Talk:Lost works by Vincent van Gogh
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Nuenen paintings
[edit]THe Nuenen paintings are very nice, but I really can't see what their relevance to the article might be. The "Bible" can prhaps remain because of the death of Vincent's pastor father at Nuenen, but the other two should surely go. What we really need are examples of works from the Breda boxes, but I haven't been able to track down any images as of yet. RobvanderWaal (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Now isn't that a schoolbook example of a catch-22 problem? Of course pictures of the lost works themselves would be the most appropriate illustrations for an article about those paintings, but if we actually had those pictures, they wouldn't be lost, now would they? I chose the paintings that we see in the article today because of their similar dates to the lost ones. If you find other pictures from the same location and period they will surely be just as fitting.
- What troubles me more about the current state of the article is the template above it. At User_talk:RobvanderWaal#Question the article is described as speculative and farfetched, then a few edits into the discussion it turns out to be quite compelling, trustworthy and based on solid evidence, the fruit of respected professional researchers such as Bram Huijser. First "It has no references", then "I don't have Hulsker's Van Gogh door van Gogh", and when it turns out that Wilkie also writes about it, you conclude "this is not all that new" after all. If you are able to read Dutch, also see nl:Overleg_gebruiker:Ivory#Vincent_van_Gogh_artikelen, which is a discussion I had with the first author of the Dutch article (of which this one is a rather literal translation, as suspected in your discussion), which may be of interest to you. Our discussion ends with my remark that "A 'citation needed'-tag seems unthinkable to me on such a well researched and referenced article, but impossible things happen all the time". If nobody has reasonable objections, I will therefore try to remove the tag in a few days. Thanks for adding the interesting chapter about the exhibition at the Breda Museum in 2003, highlighting that the many questions surrounding the lost works by Van Gogh are as intriguing today as they ever were. Ivory (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please do not remove any tags unless you provide references. Your original article was filled with what is referred as WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, before he was blocked Rob added referenced material and did the best he could with what you left...Modernist (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hello and thank you for your interest. I am afraid we are not on the same frequency. Please be asured that I will not remove anything without consensus, but if the article was original research, it should be deleted, not tagged. It is my strong belief that people who add such tags undiscriminatingly do more harm than good to Wikipedia. The research by Bram Huijser may to some extent be regarded as original, just as the work by Hulsker and the others mentioned in the references section. What they say about the 'Breda boxes' was carefully and most encyclopedically presented by Boekenliefhebber, whose article I translated into English, including the necessary references. If you can provide reputable sources contradicting their conclusions, we can make the article even better than it already is. Ivory (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Frankly I thought the article should have been deleted. Still do...Modernist (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Most encouraging. But seriously, you now have repeatedly accused me of mischief that I don't think I am (or Boekenliefhebber is) guilty of at all. You apparently see OR where I absolutely don't, and you haven't substantiated your accusitions. You also haven't nominated the article for deletion and I suspect the reason for that is your request would most likely be denied on grounds of notability, verifiability and proper presentation and you know it. The "reasonable objections" against removal of the template that I asked for are still lacking, so if I remove the misplaced and ugly thing next week please don't put it back. Thank you, Ivory (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't recommend your removal of the template. I haven't bothered with this article in some remote chance it'll be referenced. Don't push it; I might be motivated to delete the whole thing. notability, verifiability and proper presentation and you know it - you gotta be kidding..Modernist (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Most encouraging. But seriously, you now have repeatedly accused me of mischief that I don't think I am (or Boekenliefhebber is) guilty of at all. You apparently see OR where I absolutely don't, and you haven't substantiated your accusitions. You also haven't nominated the article for deletion and I suspect the reason for that is your request would most likely be denied on grounds of notability, verifiability and proper presentation and you know it. The "reasonable objections" against removal of the template that I asked for are still lacking, so if I remove the misplaced and ugly thing next week please don't put it back. Thank you, Ivory (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Frankly I thought the article should have been deleted. Still do...Modernist (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hello and thank you for your interest. I am afraid we are not on the same frequency. Please be asured that I will not remove anything without consensus, but if the article was original research, it should be deleted, not tagged. It is my strong belief that people who add such tags undiscriminatingly do more harm than good to Wikipedia. The research by Bram Huijser may to some extent be regarded as original, just as the work by Hulsker and the others mentioned in the references section. What they say about the 'Breda boxes' was carefully and most encyclopedically presented by Boekenliefhebber, whose article I translated into English, including the necessary references. If you can provide reputable sources contradicting their conclusions, we can make the article even better than it already is. Ivory (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please do not remove any tags unless you provide references. Your original article was filled with what is referred as WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, before he was blocked Rob added referenced material and did the best he could with what you left...Modernist (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello everyone! I am new to editing on Wikipedia, and I chose to collaborate on this article for a course in my graduate studies on art librarianship. I look forward to speaking and working with you on this topic! One thing I can say off the bat is that there should probably be more citations/wikilinks added throughout? I'll look more closely at the article so I can be specific, but I just thought I'd lend my voice to the talk page to get introduced. Shelbo33 (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)