Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:*''A possible place for both:'' A reason where we might be able meet the original posters thoughts is if there was a reliable source, where the primary subject is on Joan, and in which, it specifically states that Joan was bisexual (not engaged in such activities, or the primary subject is of one of her lovers, etc), then we could consider it for inclusion. But I don't believe there is such a document because it if came up previously the discussion could have ended there with support for inclusion.
:*''A possible place for both:'' A reason where we might be able meet the original posters thoughts is if there was a reliable source, where the primary subject is on Joan, and in which, it specifically states that Joan was bisexual (not engaged in such activities, or the primary subject is of one of her lovers, etc), then we could consider it for inclusion. But I don't believe there is such a document because it if came up previously the discussion could have ended there with support for inclusion.
:] (]) 17:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
:] (]) 17:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
== Tal1962 ==
I don't know where to begin. The edits I removed from you include weaselly POV unnecessary critique of the US Census. Any edit that restores comments related to that without seeking consensus on the talk page will be removed. I'm concerned that this article does an exceedingly poor job of using reliable sources for the information on her birth as it stands, and will probably recommend delisting it if we can't get some good sources for the information soon. It screams OR right now. is not reliable and shouldn't be included; although the others may be. The birth and death dates are not normally included in Misplaced Pages biographies any ways. "Possibly", for her birth location, needs an explanation from you. You later included the same POV related to Mommie Dearest here as you did in Mommie Dearest. The failure of me to mention something here does not necessarily mean I support that aspect of the edit, so I think at this time you should begin discussing your edits before making them. It would be helpful if you could attempt to address one issue at a time. ] ] 10:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of jazz on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JazzWikipedia:WikiProject JazzTemplate:WikiProject JazzJazz
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dance and Dance-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DanceWikipedia:WikiProject DanceTemplate:WikiProject DanceDance
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion. Explanation for inclusion in WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies: Gay iconLGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
Joan became a real star before the 20s were over, her costarring with MGMs top male actors and her imprints at Graumans Chinese Theatre (1929) attest to that. The prior lead paragraph suggests she gained popularity later in the 1930s. She was never trained as a dancer, she was self trained, and when initially signed to contract she was unknown and reportedly unnoticed by management until later that year ('25), when a contest was held for her new name. It wasn't until 1928 and "our dancing daughters" that MGM realized she would make a good flapper. (Brettsomers 6 Jan 2006)
Addition of link
As this issue is becoming more and more troublesome (so much so that the page is now protected), I believe we can get a clear consensus about either including or excluding it once and for all. The link in question is The Best of Everything: A Joan Crawford Encyclopedia. On the face of it, this link appears to be a fansite written by a fan. WP:ELNO is pretty clear on the addition of fansites - unless written by an authorized authority, these links should be avoided. As far as I can tell, the site is not written or maintained by an authorized authority as evidenced by the "About" page linked above. User:128.83.244.249 and User:Missou2 (which may or may not be the same person) have repeatedly stated that said link is referenced by biographers thus justifying its inclusion. I'm not sure that's a compelling enough reason to disregard WP:ELNO. Additional thoughts on the matter are appreciated. Pinkadelica20:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I completely agree. Enter the "About This Website" page and you are met by an ardent and self declared fan of Crawford gushing her love for JC and stating at the end:
"On this site, I don't just want to show pretty pictures from the '30s or make fun of her grand guignol era; instead, I want to show where Joan Crawford came from as well as every step of her journey, including what she had to say about what was going on around her. The woman had a brain and guts and opinions and talent as well as a face, and her longevity as an actress was hardly reliant solely on lucky breaks or pure sex appeal; she worked to get to the pinnacle of her field and subsequently worked to maintain her career and status long beyond what anyone thought tenable."
It further goes onto say:
"In addition, the now-defunct Joan Crawford Online website has also been an invaluable source of information. After the webmaster took JCO down in December 2003, he sent me a disc with the complete contents of his site, which proved helpful while starting this site."
