Talk:Thomas Kinkade/Archive 1

Archive 1

Older comments

I'm not sure the edit by Intimaralem85 was:

• In the appropriate location of the article
• From a non-copyrighted text (it sounds like something straight off one of Kinkade's products)
• NPOV

But again, I'm not sure, so I'm not going to make any edits. I'm am sure, though, it's in the wrong location of the article; one normally does not add more to an article's main content below the "External Links" section. --66.120.156.159 07:45, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Most of this text is pulled straight from Kinkade's personal website. I do not see the point in simply republishing his autobiography in Wikipedia. — Riobranden 15:51, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. this article is in desperate need of a cleanup. — 205.206.139.41 01:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've cleaned up the article so that it is at least better-organized and has less POV, but I am leaving the attention stub; his bio still sounds suspiciously like a press release, and someone should compare this to articles on other painters and see what other improvements can be made. — mjb 00:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

On fire?

Once I get my hands on the book and find the page number, I'm sticking this in the article. Ha! Melchoir 03:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Got it. Melchoir 07:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Siegfried and Roy

There is a reference to their show of March 2006. Didn't they retire years ago?

Swinterich 02:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. I fixed it and added a link to the Siegfried and Roy page. FYI, the accident (and retirement) was in 2003.

--KNHaw 07:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times references

We defintely do need to do something about the LA Times web refs. The Times makes the online pages available for free for 2 weeks or so, then put them in a pay-only archive. I seem to remember that policy is not to web link to pay-for material (although we can certainly cite such material). To be clear, I think it's an issue of citation form, not WP:RS; the LA Times remains a reliable source and is certainly citable even if it's not linkable, we just need to reformulate those cites correctly. I've cited the LA Times web site in this article myself, so if no one points out a Wiki-standard for this in the next week or so, I'll try to find the time to research what's appropriate. However, I'm hoping somebody knows the answer, to save me the work. I'm a lazy git... studerby 18:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I finessed the broken links by linking the first three to their free abstracts in the LA Times archives; if readers want more than what's in the abstract they'll have to pay. Once the 4th (29 August 2006) article ages out of the Times' free availabilty rule, its link will break and have to be changed as well. --CliffC 16:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Numbered instead of bulleted references

I noticed the References section was bulleted rather than numbered, so I put a # ahead of each {{note}} in the section to make references easier to find. That worked fine, but showed that the article already has some in-line references in the Personal Conduct section that generate footnote numbers without corresponding footnotes. I don't quite understand the problem yet, but I'll work to straighten it out today or sometime next week. --CliffC 14:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Numbered or bulleted, it looks to me like the mix of <ref> and {{ref}}/{{note}} templates in the article results in footnote numbers leading to the incorrect citation, and in footnote numbers with no citation. Fixing this is somewhat complicated by some footnote numbers needing to share a citation. I hereby volunteer to fix it by editing the article to use only in-line <ref>s. I know some people don't like these but I don't see another way. I'll try not to make the changes too ugly. Comments? I'll do this next week if there are no objections. --CliffC 19:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. All footnotes now lead to the correct citation. --CliffC 01:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Most recent Thomas Kinkade edit

(Message moved here from User talk:CliffC for reply)

I was planning to add refs this week to the portion of the article you deleted. I've just gotten sidetracked and haven't had a chance to take care of it. Do you mind if I undo your edits once I have the refs in place?

