Talk:Vincent van Gogh

The Wikipedian @Remsense is resolutely in favour of including suicidal terminology reading "to commit suicide" which has various connotations and these are described thusly: Suicide terminology. Moreover this is included in the lede, which is an important section and such terminology brings nothing to the table, so removing it should be a non-issue. Please present your rationale. PuppyMonkey (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

As I said before, this would be an appropriate change to enforce in articles if it were one of our content guidelines. It is not: instead, it is a recommendation by external advocates. Imposing external guidelines in articles as if they were guidelines established by the consensus of the Wikipedia community is inappropriate. Trying to sneak the change in as a minor edit several days after I asked you to bring it here first is completely unacceptable. If it's not clear, the burden is on you to make the case for why the content should be changed.

As for the content, I haven't been convinced by the reasons provided so far. We generally use language in line with what our sources use, and while I understand the logic of the advocates' argument, I am not compelled to agree with the extent of their conclusions. Remsense ‥ 论 01:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The only burden I should have is that the change is better than the status quo, which it is. And this argumentation is already completely laid out for me in an existing Wikipedia article. With no policy either for or against the phraseology, all you have is precedence. The use of English changes over time with the culture, and currently using the word "commit" is outdated as the Legality of suicide is changing around the world. PuppyMonkey (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

(third party) Suicide terminology is an encyclopedic article on the subject. The wording for what is considered acceptable on Wikipedia can be found at MOS:SUICIDE. To wit:

The phrase committed suicide is not banned on the English Wikipedia, although many external style guides discourage it as being potentially stigmatising and offensive to some people. There are many other appropriate, common, and encyclopedic ways to describe a suicide [...]

Emphasis in original, footnote removed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't tell which side you're endorsing @Tenryuu. PuppyMonkey (talk) 02:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm saying if you two can't figure it out on the talk page, stop edit warring and file a request for dispute resolution. I'm here to point out what is considered acceptable stylistically on Wikipedia; that's it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the elucidation. I should've thought to link the relevant part of the MOS much sooner. Remsense ‥ 论 04:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

To rephrase my position in terms of the verbiage above: the phrase is not disallowed, so it's not acceptable for editors to treat it as if it is disallowed, i.e. to remove it from articles as a matter of course. Some more particular reason, or otherwise some superior version of the passage, is what would justify a change. Remsense ‥ 论 04:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Vincent Van Gogh did not commit suicide. He was shot by kids playing around. Said he shot himself to save the kids 184.96.183.189 (talk) 05:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'd like to suggest that this sentence : "His friendship with Gauguin ended after a confrontation with a razor when, in a rage, he mutilated his left ear." ... is not optimally written. It almost sounds like the confrontation was between van Gogh and a razor with a life of its own, with Gaugin being a witness to it. 208.111.73.91 (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Because razors indeed aren't animate, I confess it's not plausible to characterize that as a likely reading. Remsense ‥ 论 03:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I made an edit that was very quickly reverted, I was unaware that the point had already been brought up.

Since Gauguin and and Van Gogh are both male, to me it sounds like a plausible reading of the sentence is:

"[Van Gogh's] friendship with Gauguin ended after a confrontation when, in a rage, [Van Gogh] mutilated [Gauguin's] left ear."

which is of course not what happened.

I changed 'his left ear' to 'his own left ear' to clear up this ambiguity - technically, it could still be read as Gauguin mutilating his own left ear, but since it's on Van Gogh's page it seems like that's a much less likely interpretation. Drywalling (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

It's not plausible to read this sentence as he and his referencing separate people: if that were intended, the sentence would only make sense with Gaugin being specifically named in the place of his. When the entire paragraph is read as one would expect, there is no room for ambiguity in who is being referred to.Remsense ‥ 论 01:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for reviving this discussion from a few months ago, but there is plenty of room for ambiguity in who is being referred to. I would argue that this is evidenced by the fact that multiple people have read the sentence and found it ambiguous. That's also not the only ambiguous thing about the sentence; "when" should probably be "after which", because if I'm reading the body of the article correctly, the mutilation did not actually happen during the confrontation. My suggestion for a rewrite of the sentence would be something like this:

"His friendship with Gauguin ended with a confrontation with a razor, after which, in a rage, Van Gogh multilated his own left ear."

However, the body of the article actually says that Gauguin's account of the confrontation is uncorroborated and that Gauguin almost certainly wasn't actually at the Yellow House that night, so I don't understand why we're linking these two events in the lead as if their connection is factual anyway. MidnightAlarm (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Agree that this should be written to convey that Vincent was weaving the razor. A good spot. Ceoil (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Date of recovery is given as 2034 which is implausible. Correction needed. 2A0E:CB01:0:4600:F163:DC74:7008:3AF3 (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Which painting is that? I don't see any mention of 2034 in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change " During his lifetime, only one of Van Gogh's paintings, The Red Vineyard, was sold." to "Van Gogh only sold a few paintings during his lifetime, most famous amongst them being 'The Red Vineyard'.

Justification There is no source backing up Van Gogh only selling one painting in his lifetime, and the Van Gogh Museum directly contradicts this. Source: https://www.vangoghmuseum.nl/en/art-and-stories/vincent-van-gogh-faq/how-many-paintings-did-vincent-sell-during-his-lifetime Tahaboi001 (talk) 12:03, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done with minor changes. Day Creature (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

The current lead states that Vincent van Gogh died by suicide. However, there is a well-documented alternative interpretation presented in Van Gogh: The Life by Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith (2011), which argues that van Gogh may have been accidentally shot by local youths, possibly led by René Secrétan.

Given that this interpretation is supported by a major, extensively researched biography, I suggest the lead be revised to reflect the scholarly debate rather than presenting suicide as an undisputed fact.

Suggested wording: “Van Gogh’s work was only beginning to gain critical attention before his death at age 37 from a gunshot wound. While his death is widely believed to have been a suicide, some scholars have proposed alternative explanations.”

I believe further details regarding the reconstruction presented by Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith should also be included, but I will start with this small step. TRMakai (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. It's certainly worth a mention in the main body of the lead, but not in the lead. Do you have a copy of the book? Ceoil (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, just finished the book... highly recommended. Do you need any specifics about, or from the book. Happy to copy over more detail on their reconstruction. I highly doubt the gunshot wound was self inflicted. TRMakai (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2026 (UTC)