Talk:Vincent van Gogh/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Lead

The lead is rather poor. Its most serious mistake is the assertion that shortly before Vincent's suicide, his brother Theo wrote him to say he could no longer support him. That is simply not true. There are a number of other shortcomings which need attention. "Discovering Impressionism" should go for example. For what it is worth, the recent discovery of Dr. Rey's medical notes establish definitively that he in fact cut off his entire ear. Jennie Matthews 97 (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

No for the ear (see discussions above), yes for the Theo factoid which I don't think is merited (or sourced). --John (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The case for the whole ear and nothing but the ear is compelling, but no matter. Regarding the "factoid", that should certainly be struck. The facts are that Theo had recently become a father and subsequently decided to strike out on his own as an art dealer. He was employed at a prestigious art dealership in Paris (Goupil & Cie), with which the van Gogh family had connections. He was very comfortably off as a result (in much the same way as employees of, say, Sotheby's or Christie's are today, many of whom bid for the works of arts in their sales and acquire valuable portfolios as a result). So long as he was employed by Goupil, he was well able to provide Vincent's relatively generous stipend, in return be it noted for his paintings - in reality Vincent "sold" all his paintings to his brother. Biographers speculate that Theo's decision to strike out on his own might have made Vincent anxious, already anxious about Theo's evident ill-health (neurosyphilis), but Theo certainly never wrote Vincent to say he could no longer support him. I am not aware of any source that says or implies this and wonder how your editors came by it.

Regarding Impressionism, this was already a spent movement by the time Vincent arrived in Paris in 1888 to join his brother (the eight and last Impressionist exhibition was held in 1886). His understanding of the term was broader than that employed today (see note 2, letter 569) and of course he was aware of the movement long before he came to Paris. At any rate he never identified with the movement. The term Post-Impressionist does not imply a development of it, rather a reaction against it. "Discovering Impressionism" is thus very misleading.

I do not want to be misunderstood. I had always thought the van Gogh article rather pleasant so long as it was genuinely crowd-sourced. I lament that it is now locked and maintained by some sort of guardianship. At the very least, its new guardians should endeavor to see that a featured article maintained by them should be factually accurate.

Naturally I should not presume to edit at the article myself. Jennie Matthews 97 (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The factoid has been duly removed and well done for spotting it. The ear argument has been well and truly had and we agree that the 2016 discussions add nothing to the mix. You are welcome to reopen that discussion if you have read the previous discussions and believe you have something new to add. Regarding Impressionism, I am definitely open to revising this. What do others think? The article is definitely still crowd-sourced and your input to is very welcome, but you should of course be aware that it has recently undergone major work followed by stringent peer review. Having said that it is far from perfect as you have shown, and any constructive suggestions will be greatly welcomed. --John (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jennie Matthews 97, these have been actioned (to use a verb I dislike). See here, where the info about Theo was removed; see here where the info about impressionism is changed. According to Arnold Pomerans, page 498 of my copy of The Letters of Vincent Van Gogh, Theo was quite worried about striking out on his own and leaving Goupil, especially given the number of years he'd worked for that establishment and the long history the Van Gogh family had with them. He advised Vincent that they "would all have to tighten their belts" (Pomerans' words, not Theo's), and Pomerans points out that Theo had considerable problems - his child was ill, he was worried about an income, Vincent had been ill. We have no certainty as to Theo's own condition. Anyway, this is in reply to your comment, "I am not aware of any source that says or implies this and wonder how your editors came by it," because I found it in the first book I picked up off the shelf. Regardless, as you can see by the fact that these edits were made within hours of your post, the article isn't in full lockdown mode. Regards, Victoria (tk) 22:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Letter 894 is the letter in question, to save you searching. ‑ Iridescent 22:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Iridescent, I meant look for that letter. I'd only taken a quick glance at Pomerans, and see now (after reading the letter) that his entire para is in quotes, so in fact Theo's words. And he'd left Goupil already for "those skinflints Boussad & Valadon". About "discovering impressionism" - I wonder if we need to reword if it's been misinterpreted. That sentence refers to Vincent's 1886 trip to Paris, when he really spent time "discovering", studying, fill-in-the-appropriate-word, the impressionists, which he not bothered with previously. It's not supposed to mean he "discovered" or was at the forefront of the movement. Thoughts? Victoria (tk) 22:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Re the ear, this is interesting. Victoria (tk) 23:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Victoria. Thank you for your response. I know your edits on Early Netherlandish paintings and admire them very much. All those articles are a considerable asset, as indeed are most of the many articles on Vincent and his paintings. Pomerans is certainly an impeccable source but you must agree your editor made a considerable stretch using him! Of course Pomerans was not a van Gogh specialist but a translator (albeit a very considerable and influential one). As a matter of interest these later letters were not written in Dutch but French. The basis of the quarrel between the two brothers on Vincent's last visit alluded to in Pomerans appears to be that Vincent insisted on speaking French.

That Theo suffered from neurosyphilis is not in doubt, although of course it was suppressed for some time (as far as I know Jo Bonger's letters have still to be released). However his physician's reports at the asylum he was eventually committed to makes his condition perfectly clear. Amongst other things there is a note about a chancre appearing on his glans penis that required treatment. Of course it was an enormous tragedy, not really mitigated by the fiction he died of grief. In fact in his last days he had no remaining recollection of Vincent.

I had quite forgotten I had commented earlier on the ear! That was Martin Gayford's book, where he claimed that Paul Gauguin sliced it clean off in their quarrel, an absurd proposition though I admit I quite liked the book anyway. Curiously enough the other Martin (Martin Bailey) has a book coming out November on the Yellow House. I am told it is interesting. Might edit here on it then, though actually my renewed interest in Wikipedia is not prompted by matters Vincent (but rather by other matters that presently also interest CaroleHenson, another excellent Vincent editor I admire).

Unrepentant about my strictures about the article being locked, However I must agree the issues were dealt with in a timely and courteous manner and I thank you all for that. Jennie Matthews 97 (talk) 01:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

As of late I've been very puzzled regarding the notion that Theo died of syphillis; primarily because neither Johanna nor the child had the disease......makes me skeptical...Modernist (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I should say that I admire Carolehenson's input and yours as well; especially your input a few years ago...Modernist (talk) 02:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone, it's reaching back a bit, but I thought that there was a likelihood that Van Gogh had some sort of chemical, paint, turpentine poisoning... as well as that green drink (Absinth?) that was popular in Paris when he lived there. I think I read that he would get paint in his mouth... and was the paint then lead-based. Whatever the contaminant, I thought that some thought that might have also attributed to some extent to his mental downfall. Something about seeing yellow crops up, too. This is all fuzzy and I'm not sure how reliable the sources were, but that's what comes up for me. I could try doing some quick searches. I just realized that I veered off the original question, which was the ear - to what might he died of.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

See this section above: [1]. It's really all settled. And I have no intention of discussing the state of Theo's penis with Jenny. Thanks for popping up. Victoria (tk) 03:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Modernist: That's right about Jo and the boy. But if he had acquired syphilis early as a young man, as he must have if the condition had progressed to neurosyphilis, then I believe he would no longer have been infectious so long as he didn't reinfect.

@Carole: Hello there. Yes, that's right about paint and absinthe. Current opinion is that it was alcohol induced psychosis. I don't think it's especially well known that their sister Wil, an early feminist, spent most of her life after 1902 incarcerated in an asylum, apparently a victim of catatonic schizophrenia, although the question has been posed as to whether the family simply had put her away. An edit interest for you later? Jennie Matthews 97 (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Victoria I looked up Van der Veen and Knapp on Theo's illness (his doctor's notes at the Willem Arntz Hospital, Utrecht, where he was admitted 18 November 1890 and remained until his death 25 January 1891, are reproduced in full pp 260-4). Der Veen and Knapp note that Theo lost his reason in October 1890 scarcely three weeks after Vincent's death. He was at first interned at Paris, but transferred to the Utrecht hospital shortly afterwards. The preliminary observations "unfortunately" confirmed the Paris diagnosis of a "progressive and general paralysis". Significantly there is a comment about a "family genetic history". There follows detailed notes about his progress: I thought it rather pleasant that he was evidently treated with respect and compassion. The cause of death was listed as dementia paralytica (i.e. neurosyphilis), the causes given as "heredity, chronic disease, overwork, sadness". Jennie Matthews 97 (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

°== Lead - "became interested in the French Impressionists" ==

I am still bothered by the remark about Impressionism in the lead.

Vincent had some exposure to the Impressionists while he was in Antwerp and as he came to Paris beginning February 1886 he subsequently presumably visited the last of the Impressionist exhibitions in June of that year. But that is not recorded in any of his letters. Of course (as Pomerans indeed points out), the Paris years are the least recorded, simply because Theo and Vincent had no need to correspond. Nevertheless, the fact is his letters do not display any great enthusiasm for Impressionism, in keeping with the Dutch disdain for the movement. It was George Hendrik Breitner who introduced Impressionism to the Dutch. Breitner and Vincent sketched together as students in the Hague, as well as indulging other interests judging from their both requiring treatment for gonorrhea that summer (sparing Victoria stuff about catheters), but had scant respect for each other's efforts.

Make a Google search on "van gogh impressionism" and this comes up at the top of the page from their knowledge engine

Post-Impressionism is a term used to describe the reaction in the 1880s against Impressionism. It was led by Paul Cézanne, Paul Gauguin, Vincent van Gogh and Georges Seurat. The Post-Impressionists rejected Impressionism's concern with the spontaneous and naturalistic rendering of light and color.

Impressionism and Post-Impressionism - Oxford Art Online www.oxfordartonline.com/.../impressionismandpostimpressionismOxford Art Online

Theo of course was necessarily interested in Impressionism as an art dealer. For his part, Vincent was more enthused by Japanese prints, dating from his time in Antwerp. He made a number of copies of these prints, mounted at least one exhibition of them in Paris and made an abortive attempt to deal in them.

I am also bothered by "keenly aware of modernist trends in art". In the technical sense, I do not believe that can be at all correct (source?) The truth is that Vincent's taste in art was distinctly pedestrian - English graphic art and the Dutch Hague school were his abiding passions.

Equally I am puzzled by "with the French artist Paul Gauguin, developed a concept of colour that symbolised inner emotion". This is not addressed again in the main body of the article and I think we should have a source for it. I am not actually a Vincent specialist, but I have never seen this before. It is well known and well discussed of course that he was influenced by Delacroix's ideas on color. I do not recall ever seeing Gauguin's name crop up in that discussion.

There are other issues I have with the lead, but I would be grateful if the guardians of the article were to address these first. I do think we should be doing better. Jennie Matthews 97 (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the lead again, I see that nothing in fact is cited. I take it that it is policy so long as the material in the article itself is cited. But when we come to the influence of Impressionism on Vincent, the relevant passage in the article is "Theo kept a stock of Impressionist paintings in his gallery on boulevard Montmartre, but Van Gogh was slow to acknowledge the new developments in art.[109]". Now I would say that is a very questionable assertion i.e. it was not all that Vincent was slow to acknowledge, but that he actually rejected the developments. And when we look at the citation offered (Tralbaut 212.213) we read:

Within a few months Vincent has joined the avant-garde, with Toulouse-Lautrec, Bernard, Gauguin, Anquetin, Signac and Seurat. His passionate temperament and natural pugnacity soon made him one of the leaders of this new movement. Van Gogh felt that Impressionism had had its day, and he urged that the movement should take a new direction; it had to have a a name, and was provisionally called Post-Impressionism.

