Jump to content

Talk:Vincent van Gogh/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Auvers-sur-Oise (May – July 1890)

In early 1890, Vincent decided that it was crucial to leave st remy’s for the sake of his health because He feared his stay at st remy’s was worsening his mental condition rather than improving it. Not wanting to be alone, Vincent considered staying with Gauguin. However, Gauguin was not fond of the idea of living with Vincent after Vincent’s manic self -mutilation episode. Vincent also considered the possibility of staying with Camille Pissarro, an impressionist painter whom he had befriended in Paris. Yet again, the idea of Vincent living with a friend posed to be problematic because Pissarro’s wife feared the effect Vincent would have on her children. The idea of staying with Pissarro inspired yet another idea. 20 miles from Paris in the small town of Auvers lived a physician by the name of Paul Gachet-who was a friend of Pissarro and had some knowledge of mental illnesses-and served as a prospect in helping Vincent regain a balanced mental state. Vincent decided to go to Auvers after Gachet agreed to find lodging and provide any medical care that he could, he described Dr. Gachet as, “rather eccentric.” Vincent became fond of the doctor‘s kindly nature, yet he observed a sense of sadness beneath Gachet’s eccentric disposition- which was expressed in Vincent’s painting- Portrait of Dr. Gachet, Auvers, June 1890. Vincent wrote Theo, “He certainly appears to me just as ill and confused as you or I…now I have a portrait of Dr. Gachet with the heartbroken expression of our time.” Optimism was on the rise for Vincent at this particular point in his life, however, detrimental events occurred soon after his new found hopefulness. Soon after his visit with Theo, Vincent received word that his nephew had become deathly ill and that Theo was considering quitting his job after a dispute with his employers, which meant risking a drop In income. Although Theo tried to reassure Vincent by stating, “ don’t bother your head about me or about us…remember that what gives me the greatest pleasure is the knowledge that you are in good health…“ but Vincent was unconvinced by his brother’s pleading words. Vincent traveled to Paris for a family conference about the pressing issues, but the matter only worsened as Vincent became more pessimistic stating, “and the prospect grows darker, I see no happy future at all.” Vincent, although extremely distraught, continued his work. One of his final paintings, Wheat Field With Crows, clearly represents his emotional state at that time. In a letter to Theo he expressed, “…I did not need to go out of my way to express sadness and extreme lonliness.” One the day of Sunday, July 27, 1890, Vincent headed toward the wheat field with a revolver and easel in hand, possibly unsure of which act to engage in-suicide, or painting-. He decided on that day to shoot himself in the abdomen. Although fatally wounded, Vincent managed to walk back to the inn where the landlord discovered him laying in his bed. When Theo caught word of the horrific event, Vincent said assuredly, “Do not cry, I did it for the good of everybody.” Thirty six hours after Vincent had shot himself, Vincent said to his brother Theo in Dutch, “I wish I could go home now.” Vincent Willem Van Gogh died that day at the mere age of 37. Kiralee122 (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

references to quotes may be found in, Robert Wallace and the editor of Time-Life Books The World Of Van Gogh 1853-1890

Are there some specific points you would like to raise about the current version of the article's text? Stumps (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2008

he was born in the Netherlands —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.136.114 (talk • contribs)

Proof Van Gogh did not use Yellow because he had "Yellow Vision"

If Van Gogh would have seen everything with a yellow tint, all of the other colors he used to paint with would have looked yellow to him. Therefore, he would have used those other colors "thinking" they were different shades of yellow, unaware of any difference in color.

QED.

Corollary: Van Gogh's use of yellow was more likely due to his fondness for the color. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.14.57.35 (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

How come I can't edit this page?

I would like to edit this page of Van Gogh but It seems I dont have the restrictions to do that.. How come? Can somebody help me? Gr. Rianne —Preceding unsigned comment added by RianneDoe (talk • contribs) 14:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It is semi-protected to stop vandals ruining the content. If you register an account and edit nicely for a few days you will not face any restrictions. JFW | T@lk 10:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

--Petricek (talk) 09:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)==Health== doi:10.1258/jmb.2007.007023 Journal of Medical Biography recent article on his health. Could possibly be authoritative. JFW | T@lk 10:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

On swirls and spirals in van Gogh's work

{{editsemiprotected}} Swirls and spirals are prominent patterns in van Gogh's paintings (The Starry Night). One possible explanation might be that he painted entoptic forms[1]. Entoptic forms (or phosphenes) are visual phenomena that a person experiences in an altered state of consciousness, and are endogenous, not related to his actual visual perception. They emerge from the upper visual pathways, and are typical in migraine attacks, epilepsia, and during externally provoked altering of consciousness (drugs, alcohol etc.). Most frequently they consist of basic visual forms: spirals, zig-zag forms, grids, and hexagons. Cave art is currently most frequently described in this way, although some authors have drawn direct analogies to van Gogh and some other modern painters as well (Monet, Picasso, Pissaro, Kandinski, Klee, Pollock, Miro and others) </ref>.Eichmeier, J. And O.Hofer. Endogene Bildmuster, Urban und Schwarzenberg, Munich, 1974. </ref>. Petricek (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Not done: Thanks for wanting to improve this article, but I can't understand what you are requesting. Can you be specific about what you would like to have inserted and where? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Thanks for swift response. I am new to Wikipedia, sorry. I wanted o remark on and explain freqent occurence of spirals in van Gogh's paintings, that may be attributed to his altered state of consciousness induced by drugs, alcohol or other reasons, as excellently described in cited article. I think this is important addition to explanation of his work- the text I posted above may be inserted in the passage concerning his health, or about his technique, where spirals are already mentioned. Petricek (talk) 09:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC) {{editsemiprotected}} Any news? Am I doing something wrong in using this page?Petricek (talk) 12:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. You didn't do anything wrong, it's just that I only check requests once evey few days if the template isn't active. Welcome to Wikipedia; everyone is new here sometime and I'm fairly new myself, so we'll just take it step at a time. I still need you to be more specific. As in, "Please insert these in section 'XYZ' after the sentence that ends with 'A B C.'" That's the way the semi-protected edit request works: you do the creative work and I do the typing...after verifying that the change is OK. Based on your explanation, these changes may be considered original research or synthesis. We don't make new observations at Wikipedia, we document other people's observations. If your first reference comments on Van Gogh, that is fine. If it doesn't, you'll need to find a reference that does. When you get those issues dealt with, put in another {{editsemiprotected}} and someone will come by to help. Celestra (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Thanks! So let's see if this works: I would like to insert text with references in chapter Medical records after the sentence: The disorders it is most commonly associated with are mania and epilepsy.[82] The text and references are: Swirls and spirals are prominent patterns in van Gogh's paintings (The Starry Night with cypresses). One possible explanation might be that he painted entoptic forms[2]. Entoptic forms (or phosphenes) are visual phenomena that a person experiences in an altered state of consciousness, and are endogenous, not related to his actual visual perception. They emerge from the upper visual pathways, and are typical in migraine attacks, epilepsia, and during externally provoked altering of consciousness (drugs, alcohol etc.). Most frequently they consist of basic visual forms: spirals, zig-zag forms, grids, and hexagons. Cave art is currently most frequently described in this way, although some authors have drawn direct analogies to van Gogh and some other modern painters as well (Monet, Picasso, Pissaro, Kandinski, Klee, Pollock, Miro and others) </ref>.Eichmeier, J. And O.Hofer. Endogene Bildmuster, Urban und Schwarzenberg, Munich, 1974. </ref>. Regarding the contents of contribution: in the reference that is available on the web authors cited in the second paper (web quotation unavailable) asserted that entoptic pictures did influence work of several authors which I mentioned. The analogy with cave art is also very interesting. So I am not drawing any personal conclusion from data which someone I cite hasn't done already. I feel that this purely physiological phenomenon may explain some quite prominent elements in van Gogh's paintings. I hope this answers your queries. Petricek (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I am skeptical about including any speculation concerning Van Gogh's work that isn't both referenced and accepted by Van Gogh scholars and art historians; I think your addition might be more useful here:Vincent van Gogh's medical condition or here: The Starry Night...Modernist (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


I accept argumented scepticism, but I still support my assertions by reference which is already extensively quoted in such a landmark book as is the Origin of Humankind by Richard Leakey. So, it is referenced and is definitely not speculation any more than so many interesting and valuable information in this otherwise outstanding article. Also, I do not agree with the argument that only van Gogh scholars and art historians are allowed to comment on van Gogh- I am quoting antropologists, and I think their opinions and research are just as important, quotable and relevant here. I believe it is the core of Wikipedia's policy to be democratic, and to consider every contribution based on its content, and not on the contributors' credentials. Finally, swirls and spirals are already mentioned in this article: "The paintings from the Saint-Rémy period are often characterized by swirls and spirals. The patterns of luminosity in these images have been shown[84] to conform to Kolmogorov's statistical model of turbulence." I do not think that this remark regarding Kolmogorov's statistical model of turbulence (??) really contributes so much more to the understanding of van Gogh's work than my proposed addition.So, if someone can be more specific regarding relevance and quality of my contribution, I will be glad to accept his remarksPetricek (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Since my last posting, I found that on the Wikipedia page Form constant exactly the same phenomenon was described. So I would like to once more suggest to include mentioning this in the context of van Gogh's work. I still think it creates a valuable insight in his work.

I would like to insert text with references in chapter Medical records after the sentence: The disorders it is most commonly associated with are mania and epilepsy.[82]

The text and references are:

Swirls and spirals are prominent patterns in van Gogh's paintings (The Starry Night with cypresses). One possible explanation might be that he painted entoptic forms or Form constant [3]. Entoptic forms, phosphenes or form constants are visual phenomena that a person experiences in an altered state of consciousness, and are endogenous, not related to his actual visual perception. They emerge from the upper visual pathways, and are typical in migraine attacks, epilepsia, and during externally provoked altering of consciousness (drugs, alcohol etc.). Most frequently they consist of basic visual forms: spirals, zig-zag forms, grids, and hexagons. Cave art is currently most frequently described in this way, although some authors have drawn direct analogies to van Gogh and some other modern painters as well (Monet, Picasso, Pissaro, Kandinski, Klee, Pollock, Miro and others) [4].


