Misplaced Pages

Talk:Joan Crawford: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:11, 20 April 2012 editAircorn (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers38,722 editsm Changing topic using AWB← Previous edit Revision as of 20:26, 18 June 2012 edit undoPinkadelica (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers48,689 edits →Addition of link: new sectionNext edit →
Line 358: Line 358:
''This notification is provided by a Bot'' --] (]) 17:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC) ''This notification is provided by a Bot'' --] (]) 17:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
|} |}

== Addition of link ==

As this issue is becoming more and more troublesome (so much so that the page is now protected), I believe we can get a clear consensus about either including or excluding it once and for all. The link in question is . On the face of it, this link appears to be a fansite written by . ] is pretty clear on the addition of fansites - unless written by an '''authorized authority''', these links should be avoided. As far as I can tell, the site is not written or maintained by an authorized authority as evidenced by the "About" page linked above. ] and ] (which may or may not be the same person) have repeatedly stated that said link is referenced by biographers thus justifying its inclusion. I'm not sure that's a compelling enough reason to disregard WP:ELNO. Additional thoughts on the matter are appreciated. '''<font color="MediumSlateBlue" face="Tahoma">]</font><sup><font color="Black">]</font></sup>''' 20:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:26, 18 June 2012

Good articleJoan Crawford has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 17, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
February 25, 2009Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography: Actors and Filmmakers
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconDance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Dance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dance and Dance-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DanceWikipedia:WikiProject DanceTemplate:WikiProject DanceDance
WikiProject Dance To-do list:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconLGBTQ+ studies
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
Explanation for inclusion in WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies: Gay iconLGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMissouri Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconOklahoma Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconRadio Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do List:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Texas Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Mid-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconWomen's History Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:LOCErequest

Change of Spouse List

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

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

Change title to JOAN CRAWFORD FAN CLUB

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

Pop Culture reference: John Vanderslice

On his 2005 album, Pixel Revolt, John Vanderslice wrote a song that referenced Crawford ("Letter To The East Coast"). The lyrics to the song can be found on SongMeanings.net. Worthy enough for inclusion?

I vote yes. It's significant enough to introduce Joan Crawford to people who've never heard of Joan Crawford to introduce the name (and then get it stuck in your head as you're singing the song to yourself). --LesAziez 02:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Alfred N. Steele

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

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

Edits to article

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

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

Later Roles "Menial"?

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

I agree and have reworded the section. I also removed some other POV comments. Did you know that by signing four tildes - a tilde is ~ at the end of your comment it will add you user name and date? That makes it easier for people replying to know who made a comment, and how recently. Rossrs 01:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Mea culpa! I did indeed know that, but was being more than usually scatterbrained; the above is my whining. Thanks for your elegant revisions, and the reminder. I wonder if there is some way -- perhaps from drawing on comments made after Crawford's death by friends or biographers -- that could indicate the indomitable way she sailed through her later performances, never giving any indication that things like Berserk were any less worthy than Grand Hotel... Robertissimo 04:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll see what I can find. That's started me thinking that the article as a whole would benefit from some comments from critics/costars etc. throughout her career. There's also some comments from people following publication of Mommie Dearest (for and against) and I can also recall Bette Davis (of all people) making some very positive remarks about Crawford as an actress. I think quotes are very useful in making a point - if it's a valid comment attributed to someone of note, it prevents POV from creeping into the article. Rossrs 05:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Some details...

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

Joan's date of birth - the sequel

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

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

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

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

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

Just my two cents here:

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

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

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

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

What should we say for her date of birth?

Is she 100? 99? Does it matter? Probably not, but .....

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

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

  • The book Joan Crawford: The Last Word by Fred Lawrence Guiles ISBN 1857932684 gives 1905 based on the author's "research" though he doesn't define what his "research" was.
  • Joan Crawford at IMDb gives 1904.
  • Genealogy Mag article assumes birth date to be 1905 based on young Lucille LeSueur being aged 5 in a 1910 census (April, which is after her birthday in March). This is arguably the most authoritative source.
  • Same article as above quotes Charles Kidd, in Debrett Goes to Hollywood, saying Lucille was probably born in 1904.
  • Standard Times online quotes author Karen Swenson, who is researching for a Joan Crawford biography, as saying she believes Crawford was born in 1904 based on the timing of Crawford's birth in relation to other events which can be somewhat more easily verified. (Also states San Angelo as a more likely place of birth than San Antonio).

who knew Crawford and wrote about her after her death says that San Antonio did not keep birth records until 1908 - Crawford therefore chose 1908 as her official year of birth simply because it was the earliest birth date she could claim without anyone being able to contradict. He says her date of birth could be anywhere between 1904 and 1908 depending on who you believe.