Now Tralbaut, an early biographer, is frankly a somewhat zealous advocate of Vincent, but it is plain that what is cited does not support the text and as I remarked from the outset it does support the view that Vincent felt that Impressionism had run its course.

The lead and the text plainly has to be adjusted. It should not be a difficult task and I am willing to undertake it myself if necessary, after I have seen comment here.

I have to say I am very surprised all this missed "stringent review". Presumably one checks the sources? And it is by no means the only shortcoming in my view that needs correction or amplification. I can assist more after the current US electoral proceedings have run their course.

Finally I hope I don't appear aggressive in my remarks. My only real beef with the article is that the "little people" have been locked out of it. I oppose elitism, as surely did Vincent. Jennie Matthews 97 (talk) 08:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jenny, I have little patience for this given that we've danced this dance in the past - which, too, is why after the initial moves to be helpful people are now ignoring. It's not that your comments are aggressive - it's that we know what to expect and, speaking for myself, I haven't the energy to go on and on. The first sentence of the lead says he was a a post-impressionist, the infobox says he was a post-impressionist. But to get to that point, to oversimplify grossly, he had to know about and then reject impressionism. He did learn from the impressionist works he saw in Paris - he lightened his palette, he changed his style, all of which is indisputable. And then he went beyond. Some of that process is spun out more in the style section, rather than in the Paris section. That section about Lautrec, et al should be cited to Walther & Metzger; I remember putting in the cite myself, but during the FAC there were thousands of edits, many edit conflicts, lots and lots of fluctuations, and it seems that either the edit didn't get saved or the cite got lost. I'll fix that when I have time - hopefully this weekend. Given that we're tapped out at 10,000 + words, this is the biography page, etc, I do think that there might be a good argument for a separate article about the evolution of Vincent's style - from the farmhouses in Nuenen to his last paintings. But we don't have the scope for it here. Victoria (tk) 15:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, indeed we all know what to expect and I can not be bothered either. There we agree. I shall confine myself to correcting the demonstrable errors in the article. Naturally I should not presume to instruct the guardians at this article, who are plainly very satisfied with their efforts. Jennie Matthews 97 (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm unclear what exactly you want to see changed and won't know until you post proposed text here (with sources). I have a general idea of what you are trying to say, but to repeat - much material needed to be cut for various reasons, we need to be succinct, we need to maintain summary style as much as we can, and again, I can see an argument for spinning out some of these ideas in daughter articles. Victoria (tk) 18:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

First of all I gather there was recently a Featured Picture of the Day of one of Vincent's Japonisme works which did describe Vincent as an Impressionist painter. When an editor, who I happen to know to be a Christie's specialist, remonstrated, he was essentially trolled by the admin involved. While I appreciate you probably aren't involved in POTD (but you are a Japonisme fiend), you at least have to admit the possibility that the editor (certainly the admin) was laboring under the impression that Post-Impressionism was a development of Impressionism rather than a reaction against it. He certainly won't have been set straight by this article which mentions Post-Impressionism just three times again and nowhere makes it clear exactly what it is.

It's literally decades since I did my Vincent reading. Naturally one glances at a few new things when they arise, but I'm not about to embark on a lot of editing which would oblige me to read back in. But I do know there would never ever have been any question of Vincent "interesting" himself in Impressionism. A good Hague School realist he would have sneered at it. He would have interested himself in it only to the extent that Theo dealt in it.

What the lead should rather say is that Vincent rapidly established himself within an avant garde circle of like minded artists, including especially Emile Bernard and Paul Gauguin, interested in forming a new movement reacting against the then aging Impressionist movement, a movement that was eventually called Post-Impressionism. Something of that sort. Now I appreciate that writing copy for Wikipedia is tedious and frustrating, and what I was essentially offering was my own humble drafting skills.

But if I am to be patronised in the way I just have been, Victoria, well sod that for a game of soldiers [remark edited on reflection] I say. Seriously.

There are one or two things that caught my eye on the Talk page. I do have a couple of spare hours before the Debate to End All Debates tonight (right, I'm helping out rig the election) and perhaps I'll make some comments or not as I feel moved, or at any rate in the next day or two. I shall see how it goes. Jennie Matthews 97 (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you and I disagree with you. IMO he comes to Paris at Theo's behest and sees Impressionism, and lightens and brightens both his use and attitude towards color at a moment when the younger generation are beginning to move away from the impressionist sensibility in search of more meaningful weight........He meets Lautrec, Signac, Seurat, Gauguin, and Bernard among others, he begins to participate, and he seems to along with Degas and several others greatly appreciate the Japanese flattening of form in landscape and figurative works that have suddenly appeared in Paris.....his great favorite is Monticelli who doesn't fit with anyone....hmmm but piles on the paint....Post-Impressionism as a movement doesn't really exist until long after Vincent, Seurat, Cezanne and Gauguin ceased to exist. Those guys were totally self absorbed to ever start a movement (VvG and PG nearly killed each other, PC was an isolated rich guy etc.); the movement came later with the benefit of hindsight and art critics. He didn't see Post Impressionism in Paris - he was it; he saw Impressionism there and responded and split..........Modernist (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@ Modernist: Yes, I think that is right and incidentally I think the Paris section fine, as is much of the article I have glanced at. The real problem here is the labeling game which Wikipedia is so devoted to. I have read a little more round the issue. In Anterp he saw some Impressionist paintings (because of the Les Vingts exhibitions), but had a rather hazy knowledge of what it constituted. I have Naifeh and Smith to hand: I will glance through the index on Impressionism as I write... there are 22 incidences in the index - I'll glance through them now:

The first p.340 refers to his Hague period (1882) and talks about Vincent retreating from his fierce attacks on Impressionism (note 233 available online) but I can't find other mention of these attacks and I'm not at all convinced he had in fact made any at this stage. At p.449 we read about his begging Theo to approach Durand-Ruel, "an early champion of the very Impressionists that Vincent so often derided". At pp. 499-502 we get a reprise of the reaction against Impressionism followed by the remark "This was the art world that awaited Vincent in Paris". At page 519 we see confirmation that Vincent attended the eighth and last 1886 impressionist exhibition and that it merely confirmed the negative impression he had argued for years to Theo. Page 546 weakly supports Victoria, in that it talks about deferring to Theo's taste (Monticelli, impressionism), and then later references relate to his famed "return to the North" from which I personally wish he had never departed.

I thnk it is clear that "interested in Impressionism" is the wrong emphasis. Readers will think he was "influenced" (another Wikipedia preoccupation) by Impressionism, but that was simply not the case.

I don't believe he visited Paris at Theo's behest incidentally. He basically just turned up. I do wonder how welcome he genuinely was. But Naifeh and Smith are debunking biographers for all their research: one needs to be careful I think.

I'll wait out Martin Bailey's new book and maybe edit a little at the article then, or attempt to. Jennie Matthews 97 (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Jennie's been busted by the fuzz. To wrap this up, Vincent's relationship with the Impressionists is treated briefly at p. 293 in Hulsker's catalogue. In brief, he was antagonistic (letter W4) but expressed admiration for a group now called Neo-Impressionists. It's true he was an admirer of Monticelli, a pre-Impressionist painter. That in fact it is quite hard to find references in the sources to Vincent's relationship with the Impressionists (largely disbanded by the time he came to Paris) indication enough that the lede ought not to reference it. I concur that the lede is poor. Another serious (incomprehensible) error is that Vincent's condition stabilized during his time at the asylum. No source says this and quite the contrary is true. He discharged himself because he feared the asylum was contributing to the attacks. Awen23 (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

"the labeling game which Wikipedia is so devoted to" - I agree with this, when the truth is usually far more complex (hence reservations about infoboxes on certain classes of articles). Will have a look later this w/end. Ceoil (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• Would like to manage this point by point, so

• lead now reads "n 1886 he moved to Paris where me met members of the avant-garde, including Emile Bernard and Paul Gauguin".
• "who were reacting against the Impressionist sensibility" - we need to say why - Modernist is best qualified to state this succinctly
• Took out "keenly aware of modernist trends per above.
• lead now reads: "His stay in a psychiatric hospital in Saint-Rémy lead to one of the more productive periods of his life. He discharged himself and moved to the Auberge Ravoux" Ceoil (talk) 09:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2016

December 1888: It should state that Van Gogh "had gifted his [1889] Portrait of Doctor Félix Rey, to Dr Rey himself." The year given is 1899 instead. 66.108.168.147 (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing that out. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 16:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

edit request: death

there is no mention in this main article of the controversy surrounding the death of van gogh and the question of whether he wasn't, in fact, a victim of homicide. these are addressed in the related article "death of vincent van gogh", but not here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Vincent_van_Gogh pls see also: NCIS: Provence: The Van Gogh Mystery http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2014/12/vincent-van-gogh-murder-mystery can someone please help edit this section to more accurately reflect the questions that have been raised about van gogh's death? thanks. Shrinkydink07 (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)SN

Hi Shrinkydink - the theories arent really taken seriously by art historians, and wiki tends to omit fringe opinion, as amongst other factors, there is a there is a hell of lot of it, and if you put each one in....you have a mess of established facts, and flights of fancy. Theories like this come and go. Ceoil (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Impressionism

From reading, the interplay was more complex that is currently written in the article. Can we revisit this before we hit main page. Ceoil (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

We should work it out here if we can; here's a little read [2]...Modernist (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Nice find. I've removed the posthumous view section, as in retrospect it seems trite, and off target. Ceoil (talk) 00:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Kept a bit...Modernist (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think we have untangled this aspect enough. He is inspired, and then not. I realise its complex, but. Ceoil (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Something's broken

What's going on with paragraph 3 of Vincent van Gogh#Cypresses? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks ok on both my desktop and tablet screens. Can you be more specific. Ceoil (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the sentence was broken, not the formatting. I can't parse it. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I think seems to be ok now, thanks. Ceoil (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm talking about where it says "Other works from this period include Olive Trees with the Alpilles in the Background (1889), about which, in a letter to his brother, Van Gogh wrote, "At last I have a landscape with olives," [247] Cypresses (1889), Cypresses with Two Figures (1889–90), and Road with Cypress and Star (1890).[247]". Also, I notice somebody's added in a bunch of fixed image sizes—this is now deprecated under MOS:IMAGESIZE in favour of "|upright=", as fixed sizes override user settings, while "|upright=" scales relative to user settings. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

TFA

At co-noms (Ceoil, Modernist, John), just an fyi that I won't be able to help with tending when this runs, nor have I looked at recent edits - except to remove a quote that was tagged. Good luck all and well done for getting this to the main page. Victoria (tk) 14:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

A question on the talk of Sorrow concerns the letters on the drawing, - I can't answer, perhaps one of you is able? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Possibility that Vincent did not commit suicide, but was murdered

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was reading this article: http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2014/12/vincent-van-gogh-murder-mystery

The authors (Naifeh, Steven, Gregory White Smith) have also written a biography of Vincent titled "Van Gogh: The Life" wherein after going through the documents relating to the case and after consulting multiple forensic experts, they have propounded the theory that Vincent was in fact murdered, and did not commit suicide. Just from a reading of the article, the theory does seem plausible. I am yet to read the book and have ordered it. I should be done with it by the first week of Jan (holidays permitting), and I propose to go through the letters from that time again.