Proof if needed that this site was set up by a fan for fans of JC. There is nothing wrong with that, but it certainly has no place on WP. Nowhere does it prove that the site administrator/founder is of an "authorised authority", but merely a fan with an agenda to sell a book, tell the world how much she admires JC and to advertise the website! With this in mind, I would also consider this inclusion in the EL section to be possible spam and possibly advertising as donations are being sought by the site administrators. Also there are a list of books given on the "About" page...so! .... It does not make the text given reliable as nothing is referenced inline with the text. -- Cassianto21:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
The issue of spamming might be relevant as I have found this link included on at least four Crawford film articles. Pinkadelica00:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Were they deleted? And if so did it result in warring such as this? This is the second time I have been involved in such an issue. A few months back, Tixienixie was told repeatedly to stop adding information which was seen to be advertising The Music Hall Guilf of Great Britain. They continually kept adding a reference and an EL to the charity on articles of persons who they had just commissioned work on such as the restoration of graves and erection's of blue plaque's. Albeit slightly different, this ip and user name have a motive in relation to the JC fansite. I'm sure of it! -- Cassianto07:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I removed the links myself as I was updating the infoboxes for the film articles anyway. Nobody has tried to put them back in as of yet. I think with this particular link and these users, it's just a case of someone wanting to promote their website or (and I'm stretching here) a website they really, really like. I've dealt with this issue on various articles before. It usually happens on articles about old stars for some reason. I'm a bit disheartened that neither the IP user nor the account has showed up here to comment. I believe once protection ends, the edit warring will begin again. Pinkadelica14:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
TBH, I didn't really expect the IP address or the user to show up. Lobo made steps to report them to the admin's but nothing happened and they wasn't very helpful. If it starts up again then the tree of us should approach an admin. It is a blatant attempt to advertise. I'm becoming more and more convinced of that as the days rumble on. -- Cassianto16:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
It's not something I can initiate right now, I'm afraid. Are you possibly able to? Otherwise, I'll try and get to it tomorrow. --Lobo(talk)20:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Request for Comment regarding (alleged) bisexuality
As per the suggestion of User:Pinkadelica, I am putting up a request for comment regarding Crawford's (alleged) bisexuality. I would like to include a mention of it in the article and place her into the LGBT categories. Asarelah (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
My problem with this content being added is not so much the sources or even the subject matter, but the way you initially presented it. In this edit you added the information in a section that doesn't even discuss her sex life, personality or relationships. Just "Crawford was bisexual". Full stop - end of. Not alleged or rumored to be or any further information to support the claim. I know this rumor about Crawford has been going around for years now and I'm not denying that it may very well be true (where there's smoke blah, blah), but is it correct to categorize someone as bisexual based on hearsay and speculation - even if that speculation is from a respected film historian? I don't think so. Barbara Stanwyck is/was the subject of the same rumors and they are addressed in her article but she is not categorized as bisexual and the statements are pretty well explained. If the content is included, I think it should at least be explained in fuller terms and not just thrown out there as if it's fact. Pinkadelica01:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree that an entire paragraph would have been a better choice on my part (my bad). Anyway, when it comes to the sexual orientation of a deceased historical figure like Crawford, researchers rely upon what they can piece together from their sources, and an academic consensus is created among them from that. Alexander the Great never publicly declared himself to be gay or bisexual either, yet the academic consensus is that he was. I am quite willing to demonstrate academic consensus regarding Crawford's orientation by referencing and describing the content of the multiple sources that describe her as bisexual. Asarelah (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
In Alexander the Great's case, I can understand why academics piece together history and draw conclusions. They don't have a choice because of the lack of media, transparency, etc. In the case of a modern figure like Crawford, I don't think we should have to piece together sources to draw a conclusion. As I said above, I can see including text that presents the rumors but to make a definitive call on the category is a bit much IMO. Pinkadelica11:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment. It would be helpful if the proposed content and sources could be posted to this RfC. FWIW including the content of persistent rumors might be accepted if the rumors themselves are notable, if her same-sex lovers make unambiguous claims which are not really refuted, etc. Insomesia (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Response' Sure. I've got this source from the List of bisexual people: Quirk, Lawrence J., Joan Crawford: The Essential Biography, (2002), University of Kentucky Press. Lawrence J. Quirk is a film historian who has over 30 books published. His source includes confirmations from Jerry Asher, a press agent and journalist who was a friend of Crawford's. His source also states that Martha Raye also stated that they had an affair while they both worked at the USO. He also states that Barbara Stanwyck's press agent confirmed to him that Stanwyck had been intimate with Crawford. Furthermore, according the book "Queers in History", Marilyn Monroe's therapist has a recording of her describing a one night stand she had with Crawford, saying that she didn't enjoy "doing it with a woman". Two reliable sources, not refuted