they-stayed-out-of-hollywood-46496 Goldduxxt (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Birth Year

Joan Crawford's date of birth was March 23, 1906.

The confusion about her year of birth arises from three facts:

1. The 1910 census states she was 6 years old that year, which, if accurate, would have meant she was born in 1904.

2. When she registered at Stephens College in 1922, she gave her year of birth as 1906.

3. At a later date, she gave her year of birth as 1908, and that's the year on her gravestone.

So which year is accurate? We need to consider:

There were commonly errors made on the census.

After Joan Crawford became a film star, she had a motive to present herself as slightly younger than she was. This was not uncommon among film stars---Shelley Winters, born in 1920, gave her year of birth as 1922, and Shirley Temple's year of birth, during the time of her greatest fame, was given as 1930 when it was, in fact, 1928.

Joan Crawford had no motive to lie about her year of birth when she registered at Stephens College in 1922. If born in 1906 as she stated then, she was 16 years old, and there was no advantage at that place and time in presenting herself as 16 rather than 18, assuming that 1904 was actually accurate, or as 16 instead of 14, assuming that 1908 was actually accurate. And it is far more likely that the census taker made an error about her age in 1910 than it is that Joan Crawford was mistaken about her year of birth.

It was 1906, and while I think the controversy should be discussed in a note, I also think that 1906 should be presented as fact for the reasons stated here. 2600:6C5D:5A00:B1D:192D:450F:7FAB:61C8 (talk) 05:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The 1910 census states she was "5" not 6, which would place her birth year as 1905, but nearly every piece of information about the family is wrong on that census. The family name is spelled wrong. Joan's brother's age is wrong, Joan's mother's age is wrong. It's just not a reliable document. I agree that 1906 is correct. 1904 comes from nothing at all. It's just a rumored birth year.

MonicaAng (talk) 07:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Christensen, L.O.; Foley, W.E.; Kremer, G. (1999). Dictionary of Missouri Biography. University of MISSOURI Press. p. 216. ISBN 978-0-8262-6016-1. Retrieved August 26, 2023. Moxy- 21:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

There's no information in any source stating Crawford "faked" her birth date or forged her high school record when she entered Stephens College. It doesn't even make sense for her to do that in 1922. If she were older than 16, then she would still have been qualified (age-wise) to attend college. By the way, Stephens was a junior college at the time, with the minimum age for enrollment being 16. Given the fact that book doesn't provide their source for that info, the content in that book seems rather unreliable. MonicaAng (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

...Note, I do now see that author's alleged sources at the end of that article. I've personally read those books, and the Kansas City Times article is online. None of them say Crawford faked her birth record at Stephens. In fact, one of his sources, the 1978 biography "Joan Crawford" by Bob Thomas states that based upon that biographer's research, she was born in 1906. Just wanted to throw that out there as food for thought. MonicaAng (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, just to note on the source of "Directory of Missouri Biography," The same book says Crawford was born in 1908. Therefore, it seems it was the author's assumption that she lied about her age of 16 (to make herself older) when she entered Stephens College in 1922.: "CRAWFORD , JOAN ( 1908–1977 ) Joan Crawford was born Lucille LeSueur on March 23 , 1908 , in San Antonio , Texas , as she described , “ in a drab little place on the wrong side of the tracks . " A chorus girl by way of Kansas City..." - Page 215. MonicaAng (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Potential bias in the “Mommie Dearest” section

The final paragraph of the section for Mommie Dearest appears to be biased to some degree. The usage of rhetoric such as “capitalize” seems to be demeaning and unnecessarily attacking at Christina. Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Joan Crawford's signature

A secretarial "Joan Crawford" signature was added to the article. It's not Crawford's real signature. Here is an excellent online resource regarding Crawford's REAL signature by a noted, experienced autograph expert: https://www.autograph-market.com/isitreal/forgery-reference-database/item/crawford-joan

Considering fans are actually having Joan's signature tattooed on their bodies, I think it's probably a bad idea (if not reckless) to have a secretarial signature displayed on the article claiming it is Crawford's real signature. MonicaAng (talk) MonicaAng (talk) 09:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Spelling of Harvey Medlinsky's surname

Hi, could you please change the spelling of 'Medlinksy' to 'Medlinsky'. The administrators lost my previous account (which had made a number of corrections/additions) and my new account is locked out of this article. Thanks johnbroberts (talk) johnbroberts (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.62.234.41 (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2024

In the Children section, please change "inturn" to"in turn" 76.14.122.5 (talk) 08:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Also in that same section there are a couple of instances of a space between the period at the end of a sentence and the <ref> tag. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Jamedeus (talk) 08:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Birthdate