Even where there are many who do not buy into this and many here too who would say that removing references to his death as a suicide would be going too far, I do feel there is a need to update the article to incorporate and reflect this aspect of his death, in light of this new information. Once I have the book in hand I will be more than happy to share such information as might be relevant and would be happy to corroborate with someone in order to update the article.

It would be great to hear the community's views on this. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AuversSurOise (talk • contribs) 10:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

If the theory has multiple secondary sources, then I agree it should certainly be mentioned. I see that the book, by Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith was published in 2011: [3] Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

January is a bit late, - TFA tomorrow, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure there is life after TFA, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The murder theory has been reported by many secondary sources. Ceoil previously dismissed this as a fringe theory, which may be an accurate assessment, but Naifeh and Smith's book is far from a cheap cash-in and deserves to be taken seriously (unlike some other artist-murder hypotheses). I think a brief mention is warranted in this case. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 11:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the same Vanity Fair piece was raised above, back in October, by an editor with the ridiculously strange name of User:Shrinkydink07. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Wait, wasn't that one of our socks? I tend to lose track. --Hillbillyholiday 12:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

D'oh!! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC) GANGSTA!!

I just read about his death with interest, with a long paragraph about the scepticism, but no word in the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

One more thing I notice: the Main article has Van Gogh, the other van Gogh. By what guideline? Thank goodness we just say Beethoven, without "van" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I have the book and we've used it throughout the article. But their hypothesis is not a mainstream view; their speculation is included in a lengthy footnote but is based on circumstantial evidence. Leaving this to Modernist to reply to; he's much better at this aspect than I am. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 14:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• The Van Gogh museum dismisses the theory; until definitive proof appears; it isn't encyclopedic in my opinion...Modernist (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you think that the dismissal is notable in itself, and worthy of a footnote? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• IMO that is possible...Modernist (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The Museum wasn't entirely dismissive. Leo Jansen said "There's plenty of reason to look at the unclear circumstances again. It's just that their conclusion, in our opinion, is not yet sufficiently proven" (Independent) he called the claim "dramatic" and "intriguing" adding that "plenty of questions remain unanswered", and though it would be "premature to rule out suicide" the claim would "generate a great deal of discussion".(BBC) I don't think we need definitive proof, there is no proof as to the nature of his illness for instance, we can report speculation if it is notable enough. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

At the OP and everyone else: I read all ten pages of Naifeh & Smiths "Appendix: A Note on Vincent's Fatal Wounding". As a co-nominator and someone who's worked this page on and off for about five years, if I had firmly believed we should add it to the article I would have mentioned it to the others. I came away with the feeling that "yeah, that might have happened ... but ..." and, no, am not firmly convinced. One of our jobs, when we take on these types of articles, is to read and evaluate the literature. We don't simply hoover/vacuum up what we find on the web and regurgitate. We should be thinking about what we're reading, read other account, read even more accounts, and reach a decision, with full knowledge that whatever we publish here is going out to mirror sites and will be viewed by hundreds of thousands of readers. There's a responsibility built in that I probably take overly seriously, but nonetheless take seriously. Because anyone can edit, anyone can also request that material be added. That doesn't necessarily mean the material must be added today, immediately, or in the short term. And page watchers should, to some extent, trust that those of us who've undertaken the heavy lifting and the reading, have put some thought into what we've decided to keep in and out. My inclination is not to mention this at this time. Many books have been written about Vincent, many theories put forward since his death, and this article isn't a piece about all the many theories but rather an attempt to write a biography using the best possible sources. Sorry for the soapboxing, but I foresee lots of these types of requests in the next few days and you all can either try to find sources or trust that the work has been done. I believe the work has been done and am happy to let this go to the main page as it is. Victoria (tk) 18:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

As the possibility is so intriguing and has not been proved either way, I'd still welcome some mention of it, probably in a footnote. But perfectly happy to accede to an editor who, unlike me, has a copy of this book and has actually read it in detail. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm less inclined to believe "the work has been done" – the article passed FAC with a statement in the lede that Van Gogh only ever sold one painting in his lifetime – but I accept that whether to include the theory is something of a judgement call that is maybe best left to the article's architects. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 19:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

That's great. Then the work hasn't been done and I now officially turn it over to Rinpoche/Coat of Many Colors and let him push the agenda with the edit requests. Washing my hands of this and letting the rest of you rewrite in preparation for TFA in a few hours. Thanks and unwatching for a few days. Victoria (tk) 19:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• No thanks. --John (talk) 07:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

here's my two cents' worth, fwiw: first, thanks to everyone who up this question for your thoughtful comments. i think this is an important part of van gogh's history. second, to the best of my knowledge, the idea that van gogh was a victim of homicide (possibly murder) is not a fringe theory: it is the result of some pretty scholarly detective work, by people who've done scholarly work before (pollock). the van gogh museum has not dismissed the theory, as far as i know. and, with all due respect to the rest of the art community, this a forensic matter not of the strictly artistic kind—so the judgment of the art community is neither here nor there. some in the art community were also outraged that michelangelo's ceilings were being restored to their original, vibrant condition. whole careers had been built on the interpretation of the somber notes in his works.

also, the idea that the homicide theory is supported by circumstantial evidence is also neither here nor there: there were no witnesses to the shooting to come forward to give an independent account of the event. and van gogh himself was not necessarily a reliable historian. he was certainly capable of self-harm, but it does not necessarily follow that he ultimately committed suicide. perhaps slightly apropos of that, there have been new revelations about the fate of his ear and what might have taken him to arles in the first place, that suggest the story of van gogh in arles is more complicated than we have appreciated. Shrinkydink07 (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for being so alarmed at your username, Shrinky, although I am now surprised that you use a capital S. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It is, absolutely "circumstantial evidence", presented some 126 years later. "not dismissed" is one way to put it. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but these theories do come and go - which is fine and facinating to read about, but until it passes up to the secondary sources (not newspaper syndication) and into the literature it is still another theory among many others. Ceoil (talk) 06:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Martin: Usernmes are irreverent here, and should not distract from any points OPs are making. The gist here is that Shrinkydink07 has found a theory , which is still in in its infancy of acceptance by art historians, and as there a lot of postulations, the incumbent wiki editors are cautious. Sorry Shrinky, if the article gets traction we might revisit. Until then...no. Welcome to Wikipedia anyhow, my talk page is in my sig, if you ever want guidance or a chat. Ceoil (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they are irrelevant. I just felt an apology was in order, given my initial sarcasm. Shrinkydink07 makes a perfectly valid point, as you have noted. Shrinkydink07 is very welcome, I'm sure. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps art historians aren't the best judges in potential murder caes? It's not entirely circumstantial either, there is some analysis of foresnic evidence and the theory has been supported by the highly qualified Dr. Vincent Di Maio (Editor-in-chief of the Am. J. Forensic Med. Pathol., fellow of AAFS, testified in Florida v. Zimmerman, etc.) for instance. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 11:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

HB, I'm not what you point is here. That we should abandon art historical, and with that historical research, because of...other stuff. Martin: No worries. Ceoil (talk) 11:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a bit like the various discussions we had about the ear story. One of the features of the Van Gogh legend is that it attracts speculative theories. Some are entertaining and at a certain level of notability they rise to requiring mention in the article. But we definitely cannot include every Nazi gold/ Antarctica/Rosicrucians theory on Van Gogh on this article. Perhaps the "Death" article would be a better place to post this? --John (talk) 11:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

(ec)No of course not, I was pointing out that there are valid and uselful opinions beside those of art historians. You have a point when you say that the theory is in its infancy, but as we can't use guesswork in ascertaining its future importance, we have to go on how much coverage the theory gains – I would say there's been enough but YMMV. It's true that we haven't had reactions from some of the big names in the field yet (it would've been interesting to get Hulsker's thoughts), so I'm not in a hurry to add it or anything. I realize that there are considerations of space, although we do give over a fair bit to all the ear business. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 11:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree with John re Death of Vincent van Gogh. Unless it's covered over there (first), it should certainly not be here. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Yep. Going to close this for now with no consensus to include, and agreement that the Death article needs improvement first. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 12:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Committed suicide"

I approve most of User:Ceoil's recent copyedit, but I have one important reservation. Even if most of the sources probably phrase it this way, I greatly prefer to avoid this phrase. Suicide is not a crime and has not been for a very long time in most jurisdictions, so "committed" carries a wrong connotation to the modern reader. Suicide prevention organisations recommend avoiding it, as it stigmatises what is already a very vulnerable group. We don't yet have a guideline on it, but I have come to greatly prefer "killed him(her)self" or "died by suicide". I hope this makes sense to everyone. --John (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hadn't made that association, but am now very much inclined to agree. Ceoil (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

" Suicide is not a crime" Was at the time, but people commit things other than crime.--Simon19801 (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Which ear?

The doctors diagram shows left ear. His paintings show right ear! I think he would know which ear he cut off! --Simon19801 (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd assume a mirror was involved in the self-portrait. If you'd like to clarify this issue in the article, I'd expect to several sources would explain this. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I've added an annoyingly unhelpful tag a source at Self-Portrait with Bandaged Ear, which might be of use here. It even has a quote from Van Gogh himself about his use of mirrors. But I'd expect there are other sources too. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC) (p.s. use of two mirrors is given at Self-portrait#Self-portraits in general#Mirrors and poses but no examples of artists who may have used them are given.)

Thanks Martin. To note when I read annoyingly unhelpful tag I nearly had a long over due, and massive heart attack. Thankfully the remark has since been stuck. (talk) 11:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2017

I wanted to edit this page because I know a lot of information about Vincent Van Gogh that I could add to the source. I will help you (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Autoconfirmed is needed to edit this article. If you would like to make any specific requests, please request them in a "Change X to Y" format. Thanks! --SwiftyPeep (talk) 07:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Artistic development Adjustment

Thanks for the detailly definition of Van Gogh's world, It helps me to write my argument essay about the artists' depression.

I really like the personal experience that is time by time.

I think in the part of artistic development, the author should add something about the personal emotion like the depression in his 30s life.

The painting explanation should also add something emotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.51.93.151 (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Vincent van Gogh - Self-Portrait - Google Art Project (454045).jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Vincent van Gogh - Self-Portrait - Google Art Project (454045).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 30, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-03-30. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Vincent van Gogh (1853–1890) was a Dutch Post-Impressionist painter. As Van Gogh's work developed, he painted such subjects as still lifes, peasant labourers, landscapes, olive trees, wheat fields, and sunflowers, and over time he used increasingly brighter colours. Van Gogh sold few paintings during his lifetime, and was considered a madman and a failure. However, since the early 20th century he has attained widespread critical and popular acclaim, and his works are among the world's most expensive paintings.Painting: Vincent van Gogh

Add Category?

Vincent van Gogh is on the List of people with color blindness however the note and source state that this is only highly likely but impossible to determine for sure. Should the category People with color blindness be added to this page?

