Talk:Joan Crawford

Infobox image

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

Cast your vote

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

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

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

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

An authoritative investigation

After reading this I'm convinced 1906 is correct:

http://www.theconcludingchapterofcrawford.com/debunking_birthyear

http://www.theconcludingchapterofcrawford.com/debunking_birthyear_1906

http://www.theconcludingchapterofcrawford.com/debunking_birthyear_1904

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

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

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

Permanent removal of signature

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

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

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

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

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

If anyone is interested, try this link [1]. Shearonink (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

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

GAR concerns

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

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

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

Running order of sections needs rejigging

The Lede is fine - summarises her start as a dancer, then actress eventual winning Oscar etc, and ends with mention of 4 marriages, 5 adopted children and the acrimonious fall-out that led to memoir "Mommie Dearest". But the rest of the article reverses things - it puts her "personal" life before her "professional" one, as if the personal is her main claim to fame and thus more important to read first, ahead of anything about her career in depth. Here's the current Contents list: 1. Personal life (1.1 Early life, 1.2 Marriages, 1.3 Children, 1.4 Pepsi-Cola, 1.5 Final years), followed by 2 Career (2.1 Early career, 2.2 Self-promotion and early successes, 2.3 Transition to sound and continued success, 2.4 Career decline at MGM, 2.5 Move to Warner Bros., 2.6 Radio and television, 2.7 Later career). The rest of the contents are okay: 3 Death (3.1 Legacy), ..etc.. to 12 External links. But placing 1.Personal life before 2.Career - this is like putting the cart before the horse! And it becomes most noticeable when one is actually reading the article in depth. It states (in 1.1) "Early life: Born Lucille Fay LeSueur" [..etc, finishing with..] "In 1922, she registered at Stephens College in Columbia, Missouri, giving her year of birth as 1906. She attended Stephens for a few months and then withdrew after she realized that she was not ready for college. Due to her family's instability, Crawford's schooling never surpassed the primary level." [..and then next straight into 1.2] "Marriages: On June 3, 1929, Crawford eloped with Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. at Saint Malachy's Roman Catholic Church (known as "The Actors' Chapel", owing to its proximity to Broadway theatres) in Manhattan" etc. What? How did she get from a lowly Missouri school to a Manhattan marriage to Douglas Fairbanks? Not some magic transportation, like Dorothy from Kansas to Oz, surely? Where's 1923-1928? Something must have happened in between... ah yes, I see, she must have developed a successful acting career, but that's not so important, let's leave all that career stuff out until much, much (much!) later... The whole Section 1 (Personal life) even goes on (and on) to conclude with (in 1.5: Final years) "Her last public appearance was made on September 23, 1974, at a book party co-hosted with her old friend Rosalind Russell at New York's Rainbow Room, after which unflattering photographs were published.", before a single word of 2.1: Early career, etc. Ultimately, her career (or at least some of it, eg. her initial successes) should precede mention of her first marriage etc. I'm surprised no one has mentioned this in either the Talk or the Edits - I took a cursory look at the last 250 edits, a two-year span, didn't spot any switcharound or query or concern. So - all the sections are well-written but I'll have a go at rejigging, by a simple reversal of the order of 1.Personal life and 2.Career, or by splitting the Career section so's it'll perhaps run better as 1.Initial MGM Career, 2.Initial personal life, 3. Later career post-MGM. 4.Later personal life. Pete Hobbs (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Did a further check through previous Edits, and have now found the Contents always began as 1. Early life, 2. Career (2.1 Early career, 2.2 Self-promotion and early successes), etc., with no "Personal Life" section at all until inserted on 19:29, 17 February 2024‎ by user MonicaAng, when she "Added personal life info (specifically marriages info) that is scattered throughout "Career" section to "Personal life" section under subsection "Marriages" so that the article flows better, with the info contained to the appropriate sections.". She made several further good edits that day, eg. later "Added "final years" to "Personal life" section since this subsection contains primarily info Crawford on personal life rather than her film/TV career" and then "Added the info on Joan's children in the "Career" section to "Personal Life" section, where it is more appropriate." Done a couple of hours after the Talk's "GAR concerns" posting, and all good clean-up work, well carried out, so I've no intention of undoing it, no need or desire to pull it apart etc. I think (certainly hope) it'll be enough just to switch the order of "Rersonal life" and "Cereer" sections around. Pete Hobbs (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)