Talk:Joan Crawford

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Radio Portal
This article is supported by the Radio WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article attached to this page and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. Visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Joan Crawford as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Finnish language Wikipedia.
This talk page is for discussion of the article about actress Joan Crawford, which begins at the bottom. Please post new entries at the top, above the last entry. Sign your entry by typing four tildes (a tilde is the ~ symbol), leaving no spaces between, thus ~~~~, which is automatically converted to a name and date.


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Joan's date of birth - the sequel

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

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

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

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

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

Just my two cents here:

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

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

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

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

[edit] 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 the Internet Movie Database 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] Move To Warners

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Crawford lips

What about her achievement in single-handedly conquering the bee-stung lips look of Mary Pickford 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)

[edit] Henry Cassin Information

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

[edit] 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)