Talk:Vincent van Gogh/Archive 2

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)

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)

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

• At this point, we are dealing with gallery overload and lacking citations for the most part.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Clarification - Please clarify Tony...What exactly are you talking about? Please be specific. Thank you...Modernist (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    • First, I fail to understand why some of the gallery image can not be moved into the text. There are sections where the citation is very weak. E.G., look at the first several paragraphs in Vincent_van_Gogh#Work. Nothing there is common knowledge for a person like me who know a bit about art, but is not an expert. Please get add at least one in-line citation per paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Montmartre in the upper Mill, 1886, Art Institute of Chicago

Bridges across the Seine at Asnieres, 1887, Foundation E.G. Bührle, Zürich

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)

• "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)

• Is webexhibits.org a RS? I'm not familiar with the site. Ceoil (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• It looks A one to me - gives us all the letters...Modernist (talk) 20:06, 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,

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) or buy it on Amazon for the low low price of $256.79. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

• "Margot tried to kill herself with strychnine and Van Gogh rushed her to the hospital." - What happened?

• She failed according to the current wording.

• The wording is ambiguous or at least incomplete, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have augmented the text to say "Margot tried to kill herself with strychnine, but Van Gogh rushed her to the hospital to save her".--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• "He was treated by Dr Cavenaile, whose surgery was near the docklands" - Do you mean his office?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Er? Doctors see patients in a surgery, not an office... Ty 06:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• I believe that they see them during surgery and in an office or hospital.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have amended the text to say "place of business" instead of surgery--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

• Changed to practice.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• "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." - does not make sense to me. What is this trying to say?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:30, 18 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)

• The phrase "Jan Hulsker lists seven paintings after it" lacks authority. Why does his opinion matter?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Hulsker's opinions matter because Jan Hulsker is the author of the Complete Van Gogh - a catalogue raisonne - and he is considered a world expert on Vincent van Gogh, according to his wikipedia entry - The establishment of the Vincent van Gogh Foundation and the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam were among his major tasks...Modernist (talk) 23:50, 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)

• I have added Van Gogh scholar in front of his name.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• "more likely candidates" for what?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It seems that this phrase has now been removed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:20, 20 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)

• "The disorders it is most commonly associated with are mania and epilepsy" has no clear referent for "it".--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:46, 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. But declared genuine anyway (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)

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)

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)

Editing uprotected per request. 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)

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]

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)

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 , and here 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). 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 of the original. Accuracy can only be met with a photo of the signature. It's not a diagram. Ty 03:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 - , that's the complexity of a collaborative enterprise like this project...Modernist (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Early Life. Van Gogh Museum is not considered a reputable site - and needs to have back-up references?--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:04, 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)

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 , Landscape with the Chateau at Sunset , 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)

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)

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)

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)

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". 188.192.54.120 (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

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)