Regarding the contents of contribution: in the reference that is available on the web authors cited in the second paper (web quotation unavailable) asserted that entoptic pictures did influence work of several authors which I mentioned. The analogy with cave art is also very interesting. So I am not drawing any personal conclusion from data which someone I cite hasn't done already. I feel that this purely physiological phenomenon may explain some quite prominent elements in van Gogh's paintings.Petricek (talk) 09:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Speculation, guesswork, theory, and poorly written english is why your recent addition was removed...Modernist (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I accept criticism that my addition to the chapter Medical records is speculation, guesswork and theory. However, what is not speculation, guesswork and theory in this chapter? Is there any statement here that is backed by hard evidence? I would like to draw your attention to some words used in this chapter: doubt has been cast, suggest (three times!), much debate, attempted, could have been, theories (two times), might have been, no direct evidence, proposed, may have. If this is not speculation, guesswork and theory, than I do not know what is. And yet, it is useful and interesting, and should definitely be included in any van Gogh's biography. Regarding comments about my "poorly written english", I would like to draw Modernist's attention to the fact that english should be written with a capital E. I will not pursue this matter any longer, since it is obviousy a waste of my time and effort. Over and out. Petricek (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

howdy - i recently finished a font that mimics van Gogh's handwriting. it was a pretty long process and i've posted it for free, no ads or anything - just seems like something van Gogh scholars/fan would get something out of. i'm kinda new to wiki, so i don't know how to add this to the links on the main page. would someone mind adding this for me if it seems appropriate? here's the link: http://www.iwritegood.com/vangoghfont.asp

thanks, --c.j. 64.202.255.133 (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"van Gogh" not "Van Gogh"

Surely all mentions of the artist's surname in the article should be written as "van Gogh" instead of "Van Gogh" (i.e. no first capital)? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"Vincent van Gogh" but "Van Gogh". See extensive discussion. Ty 23:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please consider adding an external link to the Painted with Words online exhibition page. This includes images and translations of 19 letters by van Gogh to Emille Bernard in The Morgan Library & Museum's collection:

http://www.themorgan.org/collections/swf/exhibOnline.asp?id=600

A New York times article about the exhibition is listed in the external links section.

Morganlibrary (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

'Hidden' Van Gogh painting revealed (new development)

van Gogh is said to have painted over a third of his original paintings with newer ones... His under x-ray the painting, 'Patch of Grass" revealed a portrait of a woman. More information and a picture can be found here: "Hidden Van Gogh revealed in color by scientists" Reuters Delft University of Technology article Dreammaker182 (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I put the image in the gallery.[2][3][4]. 'twas reverted, but I've reinserted it. Tomertalk 15:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
This painting does not belong in the gallery. Start a new section about this claim. Hello --- the gallery is basically a chronological overview of Vincents paintings, and this is out of place...Modernist (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Done - see Legacy...Modernist (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The "revealed" image is not a work of Van Gogh...I was created using van Gogh's work and X-ray imaging. The articles that I have come across state that he has done this on more than just this one painting, so there may be more to come... I would start a new section after more info (or research) can be obtained about his habit of recycling canvases. I am not sure, but it is possible that the Dutch technical university (tudelft.nl)involved in the imaging may have some press releases... perhaps an art museum or website about van Gogh may have more about his personal habbits. Dreammaker182 (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Another resorce: ACS Publications (x-ray analysis info!)Dreammaker182 (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

And maybe it's a hoax...Modernist (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the place for such idle speculation. Please remove the "hoax" business from the article unless a reliable source can be cited to back up this view. Tomertalk 17:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Done...Modernist (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks me good. :-) Tomertalk 02:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this info would be better at the end of the work section to say that he overpainted a third of his paintings with new work etc. It comes from reliable sources.Ty 00:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason I put it in Legacy is because this is all recent speculation. However if the consensus is to place the information into the work section thats ok. I have to confess that I'm skeptical about the numbers. I've seen a lot of his paintings and while its not impossible to obliterate another work by piling more paint on top it's hard to disguise a composition underneath - although his paintings were thick especially the later ones, they aren't all that thick...Modernist (talk) 03:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Some remarks to put the things to their place: - The fact that Van Gogh reused earlier canvases is known since decades. But it took a while until first results of this research were published (see: Sjraar van Heugten, Radiographic images of Vincent van Gogh's paintings in the collection of the Van Gogh Museum, Van Gogh Museum Journal 1995, pp.62-85). Meanwhile the collection of the Kröller-Müller Museum in Otterlo is x-rayed, too, and the results are published in recent collection catalogues; the same implies for research in paintings in other collections (Tokyo, Bridgestone Museum, for example, or in Boston, Philadelphia and New York. - Van Gogh's various (!) working procedures are meanwhile a standard focus in research, and the recent output is considerable. I don't know where the numbers published in the media derive from, but I think one already can state that this ongoing process of re-evaluation of more or less well known paintings has already produced a couple of surprises. The debate is definitely not closed. --rpd (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your good input. I've placed the initial information in the Legacy section, Patch of Grass. What is your opinion as to where the information should be placed? Ty suggests moving the study to the work section..Maybe we should create a new section about the study and Van Gogh's working methods? I'm OK with what the consensus decides. Modernist (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a new subsection in "Work" would be perfect. If references to recent publications are needed, please let me know. --rpd (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Meniere's Disease

Medical researchers have concluded in an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) that van Gogh suffered from Meniere's Disease and not epilepsy.

"Classic" (typical) Meniere's Disease is characterized by:

Episodic, fluctuating rotational vertigo -- a specific form of vertigo in which there is a sense that the world is spinning around you. The rotational vertigo usually results in the consequences of nausea and vomiting.

Episodic, fluctuating tinnitus. Sound, usually (but not always) in one ear, without an external cause. The sound varies in type from person to person. It may be a whining, a roaring, or other sound; sometimes there are multiple sounds. The intensity may fluctuate between zero and sleep-depriving. The pitch may be high or low. Tinnitus may exist even in those who are otherwise totally deaf.

However, Meniere's Disease patients generally do not experience nausea and vomiting in the absence of rotational vertigo, and nausea and vomiting are not symptoms of Meniere's Disease. The intensity may be very mild or may be extreme, characterized as "attacks," or even "drop attacks" during which the patient involuntarily drops to the ground. The duration may be minutes, hours, days, or even longer. Some patients always have a sense of instability, which they label and distinguish from "vertigo" as "dizziness" or "dizzies," because the world doesn't seem to be spinning around them, although they are still experiencing low-level vertigo.

Episodic, fluctuating hearing loss. Loss of hearing, usually (but not always) in one ear. The extent of hearing loss increases over time.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Casahilo (talk • contribs)

v.Gogh Category cleanup on COM

Hi, as I felt that it would very well be worth while to improve on Commons:Category:Vincent_van_Gogh (and besides, I am going to do a quantity of uploads anyways, having become enthousiastic about Van Gogh Exhibition Vienna 2008 ;)), I recently deposited my ideas on improvement (file names, description pages, sub-categories) on Commons:Category_talk:Vincent_van_Gogh and started to work on it. Feedback there would be highly appreciated, even in French or German (which, admitteldy, I speak+write more than just "somewhat" better than English or French ;)). --best, --W. (talk) 12:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Pictures update

I updated File:Whitehousenight.jpg, please someone look at it and tell me if color is right. I think it is very close to a version advertized in the Hermitage shop [5]. Thanks! 0151 15:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Issue resolved, thanks 0151 02:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I changed the name of "Skull with a Burning Cigarette" to its correct title, "Skull of a Skeleton with Burning Cigarette" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danschierling (talk • contribs) 20:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Cutting of the Ear

"The fact that he cut off his ear is very well known . . ."

I remember reading that Van Gogh did not actually cut his ear off, he only cut part of it. Anyone know anything about this? Waluigi Freak 99 15:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the article has been changed to say that he cut part of his ear off. The lobe on his left ear, to be exact.Waluigi Freak 99 23:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


Has no one heard of the story that suggests that it was maybe Paul Gauguin the one who cutted off part of the ear? It was him who told the story to the police and he was known as a good swordman... [6] its an old story... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.210.179.65 (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I've added a footnote mentioning this with a reference and a link that readers can follow if they want to read more ... I've refrained from inclusing it in the body of the text as the theory seems fairly marginal. Stumps (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
A book just published in German by two German historians, Hans Kaufmann and Rita Wildegans, states that it was Gauguin who cut off the greater part of Van Gogh's auricle with a sharp weapon in the course of a quarrel during the night of 23 to 24 December 1888, and that for several reasons both artists agreed to keep silence over it. There is a lot of evidence for that thesis. See: Hans Kaufmann/Rita Wildegans, Van Goghs Ohr - Paul Gauguin und der Pakt des Schweigens, Berlin 2008, 392 pages (ISBN 978-3-940731-14-2). ---Mercatorius (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC).

The traditional version of Van Gogh's alleged self-mutilation follows too gullibly the narration of Paul Gauguin, who very probably was himself the perpetrator. The article about "Arles" should be modified accordingly. 10 November 2008. ---213.39.201.41 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC).

Then provide sources per WP:V and WP:RS. Ty 04:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The thesis that it was Gauguin who severed Van Gogh's ear is now developed scholarly and with substantial evidence in the above-mentioned book (particularly in chapter 5 of it):

Hans Kaufmann/Rita Wildegans: Van Goghs Ohr. Paul Gauguin und der Pakt des Schweigens. Berlin 2008 (Until now, there is only the German version available). Here some of the arguments of Kaufmann and Wildegans: 1) The traditional version, i.e. that Vincent cut off his left ear himself, goes back on two reports by Gauguin, one oral to Emile Bernard after his sudden return to Paris, about which Bernard told his friend Albert Aurier in a detailed letter (end of December 1888), and a second in Gauguin's memoirs "Avant et Après", written shortly before his death in 1903. Apart from the gaps, improbabilities, inconsistencies and contradictions within these reports, in both cases, Gauguin introduces the story about Vincent's alleged self-mutilation with the words: "The following had happened:" At the same time, he emphasizes that he had not been present when Vincent injured himself. Obviously, Gauguin brought forward this version for the first time during a questioning by the Police in Arles in the morning of 24 December 1888, in order to exonerate himself. For at that moment, nobody could have told him what really had happened, since Vincent was still unconscious and near to death, and the Police interrogated him as a suspect. 2) Later, in one passage of "Avant et Apres", he tells that he had "to go the long way round in order to avoid going to prison", and with two literary quotations (one in Greek letters) he refers to "the horror of a dark night". 3) After the questioning, Gauguin told the doctor at the hospital in Arles the same story about the self-mutilation of the "mad" artist van Gogh. In the records of the hospital the diagnosis reads: "Fit of hot fever, during which he severed his left ear". Who except Gauguin could have proposed this diagnosis? Gauguin avoided talking to Vincent again that day (in spite of the urgent requests of the latter) and never met him again afterwards. After having sent a telegram to Theo (Vincent's brother in Paris), he fled to Paris the same 24 December (other than scholars have belived so far!), leaving his friend in the lurch and leaving behind all his belongings, including his keys (new hint!). 4) In his first letters to the recovering Vincent, Gauguin asks his friend to send him "his fencing masks and gloves" to Paris as soon as possible. There is no mention of the pertaining weapon. Where was it? 5) In this context, Vincent mentions several times "these terrible devices of war", and stresses that he himself "shall be content to be armed with his pencils and brushes", and he tells his brother that Gauguin "is much stronger than we are" and that "his passions must be much stronger than ours, too". 6) Vincent writes to his brother and to Gauguin, that Gauguin should not have alarmed Theo to come to Arles, because "the whole affair should have remained among only both of us", but he gives Theo more than one hint to enable him "too see Gauguin correctly" and to "understand what happened". 7) There are some very revealing notes and drawings in Gauguin's sketch-book of the time! And some intriguing works of art! 8) There is some evidence for a "pact of silence" between the two painters: That is why van Gogh did not openly denounce Gauguin. Obviously, he felt also guilty of having contributed to the escalation of the situation during that night by his behaviour in a fit of his disease (probably AIP (Acute Intermittend Porphyria)). 12 November 2008 ---Mercatorius (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC).