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

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

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

Joan was born in 1904 deal with it!! (Unsigned comment by User:Lalonde)

You need to offer some kind of evidence. Rossrs 20:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Lesbianism

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

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

Gay Icon Project

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

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

Long Filmography

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

Source?

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

By the early 1960s, Crawford's status in motion pictures had diminished significantly. She managed to reverse this trend one last time when she accepted the role of Blanche Hudson in the low-budget, but highly successful, What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962), directed by Robert Aldrich. She played the part of a physically disabled woman, a former A-list movie star in conflict with her demented sister. Despite their earlier tensions on the Warners lot, Crawford suggested Bette Davis for the role of Jane.
Davis immediately started taking over the set and throwing her weight around, as if she was the producer, director and big boss, and Crawford opposed her authority. The actresses reportedly mutually detested each other, although Davis, who was also famous for her feuds and rivalries with dissenting performers, was the more aggressive in her contempt.

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

Source? - again

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

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

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

The paragraph was :

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

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

Year of birth

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

Ciociabasia 21:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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


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

Mommie Dearest

Shouldn't there be SOME mention of this on Joan Crawford's page? Even if the movie is only based on alleged abuse, shouldn't there be something about it? Robinson0120 16:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Move To Warners

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

I agree with you. From Joan Crawford: The Last Word by Fred Laurence Guiles. "After both Bette Davis and Barbara Stanwyck had turned down the role of Mildred Pierce in the film of the same name, the producer Jerry Wald learned that Joan was interested". (page 134) (Michael Curtiz) "refused to accept Crawford in the lead, wanting someone who was convincingly real. Joan agreed to do a screen test, and proved that she was right for the part". (page 135)
No mention of Curtiz being so impressed he signed her on the spot (and as director it was not up to him to sign her tough he may have had casting approval, I don't know). I remember reading elsewhere - and I can't remember where - that he gave her a difficult time until several scenes had been filmed and then he accepted that she was suitable after all. I tend to think it was more Jerry Wald who pushed for her and Curtiz accepted her without great enthusiasm.
In any case Dollvalley, I guess your memory is pretty good. Rossrs 09:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Cindy Crawford

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

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

Category:Child abuse

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

LGBT Project?

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

Gimme a break

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

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

Different picture?

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

WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment

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

Crawford lips

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

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

The trend even extended to 1958 with Marlene Dietrich in Touch of Evil.Lestrade (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

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

Henry Cassin Information

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

Overall Improvement of the Entire Article

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

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

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

I can see your point. The article needs a lot of work and it would be a good thing to try to improve it. I think the "Mommie Dearest" section could go under "Personal Life" if looked at as a comment of her alleged personal life OR it could go as its own section after her death, if looked at from the point of view of a post-mortem controversy. Neither is wrong in my opinion, it's more a question of preference. I think it would be better after the "death" section, so I agree with you there. Please note however, that you have made a number of edits to the article without adding any edit summaries, so no matter how well founded or well intentioned your edits may have been, your motivation has not been clear. Please use edit summaries and also this venue for discussion, and I think you will find that the article will begin to improve. (Also - new discussions should go on the bottom of the page, so I will move this, and comments should be followed with four tildes to show your name and date of comment - ie ~~~~. This makes discussions easier to follow. )
As for the structure of the article, yes it needs work. There is no hard and fast rule, and with even a cursory look through some of the featured articles on entertainers, you will see some variations in structure. Crawford's residences are included in discussion of her husbands. I don't think the residences are important, and I prefer the personal relationships to be integrated into the article itself, (as I have done in the Vivien Leigh and Bette Davis articles), but it seems to be very common here to have a seperate section on relationships. This needs more discussion obviously but once again, I agree with your comment. Rossrs (talk) 03:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Rossrs 100%. The overall article needs improvement, but those improvement and changes need to be discussed first and agreed upon first. Changes to the DOB have been discussed here and were changed repeatedly yesterday with no explanation as to why. Also, when someone jumps onto a page and makes major, unsourced changes with no edit summaries, they will more than likely be reverted. I just got the new Joan Crawford biography that was throughly researched and features interviews with Crawford herself and I think that would make an excellent source. Over the next few days, I do plan to add/remove some content, but I will discuss those changes before doing so. Pinkadelica (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I think the key is that minor and/or obvious changes should be made confidently but always with an edit summary so that we don't get bogged down in discussion, but that the more significant edits and restructuring be discussed here first. Rossrs (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Mommy Dearest" was a sick joke

That Christina has a rather large chip on her shoulder. On top of being a coward. She waits til the poor woman dies before she slams her with Mommy Dearest. I mean, nothing like attacking someone who can't defend herself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.185.182 (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I mean, nothing like attacking someone who can't defend herself. You mean like a mentally ill control freak attacking a defenseless child? I can tell you exactly what she would have said - she would have denied, rationalized, accused Christina of being ungrateful for all she had done for her etc., etc. The psychology of people like that exists to defend itself. They don't do contrition.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Funeral Date Wrong?