by anyone. Is this adequate or should more be included? Asarelah (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Is there any links to these so others can look? It may help. Otherwise quotes should likely be included. Also what does the now proposed content look like? I have a feeling with the comments so far that a visit to the WP:RSN might be needed if any mention is disputed. What your stating so far does seem to merit at least a few sentences. Insomesia (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment - I don't see much merit to the so-called "academic consensus" argument. It might be reasonable to speculate about "academic consensus" for someone who died 2000 years ago, but not someone who died 35 years ago. I could accept a minimum of discussion of rumors if very well sourced and identified as rumors (one or two sentences at the most). But that should be sufficient, and no placing her in LGBT categories. She is dead, but her death is still recent enough that we need to keep WP:BLP in mind. Cresix (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Cresix, even presently LGBT people do not have equal rights in the vast majority of the world, even in the US where Crawford is from. LGBT relationships, even intimate sexual ones are still seen as illegal and the material only for scandal sheets. We could have the same discussions if she had died yesterday. There are still many LGBT people who do not disclose their status for fear of reprisals, attacks, violence, loss of employment, and death. It is little surprise that a major celebrity would not want this information made public, even after their death. In LGBT history most peoples sexuality and gender non-conformity is hidden, the very rare case is someone who was unambiguous that they are LGBT. Insomesia (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Prejudice against LGBT people and the fact that many LGBT feel that they must hide their sexual orientation in no way mitigates the policies Misplaced Pages has about separating rumor from objective fact, reliable sourcing, and appropriate weight that is given to a topic. If we use as our standard "LGBT are discriminated against, and therefore we don't need to follow the same encyclopedic standards in determining that someone is bisexual", then we could conclude that virtually everyone who has not specifically denied that he/she is bisexual is, in fact, bisexual. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a website dedicated to social activism. It is not the purpose of Misplaced Pages, or any objective encyclopedia, to correct social injustices, except through impartially presenting the facts and letting people draw their own conclusions about what is just and unjust. Cresix (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
No one is suggesting we go against policies in any way. We do have to look at the sourcing through the filters of reality. Is it likely that even if Crawford were bisexual she would make any statement of that fact? Not really. Is it more likely that after her death people would be more likely to reveal that in fact she was bisexual? Probably. What I stating is that we have to use the sources available on the subject and see what they state and how they state it, "biographer _____ states Crawford was most likely bisexual due to her romantic relationships with _____." In this way we are stating what sources state in Misplaced Pages's voice. No one is correcting injustices here just getting at the facts of her biography. We let the sources lead the content. Insomesia (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I think we are largely in agreement. I would again emphasize the importance of WP:WEIGHT in "letting the sources lead the content". If almost every notable and reliable biographer comments about her possible bisexuality, that would justify a more extensive discussion of the issue compared to a small minority of such biographers discussing the issue. As an example, let's consider Rock Hudson's homosexuality. He never publicly acknowledged his homosexuality if I remember correctly (or perhaps he did so near the time of his death), but the issue is discussed in some detail in his article because it has been widely discussed by reliable sources. In Crawford's case, I haven't seen (so far) enough credible evidence to justify more than a sentence or two. Cresix (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Please read my comments again. I said we should keep BLP in mind. Even BLP notes that it applies to "living persons (or recently deceased)". "Long dead" is a relative term. Alexander the Great is long dead. Joan Crawford to many of us who have been around a few decades is not "long dead". Someone's death does not give us an instant license to ignore BLP and similar guidelines. Many of the same principles of BLP continue to apply by Misplaced Pages's general standards. We don't engage in speculation, and we do not imply or hint that a rumor is a fact. We can report on what reliable sources say about rumors, but we clearly identify them as rumors, and we give consideration to WP:WEIGHT in determining how lengthily we report such rumors. As I said, one or two reliably sourced sentences about rumors that are clearly identified as rumors should be sufficient, and that is true regardless of the fact that she is dead. Cresix (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Response Why do we have to identify them as "rumors" in this context? Why not simply write the claims and refer to who made them? Furthermore, what would be adequate proof regarding Crawford's bisexuality? I noticed that Josephine Baker is categorized as bisexual and I presume its due to the fact that her son stated outright that she was. Christine Crawford stated that Joan had lesbian affairs in Mommie Dearest, and while her other daughters Cindy and Cathy Crawford denied the allegations of abuse, they have yet to deny Crawford's alleged lesbianism. Asarelah (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
We present them as rumors because they are rumors. If I claim that you stole something from me but can't prove it, it is no more than my word against yours even if you actually did it, and that's no better than a rumor. Now, I'm not saying that we literally have to use the word "rumor", but if we don't use that word we need to make it extremely clear that we are not talking about an objective fact or something that Joan Crawford acknowledged as true; using the word "rumor" may be the best way (but not necessarily the only way) to do that.
