Talk:Ian Hornak

Untitled
The same article as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornak_ian

Tagged as needing citations/footnotes. Also needs to read less like a resume or advertising. Tychocat 10:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

More material added, no comment to either the fact the page is duplicated, nor that it still reads like an ad or resume. Tychocat 11:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Copy edits
Could use a good copyediting, as well as removal of "critics' statements" section, unabashedly blurb-like and not encyclopedic. 99.149.87.132 (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

"Selected" bibliography
This hyper-inflated list is not OK. There is general agreement across the board that lists of publications about a subject should not be included in an article--it's bad article writing and all too often promotional. Imagine such a list in the Rembrandt article. No, if there's anything worthwhile in those articles, they should be brought in as references, properly footnoted. Something similar applies to the list of holdings. First of all, much of it is unverified. Second, what there is is PRIMARY at best. Third, and related to the sourcing, why is it important? If the man is such an important artist the (verified) text should bear that out--not a lengthy list worthy only of a resume. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Alleged nephew alleged as forger
Eric Ian Hornak Spoutz, who claims to be the nephew of Hornak, has been arrested by the FBI on charges of forgery. His claims of connection to Hornak have not clearly been substantiated as factual, and any references based on what he said or wrote should be reevaluated. The Detroit News was not able to get a response from the Hornak foundation as to whether Spoutz is connected with them at all. See here http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/macomb-county/2016/02/04/feds-charge-macomb-dealer-forged-art-case/79852792/ John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)