Mmt2008 (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought the section containing the deleted statements (statements with aged-out citation-needed tags) looked a lot like a press release. That's probably why editor TerriersFan added the tags and left the edit summary "these claims require independent sourcing" – meaning that the citations would need to come from a reliable source. Thus far your account is a single-purpose one, and all your edits are sourced either to the Kinkade web site or to a book authored by the Thomas Kinkade Company (excepting the Landor brand-awareness study, which one might assume was underwritten by the company, since no one else seems to be quoting it). In general, the wording of your contributions coupled with their lack of non-Kinkade sources looks quite promotional, and will probably continue to draw editorial attention. --CliffC (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Mike McGee

Who is "Curator Mike McGee?" With what museum or gallery, etc.? Who on earth is he? The cited article brings up an error message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.75.164 (talk) 04:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, he's from some museum in Laguna Beach? Does that make him a world authority? Laguna Beach: Global Art Capital. Who knew? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.75.164 (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The link in question was from the CSU Fullerton, Grand Central Art Gallery website, in connection with the (rather controversial) Kinkade exhibit the gallery put on in 2004. The links at the website are now moved or dead, but the essays were taken from other sources, which I've found and linked to. Mike McGee, who you inquire about, contributed an essay on Kinkade's work to the exhibition catalog, Thomas Kinkade: Heaven on Earth, which represents the sole "academic" treatment of Kincade's work. Jeffrey Vallance, represented in the next quote, is editor of the catalog. So, all sarcasm aside, they are "authorities" on Kinkade's work and should be represented in this article. Peter G Werner (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Donner?

I don't really understand the discussion about that Donner Lake painting. We'd need a heck of a lot more context in the section to figure out what the relevance is. "OK, here's a pretty painting of Donner Lake that doesn't indicate what a hellish place it can be if you're stuck there in the middle of winter having taken bad travel suggestions." OK, but what's this got to do with Kinkade, and how would the reader understand the point being made? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I took a shot at clearing that up. --CliffC (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Still seems odd to me -- criticizing a painter (Bierstadt) for painting a beautiful place in a beautiful way, because something bad had happened there a quarter century previously. And mind you, I'll go out of my way to snipe at Kinkade. But I guess my argument is with Didion, not this article. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Novels

Can we get a section on his books? The guy has authored 200+ books, you'd think that would get more than a sentence -- especially his works co-authored with Katherine Spencer -- I'm under the impression they are in a lot of large book stores now. 38.112.4.154 (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Parodies

SomethingAwful. Any comments on adding some talk of the parodies Kinkade has spawned? -- FeldBum 14:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Something Awful may be the funniest site on the Internet, but I don't think it should be a major part of the article. Maybe something like "Kinkade's style easily lends itself to parody" with the SA link. If you can find other, similar parodies, that would be really good. Stilgar135 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that one link will suffice, the long list comes across as a mockery of his work. I left the link that seemed to be most applicable. 129.170.241.160 (talk) 06:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Assembly line paintings

Kinkade doesn't paint most of the things that his name is on -- they're created by a crew of people who've been taught to "paint like him". Kinkade then signs the finished product. I'm surprised this isn't mentioned in the article -- its widely known. DISCUSS. --24.21.148.212 (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Since it's so widely known, why not provide a source? 205.155.72.125 (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Absurd

This is an absurdly anti-Kinkade POV article.

Do you have any specific, constructive criticism to offer, or are you just here to complain? Melchoir 18:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently he's done some genuinely foolish things. Not much we can do about that. Gazpacho 02:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with the unsigned parent, the article is obviously NPOV. For example, the only quote about his artistic style is ridiculous and hostile. Also two of the LAT reference links are broken. 75.34.189.201 00:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

And you're here to supply us with more material, then? Melchoir 02:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

User:75.34.189.201 has just done a nice reorg that has added a bit more balance without sacrificing anything essential, I think... Good job. studerby 12:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I did not see that coming. Wikipedia still has ways to surprise me. Yes, good job! Melchoir 14:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The state of the article on the day of the subject's death has declined into another embarrassment. It seems everyone and anyone with an ax to grind has tried to load it up with every bit of salacious trivia they could dredge up. The criticisms of his painting style are most absurd. For heaven's sake, he was an artist, and he painted what he felt, not necessarily what was actually there — it's called "artistic license". If one needs scientific accuracy, one should resort to a camera instead of a canvas and brush. My vote is to strip the article of all the references to "kitsch" and such B.S. and just stick with the known, documentable facts, not the opinions of some whining art critics and social gadflies. — Quicksilver^{T @} 09:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Birthplace confusion