I suggest putting after "asking her to "keep this object carefully."[64]" the text: "Another version says that Gauguin attacked Van Gogh and severed his ear." + the ref. It merits a mention, but it is not the majority view and cannot be given the same weight as the accepted story. It would be viable to create a new article specifically to examine all the theories on this incident. Ty 00:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Since the article is permanently semi-protected, the administrator should proceed to insert the addition according to the preceeding proposition. Would you please? 3 December 2008, Mercatorius —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.171.104.167 (talk • contribs)
Please provide exact text and formatted ref you propose. Why not get a user name? Then you can do it (after 4 days). Ty 14:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Could we at least get consistency (and preferably accuracy) as to the date of the ear incident? The two mentions of it give different dates, and not in such a way as to explain the discrepancy (e.g., that he went out Dec. 23 and showed up at the hospital early on the 24th). --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

See Vincent van Gogh chronology--rpd (talk) 13:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

[7] has a very indepth review of the nights in question leading to Van Gogh's severing his ear. It covers not only what Gauguin (however unreliable) had to say about this incident, but also newspaper reports and letters between the participants. In particular, there is doubt that Gauguin and Van Gogh ever had a fight in which Van Gogh threatened Gauguin; that Van Gogh wrapped the ear in either an envelope or a newspaper; and what Van Gogh's exact words were when he presented the ear to Rachel ("Gaby") the prostitute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.142.229 (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture of Theo

Theo van Gogh in 1872

This picture might be added when the name of the file is straightened out...Modernist (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a really nice photograph. Is there a photograph of Vincent van Gogh? Bus stop (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
There are 2 already in the article....Modernist (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Oops. You are right. Bus stop (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The name is straightened out. After contacting the Van Gogh Museum and the Nationaal Archief, both agree now that this is Theo van Gogh. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The caption under this photo says that Theo was 16 when this picture was taken. The Wikipedia article about Theo says he was born on May 1, 1857, so he would have been 14 or 15 in 1872, not 16. Should the caption be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.73.31.50 (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Confusing Statement About His Death

"...he walked into the fields and shot himself in the chest with a revolver. Without realizing that he was fatally wounded he returned to..." He did not realize that the bullet he just shot himself could be fatal? Sounds like it needs to be clarified a little better or re-worded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.173.127.78 (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a major problem. It doesn't say, "he didn't realize it could be fatal"; it says "he didn't realize it was fatal". Anyway, I've tweaked it. Ty 11:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Revisited

Current version is:

On 27 July 1890, aged 37, he walked into a field and shot himself in the chest with a revolver. He survived the impact, but not realizing that his injuries were to be fatal, he walked back to the Ravoux Inn. He died there two days later.

It still doesn't make any sense to me. What was his purpose in shooting himself in the chest? To wound, but NOT kill, himself? Surely not. Surely he intended to end his own life. So, how on earth could he fail to realize his injuries were to be fatal? I just don't get what we're trying to say here.

Are we trying to say something like: "He intended to kill himself, but believed the gunshot merely wounded him and would not result in his death - but soon discovered he was wrong, and that it did in fact kill him" ?

Are we saying that the only reason he walked back to the inn was that he thought he was going to survive, and that, if he had believed the gunshot was fatal, he would have stayed out in the field and just waited for death to occur?

Why did he not shoot himself again, to hurry the process along? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

How about
On 27 July 1890, aged 37, he walked into a field and shot himself in the chest with a revolver. He survived the impact, and walked back to the Ravoux Inn. He died there two days later.
This way we're not even speculating on what he did or didn't realize. JNW (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
That's better, but "survived" suggests it was not fatal. It may not have been "immediately fatal", but it was nevertheless fatal. How about:
Sounds good to me. Modernist and Ceoil have worked so much on this that I'd like to hear from them. JNW (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Photograph of van Gogh around 1882

Is it possible that I do not find anz Photographs of van Gogh around 1882? I checked nearly everz book and Internet page but I am unable to find one. NH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.27.20.35 (talk) 08:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation again

Currently the first sentence has [vɪnˈsɛnt vɑnˈxɔx] (without clarification) while paragraph 4 has [ˈvɪnsɛnt vɑn ˈɣɔx] given as the "Dutch pronunciation". These two pronunciations are different - are they both in use, or is one of them wrong? Lfh (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Only the first is in use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.145.188.144 (talk) 10:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ear or there

Relative to an aspect of Van Gogh's life concerning amputation of one of his ears, it has recently been proposed by two German art historians that Van Gogh did not cut off his own ear, but that it was in fact his friend, Paul Gauguin, a fencing ace, who attacked Van Gogh and cut off part of his ear.[5] [6]

And who says Gauguin was a fencing ace? Modernist (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
That's what the article you link says the two German art historians said. The article gives the English translation of their book's title even though it doesn't appear to have been translated yet. It's Van Goghs Ohr: Paul Gaugin und der Pakt des Schweigens ISBN-10: 3940731145 ISBN-13: 978-3940731142.
It's odd, though, that this is being reported as news when the book is from last year; it's previously been discussed above at Talk:Vincent_van_Gogh#Cutting_of_the_Ear. Шизомби (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
With regard to your comment "I would like a second and a better reference to the speculation that Gauguin was a fencing expert and this happened," are you asking for a better reference that the German art historians claimed he was and that this happened, or a better reference that it actually happened? Partly what is needed is an analysis of the reception of Van Goghs Ohr so that it can be understood how good or bad a reference that might be. Incidentally, the more traditional account doesn't have a citation in the article at present at all. Шизомби (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I am requesting references to both...Every biography that I have ever read fails to mention anything about Gauguin as a fencer. I think the speculation borders on the ridiculous...I would like proof...Modernist (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. It's a fascinating theory (who knew Gauguin was a swashbuckler?), but if it is to supersede or even supplement the long-accepted account, it requires broader support within the academic community. JNW (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, the article doesn't say he was a professional fencer, he could just be a very good hobbyist. Incidentally, I see the same matter is mentioned in the "Medical records" section. The Dr Wildegans cited there is one of the co-authors of Van Goghs Ohr. I'd favor it being mentioned only once, briefly as possible, clearly identified as theory; there's no need to have the theory mentioned twice, not sure which place should go, merging the references, maybe even relegating the whole theory to a footnote. That section ought to be renamed anyhow, since it's not about contemporary medical records but about posthumous speculation about Van Gogh's mind. If you have ready references, maybe you can add cites for the predominant theory, which I guess is only theory also, just the popular one; maybe that should be indicated. Another article on the book has a comment on the matter, "Nina Zimmer, curator of a large Van Gogh exhibition at the Kunstmuseum in Basle until September, is unconvinced. 'Maybe they are right,' she said. 'But almost any theory is plausible because there are so few established facts.'"[7] Шизомби (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestions re: cutting this to a single mention, and I favor the theory as a footnote. I have no refs at hand, and surmise that none were ever offered because the popular account is so widely written and accepted. Good find also re: the curator's quote. JNW (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hoax

IMHO This statement: It is said that the two artists agreed to hide the truth of what happened, with Gauguin throwing the sword into the Rhone has no verification and can have no verification, makes the whole thing appear to be a hoax, designed to sell books...Modernist (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
It's a theory, perhaps a bad one, thus not a hoax. The traditional account is apparently also a theory without verification, just the widely accepted one, which does make it more significant. Шизомби (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Until there is more verification - by other independant researchers and experts in the field the whole theory is original research and violates WP:OR and probably should be removed from this article and the Paul Gauguin article as well...seems like it might be libelous as well. Here's another view: [8] Modernist (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
No, it's not original research by Wikipedia's definition. It's the newest version (per that article you linked "This is not the first time it has been suggested that Gauguin might have been the aggressor") of a minority theory, published, and reported on, and critiqued by others. I don't have an opinion on what really happened. The popularly-held story still needs to be sourced in some way and the doubt about it should probably be noted. Again, your article states "there aren’t many established facts in the strange case. Van Gogh never said much about the affair, possibly because he didn’t remember it well [...] all the first-hand information comes from Gauguin who wasn’t, admittedly, an ideal witness. Vague about facts at the best of times, Gauguin was dying and dosed with absinthe and morphine when he wrote his most detailed account. Not surprisingly, it’s full of inconsistencies and inaccuracies." Шизомби (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
There is no proof beyond speculation - it is a fringe theory at best or WP:OR and I'd like corroboration from another source that Gauguin was a fencing ace.....Modernist (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
But, given that it has had some media coverage and caused much discussion this week, it should at least be mentioned in an article which attempts to decribe Van Gogh's medical problems and the reasons for loss of his ear. Agendum (talk) 09:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No, definitely not! For then you can start re-adding every piece of gossip printed in more than a century. Most of these bits of desinformation are now obsolete - as obsolete as the publication of Kaufmann & Wildegans: Or has anybody ever seen a positive commentary of a serious expert? --RPD (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Note

  1. ^ J.David Lewis-Williams. Brainstorming Images: Neuropsychology and Rock Art Research. In Handbook of rock art research, David S. Whitley, Rowman Altamira, 2001. ISBN 0742502562, 9780742502567 http://web.wits.ac.za/NR/rdonlyres/13DE0101-1356-4CB2-8156-A06656A80342/0/LewisWilliams2001Brainstormingimages.pdf
  2. ^ J.David Lewis-Williams. Brainstorming Images: Neuropsychology and Rock Art Research. In Handbook of rock art research, David S. Whitley, Rowman Altamira, 2001. ISBN 0742502562, 9780742502567 http://web.wits.ac.za/NR/rdonlyres/13DE0101-1356-4CB2-8156-A06656A80342/0/LewisWilliams2001Brainstormingimages.pdf
  3. ^ J.David Lewis-Williams. Brainstorming Images: Neuropsychology and Rock Art Research. In Handbook of rock art research, David S. Whitley, Rowman Altamira, 2001. ISBN 0742502562, 9780742502567 http://web.wits.ac.za/NR/rdonlyres/13DE0101-1356-4CB2-8156-A06656A80342/0/LewisWilliams2001Brainstormingimages.pdf
  4. ^ .Eichmeier, J. And O.Hofer. Endogene Bildmuster, Urban und Schwarzenberg, Munich, 1974.
  5. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/may/04/vincent-van-gogh-ear Accessed May 5, 2009
  6. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/arts_and_culture/8033650.stm
  7. ^ http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/was-truth-the-biggest-casualty-in-the-case-of-vincent-and-his-severed-ear-1678988.html
  8. ^ [1] Vincent’s Sliced Ear Can’t Be Blamed on Gauguin: Martin Gayford, retrieved May 6, 2009

We have now translated the text for note 77 from german into english. (Rita Wildegans on the topic of the ear: "The Corpus Delicti Is a Corpuscle"). The direct link is http://www.wildegans.de/vangogh/english/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgwildegans (talk • contribs) 17:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Art historians claim Van Gogh's ear 'cut off by Gauguin'

Ba50080 (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC) As one who has also spent many years researching the life of Vincent van Gogh, first as the author and director of the play Stranger on the Earth and later as the writer and director of the film The Eyes of Van Gogh, I empathize with the effort spent in producing the book, Van Gogh’s Ear: Paul Gauguin and the Pact of Silence, by Hans Kaufmann and Rita Wildegans.