Christine Crawford's declaration about her mother does not make it a fact; AGAIN, we can report what people close to her state, but we don't present it as fact. And PLEASE, someone not denying something is certainly not proof of anything; let's try to use a bit of elementary logic; if I accuse you of being an atheist but your children do not deny that you are an atheist, that does not make you an atheist. I understand why you raised this issue in an RfC because it is a legitimate point of discussion, and I think something very carefully and succinctly worded should eventually end up in the article. But you don't help your case by pushing something as fact when there's no solid evidence that it is fact. Cresix (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, then lets report what people who were close to her state regarding her orientation. I'm also frankly baffled as to why Josephine Baker gets put into the category on the basis that people close to her stated she was bisexual and yet Crawford doesn't. In regards to the atheist comparison, one does not "accuse" a person that they were close to of being an atheist. The individuals in question were interviewed and told of their personal experiences with Crawford, and with the sole exception of her daughter, I have no idea how statements describing Crawford's bisexuality can be construed as "accusations". An accusation carries an element of malice. The people interviewed had no malice towards Crawford, they were her closest friends. Why would they lie about it? My point regarding her family was not that their silence somehow tacitly validates the rumors, my point was that Crawford's estate clearly does not care a jot if she is posthumously characterized as a bisexual. And if her estate doesn't care, then why should we be up in arms about BLP in this case? Asarelah (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Several comments and I'm not beating this dead horse any more until others express an opinion. If you want to challenge anything in the Josephine Baker article, by all means please do so; but "other stuff exists" is not a basis for what goes in Joan Crawford's article. The atheism analogy applies quite well; for example, if I state that Billy Graham or the Pope is an atheist, that can be construed as an accusation. "Why would they lie about it?" That's not up to us to decide; people lie for many, many reasons; people sometimes tell the truth; I'm not arguing either way; I'm simply stating that someone such as Christine Crawford claiming something doesn't make it true, and as an encyclopedia rather than a tabloid Misplaced Pages has standards that must be followed. And finally, neither you, nor I, nor anyone can read the mind of anyone involved with Crawford's "estate", so claiming that her "estate clearly does not care" is entirely beside the point unless you can provide a reliable source from the official manager of her estate that they "don't care". Cresix (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I find your analogy of calling the Pope and/or Billy Graham atheist to be very flawed, as the Pope and Graham make it quite clear that they are believers. In fact, their entire lives pivot around it. The crux of the accusation would be in the alleged dishonesty of the individuals involved. Anyway, I will await further commentary from other users regarding this matter. Asarelah (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
You miss the point entirely. Let me try to simplify and speak literally rather than through analogies. I responded to your statement: "while her other daughters Cindy and Cathy Crawford denied the allegations of abuse, they have yet to deny Crawford's alleged lesbianism." If someone says something about Crawford, or you, or me, the fact that Crawford's (or your, or my) children don't deny it does not make it true. So, to simplify even further, even if Crawford was bisexual (or even if she wasn't), silence by her children (or anyone else for that matter) has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether it is true. People can be silent about something for thousands of reasons that have nothing to do with whether they agree or disagree. Now, I'm not sure I can simplify any further, so if you don't get my point, perhaps someone else can jump in and try to explain it. Cresix (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
No, I get your point, I merely took issue with the analogy. Anyway, I'm going to stop beating this dead horse until someone new weighs in. Asarelah (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Support: Mention it. However, I can't contribute to the discussion, I just state my point of view. Sources seem legitimate and as Joan died more then three decades ago, I doubt that mentioning it would harm anyone's day-to-day life. Jesus Presley (talk) 09:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Limited Support. It would be appropriate to mention the specific reliable sources that make the claim as long as it doesn't become a gossip page or a "my source is better than your source" fight. (Uninvolved editor answering RFC.) Andrew (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Strong objection to the RFC as written. No, we don't add allegations to an article about a notable person and then add them to a list that seems to make it a factual claim. Yes, I have heard or read these rumors and they really don't have a lot of relevence in my opinion, other than to mention the allegations or "rumors" but that has no strength to add the person to a list of known homosexual or bisexual subjects. A little research shows that there is no statement that can be used from the subject herself and the most I find are some statements that appear to be Ms. Crawfords attempt at dry humor when referring to the subject at all.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Support: It deserves discussion, since there are several sources which state she was bisexual. By the same token, if there are print sources which refute the allegations, they should also be included. It doesn't have to be long or in-depth, but a Good article should be "broad in its coverage". Firsfron of Ronchester06:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes. I've read several books about Joan Crawford; it doesn't seem that controversial or unknown. As I said, if there are print sources which refute the allegations, those should also definitely be included. But, above, Asarelah has already provided sources which state she was bisexual. Are there sources which state it is categorically untrue? The article should be balanced, but so far, the discussion has only covered books which state she did have lesbian encounters, in addition to affairs with men. What are these other sources? Firsfron of Ronchester07:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Balance does not mean you must add allegations and counter them. Balance is: "When reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint" This is not a disinterested manner. We are asking to add the information in order to list the subject as an LGBT figure as far as sexyuality and that is not prominant in the overall biographical information of Crawford. There is clear POV at work here. Why is this any different than adding the same information about John Travolta? We recently had this discussion and the outcome was, we don't just add rumors because they are in print.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