1.126.48.2 (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Definitely not, and he should be removed from that list as well—this is a fringe theory that's been thoroughly debunked. The apparent lack of a red balance in his works is the result of his use of carmine lake (which fades when exposed to light) for his reds but of ultramarine and chrome yellow (which don't) for his blues and yellows, meaning that over the intervening century the red component has progressively vanished from his paintings. This gets asked so frequently, it's one of the FAQs on the VVG Museum website. – iridescent 2 16:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Removed...Modernist (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2017

www.vangoghsear.com - In depth discussion about the mutilation theories. Supafly69 (talk) 09:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Nihlus 13:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vincent van Gogh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160725205531/http://theartnewspaper.com/news/news/name-of-mystery-woman-who-recieved-van-gogh-s-ear-revealed-for-first-time/ to http://theartnewspaper.com/news/news/name-of-mystery-woman-who-recieved-van-gogh-s-ear-revealed-for-first-time/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2017

Miiiiko (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It says "his suicide after 37 years of mental illness and poverty" when it should say something like "Van Gogh committed suicide after 37 years of mental illness and poverty."

No, it doesn't say that. That phrase does not appear anywhere in the article. The lead section does have the sentence "His suicide at 37 followed years of mental illness and poverty", but that seems perfectly fair and grammatical. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Incorrectly placed pictures

Someone with a higher moderation status please remove the images underneath the main infobox template. They were moved there by someone out of their original section in the article and one of them has been reused. These images have been removed multiple times but a user here continually reverts edits despite NOT checking why these edits are being made in the first place. These two images (sunflowers and wheatfields) was NEVER here underneath the infobox in the first place yet edits are continually reverted. Someone please investigate this immediately and remove the images. Rìgh (talk) 02:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Your premise is totally wrong, to be clear those two images were correctly placed there in September 2016; briefly and erroneously they were removed by an editor in mid-October 2017, and then quickly restored by a number of editors who have worked on bringing this article to featured status, those images are placed correctly and have been there for a long time...Modernist (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• This is a featured article and those images were specifically placed there by all of those editors who participated in bringing this article to featured status. Stop complaining already. Those images have been there for many, many months, longer than a year...Modernist (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, it is a mistake to want everything next to the appropriate text. Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Those images are entirely misplaced and should be in their respective sections within the article NOT randomly placed beneath the infobox before the very first heading. This is completely inconsistent with general image placing practices on Wikipedia and only serves to confuse new readers. Length of time does not matter with regards to the appropriate placing of those images. I am entirely confused as to why you continually revert edits which seek to place these images in their appropriate section within the article. Your placement of these images makes absolutely NO sense and do not form a continuity when reading the article. The article is specifically laid out linearly to display van Gogh's change in style and paintings over the course of his life. Placing two random images from 1889 and 1890 directly below the infobox BEFORE the first heading is completely nonsensical verging on idiotic. How a user such as yourself that has been on Wikipedia for as long as you have does not understand this is beyond me. Rìgh (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Edits

I added a much better imaged and true colour version of The Old Mill, which was reverted. Why? The pale version is, well, pale. The true colour version is true coloured. And I added Montmartre and "his brother's apartment" in the lead when talking about where Van Gogh lived when he came to Paris. Both seem important for the lead to clarify already existing information. Another lead edit, about van Gogh's access to better paint, was probably properly reverted. For the others, please explain or discuss, I would like to add those two edits back, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Randy, thanks for bringing this to the talk page. If Cassianato hadn't gotten to it, I suspect the edit that Vincent lived with Theo in Paris that year might not have survived in the lead for two reasons: 1, because it's overly detailed for the lead where we need to adhere to summary style, and 2., I'd have to check sources, but writing from memory I believe he stayed with Theo for a short period and then moved out - so it's a nuanced point. Re access to better paint - the same is true. It's too detailed for the lead, and it's something I'd want to check sources about. In terms of the image - File:Vincent van Gogh - La Maison de la Crau.jpg seems to me overly saturated, but I leave it to the expertise of the others to decide. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I think he lived in Theo's apartment for about a year and a half, maybe a little less, and there van Gogh, in many ways, "became" van Gogh. So how about just adding the word and link Montmartre before Paris (the history of Montmartre is rich in artistic pioneering, so adding the one word would, I believe, do well for the lead). The image seems accurate, given the paints van Gogh was using at that point. I've never seen the painting in person, but do a triple click on it, the resolution goes down to brush-stroke level and you can see the paint quality. Other works by van Gogh seen in person look like they were painted very recently, the paint holds up that well. There was a fellow on Montmartre at the time, can't recall his name but van Gogh painted him a couple or few times, who sold the finest paints in the world, so I would be surprised if the painting looks close to the image that is presently on the page and which I substituted out (it is very dark even compared with the 2004 image that it itself was substituted for), although of course it is possible. Thanks for your input and detailed explanations. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I stand corrected: the brothers did share an apartment during those two years but Theo wasn't happy about the situation. Vincent arrived in March 1886; in June that year he and Theo moved to Montmarte; Vincent stayed in Paris until February 1888 when he left for Arles. Re the image - this is what the gallery shows on their website. On my monitor it appears closer to File:Vincent van Gogh - La Maison de la Crau.jpg than the other, and looking at the file, was uploaded when we had the article at FAC. My feeling is that it's very easy for a lead to bloat up and though I get what you're saying about Montmarte, I'm not convinced it's lead worthy, so I understand the revert. I'm less than actively editing these days (merely decided to respond to your thread as it appeared at the top of my watchlist when I checked in), so I'm not about to dig in my heels and I'm happy to have anyone else chime in and decide. I do very much appreciate that it's been raised here on talk. Victoriaearle (tk) 00:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest and research, and the image you linked from the gallery website does look like the one presently on the page, so yes, that's the proper image at this point. I still advocate adding Montmartre before Paris in the lead, for when talking or writing of the art colony/art community in Paris at that time usually what people mean is Montmartre. It seems an important distinction and qualifier in terms of the local history and art history. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Images and places

Hello,

Wouldn't it be better if we moved the two images in the intro section to put them bellow?

Also, we should link Netherlands and France. Hence, it sounds better as rest place to write "Cimetière d'Auvers-sur-Oise, France" rather than "Cimetière d'Auvers-sur-Oise, Auvers-sur-Oise, France"

WhatsUpWorld (talk) 04:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd suggest letting them stay, because in this case they fill-in the large white space created by the extensive index. They also provide a quick overview of van Gogh's work, and really don't lessen the page but accent certain styles of the artist. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• As examples of 2 of his most famous works they are placed there as ledes; and should stay...Modernist (talk) 12:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

They also serve to reduce with the white space created by the extended table of contents. I believe this was iterated earlier, above. Also, there was quite the heated debate as to which self-portrait to use as lead image, as they are quite diverse, and range from different periods. A solution in my mind was not to limit the lead to one -and they are all iconic- single period, but to balance off with two other pics; this also resolve the long TOC /white space issue. At the time we left the selection to Modernist, our resident and able curator, and I most defiantly stand by his choices. Ceoil (talk) 14:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2017

He was a nonce 86.161.17.36 (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Vincent van Gogh did not kill himself.

Vincent van Gogh was depressed that he could not earn enough money to support himself, but that did not lead to a suicide. He was walking home from a day spent painting in a wheat field when he was shot accidentally, and he lied to the police about it to protect some stupid, spoiled rich kids who were playing with a gun. He allowed the police to think that he had done this to himself. When a friend of those kids was an old man, he talked about it and told what had happened.

See: The life and death of Vincent van Gogh July 29, 2012 7:01 PM CBS News 60 Minutes http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57481909/the-life-and-death-of-vincent-van-gogh/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCFoxJD (talk • contribs) 03:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is a summary of what reliable sources say about VVG, not a compendium of crank theories, and no credible source disputes that VVG's death was a suicide—one only has to look at his letters in the period preceding his death where you'll find such comments as You see so clearly that ‘preparing oneself for death’, a Christian idea — (fortunately for him Christ himself didn’t share it at all, it seems to me — he who loved the people and things of this earth, more than is wise according to those who see him as nothing more than a crackpot), if — you see so clearly that preparing oneself for death is a thing — to leave there for what it is — don’t you also see that — devotion — living for others — is a mistake if it’s complicated by suicide — since in that case one truly makes murderers of one’s friends., to see that he was actively weighing up the pros and cons of suicide in the months preceding his death. Naifeh and Smith's book is a pop-culture piece, not an academically sourced biography; their theory gets the mention it warrants at Vincent van Gogh's health, but Wikipedia's job is to summarise mainstream opinion, not fringe theories. ‑ Iridescent 14:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

It's no coincidence, is it, that the recent Loving Vincent also plays with this theory. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

If several sources, especially 60 Minutes and the recent film mention it, it should be included among the possible causes. I'm recently learning about the Larry Sanger original neutrality pillar, from Sanger's talk page, and if this theory has sourced academic, major news coverage, and popular culture usage, it should probably be included among the mix of information presented by the encyclopedia (Wikipedia doesn't dictate, it lays out sourced coverage). (EDIT a few minutes later: it took just moments to find this Los Angeles Times article.) Randy Kryn (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Surely, then, it should be given more weight at Vincent van Gogh's health, but this main article should go with the main explanation? We certainly won't be changing this article to say "Vincent van Gogh did not kill himself". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course not, that isn't Wikipedia's place or role. But as an alternate theory it is apparently well-sourced. I haven't read or studied it, and am interested in doing so. Just ruminating on the Sanger approach, and so am getting interested in how the present neutrality policy veered from his original writing of the policy. All for later, though, and thanks for answering. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The question is one of WP:WEIGHT. At the extremes, we have "Earth is ... the only object in the Universe known to harbor life." We do not say "Earth is ... either the only object in the Universe known to harbor life, or is one of hundreds of inhabited planets hidden by NASA and the stonecutters." The other extreme would be something where reliable sources give two possibilities equal weight.

Yes, there are sources discussing the accidental shot theory. However, it seems that these sources are about those theories. The crossover point would be when reliable sources about van Gough not the theory cover both the accepted (suicide) version and the accidental shot theory. Reliable sources about the Earth say it is the only inhabited planet, spherical and billions of years old. Very few even mention ETs/flat Earth/young Earth theories. I assume that a textbook published today would say van Gogh committed suicide, without equivocation. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate from ixes are needed for

—2600:387:3:805:0:0:0:AD (talk) 12:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC) Of

 Done. I've adjusted the coordinates of his tomb, which are the only ones in the article. Deor (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Degenerate art

Could it be mentioned that van Gogh's art was considered degenerate by Hitler and his Nazis? Proper sources, however, are probably not easy to find (something like this would not pass, wouldn't it?).--Adûnâi (talk) 08:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. Degenerate art already mentions van Gogh and gives a source of Adam, Peter (1992). Art of the Third Reich. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc. ISBN 0-8109-1912-5, pp. 121–122. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes a sentence or two would be very interesting to readers. Modernist you have the best grasp of the sources on legacy, but I can do also if needed. Ceoil (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with the inclusion; it's beyond irrelevant. This was an exhibition (the Degenerate Art show) that Vincent was not included in; and that espoused a philosophy based on hatred, ignorance, and racism; it most certainly should not be included in this article about an artist who died long before those morons gained power in Germany. It's far more relevant that the Germans were instrumental to Van Gogh's international success by showing his work and publishing his letters in the early years of the 20th century...Modernist (talk) 01:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Death or Accidental Homicide?

