Talk:Vincent van Gogh/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Questions from John

It's a good article, well worthy of its GA status. I have read it thoroughly and cleaned up the prose. Some questions: (I may add to this list and anybody who fancies may answer inline, in sections or however it comes).

1) Is the structure of the article sound? I'm not as au fait with artist biographies as I might be, but is the Biography - Works a good/the best/the only structure we could have? Most bios I am familiar with are either thematic or a straight chronology. I'm not necessarily saying I don't like it, just asking.

See below; in process of migrating material from current "works" sections into the bio so the "art" sec can be about broader stylistic matters, influences and development. Ceoil (talk) 05:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

2) The factoid about the significance following the Fauve discovery is only mentioned in the lead and not referenced anywhere. This isn't ok. I'd like to see more referenced material about the growth of his fame. It is too thin at the moment.

The current 3rd lead para will be condensed to one or two paras today; was sketching an outline from various sources. Ceoil (talk) 11:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

3) The detailed enumeration of his work was the same, until I took it out. I don't think it belongs in the lead, but if referenced it could go in the body. Also, how many of his works survive?

A lot. An output of above 2000 if including those lost in the wars and to theft etc. You can see hundreds in Amsterdam, which may lessen impact. But point taken; it's a very interesting point that had been regulated ironically to the lead. Ceoil (talk) 06:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

4) The stuff about worth and value is fine, but we need something before the late 20th century and his paintings selling for hundreds of millions. Did he sell any at all in his lifetime? What were they worth in 1920? 1950?

Good shout. Traditionally the Red Vineyard is given as the one painting sold in his lifetime, which isn't true. We already record that his uncle commissioned 19 pictures (though not what V received for them, only that his uncle was disappointed with them). V exchanged works with other artists early in his career, which may not be worth mentioning. To fully dispell the myth we should add that Tanguy exhibited many of V's paintings in his shop: some were exchanged for materials, but some Tanguy bought and sold while V was alive.
I had the further thought that if you care to recall that I painted portraits of père Tanguy (which he still has), of mère Tanguy (which they sold), of their friend (it’s true that I was paid 20 francs by him for the latter portrait), that I bought 250 francs worth of colours from Tanguy without a discount, on which he of course made a profit, that after all, I was no less his friend than he was mine, I have the most serious of reasons to doubt his right to demand money from me, which is actually settled with the study of mine that he still has.. Letter 638
Your paintings cheer up Tanguy’s shop, and père Tanguy likes them a lot, but he no longer sells anything but yours.Letter 830
In 1892 Tanguy sold two paintings (
ISBN 978-0-89236-226-4
.
Reminds me of this advert!
On the subject of values through the years:
Van Gogh's "popularization" (in the twofold sense of wider circulation and admiration by a non-specialized audience) began at the turn of the [20th] century, when his works were monetized and circulated by dealers and collectors. It fed copiously on biographies of the artist, as well as on the ever more numerous reproductions of his paintings, and visits to exhibitions and art galleries.
When Vincent died in 1890, he had only managed to sell one canvas at a decent price, namely Vignes rouges d'Arles, bought for 400 francs[...]By 1900, van Gogh's Roses tremiers sold for 1100 francs[...]"On the eve of World War I[...]'maudits' like Cezanne or van Gogh had become 'expensive painters'" In 1913, "a Still life by van Gogh reached 32,500 francs," while twenty years later the figure had doubled.
Around the beginning of the 1920s[...]van Gogh became established for good as a major figure in the international market, in the eyes of collectors, among painters (who recognized him as a pioneer of modern painting), and for the educated public, who had by then become familiar with the most dramatic themes of his biography.
Nathalie Heinich (1997). The Glory of Van Gogh: An Anthropology of Admiration. Princeton University Press. pp. 28–29.
ISBN 0-691-02122-8
.
According to a census taken in 1941, no fewer than 671 articles and books were published on van Gogh before World War II.p.35
I suppose we then need something to cover the steady rise since the 1930s. Also, in the bumf for the book quoted above we have something worth exploring:
The image of the great artist as a suffering visionary is a recent invention[...]an invention rooted in the "canonization" of Vincent van Gogh as a cultural hero for the twentieth century.
That's me done for now. --Hillbillyholiday talk 04:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree broadly with Holiday, and have started notes for an overhaul. Hillbilly we might compare sources and merge what we have. Ceoil (talk) 04:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Aye, good idea, but I think I need to take the weekend off. Dunno about cutting my ear off; I'm just about ready to spoon my poor eyes out. --Hillbillyholiday talk 04:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

