Talk:Walter Keane

Reference section errors
Authors, please note that the Reference section needs help. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Incredibly inaccurate article
It's known, and was ruled in federal court, that Walter Keane lied about the paintings being his and not his wife, yet the only thing on the entire page that mentions that is an article under the "Further Reading" section. This needs to be remedied as soon as possible, especially with the movie Big Eyes coming out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C:8780:664:28AA:2814:D540:6FBD (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with the above comment, Walter Keane does not deserve the credit for his wife's work. The ruling was made if Margaret Keanes favour, she is the artist. The Walter Keane page should be reduced to a 'husband of artist Margaret Keane' and should be largely about is place in history, which was; the intellectual property theft of his wife's work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.243.9 (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Obviously, the article's been edited since these comments. But right now, it says in part: "In 1957, having plagiarized his wife's art for nine years ..." How is this possible if he didn't even meet Margaret until 1953? Mahousu (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It's definitely gone too far the other way now. Needs to be somewhere between the two points. - Richfife (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The timeline of the article is completely self contradictory. We need to go back to the sources and untangle it. - Richfife (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistent
This articlle seems verry one sided and inconsistent with the ex-wife page. Need refrences to the 1990 judgement if it exists and some doubt about the veracity of Walters claim for ownership of the "big eyes" paintings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammarbytp (talk • contribs) 10:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sleeper
Are you sure the reference in Sleeper might be to Chagall, not Cugat? PatGallacher (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Potential source problems
In light of the edit war that's taking place, particularly the accusations of "libel" and "media gossip", I think it's worth pointing out that some of the existing sources aren't necessarily ideal. The second source is Huffington Post, which has been the subject of some controversy; the sixth source is Facebook, which is pretty universally considered to be unreliable; and the thirteenth source is People.com, which is a celebrity news site with headlines like "Hilary Duff's Super-Thick Geek Chic Glasses: Obsessed or Hot Mess?". (This isn't to say that FACT CHECKER's sources are any better; quite the contrary.)  ekips 39 03:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

RSN thread
Any interested editors are invited to join the discussion at WP:RSN about the sourcing of this article. Cheers... &mdash; kikichugirl  speak up! 07:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Images
Although the painting that his ex-wife painted in court is probably under copyright, methinks it would definitely fall under fair-use in this article. If anyone has a digital copy of that painting, I would encourage its inclusion here. allixpeeke (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree that especially a painting, or even the poster art from the movie would be useful to both this article and the article on his 2nd wife, Margaret. SeaBeeDee SeaBeeDee 12:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC) SeaBeeDee 12:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeaBeeDee (talk • contribs)