There is legitimate question as to whether Van Gogh committed suicide. Rather, there is credible suspicion that he was shot by Gaston and René Secrétan, two boys playing with a gun -- whom Van Gogh unselfishly protected by silence. At a strictly forensic level, the case cannot be considered closed, and Wikipedia writers should not prejudge the matter. Van Gogh's alleged suicide is accepted uncritically because it fits with 20th century romantic notions of the painter, not because hard evidence decisively settles the issue. I cannot locate any news story that refutes the accidental homicide hypothesis.

Readers are entitled to at least know there is controversy.

http://www.dailyartdaily.com/mystery-vincent-van-gogh-death/ Practical321 (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

There are sources about the alternative theory. However, reliable sources about van Gogh do not give the alternative theory much weight. As a result, neither should we. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

If the alternative sources do not have much weight, as you mention, why is there no counter to the Controversy of Naifeh and Smith biography in wikipedia's article on Van Gogh's death? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Vincent_van_Gogh The two pages in Wikipedia seem to support two different theories... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.80.29 (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Avoiding Romanticizing His Last Words

Maybe when talking about Van Gogh's final words, it could be contextualized as a preventable mistake made by someone who was struggling with alcoholism, mental illness, and deprivation. Maybe even include a note with links to mental health/suicide prevention services with the article? I would suggest consulting with a psychiatrist about the wording of the article if possible. It is a wonderful article, but media depiction of suicide can have such a profound impact that it is always good to exercise extra caution when covering it.

www.samaritans.org/sites/default/files/kcfinder/files/Samaritans%20Media%20Guidelines%20UK%20Apr17_Final%20web%281%29.pdf

I realize you aren't a journalism site, but so many people resonant with Van Gogh and so many young people are exposed to the story I thought the principles of the article could be helpful. And there are many more sites out there that are also helpful about how to cover suicide

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amstanton (talk • contribs) 22:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Amstanton: Wikipedia simply reports verifiable information about notable subjects. We do not provide advice, warnings, etc. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Amstanton: Wikipedia is not the place to craft van Gogh's death into an edifying tragedy ("contextualized as a preventable mistake made by someone who was struggling with alcoholism, mental illness, and deprivation"). He did what he did, said what he said, then died. If you would like to present that as a horrible mistake, the result of mental illness, the end game of alcoholism or anything else, this is not the place. Write a blog. Talk to a friend. Whatever. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Our pedagogical intent begins and ends with simple, verifiable facts. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Or find a expert source that presents such an analysis and provide a quote from them? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT would be an issue. With (literally) millions of pages of sources on van Gogh available, pulling a statement out of context and adding it to the article is a WP:POV problem waiting to happen. Imagine the article we could construct in such a way on any major politician in the world. Depending on the opinion you would like to push, we can make any major figure look like a vile despot or the savior of the world.

There are always sources discussing an issue -- suicide, bladder control, vegetarianism, whatever -- using well-known people as examples. Such coverage shows only that the person writing on the issue is pulling together threads to weave their narrative. Instead, we would need substantial coverage in reliable sources discussing the issue in the context of discussing van Gogh. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

His last words are a little ambiguous. I'd have no problem with a small sourced addition. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

If the statement is ambiguous, there are likely multiple interpretations. An editor predisposed to use the article as a soapbox is likely to select one based on their POV, an obvious source of bias. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I've no idea how many sources there are to choose from. If a respected critic made a comment on them, I'd be prepared to add a mention. I'm not "an editor predisposed to use the article as a soapbox" (as far as I know)? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Amstanton clearly has decided to use the article to promote an agenda.

After a quick search at scholar.google.com, the first few results came up with four different interpretations:

1) If he survived, he would remain sad.

2) If he died, he will remain sad in an afterlife.

3) If he dies, it will cause sadness among those close to him.

4) If he dies, his (purported) killer will remain sad.

I have little doubt there are numerous other possibilities. None of the sources really made much of the statement, at most giving the statement in French with an English translation and, sometimes, his bother's equally ambiguous comment. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for looking. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2018

Per "Mysteries of the Museum" episode aired on May 24, 2018, Van Gogh may have very well been murdered and did NOT commit suicide. 2605:6000:160C:5AF0:0:2808:636D:4A90 (talk) 03:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2018

Change photo credit from Vincent to Theo Van Gogh. See: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/nov/29/blue-eyed-boy-in-famous-photo-is-not-vincent-van-gogh 2600:1700:A810:E520:6CD1:21FB:99F3:2DAC (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. If that is correct, the photo belongs at the Theo van Gogh, but possibly not here. Have commented the image out for now, but it seems likely that the long-standing misidentification is notable in its own right and should be highlighted. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Change item order?

Hi, at present, the first section in the article is "Letters" which seems a bit odd. Surely "Life" should be first, then "Letters" could either be a subsection of "Style and works", or a new section after the latter. Thoughts, anyone? Tony 1212 (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Nearly all that is known about Van Gogh comes from the letters; therefore the letters come first...Modernist (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, I have to say that with respect, I disagree with that justification. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and to my mind should preferably have some internal consistency with regard to biographical or any other entry type. "Life" almost invariably comes first - gleaned from whatever sources are available. See for example William Shakespeare, Virginia Woolf, or any number of others. Actually I just checked, the preferred term is "Biography" which is then further divided into e.g.

• x.1 Early life
• x.2 Expanded description
• x.3 Marriage and children
• x.4 Death and afterward

as per the following template: Template:Biography

So I still believe that "Letters" should not come first in this article. They are of course important, which is why they have a dedicated article of their own The Letters of Vincent van Gogh, but that does not make them the lead item here. Just my 2 cents of course. Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The issue was raised at the FAC, here (longest FAC ever!) and bounced around. We moved, moved again, and eventually consensus emerged that it made sense for that section to stay where it is because of the nature of the letters. The letters aren't only important, they're integral to writing a Van Gogh biography. Had Theo not kept them, had his wife not kept them and subsequently had them published, what is known about Van Gogh would be vastly different. They're prominently displayed at the Van Gogh museum, both on site and on their website, and we decided that it's important to explain that much of the material contained in the biographical details are from the letters. It's actually not a bad model; I've used it on another article where letters are integral to the subject's biographical information and it seems to work well. Victoriaearle (tk) 19:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, you could make the same argument RE any biography, according to its principal source, but I think consistency of presentation trumps that argument. However I will bow to the opinion of the majority, if such it is. Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes I agree. The issue here is that principal source isn't an autobiography or other writings, but the artist's letters, which are noteworthy. Because they're a primary source, yet cited consistently throughout all the secondary sources and here, we decided that an explanation was called for, and in the end that was the consensus that formed. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

film page

Hello, is it possible to create a film & TV page? There are many films that tell Vincent's life story, Loving Vincent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_Vincent), At Eternity's Gate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_Eternity%27s_Gate_(film)) etc LeeYork2 (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Have you seen this article yet: Posthumous fame of Vincent van Gogh? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion for Further Reading section for Van Gogh article

Hello,

I am an art librarian based in Denmark, and I have a suggestion for the van Gogh wiki article. I'm responding to a call for more librarians to get involved with Wikipedia to provide quality bibliographic information for wiki readers.

A lot of new van Gogh literature has been published with new information that volunteers at wiki may not have the time to read and integrate into the article. Therefore I would like to suggest a new section to the article called Further reading where new research and literature on van Gogh can be listed for wiki readers to investigate themselves. This will help wiki readers interested in Van Gogh to further explore the most recent research.

These books would be good to add to such a list:

Bailey, Martin. Starry night: Van Gogh at the asylum. London, England : White Lion Publishing, 2018

Gether, Christian (ed.)... et al. Van Gogh. Arken, Museum for Moderne Kunst, 2018 Content - Preface / Christian Gether. I plough on my canvases: Vincent van Gogh’s view of nature / Dorthe Juul Rugaard. Through the pupilgates / Merete Pryds Helle. The art of being immortal / Wouter van der Veen. Vincent van Gogh & the implicate order / Christian Gether. Biography / Line Hartnack

Nichols, David P. Van Gogh among the philosophers: painting, thinking, being. Lanham : Lexington Books, 2017 Content - After the Cypress: An Introduction / David P. Nichols. Jaspers’ Pathographic Analysis of Van Gogh: A Critique and Appreciation / Gregory J. Walters. Painting from the Outside: Foucault and Van Gogh / Joseph J. Tanke. The Problem of Agency in Heidegger’s Interpretation of Van Gogh / Ingvild Torsen. Sensuality, Materiality, Painting: What is Wrong with Jaspers’ and Heidegger’s Van Gogh Interpretations? / Christian Lotz. Pointure mal, or If the Shoe Doesn’t Fit... / K. Malcolm Richards. Van Gogh, Heidegger, and the Attuned Life / Stephen A. Erickson and Pauline E. Erickson. Immanent Transcendence in the Work of Art: Jaspers and Heidegger on Van Gogh / Rebecca Longtin Hansen. Merleau-Ponty’s Thinking of Perception and the Art of Van Gogh: On "Going Further" and "Going Beyond" / Galen A. Johnson. Van Gogh in Tragic Portraiture: Jaspers, Bataille, Heidegger / David P. Nichols. Prometheus Dismembered: Bataille on Van Gogh, or The Window in the Bataille Restaurant / James Luchte. Van Gogh’s Dark Illuminations: The End of Art or The Art of the End / Alina N. Feld. Van Gogh and the Absence of the Work: Remnants of a Hermeneutic Itinerary / Stephen H. Watson

Grant, Patrick. Reading Vincent van Gogh: a thematic guide to the letters. Edmonton, Alberta : Athabasca University Press, 2016 Content - Undergrowth with two figures : a brief history / Laura Prins. "The Great Revolution" : Van Gogh, the Barbizon School, and constructing an avant-garde / Simon Kelly. Tree lovers : development and meaning of the sous-bois genre / Jenny Reynaerts. Van Gogh’s nature : taking position / Cornelia Homburg. Catalogue / Laura Prins. Artist biographies / Anne Beuning

Woud, Auke van der. De vroege Van Gogh 1880-1885 = The early Van Gogh 1880-1885. Kröller-Müller Museum, 2016

Vergeest, Aukje. Face to face with Vincent Van Gogh. Amsterdam : Van Gogh Museum, 2015

Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute. Van Gogh and nature. 2015. Content - Introduction. How nature speaks: Holland, 1881-85 / Chris Stolwijk. Van Gogh, nature, and science / Richard Kendall. Nature and the City: Paris, 1886-88 / Richard Kendall. Nature and the south: Arles and Saint-Remy, 1888-90 / Sjraar van Heugten. The last months; Auvers-sur-Oise, 1890 / Richard Kendall

Chamberlain, Lesley, A shoe story: van Gogh, the philosophers and the West. Chelmsford, Essex : Harbour Books (East) Ltd., 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JenJoGun (talk • contribs) 14:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

At Eternity's Gate (film)

This edit restores material added by CodexJustin which they call the "SummerPhD version". That would be fine if all it was doing was restoring my rathe minor edits to the material (shown here).

I did not add and do not necessarily support the material on the film. I merely eliminated a link from the film's title to a painting which seemed to indicate the film has an article (it does not) and tagged the vague term "mischief". The version called the "SummerPhD version" is not my work and differs from any version previously in the article.

