Talk:Christina Crawford

Which California boarding school?

The article states: "At the age of ten she was sent to a California boarding school." I'm curious if anyone knows which school?

The Chadwick school.

This article states that she was removed for misconduct with a boy, which is how the scene is depicted in the movie. The book, however, states that she was removed because she failed to produce a Christmas card list early enough to suit her mother.

There were two times Joan removed her from Chadwick's. The first time was because of the incident with the boy. It was during the summer and afterwards she went back. The incident that sent her to Flintridge was the Christmas Card incident.

Photo, please!

This article needs a photo! --24.20.160.178 (talk) 03:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Is MOMMIE DEAREST A Collection of Lies?

It's very odd that Christina Crawford's memoir MOMMIE DEAREST has been accepted so easily as her truthful recollections. Readers and critics should remember that she wrote it within a year after being disinherited by her adoptive mother. Most of the incidents she describes had no witnesses other than herself, and may have been either distortions or complete fabrications. Crawford's other adoptive children do not support Christina's allegations. Moreover, according to Joan Crawford's biographers, Christina was bitterly disappointed in her own lackluster acting career and blamed her mother for not using her connections to help her daughter toward success. So what we have here is an embittered, disappointed woman who seems to have blamed one person for her own failures--her charismatic, successful mother. I would not go so far as to say MOMMIE DEAREST is a complete lie. We will probably never know. But we should read it with some skepticism. Younggoldchip (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC

I would not believe a word said by such unsavoury characters as Christopher (who had an extensive law record) or Christina. The book was a book of lies. You only have to know the two of them to come to this conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.7 (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Joans adopted son Christopher supported Christina's assertions about what happened. "The twins" on the other hand is another kettle of fist. They were born when Christina was about 12 so they were either not born or too little to know what went on in that house. (Whoever wrote this paragraph should sign it by typing four tildes)

I can tell you that the reason the two of them were disinhereted were because of the tremendous amount of money they both cost Joan, For both Christina's education at boarding school, and she had to pay a lot of money to buy Christopher out of legal trouble more than once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.7 (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Christopher was disinherited by Crawford, so his bitter assertions are not reliable. As for the "twins," although they were younger than Christina, they lived in the same house with her and Crawford for many years. There is no doubt they were aware of the atmosphere and events which did and did not take place. They also witnessed Cristina's bitter jealousy of her adoptive mother. Since they (unlike Cristina or Christopher) had no axe to grind, their views seem basically more reliable. Younggoldchip (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

This article reads like a smear of the subject:

• Most playhouses hired Christina on the coat tails of her mother's reputation, but quickly discovered that she did not share her mother's talents.
• Later, producers admitted that she had originally been hired on the coat tails of her mother's name, not her talent, and simply could not perform. Her character was rated the least liked by audience polls. Clearly, acting was not her forte, dispite numerous attempts.

It goes on and on. None of these statements are supported by attribution and all of them sound like someone with a petty axe to grind. Joshf (talk) 05:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Content removed

I'm not an expert on Christina Crawford, but the article was so absurd I removed all of the content that made the article read like an opinion piece. Spatchmo80 (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Further NPOV cleanup

My completely unsubstantiated hypothesis is that at one point this article was posted on a Joan Crawford blog or fan-forum, which would account for the ridiculously overwrought language which has plagued this article for quite some time.

Here's a blow-by-blow of the changes I just made:

1. I changed "exposé of alleged child abuse" to "autobiographical account of alleged child abuse". While I generally tried to tone down the constant ALLEGED SUPPOSED CLAIMED doublespeak, in this case "alleged" is probably appropriate since the accusations have never stood up in court. And, since by the same token, the abuse may not have happened (or what happened might not have been abuse), it's impossible to be an "exposé".
2. Removed random (and counter-factual) mention of Christina being the only child to claim abuse - the abuse "side-story" (for lack of a better term) hasn't yet been mentioned at this point in the article.
3. Changed "the producers provided the explanation" to "the producers claim". This entire issue is basically a he-said, she-said - neither side has "explanations", they just have "claims".
4. Removed second random mention of two siblings denying abuse. This is more relevant in Joan Crawford's article, and - as written - seems to be being wielded as "proof" that her claims are phony - as if children from abusive homes never deny abuse (or simply don't remember it, or - as is especially the case in emotional "black sheep" sort of abuse - internally normalize it and don't consider it anything out of the ordinary).
5. Removed "and other books/novels" - redundant ("she has written books including <whatever> and other books" / "the man has won races including the New York Marathon and has also won races")
6. Removed "meager" - completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia, whatever the extravagance or lack thereof of the Bed & Breakfast may well in fact be.
7. Removed "supposedly" and scare-quotes from "omitted". I understand what this was trying to communicate (was this "omitted", or was it just more stuff she made up), but either way, the fact that it wasn't in the earlier edition means it was still omitted, no "supposedly" about it, and no need for scare quotes. If I wrote a completely factual history of the United States, and then went back and added a section about the entire island of Oahu being physically stolen by intergalactic alien pirates and returned by Superman in 1983, that section could still be considered something "omitted" from the earlier edition.
8. Removed "not by public vote" - more heavy-handed POV stuff. The phrase "was appointed . . . by" is enough to deduce that this was not an election result.
9. Rephrased the bit about her failed re-election bid, which as previously written was the second part of a wonderfully written one-two POV knockout combo.
10. Rephrased the charity bit. Generally I'm not a fan of these barely-notable charity organization mentions in celebrity articles, but they seem to be the status quo. The old version was obviously written to make her seem like a tyrannical egomaniac or whatever, so if these "so-and-so formed a charity campaigning for blah blah blah" bits in every single celebrity's article are going to stay, this one should at least confirm to some base standard of neutrality.

That's pretty much everything - none of this is really controversial stuff, but I have time to kill so I figured I might as well renumerate it all here for the record. Radar Holds (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It appears that this page once had issues which are no longer a problem. I saw no POV issues, so I took down the box. Thanks for your edits.Apathy monk (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)