Talk:Hal LeSueur

message: Some sources cite 1903, but others indicate 1901, including the 1910 US census and his marriage license to Kasha Haroldi (1931, giving his age as 30). I am also far from certain that his mother, Anna, was born in 1884.
Any ideas? Quis separabit? 10:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The census says 1902 and the marriage license does not give a date....is a estimate.1901 is a year rejected by most biographers because its the same year Daisy is said to be born in, -- Moxy (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  The census gives his age as 8 (if that is even an 8; the census enumerator's handwriting is terrible, but it probably is an 8) but it clearly states that the age in question is the individual's age as of his/her last birthdate. Census-April; Hal's birthday=September. Quis separabit? 01:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, @Moxy:  The problem with the LeSueur family is that NONE of their years of birth have been conclusively. No one is sure when Daisy, the eldest child, was born hence (her years of birth and death are usually given as "ƒ1902". Thomas LeSueur's years of birth range from 1866 to 1878. Anna Bell Johnson LeSueur was allegedly born in November 1884, yet if she had her first child in 1901, she would have been 16. Possible, sure, but... Also, other sources cite different years for Anna's birth, including 1878. The ages on the 1910 census are hard if not almost impossible to decipher (due presumably to the enumerator's horrific handwriting), with only young Lucille's age of "5" clear. Hal LeSueur is interesting because everything points to his being born in 1903 yet his marriage certificate in 1931 gives his age as 30, and he could have had no possible reason to lie as he was nowhere near underage. If anything he could have made himself two years younger so as to serve in WWII (a birth year of 1901 might have been prohibitive, but 1903 isn't much better). In short, we have to acknowledge that we can't know everything, and trust me I know how frustrating that is. Yours, Quis separabit? 01:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: All this is the problem ...guess work...lets just list the sources and what they say....not the guesswork that goes with it.-- Moxy (talk) 01:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not guesswork, not on my part anyway. It's called reasoning and deduction. The 1910 (April 1910) census states Hal was 8 (an ugly-looking 8 but I guess it's an 8), as of his last birthday [which is clearly stated on the census], therefore it is not guesswork at all that indicates 1901, it is a logical application of the enumeration criteria. No source has Hal born in 1902 which is the year usually attributed to his sister, Daisy. Yours, Quis separabit? 17:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

text: you must be looking at two different things it says 1902 clearly and 1901 for his sister. I'm not sure why you're concluding something different than it statesMoxy (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  What census are you looking at? The census doesn't give years of birth -- it gives ages. Daisy died long before 1910 -- she would/could not have been included in the 1910 census. His only remaining sister Lucille (Crawford) was "5" years old per 1910 census. NOTE: The online census extracts do provide estimated years of birth, but not the actual censuses. I got your point. Yours, Quis separabit? 21:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what to do here....you say things like " NO   source has Hal born in 1902 which is the year usually attributed to his sister, Daisy". Yet any search all can see for Daisy 1901 is the most cited like this and this and this and so on, We need real books on the topic not these primary sources that all say something different.  Many sources say 1901 for Hal and some even say 1900.  As a person that has lived through this debate and owns  many bios from over the year on the topic I can say we are not presenting the info correctly for an encyclopaedia.....for a fan site its fine but not for an encyclopaedia.  -- Moxy (talk) 00:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Hal LeSueur's age

message: Under "Later years" it says "LeSueur made one final movie appearance, playing a reporter in Jeanne Eagels (1957), the only role for which LeSueur received screen credit." But then the "Filmography" table lists that role as "uncredited". So which is it? Bhami (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credit for final role?