The editor asks to take it to talk. Yes, it should go to talk. They added material, another editor removed it, per WP:BRD it is then time to discuss it. In fact, the editor reverting the addition, Modernist suggested exactly that.

I am removing the section, pending discussion. This puts us back at BRD, eliminating the edits between the R and the D. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this on Talk. @Modernist and SummerPhDv2.0: have requested discussion of the Van Gogh death section. The material in the "Death" section appears to be out of date. The Naifeh theory about the Van Gogh death from 2011 was originally excluded from this biography due to lack of support from the artistic community. This material on the suicide was originally excluded from this Wikipedia article when it went to FA because of a lack of support in the art community for the controversy caused by authors Naifeh and Smith in 2011. In 2019, now that a notable artist, Julian Schnabel, is supporting the version of Van Gogh's death put forward by Naifeh in 2011, it should now be mentioned in this Wikipedia biography as a supported theory. The film version of Schnabel's At Eternity's Gate (film) was also nominated for an Oscar in 2019. The material should not be relegated to the sibling articles only because it was unsupported in 2011 since it is now supported by a notable artist and by a significant artistic production which was nominated for an Academy Award this year. If SummerPhD or another editor can find better wording for this using the film article for Schnabel's At Eternity's Gate (film) then it would be useful to see this in the Van Gogh biography article here. CodexJustin (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• This is an encyclopedia; we do not add unreliably sourced, undocumented opinion to articles, see WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Although Naifeh and Smith put the idea out there in their commercially successful book, and Julian Schnabel felt it belonged in his commercially successful movie; does not make it encyclopedic fact....When the premise that Vincent was shot by some kids begins to be corroborated by reliable sources; and accepted by the Van Gogh Museum and other important and historical institutions; then we can consider adding it to this article...Modernist (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• This discussion [4] at the Death of Vincent van Gogh article might be where this information might be added...Modernist (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Julian Schnabel is a reliable source and his endorsement of Naifeh and Smith is notable. There are also now over 50-60 reviews by reliable sources commenting on the film which further confirm that this is what Schnabel states. The old opinion that Van Gogh died by suicide has been notably challenged for a decade now since the 2011 biography by Naifeh and Smith to the endorsement by Schnabel now in 2019. Since Schnabel is a reliable source, then the new version of reading the death of Van Gogh should be included in the main article. It should not be discounted as unreliable because it moves forward from old interpretations. Schnabel is a reliable source. CodexJustin (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The film seems to be primarily about van Gogh's final years and death. I'd be looking for mainstream sources discussing both the suicide and "mischief" theories before including both here.

I'm not substantially disagreeing with Modernist here, just a side note. Yes, if the theory gains wide acceptance it would certainly belong here. The lack of wide acceptance, however, does not necessarily exclude it from here (relegating it the daughter articles). Rather, it is the lack of wide discussion of the theory that does so. If independent reliable sources discussing van Gogh in general discuss the theory, even if only to discount it, I would be for including it here. This article should discuss what independent reliable sources have to say about van Gogh, even if it is to discredit some of the theories. (Similar: John Hanson discusses the minority view that his title, "President of the United States in Congress assembled", makes him (not George Washington) the first President of the United States. Most in-depth sources on him will mention this theory, if only to quash it.) I have yet to see anything indicating that we are anywhere near this situation here.

Incidentally, I misspoke earlier. The film (as linked in the heading) does have an article. My mistake! - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• To be clear Julian Schnabel's opinion is not a reliable source see Wikipedia:Reliable sources and see this discussion as well:[5]....Modernist (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

In terms of representing new approaches for the reading of the facts concerning the death of Van Gogh, the current article comes short of doing this. Modernist's link to the Van Gogh archive discussion seems relevant and states: "The idea that van gogh was a victim of homicide (possibly murder) is not a fringe theory: it is the result of some pretty scholarly detective work, by people who've done scholarly work before (pollock)." With Julian Schnabel now adding his further reading of the facts to endorse Naifeh and Smith after nearly a decade since 2011, this now seems to justify at least listing it in the Van Gogh biography article as a new theory. Modernist seems to want to exclude new theories and only keep the old one without noting that there are alternate readings of the death of Van Gogh. My comment, I think along with what Summer states above, is that the main biography article should mention that another new theory exists. The current version of the main biography article excludes mention of the new reading even though the Naifeh and Smith biography was used to write other parts of the Wikipedia biography of Van Gogh. Naifeh's research on the bullet wound should not be fully excluded from the main article. CodexJustin (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The continuum we are looking at here is not "scholarly vs. crackpot". Rather, we are looking to answer "mainstream vs. fringe". Wikipedia is not here to judge whether the theory is right or wrong, only whether or not it is widely accepted (or at least entertained) by independent reliable sources.

The issues are: What do independent reliable sources writing about van Gogh (not about his death specifically, but about him in general) have to say about his death and how much weight do they give the various possibilities.

I don't see a wide variety of independent reliable sources discussing the murder/homicide theory in sources about van Gogh in general. I see a few sources specifically dedicated to the new theory discussing it. I see a popular film presenting it as a novel theory. I do not see reliable sources including the theory as part of larger works on van Gogh.

IMO, I don't see the new theory in this article at all yet and whatever coverage it gets in the death article relegated to a subsection discussing it as a new theory. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Here are 3 reliable sources of many which are available which present the case for accepting the Naifeh theory as plausible: [6], [7], [8]. My point is that both theories should be represented in the main article as alternatives, and selecting to highlight only the old version of the death and exclude any other one is not neutral. The new 2011 reading of Naifeh now put forward by Julian Schnabel in a 2018 Oscar nominated film should be mentioned as a neutral statement in the main article which includes both the old and new versions of the shooting. CodexJustin (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, those are sources about the Death of Vincent van Gogh, possibly useful for that article. For inclusion here, we need reliable sources about Vincent van Gogh in general. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The Naifeh biography of Van Gogh from 2011 stands on the library shelves next to all the other older biographies. Since it has supporters now for a decade after initial publication, this new version of reading the facts of the shooting should be represented in the main article. The current article presents the shooting narrative from one point of view only, the old version, as if there are no other versions of reading the facts surrounding the shooting. The biography article should at least mention that there are other readings of the shooting which continue to attract attention and scholarship concerning the circumstances concerning Van Gogh's death. It is not one version only while excluding all other versions of the shooting. The current biography article version is not neutral and is biased to exclusively presenting only the old version of the shooting. CodexJustin (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Again: So far, this new theory does not seem to have made it into independent reliable sources discussing van Gogh, only articles specifically discussing the theory. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Possible photo

Intresting to see the picture, but without any other context (other than the caption), what use/purpose does it have in the article? Where was it discovered? Who found it? Who disputes it is VvG? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed; without context/citation of some sort it sticks out like a sore thumb.--Chimino (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Seconded; at a bare minimum, if this is going to be included we need to make it clear that the Van Gogh Museum are adamant that this isn't a photo of him, and that its provenance (found in a big stack of old photos in an antique store in Boston,and with no apparent connection to anywhere VVG lived—the "evidence" is that the photo is labeled "Victor Morin" and directories show a photographer by that name lived in Brussels at the time of the Les XX exhibition) could politely be described as "dubious". ‑ Iridescent 20:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thirded. Without context/citation of some sort it sticks out like a sore ear. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all. I thought it was just me at first, and I did check the article to see if it was mentioned further down! I was going to be bold and remove it, but @Iridescent: has already done so. Thanks again. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Reputation or legacy?

I would like to propose renaming the "Reputation" section to "Legacy". The word "reputation" simply means the opinions or beliefs that others have about a person or thing, while "legacy" more broadly refers to that which a person leaves behind, and what different people (or society at large) have inherited or taken possession from them. While the first paragraph is about his reputation while he was still alive, this whole section with a simple rename would still make sense read as describing van Gogh's legacy, not his reputation. The postmortem change in his reputation still fits in here as as part of his legacy, but this section describes things that don't fit under the header of "reputation" at all (such as the description of surviving descendants, or the establishment of the Van Gogh Museum). Having a museum dedicated solely to your works with million-visitor attendance is not a part of one's reputation; it's a part of their legacy. Danazar (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Danazar, good points, but as the first bit is about the slow build of his reputation, have renamed the section "Reputation and legacy". Does that work Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

That's probably the best solution. Curiocurio (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm also cool with that solution. Danazar (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for pointer. Ceoil (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Heads up for anyone who's not aware

This big-budget "Virtual reality immersive, comprehensive and emotional look into van Gogh’s creative process" tasteless cash-generation scheme to treat mental illness as a theme park ride (sorry, I meant "opportunity for people to experience a magical and multisensory journey through his extraordinary life") transferred to London yesterday. This will be its first time in an English-speaking country; expect a flood of good-faith nonsense over the next three months. Try not to get too bite-y, as I assume most of them will be people who are genuinely trying to help and don't realise that the VVG Museum's "everything he ever did was a work of unique genius" party line isn't necessarily gospel and that Wikipedia has to give due weight to other schools of thought as well. ‑ Iridescent 15:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

This kind of thing happens a lot, and we get a pleturia (cant spell that) of insertions (also in 2020...) base on press release. A rule of thumb for inclusion on the bio might be if art historians mention it in general surveys. Ceoil (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it's more "about" technology and big screens than VVG. Baudrillard would be pleased. Let's try the same with Lucian Freud! Outriggr (talk) 07:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Never mind Lucien Freud, they should do Lord Lucan... ——SN54129 19:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I suppose I appreciate the heads up, but I think every edit should be dealt with case by case, we should be embracing the fact more people would be visiting Wikipedia who were excited to edit the page and share information they may have acquired on this virtual tour, having said that, your strikethrough edit did give me quite a chuckle, and a heads up never hurt, so I will thank you for the edit, cheers. Eruditess (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2020

9sprite0 (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Empty request. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

No coverage of this painting? Oslo self-portrait

I added this new content to the Van Gogh self-portrait (1889) article; should this work not be mentioned in this article?

The Oslo Self-Portrait (1889)

The "Oslo self-portrait", (Nasjonalmuseet)

Another self-portrait from the same year, often called the Oslo self-portrait because it is owned by the National museet in Norway, was authenticated in 2020 by the Van Gogh Museum. This painting, with the artist looking sideways, was painted while the artist was in the asylum in Saint-Rémy and is "unmistakeably" his work. The experts believe it was painted after the artist's letter of 22 August 1889 which indicated that he was still "disturbed" but ready to begin painting again but completed prior to his letter of 20 September 20, 1889. In the latter, VanGogh refered to the self-portrait as "an attempt from when I was ill". "Experts Conclude That This Odd Self-Portrait of Vincent van Gogh Giving the Side Eye Really Is by the Dutch Master". Artnet. 20 January 2020. Retrieved 21 January 2020. an authentic work by the Dutch master. Extensive research conducted by the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam ... while he was suffering from psychosis.

The Museum's report stated that "The Oslo self-portrait depicts someone who is mentally ill; his timid, sideways glance is easily recognisable and is often found in patients suffering from depression and psychosis"."Gloomy Van Gogh self-portrait in Oslo gallery confirmed authentic". The Guardian. 20 January 2020. Retrieved 21 January 2020. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

We don't need to cover every painting; there is a link to the Self Portrait article...Modernist (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I do believe that Modernist has a point, not all paintings will be covered on his actual page, but will have their own separate articles.Eruditess (talk) 03:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

In case this comes up again, agree with keeping to the daughter article. Ceoil (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Lefaucheux revolver

Should the "Lefaucheux revolver" be mentioned? The French langaue sources previously used are this and this. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Wrong ear?

