Talk:Joan Crawford

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Joan 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
Date Process Result
February 17, 2009 Peer review Reviewed
February 25, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

Birth year[edit]

The books in the current footnote all have the year as 1904. This should not be changed based on original research or synthesis. Find reliable sources that explicitly state Crawford's birth date. --NeilN talk to me 21:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we should word it like some bios do ....James Robert Parish (2011). The Hollywood Book of Extravagance: The Totally Infamous, Mostly Disastrous, and Always Compelling Excesses of America's Film and TV Idols. John Wiley & Sons. p. 72. ISBN 978-1-118-03902-1. 1904 (some sources list 1905, 1906, or even 1908 .....this may help all the edit wars if we state a range. -- Moxy (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Good idea. You've got a good source - let's stay away from fansites. --NeilN talk to me 21:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok added a note and made visible the dates ...no more guess work..lets just state the facts -- Moxy (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I have asked the page to be locked up....see if we can get the 2 new single purpose editors to this talk page . -- Moxy (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Still a problem....added more info--Moxy (talk) 07:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Crawford's family data[edit]

Not only is Crawford's own year of birth disputed but the date of her father's birth is also disputed. Some sources, including one I just reverted, cite January 21, 1868; however others, and more importantly his gravestone, cite January 2, 1868, so best to leave that out. Also, if Crawford's mother's eldest child was born either in 1901 (as some sources claim Hal Lesueur was) or 1902 (which most sources think her daughter Daisy was), then November 29, 1884 would make her mighty, mighty young to be a mother and may be incorrect. The handwriting of the 1910 censustaker garbled the ages of Thomas and Anna and I can't even make them out, but clearly wrote "9" for Hal (indicating 1901, almost most sources cite 1903), and "5" for Lucille, which is where the 1905 year of birth originates. If Hal was born in September 1903 it is virtually impossible that Lucille was born in March 1904. Quis separabit? 17:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Dont look at fan sites for information. The census says Hal was born in 1902 not 1903. This mistake has been published widely..thus lead to the statements " impossible that Lucille was born in March 1904." They say Hal is 1902 and Joan is 1905 . This is the only place 1905 is seen with the wrong address and name....how can we rely on this primary source at all? But I agree its a date that should be mentioned (as it is). Perhaps we should mention where the date comes form and the problem with it in the note on dates. -- Moxy (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)