I understand and appreciate their fascination with this extraordinary individual.

Nonetheless, it must be said that the entire basis of their book rests on a regrettable but enormous misunderstanding of what it was van Gogh wrote to his brother Theo and to Paul Gauguin. That, plus a very selective editing of the same letters and an apparent lack of awareness of certain key facts about Gauguin, led them to a very flawed premise. They then proceeded to shore up their thesis with assertions easily rebutted and with one ludicrous and fabricated incident.

Frankly, I am astonished and appalled by the unthinking reception and attention this book has received from the press.

The authors have concluded that Gauguin, not Vincent himself, is responsible for the mutilation of van Gogh’s ear. They state “We carefully re-examined witness accounts and letters written by both artists and we came to the conclusion that van Gogh was terribly upset over Gauguin’s plan to go back to Paris.” This in itself is no revelation. Anyone who has studied the letters van Gogh wrote to his brother Theo after he mutilated himself, as well as the references to the incident in Gauguin’s memoirs, would know this.

Again quoting the authors: “In the first letter that Vincent van Gogh wrote after the incident, he told Gauguin, ‘I will keep quiet about this and so will you.’ That apparently was the beginning of the ‘pact of silence.’”

The first letter that Vincent wrote after the maiming was to Theo on January 1, 1889, eight days after the event. On the lack of the letter he wrote a note to Gauguin questioned the necessity of having Theo come to Arles. “Look here – was my brother Theo’s journey really necessary, old man?” It pained Vincent terribly to live off of Theo; the last thing he wanted was to burden him with this.

Vincent never wrote “I will keep silent about this and so will you.” There is absolutely no reference to this so called “pact of silent” anywhere in the letter. The only reference to silence, per se, is in a letter to Theo written January 17, 1889 where he mentions that after the incident he had continually asked for Gauguin but he refused to come. He wrote, “How can Gauguin pretend that he was afraid of upsetting me by his present, when he can hardly deny that he knew I kept asking for him continually, and that he was told over and over again that I insisted on seeing him at once. Just to tell him that we should keep it between him and me, without upsetting you. He would not listen.” Meaning that Gauguin did tell Theo what had happened. There was no cover-up. No pact of silence. How could there have been since Vincent makes it clear in this letter that Gauguin refused to see him after the mutilation. Any silence Vincent wanted was in regard to Theo’s learning what he had done to himself – completely in keeping with his character, actions and statements throughout his life, up to and including his suicide, when he pleaded with Dr. Gachet not to let Theo know he shot himself.

Another point: The telegram Gauguin sent to Theo telling him what happened was sent the following morning – after the injury – when Gauguin, seeing a crowd at the Yellow House, discovered what Vincent had done. Obviously, if he had injured Vincent, he wouldn’t have retired to a hotel and let his friend bleed to death, but would have notified Theo immediately.

Kaufmann also cites correspondence between van Gogh and his brother in which the painter hints at what happened that night without directly breaking the “pact of silence’ writing that, “…it is lucky that Gauguin does not have a machine gun or other firearms.” This is very selective editing. What Vincent actually wrote in that letter of January 17, 1889 is, “Fortunately, Gauguin and I and other painters are not yet armed with machine guns and other very destructive elements of war.” He was expressing his disdain for violence disguised as sport.

Finally, again quoting the authors: ‘On the evening of December 23, 1888 van Gogh, seized by an attack of a metabolic disease, became very aggressive when Gauguin said he was leaving him for good. The men had a heated argument near the brothel and Vincent might have attacked his friend. Gauguin, wanting to defend himself and wanting to get rid of ‘the madman’ drew his weapon and made a move towards van Gogh and by that he cut off his left ear.”

Several points: 1. It was not Vincent’s entire ear that was cut off, but rather the lower third of the ear. 2. If in the course of a heated argument Vincent attacked him, Gauguin would have had no need for a sword since he was an expert boxer and would have made short work of a totally inept fighter like Vincent. (While in Brittany in 1893, Gauguin was attacked by a large group of sailors. He more than held his own until he tripped and severely injured his leg.) 3. Gauguin was also an expert swordsman. The swords he fenced with were, of course, foils. For those who don’t know, a foil is a thrusting, not a cutting, weapon and does not have a cutting edge. The idea of Gauguin striking downward with a foil and cutting off a third of Vincent’s lower ear is ludicrous; in fact, damn near impossible. If Gauguin did have a cutting sword (which, of course, he didn’t) and was able to cut of Vincent’s lower ear, rest assured he would have cut off part of his face and shoulder with it.

How sad this whole thing is. As I have written before, there are more myths and misinformation about Vincent van Gogh than any artist who ever lived. What should capture the attention of the world are the facts: The most significant and revelatory things about van Gogh are not that he cut off his earlobe or that he suffered attacks of madness or that he committed suicide, but rather that he lived life to the fullest, realized his artistic potential as much as humanly possible, fought magnificently against the attacks and all forms of adversity - never willingly giving in to them. Most important, he created a superb body of work that will live as long as the human race survives. The theme of his life is his quest to achieve immortality through his work.

Alexander Barnett Ba50080 (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Experts of the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam also discarded it as nonsense. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Finally some intelligent responses! Appreciate your expertise and your input. I think the speculation about Gauguin is absurd, and as you say somewhat pathetic and sad...Thank you ....Modernist (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV we need to mention it. Per WP:UNDUE we need to make its mention minimal. I've made an edit to this end. Ty 01:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think there is still to much emphasis on this not-verifiable thesis. In my opinion a footnote would do the job. - By the way, I'll try to expand the relevant parts of Vincent van Gogh chronology a.s.a.p. --RPD (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
That there has been a claim is verifiable; that is all we should say. Johnbod (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
At the moment it says in parenthesis: "(In 2009, two art historians, Hans Kaufmann and Rita Wildegans, proposed that Gauguin attacked Van Gogh with his epee and caused the ear injury.[66][67][68] This theory has been disputed.[69][70])" Ty 00:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Still needs to be done

These are copied from: Talk:Vincent van Gogh/GA1

There is just no room, at least at large image settings. There are already some overlaps. They could go up into 1 or 2-row mini-galleries at intervals maybe. I agree there are a lot, especially as the captions are mostly just the title & date. Johnbod (talk) 11:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree there is no room. I think the gallery given the importance of the work; and the amount of text to image that we are working with serves the artist and his work and the viewer well...as to adding refs to every paragraph in the work section - is that a requirement? Or a request? Modernist (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

References

There should be a ref at the end of every paragraph at least, assuming material in the paragraph is all from the same source. If material is from different sources, then each statement should be ref'd to show the source for it. Ty 12:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks done to me...Modernist (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Is it just me or are there still over twenty paragraphs without any references?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Show me the policy that says every paragraph needs a reference...Modernist (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Suppose you structure the article well so that each paragraph covers a distinct topic. Shouldn't each topic have at least one reference?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Since when do you dictate anything?Modernist (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I never said I did. Just respond to the question above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks to me like you are on the verge of breaking 3RR policy - by my count you only got 1 left, you are not an administrator, you do not tell anyone what to do...as I said, show me the policy... Modernist (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you playing dumb or asking me to put 25 citation needed tags in the article? I would start with the paragraph you just readded.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you making personal attacks? You are now violating both - WP:AGF, WP:NPA - Lets see the policy that says an article has to have references to every paragraph...Modernist (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I am asking a serious question. Do you want me to put 25 citation needed tags in the article to encourage you to adhere to WP:WIAGA 2a and 2b?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pardon me, but the entry needs less tags and more work: Deleting paragraphs is definitely not the way to improve the content, and footnotes still have to be organised and completed.--RPD (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Modernist, I see you are hard at work on referencing the article. I appreciate your efforts. I am glad this did not come down to a pissing contest because your statements about my source of authority irked me yesterday. Regardless of whether I am an admin (which I am not), an art scholar (which I am not) or WP:WPVA most productive contributor (which I may be since I have produced about 15 of the projects 78 FAs and GAs), the article needed better refrencing. Keep up the good work.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Tony - I appreciate your comments. I respect your abilities as an editor and as a major contributer - one of the best...sometimes tempers flare - no real harm meant - no real harm taken...The article needs a lot of work..Modernist (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Image placement

It's much better for images mentioned in the text to be in proximity rather than at the end of the article. Also a gallery of images at the end of each relevant section would enable the reader to easily locate the painting with the period and see the development stage by stage. Ty 13:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Per request, I created 4 smaller galleries and removed 8 images from the large gallery...Modernist (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Once we get closer to completion with text revisions, I will try to help with the image placement.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Footnotes

  • I do not think that references to sparknotes[1] are the best idea to supply verifiable sources. Please reinsert, if you think it's valid.--RPD (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Vincent van Gogh study guide". sparknotes.com. 2006. Retrieved 2007-03-25.
No keep it out; good call. Ceoil (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Another mystery: "Vincent wished to become an artist while in God's service as he stated, "...to try to understand the real significance of what the great artists, the serious masters, tell us in their masterpieces, that leads to God; one man wrote or told it in a book; another in a picture."[1]
  1. ^ "Vincent van Gogh biography". expo-vangogh.com. 2007. Retrieved 2007-03-23.

This reference is to a commercial site, and the necessary reference to the source of the quotation is lacking - remains to be supplied! By the way, there are still similar cases in the text or the notes - see the fact-tags! --RPD (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

RogoPD - Good find! Please remove any and all references where you are not comfortable with their reliability, we'll supply reliable ones if needed...Modernist (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I think I got all of them...Modernist (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Image quality

?

He produced more than 2,000 works, including around 900 paintings and 1,100 drawings and sketches, during the last ten years of his life. 2000 works during the last 10 years, or in total. Ceoil (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Same thing, I think. JNW (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
<oops from uneducated paddy> Ceoil (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No oops--maybe it could be made more clear that his last ten years represented his life's work. Cheers, JNW (talk) 12:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Ceoil (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I think I'm done now...It's as good as I can do, thanks for the help...What about FA for this guy?...Modernist (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it should go to PR first. It is a quality GA, but not FA quality.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it's shaped up now pretty well good job to all..Modernist (talk) 05:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Wilkie is used several times in the footnotes with out publication date. He has two books in the sources section, can anybody distinuish. O and nice one Modernist! And well done Tony; we have differences in approach, but the article has very much benifited from your input, and you did a good job schooling. Ceoil (talk) 10:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Seen from a distance, this has been great work. JNW (talk) 12:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Im not sure what † Tertiary sources, with little or no reference to sources is supposed to indicate. I guess that the source comprise wild speculation. Anyone? Should these references be replaced? Ceoil (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what I wanted to point to, when I placed this note. At this time, there were little references and many to sources which in my opinion are difficult to verify.--RPD (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
RPD, If this is the case, if they are fringe, they should be removed, would be my openion. Ceoil (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Wilkie is a problem - see the discussion on Beethoven in [Archive 1] and the various Wilkie notes in the text. It would really be the best to replace Wilkie by definitely reliable references - that's a lot of work, and I presume in the end there will be little left.--RPD (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
This is the starting point before any expansion can be considered. Ceoil (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
There are only about 10 Wilkie refs, I doubled up 3, this one seems ok - 67. I think Wilkie can go if the refs aren't sourced properly, I don't think we need most of them them anyway...Modernist (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion of images to be cut

view from a rooftop of a house and its surrounding landscape of trees, grassfields and neighboring housing development
Vincent van Gogh: Rooftops, View from the atelier The Hague, 1882, watercolour, Private collection.