Where was he born — Sacramento or Placerville? The article describes Placerville as his "hometown", and gives Sacramento as his place of birth in the Infobox. Placerville is near Sacramento, but is by no means a suburb of Sacramento. — Quicksilver^{T @} 09:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

He was born in Sacramento. His parents divorced or separated when the kids were still quite young and his mother moved with the kids to Placerville. She worked for the county government (El Dorado County) for many years. His father continued living in or near Sacramento, where I think he owned or managed a pizza parlor. He had an older sister, Katie, and a younger brother, Pat. Pat had some sort of involvement in Thom's art business --- as spokesman or manager or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.115.185.3 (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

File:ThomasKinkadeOct2005.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ThomasKinkadeOct2005.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:ThomasKinkadeOct2005.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times article

This LA Times article (registration required; try BugMeNot if that's a problem) paints a pretty scathing portrait of Kinkade. I don't have time to work it into the Wikipedia article, but if someone else is so inclined, please do! —mjb 19:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow! I had thought it was a simple rehash of the 2/24 piece, but... Wow! I'll take a crack at adding it to the "Criticism - Business Practices" section, although I might change the title to "Criticism - Other" to take into account the personal behavior stuff (does anyone have an opinion on this?). I'll try to get to it this week, but if anyone beats me to it, though, no sweat. --KNHaw 22:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

"Wow" was my reaction too. I agree with changing the title of the criticism section. ... we could just change it to "Criticism". I'm surprised at how solid these allegations seem, including confirmation from the woman who he allegedly fondled. --Allen 22:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I take that back; I agree with your original suggestion. Since he's an artist, the artistic criticism should be separate from the rest. --Allen 23:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Update: Kinkade has made a response, reported here. I haven't been able to read the entire piece nor find the actual response letter on Kinkade's site. It should be included in case someone beats me to it on this. Oh, yeah, I also contacted The Smoking Gun and they say that they don't think they'll be doing a FOIA request for the court transcripts (which I'd been hoping to cite here) because the LA Times already did a good job of picking out the interesting bits. Oh, well. --KNHaw 22:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I'm fine with the latest edits and don't plan on any mods of my own. --KNHaw 19:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding the links to both the original Times story and Kinkade's response to the section itself. As it was, the section's charges appeared unsubstantiated (I had to come here to the talk page to find them), but the charges are of such a nature that the citations need to be more out in the open. -- Realkyhick 20:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

While the Los Angeles Times is a legitimate newspaper, they have done nothing but show bias against Thomas Kinkade. Their reportage right now is not to be trusted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.251.169.70 (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Please give us an LAT quote and how it is used in the article and some evidence that it is a problem. --Javaweb (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Protect this page, please

There are a lot of anti-Kinkade folks out there who would like nothing better than to come here and vandalize. Please, how does one get a protect on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.251.169.70 (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure but, I agree it should be protected, as someone has already jumped the gun on the cause of death. He Had in fact been drinking according to reports in the mercury news(http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_20356474/finding-cause-los-gatos-painter-thomas-kinkades-death?source=pkg), but they've ordered an autopsy which because of lab back ups is going to take "between 12 and 20 weeks" to yield results. At this point there should be no definitive Cause of Death in the article. But I am relatively new to Wiki editing and I am not sure the best way to change it or how to protect it.Aen13 (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

patch.com is not a reliable source

The writers are not paid like real journalists. There is not the same review by editors that a real news source has. Please only use reliable sources that readers can trust. --Javaweb (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