The 1910 Census of Lawton, Oklahoma, ED 52, Page 7, line 76, shows Luceil Cassens was 5 years old. That page was dated 20 April, 1910. There seems to be no dispute that Lucille/Joan was born on March 23. So if she was 5 years old on 20 April, 1910, she was born on 23 March 1905, no matter what she claimed in later life. The age of a child who has just turned 5 is no secret, and is rarely misreported. 162.197.198.127 (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Except for the fact that the 1910 census also gives the wrong ages for her brother, Hal, and her mother, Anna. The 1910 census also misspells the family's name. Way too many factual errors to take that census as accurate. Joan's elementary school records, as well as her records from Stephens College, lists her birth year as 1906. She would have been a child and teenager at the time with no reason to lie about her age. When she started her career at MGM, MGM also listed her birth year as 1906 in early publicity articles, and documents at MGM lists 1906 as her year of birth year. 1904 came from no where (it's not on any documents at all) and the 1905 census isn't reliable. 1906 is the year with the most factual and documented backup. But, Wikipedia editors would rather leave it as ? MonicaAng (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

We let the sources cover this....as seen above guess work by our editors is simply not helpful. Moxy🍁 21:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2024

194.223.22.222 (talk) 09:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

D.O.B 1906.

 Not done: Please see note 1 next to her date of birth; the year is disputed in reliable sources. Liu1126 (talk) 10:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

just a note to say that yes, the year is disputed, but no "reliable source" has ever stated anything other than 1906 or 1908. 1904 came out of no where. MonicaAng (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Order of the Page

Usually "Personal Life" of a person famous for something like acting comes later in the page than the story of their career. This is a particularly long Personal Life section but shouldn't that usual ordering be followed? I guess it's not quite that simple because some of the "Personal Life" section is stuff like working for Pepsi and getting their employee of the year award. Which isn't "Personal Life" at all, even though it started with marrying the CEO of Pepsi. I guess some of Personal Life should be merged into the bigger career section and then the remains should be moved below? I never edit biographical pages so I have stopped short of actually doing anything about this other than making this note. Bakert (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2024

change “frution” to “fruition” 2601:602:9B00:6C80:A1A1:5074:C5E8:8F3B (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Infobox image

There have been so many changes to the infobox image in the past few months that it’s time to settle this and stop the continued fighting. I’ve gathered the 5 most recent images into one vote gallery so that we can go ahead and vote on this. If anybody has any other image suggestions, please feel free to drop them. But it’s past due for us to vote on the issue.

Cast your vote

• 
  Option A
• 
  Option B
• 
  Option C
• 
  Option D
• 
  Option E

Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• Anyone of them is fine with me with the exception of Option A, that Maybelline ad. Doesn't look at all like the iconic Crawford... Shearonink (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Option B is the one I like most. I personally remember her for her black and white movies, so I wouldn't choose Option A, but that's just me. Buenovale (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

An authoritative investigation

After reading this I'm convinced 1906 is correct:

http://www.theconcludingchapterofcrawford.com/debunking_birthyear

http://www.theconcludingchapterofcrawford.com/debunking_birthyear_1906

http://www.theconcludingchapterofcrawford.com/debunking_birthyear_1904

http://www.theconcludingchapterofcrawford.com/debunking_birthyear_1905 Yours6700 (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

pls review WP:SELFPUBLISH Moxy🍁 11:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

That's all you have to say? I think you're painting with a broad brush... Yours6700 (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Permanent removal of signature

Crawford’s “signature” has been added and removed multiple times since at least 2023. It has been posted it is not her signature, but actually a secretarial one. It has now reappeared. The issue being fans are getting this tattooed on them. Goldduxxt (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

When I went to the PBS to find the refs for Crawford autographs, this particular signature in the article is not clearly stated as actually being Crawford's. It is also nowhere near being a duplicate or even similar to the other PBS signature. Crawford's signatures on legal documents - here at the History for Sale website, are clearly not at all the same as the one at Commons.

To me the tattooing is neither here nor there so far as WP content is concerned. What is the issue is if the clear identity of the person who signed this name can be verified as actually being Joan Crawford. And that fails verification. - Shearonink (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

FYI to anyone who is interested. I have nominated the file for deletion on Commons. - Shearonink (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't include the link. Ummm, tried to include it here but it's not working?...so I just now removed it. Shearonink (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, try this link [2]. Shearonink (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate it. Thanks Goldduxxt (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

GAR concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

• There are a lot of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs.
• Some short, one-sentence paragraphs should be merged together or reformatted, including in the "In popular culture" and the "Contributions to charities and service members" sections
• Some unreliable sources need to be removed like imbd and Box Office Madness

Is anyone willing to work on this article? If not, should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)