Talk:Christina Crawford

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

message: 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)
thread_title: NPOV

message: 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)
thread_title: Content removed

message: 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:
# 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".
# 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.
# 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".
# 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).
# 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")
# Removed "meager" - completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia, whatever the extravagance or lack thereof of the Bed & Breakfast may well in fact be.
# 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.
# 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.
# 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.
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Further NPOV cleanup 

message: It’s too bad Joan ruined a could have been family. 75.97.249.1 (talk) 03:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sounds like Christina not only suffer from her mother, but her sisters are not seeking her and her brothers best interest as well.  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Number of children 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why does this article still take an anti-Christina position?