Although I would like to keep all of the images, if we need to cut some these are in my opinion a few that we can cut, maybe...Modernist (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Paris - 2 of the 3 street scenes.

Yeah. Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

2. Arles - The Harvest, Portrait of Boch

Yeah. Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

3. Saint Remy - Almond Blossoms, Rest from Work

Indeed. Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

4. Auvers - Wheat Field Under Clouded Sky

Yeah. I'd also take out the pic Rooftops, View from the atelier Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Modernist (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I've no opinion on whether these should be removed or not, but if you do decide to remove them, don't forget to change the text accordingly (the "Almond Blossoms" one is referenced in the text, and "Wheat Fielld Under Clouded Sky" is, too—and has an inline citation—etc., don't have time for a proper read-through). --Jashiin (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, good point, they are all mentioned in the text and several have citations...Modernist (talk) 03:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I would defer to the judgment of the visual arts group on prioritizing images to be retained in the article. I would defer to the FAC community on whether such removal is necessary. However, I believe that the text should be expanded to greater than 50KB of readable prose within this main article. By increasing the prose, we will create more room for pictures to comfortably exist. After expansion, I would continue to attempt to include images discussed in the text of the article and would argue for the inclusion of each one based on contextual relevance. Thus, I would say lets defer on image removal until the text has been adequately beefed up.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree the images should be retained as fully as possible. I've reluctantly taken the few listed above out, we need to continue adding alt to the existing pictures and then add and revise more text..Still lots to do...Modernist (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Portrait of a walkway with pedestrians and carts along the path and with fencing on the right and buildings on the left
Montmartre in the upper Mill, 1886, Art Institute of Chicago
Riverbank view of a pair of bridges with the foreground bridge bearing a passing train and the background bridge visible underneath it; a pedestrian moves on a path underneath the bridge and boats are parked along the riverbank
Bridges across the Seine at Asnieres, 1887, Foundation E.G. Bührle, Zürich
View of a street bounded by fences with lightposts on the left and a fenced endpoint with pedestrians walking toward a cross street at the end and an overhead stilted terrace with two people on it
Street scene in the Montmartre, Le Moulin à Poivre, 1887, Van Gogh Museum
Well Tony, you can take it for granted that the article as it stands now would come under fire re no. of images at FAC. I've also seen suggestion that the proposed additional text is added during FAC; this is not a good idea. Ceoil (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not ready yet either...I want the lead right, the text readable and meaningful and then maybe...they will still complain about all the paintings but the paintings need to be seen, - He's only one of the greatest painters in the universe...Modernist (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Not just on earth? ;). He is being named as 'Vincent' or 'Van Gogh' variously through out the article; mostly I think as Vincent when Theo is in the picture and we need to distinguish. I think it shiuld be one or the other all the way through; I'd go for Vincent. Also, there is mixing of tenses, usually when quoting critics, xxx wrote, yyy writes; maybe the present tense is best? Open on that. Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
It should be "Van Gogh" throughout, but "Vincent" when necessary to distinguish from e.g. Theo. The reader should find it obvious for sense reasons why the variation exists. If the critic is set in a historical context, past tense seems to be necessary, so maybe past for all? Ty 00:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Outruled on both counts. Fine. Will we set these as norms. I'm happy as long as there is consistancy. Ceoil (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Check out WP:SURNAME for refining usage. Ty 01:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Qs

  • "He spent his early adult years working unsuccessfully for a firm of art dealers in The Hague, London and Paris". He only worked for them in London right? If so we dont need to say in the lead they had branches in The Hague and Paris.
  • I think he worked in all three places. First in The Hague, then transfers abroad to London and Paris...M
The later bio doesn't cover this as far as I can see. Later work, I suppose. Ceoil (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Wilkie is still a problem, we have two books but the refs dont distingush
  • I think we should drop Wilkie...M
Yeah, agree. Ceoil (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • No page number for ref 92 (See Dorn (1990))
  • I'll try to fix that...M
Great. Ceoil (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I need to do some background on it, leave this bit to me. Thanks for quick response, and cool absinthe ref!. Ceoil (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Uh oh - here is a link to Dorn, [8]

but it's in German, need a translator...Modernist (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I know a few Germans. I'll ask them to verify. Ceoil (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking about Litho...Modernist (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Ping him. Ceoil (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Done...Modernist (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. The more I look into this the more it seems like a months long project. So much that needs to be done, but it would be a very very wothwhile project. Without wanting to be pretentious, to a certian extent we should follow the approach to summary style of the editors of William Shakespeare, although I always thought that article was a little short, it does cut the fat and deliver a satisying read. We will need a lot of input and help, but with that; on the other hand it seems do-able; much time and knuckel dust needed though. Magnum opus alert. Ceoil (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this is a great project, although it is still far from ready, and it's a long time coming...Modernist (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There's only a preview of Dorn 1990 on Google books, so I can't do much with that. My options on getting the book are to drive to the nearest library that has it (247 miles according to Worldcat[9]) or buy it on Amazon for the low low price of $256.79.[10] Seriously, what you're citing are vague and general statements that are probably made by Herr Dorn multiple times throughout his book; the wording is exactly the same in both cases ("probably the most ambitious effort he undertook"). If you really want to get your hands on the book, Modernist, your best bet is to go to a library closer to home. Worldcat lists many libraries in NYC that have this book. In German "probably the most ambitious effort he undertook" would sound something like "wahrscheinlich die ehrgeizigste Aufgabe, die er übernehmen hatte." That's all I can really do for you. Of course, those cites aren't really helping much as it is... Lithoderm 23:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Litho, it might just be the right solution to either leave out the page numbers because of the general and vague character of the statements, or to try to find a copy to lend. I'll give it a shot if possible...Modernist (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Arles

Perhaps a "regular contributor" will be willing to add this sentence to the article at the end of the Arles section? This period is now the subject of a film called The Yellow House.The Yellow House, Channel 4 TV thanks Peter morrell 16:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually this article:Cultural depictions of Vincent van Gogh is perfect for it. Thanks...Modernist (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Expressionism in intro

Question re: designation 'a pioneer of Expressionism'. Once the term is capitalized it implies that Van Gogh was a leader of the movement. If the term refers specifically to the movement that arose in Germany and Austria in the 20th century, then he was not an "Expressionist" proper. Chronologically, it reads to me as if we called Winslow Homer a pioneer of the Ashcan school. Perhaps progenitor, predecessor, or inspiration to the movement. Okay, I'm out again. Nice work. Discuss. JNW (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey again JNW. That has been there for a long while; I've reworded with 'predecessor', but the opening claims are still unsatisfactory. Overall, given the subject, we can make some bold statements in the lead, long as they are true of course!, but its far from there yet. There is a lot to chew on with this article. Ta for the view. Ceoil (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Note, he now placed in the legacy section as a father to 20th C Expressionism, courtesy of Schama. Ceoil (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Encouragement

This article is 200 most important biographies, one of the 120 vital biographies and one of the 201 Core Biographies. I admire the hard work that I see going into this article to raise its quality level.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Its a HUGE project! I know we had differences during the GAR, but it was a good basis for the work. Ceoil (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
And still a long way yet to go...Modernist (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Teeny tiny change in the first paragraph

At the end of the first paragraph it states

"Their lifelong friendship, and most of what is known of Vincent's thoughts and theories of art, is recorded in the hundreds of letters they exchanged from August 1872."

Shouldn't that last part read

"They started exchanging in the August of 1872"?

Small error in grammar methinks. I would edit it but this page is policed like a mofo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Didymal (talk • contribs) 15:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Biography

I find the spliting of this section into subs based on location a little dry. I'm sure a more revealing grouping based on output or painterly development is possible. Thoughts. Ceoil (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Eternity's Gate

Ceoil, why did you cut the sentence about the painting Eternity's Gate? - I think it's important...Modernist (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I though it was misplaced (The work is derived from an 1882 drawing and print of his), and too surpleative (striking), and without giving proper context, or a definate link, it seemed as almost a non sequitur to the para on the suicide. Many of his works had forboding overtones, why mention just one in that section's opening. I'm not opposed to a reinsertion, but maybe somewhere else, or if here we give mention to the number of other paintings - eg was one of..including. Ceoil (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree that if we can find a better place we should move it, my feeling is it is an interesting inclusion but might be better elsewhere as you say...Modernist (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I was about to self revert but you beat me to it ;). Might be better, eventually, after the details of the suicide, in an expanded version, as a kind of sum up, but for now its fine. Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Mondernist, I'd like to expand this section - and then place it after the factual detail of the suicide - are there other painting you think should paticularly be mentioned (I assume they would be very late, Schama describes the most of the late work as gasps for life for a recovery, and even sees wheatfield with crows as not a portrayal of the end of the line but an excited, affirmative challenge to traditional perspective (also he sees the crows as flying towards, not away). I'm not really much aquainted with a broad range of sources yet in this, so openion and help appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The consensus seems to agree that the double squares like Daubigny's Garden and Wheatfield with Crows are the final paintings. I don't think his suicide was portrayed in any of the final paintings but I do think Eternity's Gate sums up his state of mind and his loneliness and despair. I think expanding that section is a very good plan...Modernist (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I know Schama is not regarded for his openions on art; he is not an art historian, and in the last 10 years has become a populist, more about manner than substance, which is why I ask. From what you are saying, Eternity's Gate should be the overriding focus here? Ta. Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
It is a particularly psychologically telling image, considering he shot himself just a little while later. I'm not sure which month he painted it but by July he was dead. According to Hulsker he probably painted it in March-April and he was on the verge of collapse, Hulsker sees it as a painting in which he was looking back to his past...Modernist (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Your last post is very insightful and likey the basis for the para. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Tralbaut dates it as having been painted in May 1890. Here is an interesting mention [11] in At Eternity's Gate: The Spiritual Vision Of Vincent Van Gogh By Kathleen Powers Erickson, see page 148...Modernist (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I am a little concerned about too much interpretation being staked on the subject of one painting, when it is something of an exception, and artists express all kinds of impulses and different thoughts/emotions, not necessarily their own, but sometimes with a view to an effective artwork. Having said that, I'll leave it to others to decide. Ty 07:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree we should not go overboard in interpreting that painting. I think the description as it stands now is enough and it speaks for itself...Modernist (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Copy edit questions