Wasn’t it his right ear that he partly severed? This article says left so am I wrong? MJ Hurricane (talk) 05:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, no - I forgot that he had used a mirror when he did ‘Self-Portrait With Bandaged Ear’ so scrap my question! I should not have been so quick to query! MJ Hurricane (talk) 05:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

No problem :) Ceoil (talk) 08:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead image proposal

1887 portrait

1889 portrait

Hello, just a proposal for discussion: I really appreciate the current image used for the article, the dark, 1887 self-portrait (left). I just happen to think that the blue, 1889 self-portrait (here in the right) is the most representative of all of Van Gogh's self-portraits, for a number of reasons, including style and colors, but also history and context of creation, and no less importantly, its being one of Van Gogh's most famous paintings overall. It was painted days before his suicide, being therefore more "recent"; it is arguably more representative of his overall style; and, finally, it seems to be his most famous self-portrait overall, and the only one of his numerous self-portraits which often makes the lists of "top 10 Van Gogh paintings", his "most famous", his "best", etc. For that, I here propose a discussion on the idea of using the blue painting in the lead. Any opinions? Thanks in advance. Arrasarro (talk)

Hi. I have no issue with this change. In fact we should rotate the lead image more often. Ceoil (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the 1887 portrait is preferable for 2 reasons: first, it is less a stylised representation, and second, the face occupies a greater proportion of the image. Remember the purpose of the image is to depict the subject matter of the article, rather than the works that the subject matter is famous for. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the 1887 image is more suitable due to the reasons stated by PaleCloudedWhite. Curiocurio (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Frankly I don't get why "stylized" should be an issue, but maybe that's just me...as per OP, think its more representative of his typical self-portraits, while still looking very much like him. That it occupies a greater proportion of the image, though, is a fair point. Interesting discussion by the way...we should leave open for a few days. Ceoil (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The best image would be a photograph, so actually there is an argument that it would be preferable to have the 1873 photo in the infobox instead, though it was taken at a rather young age. If the lead image is to be not a photograph but a drawing, it should have minimal deviation from a literal representation, which in my view favours the 1887 image, as the style of the 1889 image is less naturalistic, at least when viewed at thumbnail size. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, was thinking that myself, but frankly I prefer having a romanticised, familiar painting in the lead. Back in the day when the article was written for FAC we resolved to rotate the lead image every so often so it wouldn't become stale and static..that's the route I'd prefer...if anybody's up for guardianship. Using one of the photographs as the lead for 3-6 months is ok by me, though obvs I'm not the boss. Ceoil (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

FWIW considering that the '87 portrait is already included in the article's self portrait section....I am making the change...Modernist (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Sound Modernist. Ceoil (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

He's an artist. We do have a tendency to self-portraits where possible for artists, e.g. Egon Schiele. That said, there's a couple featured pictures of Vincent van Gogh. If you're going to keep switching images out, you should ask for the ones that are now less-prominent to be delisted. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 06:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

With this discussion in mind, I came across Portal:Opera/Intro/Image at the Opera portal which randomizes the lead image every once and a while. I think it would be pretty cool do install here, would others agree? If so, I can take a crack at the HTML later, I haven't taken an extensive look at the code yet but it doesn't look like anything too tricky. I suspect that we could set it to a new image by weeks or months if we want to avoid too much changing. Aza24 (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

? Aza24 (talk) 05:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

There are circumstances like the Main Page where randomization templates are a great solution to disputes or balance issues (the images at the top of my own talkpage are randomized), but I'd always oppose ever using them in article space. It breaks any site that mirrors our articles, and confuses the hell out of editors who are concerned about one of the images since it leads to people talking at cross purposes ("I think the background of the lead image is too dark" "What are you talking about, the background is pure white?"). ‑ Iridescent 06:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, no need to "strongly" oppose, was merely an idea, not a proposal. Thank you for input, I suppose it is a bad idea. Aza24 (talk) 07:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiments expressed above by PaleCloudedWhite: the 1887 portrait is better because it is less stylized, and shows off the subject better. In my opinion, it is also more suitable because it is more visually striking (in framing and colors). — Goszei (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Vincent van Gogh - Self-Portrait - Google Art Project.jpg is a featured picture, because it was the lead image here. It's now being suggested it be replaced with a much smaller version. Should we delist it? Because prominent usage is a requirement for a featured picture, so if it's no longer the lead here, it should be. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 06:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2021

During his stay at the Saint-Rémy-de-Providence, despite his unstable mental health, he painted 150 paintings, which included An Almond Blossom 73.86.164.10 (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done Can you provide some source(s) for that claim? Did you mean one of Almond Blossoms, as this is already mentioned in the Saint-Rémy (May 1889 – May 1890) section? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Why did Ceoil remove a dozen sources concerning Nazi looting of Van Goghs ?

[Moving from my talk page. This is the revert Ceoil (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)]

Hi Ceoil, I do not understand your decision to remove FIFTEEN SOURCES about artworks by Van Gogh whose ownership is contested in court because of the role of Nazis in either seizing the works or forcing the sale

This does not seem right. Why remove sources? Wikipedia is supposed to be source-based. Is there some kind of problem with mentioning this history?

I request that you please restore these sources to the article along with the text. If there are improvements to be added to the presentations I will do everything I can to improve the text. But I do not think that it is right to simply delete factual information of this kind. Wikipedia is supposed to inform, not conceal, information. Eli185 (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Eli185 (talk · contribs) Make a separate article your material does not belong in the biographical Van Gogh article...Modernist (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello Ceoil (talk · contribs) and Modernist (talk · contribs),

Surprised by your removal of sources , and the lack of discussion (an order is not a discussion) I reviewed the Vincent Van Gogh article more closely.

There is a pattern of serious omissions that I would like to call to your attention.

The text features Van Gogh paintings that were seized or acquired by forced sales by Nazis during the Holocaust without mentioning this fact.

The first section states that "Van Gogh's works are among the world's most expensive paintings to have ever sold" without informing the reader that some of the most iconic and valuable Van Goghs were looted or the object of forced sales.

Is that not a valuable information for readers interested in Van Gogh to have?

The article includes images of paintings with hotly contested Holocaust era histories. Yet this is not only not mentioned but you demand that newspaper articles that document this be removed from the Wikipedia article?

The section on Van Gogh's Reputation and legacy makes a point of naming the world's most expensive paintings, but passes in silence over the tragic history of these paintings.

Ceoil (talk · contribs) and Modernist (talk · contribs) consider it acceptable to talk about the value of a Van Gogh in the Van Gogh article, but not about the fact that the owner of the valuable Van Gogh was forced to sell by Nazis? Or that the ownership is in dispute?

I can understand that museums or collectors who hold these works today might like to suppress this information, but I cannot understand why an impartial contributor to Wikipedia insists on censoring such information.

A significant number of Van Gogh paintings belonged to Van Gogh lovers who were plundered by Nazis. This is, sadly, part of the history, the context and the legacy of Van Gogh. The sources that specify precisely what happened to these Van Goghs -and the people who loved and supported Van Gogh's art - should not be removed.

There is no reason to banish such important information about the legacy of Van Gogh to a separate information ghetto.

Eli185 (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Eli185 (talk · contribs) As I said Make a separate article....Modernist (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  To note, thanks to Eli185 we now have the very interesting and extensive Nazi-looted artworks of Vincent van Gogh. Ceoil (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Link to 2017 Film Loving Vincent

I realize this was mentioned in Archive 6.... I think a link to the 2017 film Loving Vincent would be a great addition to this page.

I agree. There should be links to Lust for Life, Vincent and Theo, Loving Vincent, and At Eternity's Gate. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Death of Vincent Van Gogh

Hi everybody! I'm sure there have been other discussions about this issue: the artist's death. The common hypothesis is the one involving a suicide, but it has not been proven yet and still remains controversial. I wanted to discuss whether it should be positive for the article to avoid affirming he commetted suicide as if it was a proven fact. The Naifeh-Smith hypothesis is gaining a significant following (both the last two films about him consider this alternative explanation, for example). I was thinking if the article could be improved using a less partial point of view. For example in the description at the beginning one can say: "his presumed suicide at 37 came after years of mental illness, depression and poverty.", and later in the biography: "On the night of 27 July 1890, he returned to the Auberge Ravoux with a shotwound in his chest, saying he had shot himself" or something similar. In this way the article still follows the suicide hypothesis as the main explanation of the artists death, but in a more cautious way. Alternative theories are already discussed in the article about Van Gogh's death. I'm not saying this would be the best solution, I just wanted to discuss it. What seems a bit odd to me is that the article clearly says that Van Gogh shot himself, while actually nobody else was present there when it supposedly happened. In this way the article would be more coherent with what is said in the one about the death: "Van Gogh was shot in the stomach, either by himself or by others, and died two days later". FilBenLeafBoy (Let's Talk!), 22:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi FilBenLeaf. Thanks for posting, of course its all very interesting. The vast majority of scholarly opinion attributes suicide, sadly, backed up by first hand accounts from the hours and days between wound and death. He was an unknown, largely failed artist who could not connect with society and was on a downward spiral: I call occam's razor and that his brother Thoe was no fool- so including a disclaimer that there are new theories re "either by himself or by others" seams to stretch it a bit, given we are an encyclopedia, and supposed to be august, distant and unexcitable. Also film makers are supposed to come with something new, gamechanging, to get their programmes commissioned, so...dont believe the hype. Ceoil (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for answering. I understand your point of view: the suicide theory is followed by the majority of scholars, it is also the most probable, but what I'm proposing is not to discuss which theory is the most likely to be the right one to choose as the one to follow in the article. I asked if the article should follow a more neutral point of view as I described above (still leaning towards the most common theory, but more neutral). The suicide theory is: 1) Van Gogh goes painting in the fields, bringing with him a revolver (nobody knew he had) to commit suicide; 2) after he has painted for much of the day he shots himself and looses consciousness; 3) when he regains consciousness, he looks for the gun, which has disappeared (also his painting staff would not be found), so he walks for miles to the Hotel where he was living; 4) when he arrives he says something like "Do not accuse anyone... it is I who wished to kill myself." This is the most common story. Nothing seems to be simple here, I mean, sufficiently simple for the Occam's Razor to be safely applied. Also in the past there has been debate about what really happened that day, with René Secrétan being questioned about his role in Van Gogh's death. Given the neutral point of view Wikipedia tries to achieve, maybe it could be better to speak of "presumed suicide" rather than considering a theory as a proven fact. For example consider the article about Primo Levi, in that case, however, both hypothesis are equally probable and are presented giving them the same credit. Here a theory prevails over the others so the article could generally follow it, still without affirming it as something verified or almost universally accepted by scholars. FilBenLeafBoy (Let's Talk!), 16:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The subject has been raised here before and discussed here and here. I've read Naifeh & Smith's extremely extensive written in difficult-to-read small font, but at the end of the day it's only a theory. We need to stick to what the preponderance of the reliable sources say and so far Naifeh & Smith are outliers. Any other web sources & such suggesting that he didn't kill himself point directly back to Naifeh & Smith's biography. Victoria (tk) 17:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

This probably falls within wiki's policy on fringe theories. I can't think of a formula, either in the article or the notes, where you can mention that is only 0.0002% likely that he was murdered, without creating material doubt as to the facts in the readers mind. As such, am against inclusion. I dont like the comparison to Primo Levi, or the suggestion of going down the "on the one hand" route. Per Victoria's point on earlier discussions on this, "We don't simply hoover/vacuum up what we find on the web and regurgitate". Ceoil (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

No proof other than the police reports they have? It is far more than 1000ths of a fraction possible, it’s probable. Ridiculous that people can’t accept this extensive research. What is proved is the danger of the fundamentalist mind and intellectual elitism and how that prevents any further discussion or investigation. The language and level of condescension used to disqualify this theory despite investigative proof is quite deplorable. Conduct yourselves in a scholarly manner with an open mind, else remove yourselves from further discussion. 67.87.198.143 (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the associated article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. Whatever anyone's opinion on any theory, this article will neither determine nor aim to present the truth of what happened.