By the way, in "Joan Crawford: The Essential Biography" there is no actual claim that she IS bisexual, just stating rumors and hearsay from others. Its opinion and would absolutely need attribution to use as an opinion and not as fact. There is no source that I am aware of that states Crawford was bisexual as a fact that we can use on Misplaced Pages as a reliable source. It seems to all be the opinion of the authors or they are just making assumptions.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
One other thing I would like to mention. I find it disturbing that when one does a google search of "Joan Crawford bisexual" the number one return is a wikipedia article called "Sewing circles which is referenced by a gossip columnist. That is just ridiculous and flies in the face of Misplaced Pages policy and guidleines. Regardless of the fact that Crawford is deceased does not negate the fact that we do not spread gossip. I also found the analogy using Alexander the Great to be really stretching things. Joan Crawford is not a historic figure in the same way and does not require peicing information together by historians or academics. Besides there is more than speculation in regards to that figures sexuality as well as figures such as Julius Caesar.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment I was invited by the RFCBot to checkout this discussion. I have taken some time to review the comments already posted. I am drawing my comments primariy from the discussion that has taken place and from related wikipedia policy/guide references. I have not personally done research on Joan Crawford regarding this issue.
Regarding inline content: It would seem appropriate to include verifiable quotes from reliable sources that other have made about Joan, however the context should be consistent with that in which the quote was made - something along the lines of "While X and Y were working on ] together, in her (x)'s biography that they were intimate " or whatever is accurate. Anybody can claim something about themselves, true or not, and they should be able to do so in reliable sources, as per BLP for the person who is the subject of a biography. To say that person "X" is a "Z" when they say so in their bio would be appropriate on their page. Actually Misplaced Pages:BLPSPS holds a stronger view that self-published sources (including bios) should only be used when "it does not involve claims about third parties." As such, we need to be very careful about presuming that what someone said about their relationship with someone is true; especially if the material was published after the other person died, precluding the possibility of refuting those claims. I will add, since it was mentioned above, the failure of the family to deny these claims does not make these statements true - to not comment, is specifically that, neither confirming nor denying. It would be OR and synthesis to presume otherwise.
Regarding placement of content: This should be placed under the appropriate sections as it related to the specific time of her life. It would appear to be undue to have a specific section dedicated to it. It would probably be even in appropriate to have a section called "bisexual rumors" unless that specific topic, the "rumors" are notable in themselves, which I don't believe they are. Rather the most appropriate place would be to include them inline with the main article when the timeline is appropriate.
Regarding category inclusion: While I do believe there is sufficient reliable sources to include that people have claimed to have bisexual relationships with Joan, we cannot confirm that so the category inclusion would be inappropriate at this time. We also cannot simply use the fact that other people have the category applied as a rational case for including it here, perhaps it should be removed from the other examples provided by other editors. About the only value we could glean from other articles is if they went through a similar RFC regarding the category inclusion in a similar situation, and then we might be able to use at as precedent. But I don't believe that is the case with the examples provided by pro-category-inclusion editors.
A possible place for both: A reason where we might be able meet the original posters thoughts is if there was a reliable source, where the primary subject is on Joan, and in which, it specifically states that Joan was bisexual (not engaged in such activities, or the primary subject is of one of her lovers, etc), then we could consider it for inclusion. But I don't believe there is such a document because it if came up previously the discussion could have ended there with support for inclusion.
I don't know where to begin. The edits I removed from you include weaselly POV unnecessary critique of the US Census. Any edit that restores comments related to that without seeking consensus on the talk page will be removed. I'm concerned that this article does an exceedingly poor job of using reliable sources for the information on her birth as it stands, and will probably recommend delisting it if we can't get some good sources for the information soon. It screams OR right now. This source is not reliable and shouldn't be included; although the others may be. The birth and death dates are not normally included in Misplaced Pages biographies any ways. "Possibly", for her birth location, needs an explanation from you. You later included the same POV related to Mommie Dearest here as you did in Mommie Dearest. The failure of me to mention something here does not necessarily mean I support that aspect of the edit, so I think at this time you should begin discussing your edits before making them. It would be helpful if you could attempt to address one issue at a time. RyanVesey10:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