  • "Margot tried to kill herself with strychnine and Van Gogh rushed her to the hospital." - What happened?
  • She failed according to the current wording.
  • In the UK they see them in the doctor's surgery: that's the usual name for the premises of a GP. The word surgery also has another meaning as medical operation. Place of business sounds very peculiar. How about "practice" or "premises"? Ty 00:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It looks to me like the word But can be eliminated, and the sentence should be understood in context -

In November 1887, Theo and Vincent met and befriended Paul Gauguin who had just arrived in Paris.[76] Towards the end of the year, Van Gogh arranged an exhibition of paintings by himself, Bernard, Anquetin, and probably Toulouse-Lautrec in the Restaurant du Chalet on Montmartre. There Bernard and Anquetin sold their first paintings, and Van Gogh exchanged work with Gauguin who soon departed to Pont-Aven. But The discussions on art, artists and their social situation started during this exhibition continued, and expanded to visitors of the show like Pissarro and his son Lucien, Signac and Seurat.Modernist (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I said this before, but we need a lot more on Gauguin. Perhalps a seperate section. Ceoil (talk) 11:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Is the comma after continued signifying a parenthetical phrase or improperly included to conjoin a dependent phrase. Since the second phrase has no subject, it is dependent on the subject of the first phrase (discussions) and should not be conjoined with a comma, which signifies its independence and its own subject.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • personally I think that sentence is ok, Jan Hulsker is hyperlinked which in turn states "From the 1950s, Hulsker contributed to Van Gogh research, concentrating on the dating of Van Gogh's correspondence. In 1973, Hulsker's most important study was published, Van Gogh door Van Gogh, which has not been translated from the Dutch."...taking it at face value Hulsker seems to be a sufficient authority on Van Gogh. Tendancer (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Pictorially he put Auvers on the map" also confused the heck out of me, on second reading I assume "he" = Charles Daubigny, in which case it's just a dangling participle problem. Furthermore, the claim does not have a cite and contradicts Auvers-sur-Oise which states "Dr. Paul Gachet lived in Auvers-sur-Oise. He was acquainted with the avant-garde artists of the time. Through this connection, Vincent van Gogh moved to Auvers to be treated by him", I couldn't locate a cite for either (albeit from very cursory googling)? Tendancer (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Dangling participle aside - the claim does have a cite - Pickvance (1986), 272–273. Pickvance makes the claim that Daubigney moved to Auvers in 1861 and his move there attracted other artists, I have readded a more complete quote as accompaniment to the image which I have also re-added...Modernist (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah sorry didn't know that Pickvance ref after the next sentence also referred to the Daubigny factoid. In either case yeah your edits made things a lot clearer...regarding TonyTheTiger's question, I think this was the original text: http://jameslogancourier.org/index.php?itemid=380 "Wheat Field with Crows with its turbulent intensity is often, but mistakenly, thought to be Van Gogh's last work (Jan Hulsker lists seven paintings after it). Daubigny's Garden is a more likely candidate. There are also seemingly unfinished paintings, such as Thatched Cottages by a Hill." What do you think if we just get rid of that sentence, and change the previous "and they are among his final works" to e.g. "Van Gogh made two versions of Daubigny's Garden in July 1890, and they are more likely candidates to be among his final works"? Only thing is the source per se did not recognize the two versions, so hopefully that wouldn't be deemed synthesis. Tendancer (talk) 04:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Lets try your simpler version, give it a try, thanks for your input...Modernist (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
cool made the edit...agh just noticed though, Wheat Fields with Crows is also mentioned twice in that paragraph. How would this sound? (paraphrase + combine the two separate parts re: wheat fields together)
Wheat Field with Crows (dated Jul 1980), an example of the unusual double square canvas size Van Gogh used in the last weeks of his life, is among Van Gogh's most haunting and elemental works with its turbulent intensity[112] ; but often mistakenly thought to be his last work (Jan Hulsker lists seven paintings after it).[110] Barbizon painter Charles Daubigny moved to Auvers in 1861. Pictorially he put Auvers on the map, attracting artists Camille Corot and Honoré Daumier among others, and in 1890 Vincent van Gogh. Van Gogh made two versions of Daubigny's Garden in July 1890, and they are more likely candidates to be among his final works.[111]. There are also seemingly unfinished paintings, such as Thatched Cottages by a Hill.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tendancer (talk • contribs)
You will need a sound reference for the 1980 date of Wheatfield with Crows. See WP:REDFLAG. Ty 07:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Wheat Field with Crows (dated July 1880), an example of the double square canvas which Van Gogh made use of in the last weeks of his life, is among his most haunting and elemental works with its turbulent intensity[112]. It is often mistakenly stated to be his last work, but Jan Hulsker lists seven paintings which postdate it.[110] Barbizon painter Charles Daubigny moved to Auvers in 1861, and this in turn drew other artists there, including Camille Corot, Honoré Daumier, and, in 1890, Van Gogh. In July 1890, he made two paintings of Daubigny's Garden, and one of these is most likely to be his final work.[111]. There are also paintings which show evidence of being still in progress, such as Thatched Cottages by a Hill.

Tweaking of earlier version above. Ty 07:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah I like your version a lot, sounds way clearer and less awkward. Just placed it in the article + added refs for the Wheat Field with Crows date + the claim Thatched Cottages was unfinished. "he" in "he made two paintings" still potentially dangled a lil since prev sentence talled about Daubigny, so I replaced with it Van Gogh's proper name. Think over all this is now way more concise and clearer, thanks! Tendancer (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
agreed, the ref attached just said "can be", big jump to "most commonly"...fixed Tendancer (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Multiple image template

I think the template as it currently exists is quite unsuitable for image display, as it jams the images up against each other without a sufficient border for them to be able to breathe. The unequal image height makes everything look very messy. I have posted about this at Template_talk:Multiple_image#More_parameters_please. The gallery template gives a far more attractive look. I suggest the possible use of tables, whose parameters offer a great deal of control and display options. This would be especially useful when there are two or more images together, each with a separate title, but with a description that covers them as a group. See basic examples at Talk:Arthur Pan. Ty 08:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

IMO I prefer galleries and I am willing to make the switch if we develop a consensus. I am also a little troubled by the size inconsistency..Modernist (talk) 10:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The Old Mill, (1888), Albright-Knox Art Gallery
Starry Night Over the Rhone, (1888), Musée d'Orsay, Paris
Olive Trees with the Alpilles in the Background, (1889), Museum of Modern Art, New York

Text here to explain the significance of the images grouped together and how they interacted with Van Gogh's life etc.


The Old Mill, (1888), Albright-Knox Art Gallery Starry Night Over the Rhone, (1888), Musée d'Orsay, Paris

Olive Trees with the Alpilles in the Background, (1889), Museum of Modern Art, New York

Text here to explain the significance of the images grouped together and how they interacted with Van Gogh's life etc.


Here are two examples of how tables can be used. There is a lot of flexibility re. size, text position etc. Ty 10:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Consistent image sizes definitely helps...Modernist (talk) 10:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
By the way are there any representative works from his earlier periods that could be included in the article? Right now there's basically the Potato Eaters then a giant leap into his Paris period, while that's also expected as he was much more prolific in his latter years, it would be helpful (and probably visually more pleasing within the article) to actually see how his works metamorphosized through the ages? I see many at http://www3.vangoghmuseum.nl/vgm/index.jsp?page=619&lang=en, but not knowing enough about the background and significance of each don't want to just plug them haphazardly into the article. (incidentally, this is already a beautiful article, should deserve a FA nomination soon)? Tendancer (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Initially we had several earlier works, then removed them. I'll re-add a couple...Modernist (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
This fancy table stuff is marginally more visually attractive. Differing heights however are easily corrected. Do as you wish.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I have resized the images.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks...just curious, what was the original rationale they were removed. Was it thought the article became too messy/pictures too random? Tendancer (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the reason for the removal was the article already has so many images. There were still other great paintings that we removed. As it is now it is very busy. Before we all decide to go to FA we should decide how many images to keep or to let go. Tony has made the images a little more consistent in size which is a noticeable improvement...Modernist (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Name

I dont like this section, not sure it deservest to be the 1st sect after the lead. I would like to place it as a footnote, but am getting html errors. Ceoil (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

White spaces

The big gaps under the skull, and on top of the Death section worry me, maybe new text is needed. I re-added the kid picture because actual photos of Vincent are so rare that I don't want to lose what we have. I like them side by side. So far the changes seem ok, although I haven't read it all through again...Modernist (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes; text to images ratio. I'm playing around and testing, always feel free to revert. Perhalps we should consider moving to sandbox for a week or two. Ceoil (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
A, putting Theo and Vincent's pictures side by side is a nice touch. Good work! Ceoil (talk) 06:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The format is looking much better, good job cleaning up all that white space...Modernist (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The current arrangement won't pass FAC. Images can not be left aligned directly under level three section headings like the current Auvers-sur-Oise (May–July 1890) section. More text would of course help. Also smaller image captions in places will help. Much of some of the caption content might be better in the text. After moving them, we might be able to put some pictures together in {{multiple image}}.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, Tony (sigh). I'm only happy now to start expanding (though we still have a few problematic sources), so hopefully there will be more room to hold the images. I think we are all agreed than the final step will be a long hard look at the number and position of the pics. I'm much more optmistic than I was though, the new grouping format works really well. In particular, the childhood pics of Vincent and Theo look really smart. Ceoil (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Spelling Error

Under Death section, 1st word should be "Only", not "Onbly". Locked for editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.253.173 (talk • contribs)

Fixed, thanks for catching it...Modernist (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Should we maybe ask that the lock be lifted. There are enough eyes, and many ip edits may be benificial. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Van Gogh's Letters - new critical edition

Next week, 9 October 2009, a new scolarly edition of Van Gogh's letters will be published in print, as well as on the net. It will supply the original texts as well as a fresh "standard translation" in English. --RPD (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Great. Links pls when the time comes. Ceoil (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Voila, the link http://www.vangoghletters.org/vg/ --RPD (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Good job!..Modernist (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Flowers

Concerning this - there has been debate regarding the authenticity of one of the paintings,[151] and it has been suggested that this version may have been the work of Émile Schuffenecker. Do we know exactly which Flower painting is referred to? I think we should try to pinpoint the exact painting - or drop the remark...Modernist (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Drop. There are a few fringe bits and pieces around like this. Medical theories, for eg. I think we should concerned with established facts, and not wander into specualtion. That's fine for fork articles, but there is too much to be said here without wondering. Ceoil (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree - sometimes less is more...Modernist (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
[after edit conflict] Modenist, we seem to be on the same wavelenght re above. Ceoil (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep going, I think the article progresses by tightening the prose, the medical section is linked in the template...Modernist (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The Sunflowers sold to Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance. Info here. Also said to be by Gauguin.[14] But declared genuine anyway [15](but not I think sold by the National Gallery). It was a news story for a while, so would merit a mention somewhere, whether in this article or another. Ty 00:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

