This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
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.
This article needs a photo! -- 24.20.160.178 ( talk) 03:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
Many famous people (among them Van Johnson, Barbara Stanwyck, Cesar Romero, and Myrna Loy) said that Christina Crawford's book was a malicious slander. In general, those who knew the family best seem to believe that Crawford distorted events. Younggoldchip ( talk) 17:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I've just seen an interview, on YouTube, with Cathy and Cynthia Crawford (two of Joan's adopted children). They stated unequivocally that Christina Crawford's claims were not true. They said that Crawford had sometimes been strict, as many parents were in those days, and wanted her children to grow up to be independent and self-reliant. But they said they had never seen the violent behavior that Christina described. They described Crawford as being a caring and loving mother, whom they deeply missed. Younggoldchip ( talk) 19:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
This article reads like a smear of the subject:
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)
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)
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:
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’s too bad Joan ruined a could have been family. 75.97.249.1 ( talk) 03:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
This article says Joan Crawford adopted five children. Joan Crawford's article says it were four. Does it need to be corrected? If so, which number is correct? Glamourqueen ( talk) 13:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I see that attempts have been made to neutralize some of the language in this article. Unfortunately, it is still quite biased. Yes, a number of celebrities said they didn't see any abuse. A number of celebrities also supported Christina's account, but they aren't mentioned here. Just because one of the twins won a defamation suit against Christina- that doesn't mean Christina is lying. The twins saying that they never experienced any abuse also doesn't mean Christina is lying. Christina being stubborn and difficult still doesn't mean Christina is lying. I would love to see this article rewritten, presenting more nuance as well as less bias. 204.77.41.210 ( talk) 17:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
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.
This article needs a photo! -- 24.20.160.178 ( talk) 03:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
Many famous people (among them Van Johnson, Barbara Stanwyck, Cesar Romero, and Myrna Loy) said that Christina Crawford's book was a malicious slander. In general, those who knew the family best seem to believe that Crawford distorted events. Younggoldchip ( talk) 17:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I've just seen an interview, on YouTube, with Cathy and Cynthia Crawford (two of Joan's adopted children). They stated unequivocally that Christina Crawford's claims were not true. They said that Crawford had sometimes been strict, as many parents were in those days, and wanted her children to grow up to be independent and self-reliant. But they said they had never seen the violent behavior that Christina described. They described Crawford as being a caring and loving mother, whom they deeply missed. Younggoldchip ( talk) 19:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
This article reads like a smear of the subject:
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)
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)
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:
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’s too bad Joan ruined a could have been family. 75.97.249.1 ( talk) 03:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
This article says Joan Crawford adopted five children. Joan Crawford's article says it were four. Does it need to be corrected? If so, which number is correct? Glamourqueen ( talk) 13:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I see that attempts have been made to neutralize some of the language in this article. Unfortunately, it is still quite biased. Yes, a number of celebrities said they didn't see any abuse. A number of celebrities also supported Christina's account, but they aren't mentioned here. Just because one of the twins won a defamation suit against Christina- that doesn't mean Christina is lying. The twins saying that they never experienced any abuse also doesn't mean Christina is lying. Christina being stubborn and difficult still doesn't mean Christina is lying. I would love to see this article rewritten, presenting more nuance as well as less bias. 204.77.41.210 ( talk) 17:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)