And your point is ...? "Real journalists" aren't reliable either: According to radio talk show commentator Sean Hannity, journalism died in the United States in 2008 with its slavish, unquestioning promotion of presidential candidate Barack Obama, failing to vet even the most basic information about the subject of their writing. Most "real" journalists today are novelists, writing editorials masquerading as news. Editors at the Main Stream Media have debased themselves by pushing their points of view instead of facts. Since Wikipedia is written almost entirely by unpaid volunteers, by your standard it should be unreliable, too. — Quicksilver^{T @} 19:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It is in the section head: patch.com is not a reliable source. Please follow the Reliable source link and if you disagree with the policy, argue that on that talk page, not on this one. This is not a forum for your high regard for Sean Hannity's opinion on the newsmedia and the 2008 election. Thank you for your contributions to this article and discussions around his critics and death. --Javaweb (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Trivia should be removed?

This article is an embarrassment for Wikipedia- it reads more like a tabloid than an encyclopedia entry. A whole section on personal conduct of somebody in the arts world? Please!!! This Kinkade guy has a degree in how to market himself. Trivia should be deleted... Snow555 (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a valid aspect of his life and properly referenced to a good source. Note "he has a long history" of such actions. Ty 02:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

All the article really needs is a mention of drunkenness -- not the trivial boob palming. 38.112.4.154 (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This article about the life of Thomas Kinkade, the renowned 'Painter of Light' is an EMBARRASSMENT to Wikipedia! It reads like a cheap TABLOID out to smear his reputation as an artist. His paintings were highly honored at both the White House and the Vatican. This article should be entirely re-written with all SLANDEROUS remarks about his character REMOVED. Redeye KateRedeye Kate (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Kathleen, you're responding to a thread of discussion that's over two years old, but I'll try to answer you, also I suggest that you review this entire talk page for past discussion of what's in the "personal behavior" section. There is no "slander" in those two paragraphs, they merely summarize what the L.A.Times, no tabloid but a reliable source, has published about Kinkade. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of those who might prefer a rosier picture of the artist. --CliffC (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone else feel this should be removed?

In May 2011 Thomas Kinkade attended red carpet events associated with the Kentucky Derby along with former Baywatch actress Melissa Biggs. Photos and videos of his appearances showed him appearing and sounding much different than typically seen on TV or in his marketing materials. Instead of Christian style jewelry he was seen wearing a large silver iron cross medallion engraved, an iron cross ring, a silver human skull ring and heavy silver motorcycle chain bracelet.At the black-tie Julep Ball he also added a black cowboy-style hat with a large silver skull and crossbones accessory. When asked about the skull and crossbones by the interviewer he said "I'm a pirate. All artists are pirates."

It is a whole paragraph about his fashion choices on two occasions. Is it really notable to add this in an article that should focus on someone who is notable because he is a painter?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

References

I just love the art

I have a simple question: Where are the originals??? Is there a gallery somewhere with the original pieces? I have never discovered where they are located. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.160.108.190 (talk) 13:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we have a section focusing on his art? They're all so beautiful but perhaps some of the more knowledgeable editors could make some selections to add to this article. Also, please talk about these pieces from an investment point of view. I've always loved his work and if I ever get some money together I plan on starting my own collection. Well, here's hoping! Ewlyahoocom 14:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

We should, absolutely! Do you know of any good published reviews to draw on? Melchoir 19:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Investing in mass produced "art" is about one of the dumbest things you could do with your money. Perhaps you'd like to invest in Beenie Babies or Troll dolls as well? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 15:44, 1 June 2006 (talk • contribs) 12.180.165.2.

Was that really necessary? Personally, I don't know about it's investment value, but I think the art itself is very nice. Also, don't forget that people with the right timing probably made a killing on Beenie Babies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shador5529 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me respond to Melchoir on the question of investment value. Simply put, there is none. Art, viewed as an investment, is subject to the law of supply and demand. Paintings by Renoir are expensive because there are few of them relative to the number of people (esp. rich people) and institutions that would like to own them. In the case of an artist like Kinkade, the market is flooded with his product. If demand increases, such an artist will increase supply by making the print runs larger. The best way to measure the market value of art is in the resale market. Search Thomas Kinkade on EBay, and you will find scores of his things for about $10 to $30. The official website sells the equivalent for $800 to $1000+.