A mention in the img cap would be best. Ceoil (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Name 2

I really dont like the "Name" section being a section. Is there a way to put this to the notes? Its html laden is the problem. Ceoil (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I am utterly at sea concerning that section...Modernist (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the entire section can be footnoted to 'birth name' in the infobox. JNW (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I would if I could but I cant. The non roman characters mess with the footnote conventions. Baa. Ceoil (talk) 01:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Aaaaghh! I say make it its own article, Pronunciation of van Gogh. Just kidding.... JNW (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I cut it - lets see if the sky collaspes or not. Good pizza the last night, JNW ;). Ta for the opnion anyhow. Ceoil (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
How's that? Definitely s.t. we want to keep, and perhaps a major reason readers come here. kwami (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Nice!,,,Modernist (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Only problem is that we can't place ref notes within the footnote, and I don't know of any way to cancel the number, so we have [pronunciation 1][1] instead of just [pronunciation]. kwami (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
fixed, also added a notes separation, think this looks better. Tendancer (talk) 04:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey, that's great! I'm gonna have to try that at rongorongo, where we have refs in footnotes. kwami (talk) 05:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
This a great solution. Ceoil (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Both are Callow and Gayford are tagged as Tertiary sources, with little or no reference to sources. I suppose they have to go. Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the thing that has to go is the tag. Gayford is a well known art writer and perfectly acceptable per WP:V, published by Penguin. I don't know Callow or Ivan R. Dee, but the latter also appears to be a major reputable publisher. That is sufficient qualification for wikipedia. Ty 00:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sufficient, well, but perhaps not good enough, in my opinion. For this leads into dead-ends: further evaluation of the reliability is difficult, if not impossible. In Wilkie's publications for example, there is a strange mixture of reliable and not reliable information. Gayford and Callow quote and refer to Van Gogh's letters, but whether the reference is valid or not for the context is not transparent. I refuse to think that this should be WP-standard. - By the way, this was the reason for the tag.--RPD (talk) 12:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand the reason and the standard you are working to, but we have to follow wikipedia's policies, one of which is to make available the opinions and positions stated in such books as Gayford's. Wikipedia represents the academic position and also generalist positions, i.e. the sum of knowledge available in the world at large. Its key note is verifiability, not truth, per WP:V. If a significant source has been shown to be wrong by another significant source, then the criticism can be included also. Wikipedia's position is not to judge major sources, but to represent them per WP:NPOV. I realise this may not always be satisfactory, but it prevents the chaos of WP:OR. Ty 17:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Unprotected

Editing uprotected per request.[16] Move protected (no need to move anyway). Ty 00:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ty. I might live to regret this, but I've found that when there is a heavy editing drive on a page, ips can be quite helpful in spotting glitches. Where there are a lot of eyes, vandelism is a trivial matter anyway. Hopefully, Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If it doesn't work out, it's no problem to reprotect. Ty 00:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

So far it is vandalism 1 and helpful editing 0. Let's keep an eye on this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
So nothing to get alarmed about then. Ty 17:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wheat Fields

In this section it stated "At various times in his life, Van Gogh painted the view from his window—in The Hague (example illustrated), in Antwerp, in Paris; this culminated in the great series of paintings of The Wheat Field he could see from his adjoining cells in the asylum at Saint-Rémy." I could not identify a painting that the phrase "(example illustrated)" is trying to refer to, is that a relic from a past edit? At first I thought maybe it referred to the Wheat Field with Crows on the right, but that couldn't be as it's a 1890 work (and in turn, perhaps it would've better fit in the Auvers-sur-Oise section where Wheat Fieldswas specifically referred to, and is notable for being oft-mistaken as his final work?) Tendancer (talk) 05:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The wheat field painting referred to is linked here: The Wheat Field, currently not an illustration in the article just a link to the text...Modernist (talk) 11:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

k thanks for the explanation. I'll get rid of that "(example illustrated)" then, as The Hague work really isn't illustrated anywhere in that section. Tendancer (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[double post]

Sentence correction.

Under Work, the first sentence reads: "Van Gogh drew and painted with watercolors while at school; few of these works survive and authorship is challenged on some those that do."

Suggest: "...and authorship is challenged on some of those that do." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tooomanyletters (talk • contribs) 09:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Good catch, thank you...Modernist (talk) 11:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Signature

Is there any reason why the signature should not be added? Please, it doesn't do anything bad to the article, and it should stay. Just because one opposes of it, that doesn't mean that everyone else does not. Connormah (talk) 04:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much - it is an optional feature and I don't think it adds anything to the article, it is rather garish and ugly, there is no consensus for it...Modernist (talk) 04:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't damage the article either. Ugly and garish? Come on. There was not a large consensus on whether to add the field, but there was one. Artists usually sign their work, it does add something. Connormah (talk) 04:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
As stated - there is no consensus for the signature - until you have consensus do not add it to this article again!..Modernist (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
There is no good reason to remove a signature if it is a true signature. A signature adds encyclopedic content to the article and should be included if it exists, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
It's ugly, and looks fake out of context - makes the article look like third rate junk...Modernist (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
That's only your opinion. It is not in the lead, it is near the bottom. I do not see any harm in inserting it. Furthermore, I've actually spent time working on the image, and do not appreciate those comments. Connormah (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec)It does not look fake. If it is his signature it should be included as any other factual piece of information that we can provide the reader. If it looks bad artistically that is not a relevant consideration to whether it is information that helps the reader. It would be like excluding a painting that we all think is bad that is important to his life.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Its accuracy hasn't been established. It could be comparable to including a bad reproduction of a painting, or even a reproduction of someone else's copy of a painting. Ty 22:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
It looks like junk, absolutely artificial - are you kidding? There already is a discussion here [17], and here [18] and this editor is trying to circumvent the discussion...Modernist (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
No, it is not. I trace from reliable sources. Connormah (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I still do not see why it is such a big deal. It is at the bottom of the article, not the lead, where it originally was. Connormah (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Uh, junk at the top is no better than junk at the bottom, which one of his 900 paintings did you trace it from?..Modernist (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
The image is from 1. To repeat a statement from above, I do not appreciate you calling the image 'junk'. I put some time and effort into creating that image, while I could very well be doing something else. Connormah (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
It none of my business what you do or how long you do it, the addition to this article is not either an image of or an image by Vincent van Gogh...Modernist (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
There a number of questions. Firstly this seems to be a from a document, probably a letter, and is very different from his signature on paintings (when he signed them), which was I think always just "Vincent" and written entirely differently (& not always the same)[19]. Rembrandt's painted signature evolved and can be significant for dating works, but I don't think it is encyclopedic to just stick in a document signature without discussion. Then there is the issue of tracing, which I don't think I'm happy about. The website is not a WP:RS and gives no source for its image. Leave it out I say. Johnbod (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Modernist, I do not appreciate your comments in your latest edit summary. I spend time doing this to improve the encyclopedia. Connormah (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you should do something else...Modernist (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I can do whatever I want with my time. Stay out of that matter. Connormah (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
As I said It's none of my business what you do or how long you do it, we agree about something...Modernist (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
@Johnbod, I do consider that website reliable. It does contain signatures of noted politicians eg. Margaret Thatcher, Dmitri Medvedev...etc, and there is no difference in the images of their signatures on that site than ones from letters. Connormah (talk) 23:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Modernist, yes, we do agree about something, but, you still should understand that I do not appreciate such comments about the image, eg. fake, artificial, junk. I do spend time on this, and I do not appreciate it. Connormah (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand that van Gogh is an important artist not just a famous person, this article is about an artist and his work, genuineness matters. Your traced facsimile at Margaret Thetcher belongs there but not here, junk does not belong here, take that any way you can...Modernist (talk) 23:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec)If it is not verified to be his signature, then it should not be included. If it is verified, the fact that his legal signature is different from his artistic markings is insignificant although the important thing here might be what appears on paintings. Famous autographs are worth having on WP, but there is nothing in the text to support his autograph being notable. P.S. glad to see everyone is watching.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I am having a hard time here ... does the fact that this man is an artist make him different from other individuals such that including a signature is invalid? I could understand if there was an opinion that signatures should never be included in an encyclopedia article ... but I fail to understand the reason for saying "he's an artist, therefore he should be afforded special consideration in this matter" ... unless there is something I am missing about artists. If there is a question as to the validity of the source, then that needs to be addressed, but as far as I can tell the discussion is not moving in that direction. If the source is being questioned, and you cannot reach a consensus on its validity, you may need to call in some people not involved in this discussion who are more expert on whether this belongs or not. I am not sure the current conversation (Tony the Tiger's excluded) is moving in the right direction to reach a conclusion. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
One issue is that articles on art have great pressure for more images of the art, which is important, and against non-essential images like this, which are not. Personally I would be against the inclusion of signatures in all but those biographies where there is a shortage of more relevant or informative images. In any case, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no argument. Doesn't "I am not sure the current conversation ... is moving in the right direction to reach a conclusion" just mean you happen to disagree with the consensus that is emerging? Johnbod (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Of course I'm not against any consensus arriving for either side of this argument ... I have no opinion on this matter. I am just saying that there did not appear to be movement toward any consensus .... from what I was reading, the arguments were: "I don't like signatures". The other was "I do". Then I was hearing "this guy is important, so it shouldn't be there" .... opposed by "its not hurting the article". These arguments did not seem to be moving toward building any consensus toward a solution either way, and I suggested that perhaps some outside people might be needed. You then jumped to the conclusion that I was taking sides. So, I will stay away from here because I have other things I can be doing that don't involve being accused of taking a side. Best of luck to you all! LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I would be opposed to the sig, tied to a RS or not. Infobox creep. Interesting in its own right, but not exactly essential. As with all infobox stuff, I get the feeling of 'just be cause we can, we should'. Ceoil (talk) 02:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Connormah, for taking the time and trouble to provide this signature. I happen to think that a signature is an interesting and worthwhile addition to an article. However, the editors who have put in the most work to this one don't seem to want it here particularly, one reason being that the image space is better used for his work. It would perhaps be fitting in Letters of Vincent van Gogh. There are some other issues. The source of the signature is not yet established as reliable. Assuming that it is, then it's not appropriate to trace the signature. It is a modification[20] of the original. [21] Accuracy can only be met with a photo of the signature. It's not a diagram. Ty 03:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Why does the note on pronunciation actually spell the whole word out in the superscripted text?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it? kwami (talk) 07:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Progress

At one point this was targeted for WP:FAC. How is that progressing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what is the point of this post? Are you expressing disfaction. Are we time bound to you. Ceoil (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
It's a fair question, but there may not be an answer. Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
"How is that progressing" is loaded and anti the volunteer spirit of what we do here. I'm sorry its not going faster Tony, other stuff is happening. I'll report back later. Ceoil (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I think he was, yunno, just asking, but whatever. Time for bed, night all. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
All in due time..I guess...Happy Halloween all, we turn the clocks back tonight...Modernist (talk) 03:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Now you tell me... Bus stop (talk) 10:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
'Are you expressing disfaction?' Thats a new word, probably meant dissatisfaction. A faction is ' a group or clique within a larger group.' Freudian slip maybe. 92.22.197.2 (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Punctuation

The comma preceding the period at the end of this sentence from the second paragraph of the article needs to be omitted:

  • Although he was little known during his lifetime, his work was a strong influence on the Modernist art that followed,.