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

Image copyright problem with Image:MommieDearestBook.jpg

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

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

The following images also have this problem:

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

Mommie Dearest movie "Camp"?

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

She was a child abuser

Few people would remember this woman if it hadn't been for the book by her daughter and the 1981 film about her child abuse. So that she was a child abuser needs to be featured in the lead. Girlander (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  • She would be and will be remembered for her filmography, and the allegations in Mommie Dearest are appropriately noted in the lead already. Otto4711 (talk) 04:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • No, Mommie Dearest is mentioned in the lead with appropriate emphasis. She is remembered for her films (the AFI places her in the top 10 greatest female film stars of all time). The Mommie Dearest book is an allegation, that has been discredited by some who knew both Joan and Christina Crawford, and critics have noted the inconsistency of Christina Crawford's story. Aside from associates of Crawford who deny the legitimacy of Christina Crawford's claim, Joan Crawford's other adopted daughters, Cynthia and Cathy, have dismissed Christina's claims as fiction. If years of extreme cruelty and abuse happened, how did two of the four children in the house fail to notice it? You can believe whatever you like, and who but the participants actually knows what happened, but an encyclopedia must be critical and discerning in labeling people. Rossrs (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

(Toned down from my original posting) I was born in 1977 and I know, and have always known, who Joan Crawford is. She was a tremendous star, far from forgotten. Just because YOU aren't familiar with something or someone, it doesn't mean that it has been forgotten. It just means you are ignorant of that particular subject. You underline your lack of qualification for commenting when you say you "don't know any films she has been in." That proves my point right there. You've never heard of "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?" or "Mildred Pierce?" Perhaps you need some more exposure to culture before you decide to comment upon it and suggesting arbitrary changes to articles on subjects you know nothing about. In case you've missed my point: the fact that you are young and don't know anything about Joan Crawford, doesn't mean that every other person on this planet is as unaware of her as you are. And you don't have to be "very old" or have a "special interest" in old movies to know of Joan Crawford. HillbillyProfane (talk) 10:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Please read WP:CIVIL, personal attacks are not allowed here. Please consider striking your comments above. Also, we're here to write an encyclopedia, not debate personal veiws of subjects of articles, and this section is pretty much useless. I'll archive it or hat it soon. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Fair point I will tone down my above statements, but how does this statement by Girlander add to the discussion in any way: "I figure only very old people and people with special interest for old movies remember Crawford for anything else than child abuse and erratic behaviour. Mommie Dearest, however, is an iconic film and classic." Before hopping on me for putting this person in their place, why not call them out on cluttering the discussion page with ridiculous statements? Their assertion is, a 1980s film ABOUT Joan Crawford is somehow more notable than Crawford herself, simply because THEY are more familiar with the film than the woman. People like her will continue to litter Misplaced Pages unless they are, gently, corrected on occasion. HillbillyProfane (talk) 10:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Girlander's comment didn't add to the discussion, but that was 5 months ago and Girlander hasn't been editing since then. There's no point in talking to someone who's not here. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of abuse

By all accounts I can find, Helen Hayes supported the allegations in Mommie Dearest, and spoke of the abuse; however her name was removed today with the edit summary "placing hayes here implies that the position attributed to davis is also attributed to hayes, which is inaccurate." Which part is inaccurate? Hayes supported the charges. Further, whittling down the supporters of the abuse allegations to one seems rather POV... Firsfron of Ronchester 02:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Current main photo

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

Crawford and Bow

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

Born in 1906

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

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

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

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

Blue Oyster Cult

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

File:JoanCrawfordByYousufKarsh.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:JoanCrawfordByYousufKarsh.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Addition of link

As this issue is becoming more and more troublesome (so much so that the page is now protected), I believe we can get a clear consensus about either including or excluding it once and for all. The link in question is The Best of Everything: A Joan Crawford Encyclopedia. On the face of it, this link appears to be a fansite written by a fan. WP:ELNO is pretty clear on the addition of fansites - unless written by an authorized authority, these links should be avoided. As far as I can tell, the site is not written or maintained by an authorized authority as evidenced by the "About" page linked above. User:128.83.244.249 and User:Missou2 (which may or may not be the same person) have repeatedly stated that said link is referenced by biographers thus justifying its inclusion. I'm not sure that's a compelling enough reason to disregard WP:ELNO. Additional thoughts on the matter are appreciated. Pinkadelica 20:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Joan Crawford: Difference between revisions Add topic