Wikipedia's goal is to summarize what independent reliable sources say about a subject, discussing each point of view with emphasis equivalent to its discussion in such sources. If the overwhelming majority of reliable sources said that can Gough choked to death on a Big Mac, Wikipedia would report that. Editors, of course, would want to say this is nonsense, but Wikipedia would report it, cite the sources and move on. If a significant portion of reliable sources said he was abducted by aliens and moved to a new home on Pluto, we would report tha as well.

The discussion here should be focused on what reliable sources say and how much attention (if any) to give minority opinions that contradict the general consensus. Strong opinions about which theory is "correct" are not helpful in that regard. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Calling what you stated hypocritical would be an gross understatement given others above are also giving their “strong opinions.” Furthermore, there is plenty of gossip and conjecture written on individuals both living and dead throughout Wikipedia. In general, Wikipedia should never be used as a final source of information for anything with the possible exception of statistical information already found in traditional sources. 67.87.198.143 (talk) 06:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure you mean "hypocritical". That would imply that I have been giving my strong opinions about the subject. I do not have strong opinions about whether or not there is any merit to this story, only that it does not seem to be mainstream.

That other articles have problems is not a reason to no uphold Wikipedia's standards here. Other articles have misspellings, bad grammar and typos, but editors certainly clean them up when they spot them, rather than saying, "Well, other articles have errors. I guess it would be bad to fix this one."

No, Wikipedia should definitely not "be used as a final source of information for anything". Wikipedia is a summary of reliable sources. It is not a reliable source and does not pretend to be. Curious about the history of remote controls? Wikipedia is a great place to look. Want to know how to treat uterine cancer? Look elsewhere. Need a general understanding of a 17th century war on another continent to figure out what's happening in a novel you're reading? Wikipedia has you covered. Looking for the tensile strength of aluminium for a construction project? You're in the wrong place. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the term "murder" has been used very loosely here, and in the archived discussions. "Murder" usually implies an intent to kill. "Homicide" just means death by human hands. Nobody is implying that Van Gogh was "murdered." Let's use the correct term. (It doesn't help that in popular culture, including pieces cited in the archived discussions, "murder" is used pretty often.) —MiguelMunoz (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I just read an article published in the American Journal of Forensic Pathology and came to make these same comments about adding the controversy to Van Gogh's Wikipedia page. Looks like the issue has been discussed to death (pun intended), but with this new study, perhaps y'all will reconsider at least adding a mention to the theory that his death could be a homicide: article here NicNac363 (talk) 09:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the Alan Turing page provides an example of how this could be handled. His death was pronounced a suicide but no one is entirely certain and there is a theory that his death was accidental. Perhaps the page could say that Van Gogh died of a gunshot wound, and that while most believe that this was suicide their is also a theory that is was accidental. Hochithecreator (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The one thing both sides agree on is that he died from a gunshot wound. The fact that the majority opinion among scholars is that it was self-inflicted could be due to huge holes in the alternate theory, or just to scholarly inertia — most of the views from the "majority of scholarly opinion" date to before the alternate theory was published. But the alternate theory is showing up increasingly in popular culture, so the Wikipedia article should at least mention it, if only to say that it's not the accepted view. Viewers of Loving Vincent and At Eternity's Gate will come here wanting to know more. Wikipedia's policy on fringe theories doesn't say they should be ignored, it says they "must not be given undue weight…" Here's what I propose: 1) The infobox cause-of-death should say "Injuries sustained from a gunshot wound to the chest." 2) The section on his death should get one more sentence, in its own paragraph: "An alternate view has been proposed that his death was accidental (see Death of Vincent van Gogh), but has not received much scholarly support." This should probably go before the paragraph that starts "There have been numerous debates…" This would be consistent with the policy on fringe theories, while still satisfying the curiosity of people who come here wanting to know more about it. I don't think we need any references, since those may be found in the linked article.—MiguelMunoz (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

This is has been discussed multiple times and we've achieved consensus on the talk page. Only a single biography mentions the "theory" of the alternate cause of death. One solution would be to add a note to Naifeh and Smith's appendix, but other than that I'm opposed to making any determination in Wikipedia's voice in face of a lack of good scholarly sources that are not direct derivatives of Naifeh and Smith. Victoria (tk) 21:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The fact that only a single biography mentions the alternate theory is partly because most biographies were written before the alternate theory was proposed, so I hardly think that should be a determining factor. I had argued previously, consistent with the policy of fringe theories, we should mention the alternate theory, if only to state clearly that it does not have much scholarly support. If people are coming here to learn of the alternate theory, they should at least learn that much. And yes, there has been plenty of discussion, but what I'm proposing wasn't really covered, so the "plenty of discussion" doesn't persuade me. All I'm proposing is ""An alternate view has been proposed that his death was accidental (see Death of Vincent van Gogh), but has not received much scholarly support." This is still consistent with Wikipedia's policy on fringe theories, so I'm not sure what your objection is beyond the existing "consensus." Could you be a bit more clear?

Article write-protected

Please see the following wording in "Early years":

Vincent was a common name in the Van Gogh family: his grandfather, Vincent (1789–1874), who received a degree in theology at the University of Leiden in 1811, had six sons, three of whom became art dealers.

This is weak writing. It is an utter non sequitur. This can be fixed by changing the colon to a period and changing the phrase opening with "his grandfather" to "For example, the name had been borne by his grandfather, the prominent art dealer Vincent van Gogh (1789-1874), a theology graduate of Universiteit van Leiden.

If you insist on write-protecting something, please ensure that it is well-written rather than the standard Wikipedia junk or, in the optimal case, material that is perhaps 85% well written but still abounds in random flaws.

Yeah, this phrasing is much better, and have changed it now, thanks. Ceoil (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hallucinations

I am guessing that this man was suffering experiencing hallucinations... I had it also and I am an artist. Have been smoking weed for a long time... and that happened to me.... lack of sleep and drugs could do that.... 78.56.187.237 (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

"Misunderstood genius"

From the introduction:

'Van Gogh was unsuccessful during his lifetime, and he was considered a madman and a failure. He became famous after his suicide and exists in the public imagination as a misunderstood genius, the artist "where discourses on madness and creativity converge".'

I don't see an expansion of these tired and well-worn notions in the main body. Who considered him a madman and a failure? He was recognised, hailed as a genius by Aurier a full six months before his death (why dwell on his suicide incidentally -- most would simply write 'death' here) and he had many eminent and supportive friends among the art community. It was precisely because he was finally achieving critical recognition that he left the security of the asylum he felt was stifling him.

Does he really exist today in the public imagination as a "misunderstood genius"? We the public have perhaps moved on.

86.162.0.36 (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

As somebody born in the 1970s, he was certainly seen like that in the late 80s/early 90s when romanticising rock stars and what have you was all the rage, ...these days, to people born after 1990, I agree not so much, hence to a certain extent "OK Boomer"... Maybe if we tweak so that it becomes "seen in the 20th century as "misunderstood genius"? Or something. Suggestions welcome. Ceoil (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

See [9] Ceoil (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2021

Addition after: .... "undermining the dignity of the priesthood".

Addition:

'His tested faith remained a source of inspiration but may have faded' [Source: https://byfaith.org/2021/09/06/was-vincent-van-gogh-a-christian-christianity-and-art-explored/ ] JohnEnglish2020 (talk) 10:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. byfaith.org is not a reliable source. ByFaith Media is an evangelical media producer formed to share Christ and all His fullness through the media. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Presumably that quote is taken directly from p.72 of Callow (1990), but not visible to me in IA preview. Martinevans123 (talk)

Image change

I think the infobox image should be changed for several reasons: 1. It is not very realistic and of poorer quality compared to some of Vincent’s other self-portraits. 2. For most artists on Wikipedia, we use portraits of them done by other artists. 3. It has no real similarities to his definitive photograph

My suggestion: we should make the infobox image his portrait by Russell or his self portrait from Paris in Summer 1887, as they are much more realistic and better depict him:

• 
  Painting by John Peter Russell, 1886
• 
  Painting by Vincent van Gogh, 1887
• 
  Painting by Vincent van Gogh, 1887 (other)
• 
  Painting by Vincent van Gogh (1887), which was previously used in the infobox. (Alt 2)

Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I always though we should rotate the lead image every months, you can always please all people. So, ok with the Summer 1887 img, but not the Russell portrait, as it might be confusing for the casual as to who its by Ceoil (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest adding a attribution (as well as possibly the collection, which is Van Gogh Museum). Martinevans123 (talk) 08:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Frankly his self portraits depict him better than any other image possibly could...Modernist (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

That's a wholly understandable claim. But how do we know that? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the summer 1887 image would be best (not only because it’s one of his better and more realistic self portraits) because it depicts the artist in what most people imagine and remember him as IMO. Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 08:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I think we could also make the infobox image this self portrait from Winter 1886. Realmaxxver (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could roll it back to this self portrait (this artwork was previously used back in 2016.). Realmaxxver (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Surname in running text: Van Gogh or van Gogh?

Why is de Gaulle's surname written as "de Gaulle" in running text in the Wikipedia article on that subject, but van Gogh's surname is written as "Van Gogh" in this article? Please do not quote a Dutch capitalisation rule in this regard.

Schildewaert (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

A new self portrait discovered

A self portrait of Vincent Van Gogh was discovered in National Gallery of Scotland. It was hidden for more than a century behind another painting titled "Head of a peasant woman". The gallery discovered it while taking X-ray ahead of an upcoming exhibition. Public can view the X-ray image during the exhibition. https://apnews.com/article/hidden-van-gogh-self-portrait-b703b4391c4ec0ba5bcf381ae44a6c3b https://www.npr.org/2022/07/15/1111658468/a-secret-portrait-of-van-gogh-was-discovered-behind-another-painting#:~:text=m%20Rachel%20Martin.-,A%20self%2Dportrait%20by%20Vincent%20van%20Gogh%20was%20recently%20uncovered,the%20piece%20for%20an%20exhibition. Byjuv71 (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I heard about this in the news. Interested to see whether it will be uncovered properly. Hexcodes (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Section headings

why does this article not have them? not the friendliest article to navigate. TicklesYourTaint (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)