Greqrg (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks...Modernist (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

I'm a little confused by some of the recent edits in relation to sourcing.

  • Early Life. Additon of the ref for arthistoryarchive - is that actually a better source than the books mentioned in this paragraph?
"Vincent Willem van Gogh was born on March 30, 1853 in Groot-Zundert, a village close to Breda in the province of North Brabant in the south of the Netherlands.<ref>[http://www.arthistoryarchive.com/arthistory/expressionism/Vincent-Van-Gogh.html Vincent Van Gogh Biography, Quotes & Paintings]. The Art History Archive. Retrieved 14 June 2007.</ref>"
Hi Carole - that edit to that art history archive was made June 14, 2007 by an editor who left the project that same day and never edited again - [22], that's the complexity of a collaborative enterprise like this project...Modernist (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I consider the VG Museum reputable...Modernist (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Any particular reason for taking out background info about the parents - but leaving info about the info about the grandfather? And taking out the years of birth for the siblings?--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Who removed that information?..Modernist (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I reverted back to the version that was there before I began editing. I want to rethink how to go about doing this. If we are to pass FAC for a biography such as this we need to use the most reliable scholarly sources, and they need to be comprehensive per the FAC criteria Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, agreed TK - that was the reason for my first two comments. I'm afraid I stepped on some toes here when I came over to take a peak and wondered about a shift in approach regarding sourcing. I'll back out - this is in very capable hands!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
'stepped on some toes Passive agressive is never nice, but if you preferr we can move back to web rather than dead tree sources. Ceoil 00:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
This was always going to be a non-starter. I'll take my dead tree sources back to the library, unwatch the page, and try to unwind my tightly wound self. What a shame - I knew exactly what needed to be done. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
:I meant summarising in the sense that we don't need to add every single little anecdote of the early life because it can go to Van Gogh's family in his art, which I'm currently working on before coming back here, so that we can do exactly what you've delineated above. I'm about half way through VvG's letters and find that Pomerans' commentary is quite good; hopefully we can stream in some of that. I think you should start anywhere, and someday we'll have an article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I want to make one thing clear - here and now - we have an article and it's damned good. It's also tagged that way...Modernist (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"Severely dark"

I have added a {{citation needed}} for the assertion that "[the paintings] completed in the days before his suicide are severely dark."

It is of course nonsense and it is an absolute tragedy, and a very great disservice to an artist I take it all or most of us editing here revere, that an internet search shows it as repeated in literally dozens of secondary sites mirroring Wikipedia.

The following sentence cites At Eternity's Gate. But this was not a painting completed in the last few days before his suicide (indeed he wasn't painting at all in the two or three days before the suicide because he had run out of colours and was awaiting fresh ones from his brother). It was not even painted in Auvers but rather in Saint-Rémy while he was convalescing from his breakdown and it was not painted a few days before he shot himself, as its article avers, but in April 1890, a full 3 months before his suicide and some 80 or more canvases before.

I'm not well pleased that a section I started on this page entitled "Editorialism" in good faith referring to this and otherwise generally positive about how I found this article was deleted essentially because another user abused it to attack me.

I do hope this is not to be the fate of this section. FightingMac (talk) 08:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

According to everything that I read - he did not run out of paint, his brother sent new paints on June 17, and he painted steadily until he shot himself. He painted Eternity's Gate in May, and shot himself in July...Modernist (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion - those late paintings are intense, and somewhat dark, not only Wheatfield with Crows but several more from June/July including Wheat Field under Clouded Sky [23], Landscape with the Chateau at Sunset [24], and [Fields near Auvers, 1890] and several others...Modernist (talk) 11:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Do you have a source for your opinion we can cite? I mean that's fine with me if we have a cite. FightingMac (talk) 11:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Try Pickvance, Ronald. Van Gogh In Saint-Rémy and Auvers (exh. cat. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York: Abrams, 1986. ISBN 0-87099-477-8. Pages 270-315
Well then cite it the next time you remove the template. It would be courteous also in the circumstances to quote what he says there. He spent 45 pages saying Vincent's paintings at Auvers was severly dark? Please don't remove a template like that again. They're for the community and not to challenge you. FightingMac (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Death section; reasons for suicide

The sentence "Over the years there has been much debate as to the source of van Gogh's illness and its effect on his work", in a paragraph about Vincent's state of mind before his suicide, essentially begs the question in suggesting he committed suicide because he was suffering from some kind of nervous illness.

Well, no doubt, but people don't always top themselves because they've run out of Prozac (paints in Vincent's case perhaps, wikipedia credibility one can easily imagine in a few others today). Sometimes they do it because they've got pretty good reason to be fed up with living and one can list half a dozen or so reasons exactly why Vincent might have felt that way, ranging from worries about Theo to his deteriorating relationship with Gachet.

Some at least of this should be covered in the article? FightingMac (talk) 08:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

As you have pointed out everything needs references...Modernist (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Well I'm not suggesting at all we should wade in with, say, theories about his love for Gachet's daughter without referencing them. Whatever gave you that idea? FightingMac (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree that we would be making a huge mistake...Modernist (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes. FightingMac (talk) 12:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
FightingMac, I don't know whether you've noticed that directly under the section header on the death section is a link to a subpage: Vincent van Gogh's health. It's prob not a bad idea to summarize some of this info in a smallish para here, but it does exist. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Right. But what I said above was that we are concentrating on his health when there are other significant issues as well. So your point a bit hard to understand. I mean I haven't started to wade my way through this suddenly vast article, but I don't think, for example, that Theo's work problems are ever mentioned. That's the sort of thing I suggest we might consider adding. There's load enough about his health already. Don't really follow what you're saying. FightingMac (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is there an image of "At Eternity Gate's" in the Auvers section?

I just deleted the image of "At Eternity's Gate" only to have it immediately reverted by Modernist. Why?

Concentrate now, Modernist. "At Eternity's gate" was painted in Saint-Rémy-de-Provence. It says so in its article. That's in the south of France.

Auvers on the other hand is in in the north of France.

Putting it beside the Church at Auvers is also strange. Some religious thing there possibly? But the context of the article (uncited) is that Church at Auvers is a "northern image".

Will you please give a straightforward explanation for this. What possible reason can you have?

I can add the image also appears in the Death section. You want two images of this not very pleasant painting you apparently like so much in the article?FightingMac (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I reversed your delete - did you read the caption?...Modernist (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the image should stay. If consensus here says remove it then it will be removed...Modernist (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
The section begins in May with VvG in Saint-Rémy leaving for Auvers. The painting was done in May just before he left for Auvers...Modernist (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
We can do without comments like "concentrate now Modernist". From my point of view an immense amount of work and thought has gone into grouping the images, writing captions for them, and equal thought should go into removing them. I'll have a look, but as Modernist says, we need consensus. At the moment, per WP:BRD, it's been boldly changed, it's been reverted; now we discuss. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
We could also have done without the comments telling me to fuck off in the deleted "Editorialism" section. I didn't notice you pontificatin about that then. FightingMac (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I did. I clearly asked you to take it to the user page where it belonged. Not here, please. Also, honestly I know Ceoil, have huge regard for the quality of his work which has been an immense contribution to this encyclopedia. Your contributions, on the other hand make me wonder, to be honest. Furthermore, Modernist has probably done more for art articles, in regard to tending them, reverting vandalism, writing featured quality content than any editor I know of - something to keep in mind. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
You asked me to take it to the user page? I wasn't doing the cussing! Can we just stick to the content here please? The issue is quite simple. Why is a painting painted in Saint-Rémy in the Auvers section? I mean it's not something I'm going to edit war about for the rest of eternity but I should be curious to have a rational explanation FightingMac (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Well I did notice you reverted. That's why we're here to discuss it. You changed the caption to May, 1890 to make it more eligible. But it's well documented it was painted April 1890. That's the date at vangoghgallery.com catalogue and that's the most accurate and up to date source on the internet. But the main point (did you read the section header?) is that it wasn't painted at Auvers and unless you can give me a much better reason I'm going to pull it again. Is it some sort of religious thing? I mean I frankly don't understand why you're doing this. FightingMac (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
As a matter of courtesy I should mention that Kröller-Müller catalogues it as May 1890. I'm not sure that's right. But the main point remains it's not an Auvers painting. FightingMac (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
We have to follow what the sources say. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Gain consensus before removing an image, if you pull it without consensus you are edit warring, on page 287 Trailbaut (1981) the reproduction of the paintings says - May 1890, whats more if April is more accurate then change the caption...Modernist (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Lets be clear - eligible? did you mean legible perhaps?...Modernist (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Within the context of the article, I think it is fine where it is.--Chimino (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
By the way - the vangoghgallery.com catalogue says April-May which means he started it in April and finished it in May. The caption says:

Painting, Oil on Canvas Saint-Rémy: April - May, 1890 Kröller-Müller Museum Otterlo, The Netherlands, Europe F: 702, JH: 1967...Modernist (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks M., I think it clearly should stay. The section header not only says Auvers, but includes dates as well. No reason for it not to be there, and it's an important piece that we should have on the page, imo. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I mean On 22 June 2009 you insertedEternity's Gates in the Saint-Rémy section where indeed it should be in my opinion. Then, essentially for reasons of layout I think, you subsituted that with Prisoners and put EG in a gallery in the Auvers section where it doesn't properly belong. At some point thereafter you or someone else made it a multiple image with the church. Up until today the caption has always been simply '1890'.
It was always there essentially for reasons of layout. For reasons severely opaque to me you don't want to put it back in Saint-Rémy. What you do when you revert is change the caption to 'May 1890' and I maintain this is to make it more eligible. Trust that's clear (legible?)
But listen, Modernist, have this on me. No really. They go very well together this old man down south and this old church up north. Honest. Absolutely triff together. You're completely right. It's a real stunner.
Thank you for citing Northern influence. That was thoughtful of you. Appreciated.
Bed-time here. I'll be back :-) FightingMac (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

"15 francs month" correction

Current: On 1 May, he signed a lease for 15 francs month

Corrected: On 1 May, he signed a lease for 15 francs a month

Jvhays (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

the ear again

I've found an interesting article, dealing with the question if it was the whole ear or just a lobe of it, which was cut off. "Dr. Rita Wildegans. The Corpus Delicti Is a Corpuscle". [25] 188.192.54.120 (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Dates

I have noticed that the article has two conventions for dating VvGs works. Which is correct?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Good observation Tony, either way is correct - however I have placed brackets on all the dates of his paintings for consistency...Modernist (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
O.K. but now sometimes you have a comma before the date, sometimes after and sometimes both.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vincent_van_Gogh/Archive_2&oldid=1190134714"