Talk:Margaret Keane

Internal inconsistency?
The page says the courts acknowledged Keane as the creator of her work in 1965, but later say that SNL referenced her when it was still believed that her husband was the creator. SNL debuted in 1975, ten years after the decision. Can someone more knowledgeable fix this with the correct information? 71.156.82.117 02:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This section is poorly worded, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Citation: Awake! Mag
I've noticed that this article has been tagged for "citations needed". The quotes were taken from the Awake magazine article that is referenced, but unfortunately, the article in question has been removed from the destination site. What should I do? --Emana 16:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing. The Awake! article was moved to another web page which can now be accessed from this article. Glenn L 07:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Remember that an article written by the subject is considered a primary source. More secondary sources may be required to verify and interpret information taken from her Awake! article. There are some articles at The New York Times site and maybe at other reliable sources. http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/?action=click&contentCollection&region=TopBar&WT.nav=searchWidget&module=SearchSubmit&pgtype=Homepage#/Margaret%20keane (Not all these hits are about the painter.) Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * In that vein, what should be done about the YouTube videos as sources. I would take a primary written source over an interview by Mike Douglas any day. Plus there are statements sourced to her gallery's website. Not to mention the "art book" written by Walter and Margaret Keane. AnthroMimus (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Is this true: "commissioned the artist to paint a portrait of his then-girlfriend Lisa Marie.[31]" She was not his girlfriend since long before that, and I can't read that in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.228.165.188 (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

More details on her life are needed
With the advent of the Burton film, Big Eyes, about her conflict with her husband over painting attribution, surely more details about her life will become available. As it is, the current version of the article includes nothing about her childhood, art education, or art career up until the conflict. Does she have children? Parents? Siblings? The photograph mentions in the caption that Frank Ulbrich was her first husband, yet he isn't mentioned at all in the article. Authors, as they become available, please include appropriate details. Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

USA Today
Currently the article says that in 1970 Walter Keane rebutted Margaret Keane's claim of being the actual artists via USA Today. USA Today didn't exist in 1970, it started in 1982. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.152.200.228 (talk) 11:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Anime eyes
Any mention of her style being similar to anime or manga needs sources explicitly making that connection, otherwise it's original research. Sources mentioning the history of Anime (like this one:) do not mention Keane at all. Exaggerated eyes are a common feature of many art styles and traditions, and while it's certainly possible she was inspired by Japanese pop-culture, it would be improper WP:SYNTH to say so one way or the other without sources makes that specific statement. Grayfell (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, the paintings predate any sort of widespread knowledge in the USA of anime. At the time, nobody in the USA compared them to anime. Binksternet (talk) 04:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's use Grayfell's talk page. I already wrote a lot of content there. Just to address User:Banksternet directly: That is irrelevant, your opinion, and not wikipedia worthy. Do you work for the Big Eyes movie? I hope there is not a conflict of interest, because the screenwriteres there are morons. --- For the final clarification: Animie eyes date back to Japan in 1917. I provided legitimate reference to this. Whether some American's related them to anime or not is irrelevant. Not to mention, just your opinion.
 * I think Grayfell and I are in agreement now. I have made one addition. See his talk page for more information. We'll discuss there (or someone can move it to here - that's fine as well). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bliljerk101 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No way. Let's talk about it here, where it belongs. Grayfell (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To be clear, we are not in agreement. I declined to revert your addition because I didn't want to edit war, not because I thought it was appropriate. I agree with Binksternet that Keane's art and anime are likely unrelated (or convergent evolution if you want) but that's not really the important part. Comparing Keane's art to anime is only going to cause confusion, not prevent it. If a reliable source makes the comparison, then we can talk about it, but not before that. Grayfell (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Every single reference that we use here should discuss Keane. If it doesn't, there is WP:SYNTH or WP:NOR involved, where Blilgerk101 is putting together fact A and fact B to come up with conclusion C. Binksternet (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Where's her photo?
Put it up. 50.136.57.217 (talk) 06:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have a photo that would not violate copyrights if published here, then you can share it with us. Enivid (talk) 07:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't such a photo fall under fair-use? For that matter, wouldn't the painting that she painted in court also fall under fair-use in this article?  allixpeeke (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Name
I think her name might be Margaret Doris Hawkins the nickname Peggy is used with the name Margaret.RichardBond (talk) 08:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Samples of her works
Has anyone photographed examples of her works? -- 68.50.32.85 (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes - a photo set has been added to the article. Msoul13 (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Whoops, it had to be deleted since it did not have a compatible Creative Commons license. Msoul13 (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Passed away
So sad she passed away in the Napa Valley... 2600:8801:8D0A:7300:487A:EEE3:C7FC:9785 (talk) 04:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Instagram source
This is regarding this edit which I reverted

I dispute that this source is useful for the statement In the 1960s, Keane became one of the most popular and commercially successful artists of the time.:

It doesn't support the attached statement, it is merely a historical photo of Carol Doda standing next to a Keane painting at the Condor Club, without any commentary on Keane or the painting itself. Using this source in this way is WP:OR, at best. As it is a blurb republished via social media makes this even worse, as it undermines any claim of due weight. Grayfell (talk) 07:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Good call, ! I'm not convinced that this is much better, nor indeed that "... became one of the most popular and commercially successful artists of the time" is an encyclopaedic statement. What's wrong with something like "... had considerable commercial success"? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Yup. I can't tell what, exactly, "Geezer's Gallery" is. It appears to be a blog shared by many people in the advertising industry? It looks interesting, but I do not see any signs it has a positive reputation for accuracy and fact-checking.
 * I've cleaned up some of the bad sources at Carol Doda and Condor Club, but I think a lot more work is needed, and this might be a larger issue.
 * "Considerable" seems like a filler word, since saying it "was commercially successful" conveys the same idea, but if you think that flows better that's fine with me. Grayfell (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you're right, . Anyway, I've removed that sentence for now. It's not clear to me which Keane Warhol was talking about, or when he said that, as I can't see the NYT ref; perhaps someone who can will find time to sort that out? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

"Watching the eyes...to understand them" sounds non-credible
Under the heading "Early Life" the third sentence states "Unable to hear properly, she learned to watch the eyes of the person talking to her to understand them." The source provided for this is a book citation which, of course, only those with access to that book can check for veracity. Regardless, it sounds to me like a non-credible claim, like a reverse-engineered backstory to tie-in the emphasis on eyes in her artwork. To the surprise of no one, people with hearing impairments don't look at eyes to understand what people are saying to them; they look at mouths. If an editor isn't able to provide the actual text from the book, I think this ought to be stricken. Even if it is provided, it should be couched as a claim rather than a fact. Bricology (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)