I am side-stepping a couple of issues here, namely a) whether looking upon art as an investment is a good idea, and b) whether the product sold by the Kinkade outfit is art. (By most definitions, it is not, because it is mass-produced by photo-lithographic processes, not at all like an etching or hand-pulled lithograph.)

In short, if you like his work, then by all means go out and buy it. But do check out EBay, which will be a much much cheaper source. And do not get the idea it has any investment value. Good luck! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fortunatus6 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do NOT send people to ebay for the cheap fake $10.00 rip offs from China. Thomas Kinkade is working with ebay to stop that.

Thomas Kinkade's Studio Proofs have his original brush strokes hand signed in gold. They are super limited and have become a wonderful

investment. Of course the originals go for hundreds of thousands of dollars. God bless! bionicman 28 Feburary 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.200.146.193 (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, but technically you're responding to someone else! I'm adding the necessary tags to point out whom just now. Melchoir 22:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This article needs some examples of his painting

How can you run an article about a painter without showing some of his paintings? I know he tended to copyright is work but, surely, there is a way to get some examples in this article. 75.175.42.56 (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I imagine that the estate is watching this page like a hawk. But what about one of his book covers? Did he paint the covers of his books? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

"a phrase he protected through trademark but ONE originally attributed to the British master J. M. W. Turner"

What does "one" mean here? Doesn't seem like proper English, or is missing context. Equinox ◑ 00:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding blood 'signing' and vault paintings following his death

Apperently he signed his paintings with his blood, and following his death, paintings from the 'Vault' series are of questionable legitimacy. An article by Vice covers this in depth, and this seems like stuff that oughta be on the article. I'm personally not adding it myself because I don't feel like it. Waxworker (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality

I was glad to find a template that said the neutrality should be checked, rather than saying it was disputed. I think saying that we should just check and make sure this article is neutral is more accurate in this case, because it may be entirely justified, but the article seems to focus quite a lot on criticism of Kinkade's public behavior, questionable business practices, etc. It seems like it places a lot of weight on those issues for an encyclopedia article on an artist, and I would like to see if others think this is undue weight. This is not because I like Kinkade or anything, I love to make fun of his art for the cheesy kitsch it is, and it doesn't sound like he was a very pleasant person at all. Just trying to make sure the article stays encyclopedic. So, what do people think? Mmyers1976 (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the article is biased and seems to try to convince the reader that he was bad. Its like it was written by people who do not like him and let their bias show. The critical stuff should at least go into a critical response rather than to be scattered about. Its really unfair to the man and his work. There are people that do like his paintings and this article seems to create an impression no one likes them. Ecvna553 (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Image of art requested

As noted above, this article lacks an illustration of Kinkade's art. All of it remains under copyright and sold by licensees, even at thumbnail size, so a direct image of any painting would carry legal risk. What I propose instead is a photo of a decorative item featuring his art (mugs, dishes, vases, clocks, jewelry etc.). This would be for the purpose of illustrating how his art was marketed, and would not be a serious detriment to its marketability.

Criteria:

• The item features one of Kinkade's original scenes, i.e. the relevant Kinkade Studios page shows a copyright by his estate.
• The work illustrates Kinkade's luminist style, or "glow."
• The entire decorative item is visible.

67.180.143.89 (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Alternatively, perhaps the article could use this photo, which is CC 2.0 licensed and would serve the purpose described. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Non-free content, policy permits non-free images of Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school. Critical commentary is already present in the article. An image must be relatively low resolution, so that it does not infringe on the commercial opportunities of the copyright holder. Cullen328 (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

On further inspection, the Flickr photo is not licensed under CC 2.0, even though it used to be. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)