Talk:Theo van Gogh (art dealer)

Present state of things

Until now this article is a (more or less exact) translation of the entry in nl.wikipedia, and is like its source more or less out of date, too. Nothing of crucial research published in the last few years is included. I have started a revision by adding at least references to some of this publications. Further dates can be found at Vincent van Gogh chronology. --RPD 09:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense

Removed from main article:

• The Goupil art dealership had run into difficulties ... - Any sources? --RPD 00:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Death

It says:He was murdered in 2004, at the age of 47. Umm... he was born in 1857 and died in 1891.. Vandalism! Megan :) 16:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really vandalism, just an awkward sentence. It was a reference to Theo van Gogh (film director), I removed it. Garion96 (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Tag removal

rm

as there are 8 now. Use of reflist somewhat obscures this and the two sections are redundant. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Brothers section needs citing

This section is extremely editorial and needs citing, especially in the lede. FightingMac (talk) 05:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion it speaks for itself, common sense helps, lede doesn't need to be cited...Modernist (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

What is especially at issue here is the following lede

• Theo admired his elder brother Vincent for his whole life. But communicating with him proved to be difficult, even before Vincent opted to follow his artistic vocation. The communication between both brothers suffered from diverging definitions of standards, and it was evidently Theo who kept on writing letters. Therefore, mostly Vincent's answers survived and little of Theo's input. Theo was often concerned about Vincent's mental condition and he was amongst the few who understood his brother.

None of this is cited. In the entire article there is not a single biography cited. The article was tagged as lacking references but the tag was removed after a few references were added. Nevertheless the remarks on the relationship between the two brothers remain uncited.

It is an absolutely fundamental principle of Wikipedia that content must be verifiable. Every time we come to make an edit, a footnote in the Edit box reminds us of that.As something like the 357th most active Wikipedian according to your Talk page you surely know that.

This has nothing to do with the issues possibly being contentious but simply our policy.

To say these remarks in the lede are "common sense" is grotesque. Relations between bothers are not necessarily amicable, that one should support the other financially is not self-evident, that one of them should be solicitous of the other's mental health and one of the few to understand him a matter of fact that needs citing.

It seems to me, on the basis of what I have seen from you in the articles Vincent van Gogh and At Eternity's Gate, there is a tendency for you to take on an editing role which is authoritative rather than consensus built. Thus in the Van Gogh article you are content to leave a remark to the effect that his last paintings were "severely dark" uncited whereas, as you must know by now, critics in general do not make any such remark, and in At Eternity's Gate you were content to add a "common-sense" remark to the effect that the painting reflects Van Gogh's despairing mood at the time of his suicide when in fact it was painted a full two months before that, in another enviroment altogether (a sanatorium), that some 70 canvases subsequently ensued and finally that the painting was a close copy of an 1882 lithograph he executed when he was in excellent health and full of sunny optimism for his future based on the evidence of his letters and those around him.

I am replacing the template, which I remind you is placed there for the benefit of the community and not to challenge any individual, and I ask you to leave it in place until such time as this content is cited. FightingMac (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Cause of Death

There is no PROOF nor does it even make sense the TVG died of Syphllis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Ugg - here we go again. Armchair medical experts. Question, why didn't his wife catch syphllis? Answer - Teddy didn't HAVE it so she never caught it even though have had busy sex life that had produced recent children.

WIkipedia is full of idiots.

BTW - DEMENTIA PARALYTICA is not a necessary clinical diagnosis for Syphllis. But don't let facts get in the way of a good spin from the rumor mill.

LISSAUER'S DEMENTIA PARALYTICA CONTRIBUTION TO THE STUDY OF ITS DIAGNOSIS AND PATHOGENESIS BY A. J. GALBRAITH and A. MEYER From the Central Pathological Laboratory, L.C.C. Mental Health Services. (RECEIVED 16TH MARCH, 1942) Introduction CASES of general paralysis of the insane in which " focal " symptoms are a prominent feature, and which show circumscribed atrophy of parts of one or both cerebral hemispheres, have been grouped under the heading of Lissauer's Dementia Paralytica. Lissauer and Storch published their paper in 1901, but in Alzheimer's (1904) famous monograph there is mention of a number of cases of this condition which had been recorded prior to this. Since then further cases have been described. In 1932 Merritt and Springlova reviewed 35 cases previously published in the literature, and added eight cases which they had personally studied. In 1936 Ogino reported on three cases, and a year later Malamud's (1937) paper contained a description of four further cases. The latest studies on this subject by Dalke (1938) and Divry (1940) are unfortunately not available for comment in this paper. The definition of the clinical syndrome and the description of the patho- logical findings, in cases of Lissauer's Dementia Paralytica, given by Merritt and Springlova, represents the generally accepted view on the condition up to the present time. These authors came to the conclusion " that Lissauer's Dementia Paralytica should be suspected in every case of general paralysis with apoplectiform or unilateral convulsions, especially when these are followed by localizing signs, e.g. hemiplegia, aphasia, hemianopia, etc." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 06:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I realise the above comment is 10 years old. But it is general consensus that he had syphilis. It is a glaring omission that the article omits this fact which is in ever bio of the man. I have added a small mention of it. Ashmoo (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)