5) There is a lot of mythology about Van Gogh. The ear, the suicide, his illness. How has this mythology developed? This is probably the most famous artist in the history of the world; how did he get that way? I'd like to see more scholarly stuff about exactly how he went from being a crazy unsuccessful suicide to his current position. I would imagine there will be lots of sources on this and it is part of the subject. --John (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm seeing films cropping up in these sections in the sources also. Ceoil (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Although according to John Rewald the art historian it was the letters to Theo after they were published that put him over the top. The published letters influenced Irving Stone who then wrote Lust for Life...Modernist (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi John. I've been following over the week, and highly impressed with the work by all; it is amazing to see quite frankly. Re the structure, I think you might be right. Two alternative approaches might be
User:Iridescent's William Etty, which is almost a straight chronology with major work discussed within the timeline, or El Greco, which has "Life" and "Art". The big difference with the latter though is that "Art" is sub-divided (roughly) into "Technique and style", "Influences" and "material other than painting". Whereas here we are focused narrowly on series or types of paintings. Am thinking about merging a lot of whats now in "art" into "life"; some fits easily, some not so much. Ceoil (talk
) 01:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
The Etty model probably wouldn't work here. Etty's story is that of someone on what one might call the U2 career path, of someone who despite a general critical distaste for him built up a following by following the market, and whose artistic style was heavily influenced by whatever he happened to have done recently; thus, it makes sense to weave the artistic and personal lives together, as the two are inextricably linked. VVG is much more a story of the Pulp path, of years of uninspired hackwork which generated minimal interest, punctuated by a single brief period in which virtually everything of any significance was made. (As I, and others, have observed, to do the subject justice it probably needs a massively inflated "in popular culture" section, since in this instance the story of how a talented but not exceptionally gifted or original painter acquired his posthumous "world's greatest artist" tag is at least as significant as his actual biography.) ‑ 
Iridescent
15:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Listing ref errors

Listing ref errors as I find them:

  1. Arnold in cites but no reference given. 
    Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
    18:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  2. Grossvogel, David I in refs but not in cites. 
    Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
    18:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  3. Bernard, Bruce in refs but not cites
  4. Havlicek, William J in refs but not cites
  5. cites have Pomerans 1996 and Pomerans 1997, but refs only have Pomerans 1996
  6. Petrucelli, Alan W. in refs but not cites
  7. Sund, Judy. in refs but not cites
  8. Metzger & walther 1993 in cites but not refs, whereas walther & Metzger 1997 in refs but not cites
  9. Hulsker (1984) in cites but nt refs (but Hulsker (1980) and Hulsker (1990) both in refs)
  10. Tralbaut 1981 in cites more than 20 times but ref is Tralbaut 1974 (and isbn points to Tralbaut 1982)
  11. Gayford (2007) in cites bit not refs (but there is a Gayford (2006))
  12. cite to Van Heugten 1996 may be wrong (?)

Looking, but preference is to delete refs not in cites rather than create a further reading sect - the lit is so vast, and its not our job to document. Also, I think we have an issue with editions. Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Have corrected most, with a few exceptions, most difficult is Van Heugten. Digging. If cannot resolve will either find another source, or delete claims. Ceoil (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your efforts on the article. Lipsquid (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Seconded; Ling's input is pennies from heaven, had been having sleepless nights over the ref formats. I see he is also auditing for quality and consistency. Ceoil (talk) 11:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
@
Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
12:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The 1981 edition of Tralbaut's book is clearly the version used here, now clarified in the refs. Ceoil (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

(←) Ceoil: Many more questions: what da heck is "Art Historical", why is it a separate Bibliography section, how would I know if a ref I need to add should be there or in the section above, and if we have some (maybe many) books in that section that are uncited, should we delete them? If we delete many, should we just fold that section intoo the one above? Do we want journals to stay in the CITES section? I.. have seen them there so often that I just guess it must be an MLA thing, but from an APA point of view, it's head-splittingly strange/confusing. I dream of moving them in with the books and renaming the section headers accordingly. Here are two I don't know where to put (but the cleveland book has wrong author given, should be channing & bradley:

Long story short: a political compromise at a GA review, and trust me after that you don't want to know, except that the splitting is redundant now. A merge is needed, but wiki is fuck useless for alp sorting, word also. Maybe in excel? Ceoil (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I will merge them tomorrow. Do the journals stay in the cites section? Is that one those foreign MLA cultural practices? :-)  
Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
18:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Full Journals citations should be in refs only, imo without a page range, which can refered to in the cites. I can't parse your last question. Ceoil (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I have fixed a few reference errors. The one that I was unable to fix was "Dorn, Schröder & Sillevis (1996)", which was introduced in a series of edits on 22 June 2009. I have not tried to locate this source, but someone here may know what it is. It does not appear to have ever been listed in the "Works cited" section.

I also do not know what "Dorn, Keyes & alt. (2000)" means. Should "& alt." read "et al."? – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

linking the inline citations to the reflist

Do we want to link the inline citations to the reflist? If so, how? Use {{

Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
16:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Personally, have never use a cite template on a potential (or any article) FAC, and unsure about starting to get to grips with it on such a relatively large article. But the refs are inconsistent as they are now, and started last weekend converting them all to a single (hand coded) ref>Author (2001), 45</ format. But that said, with so many books listed, a non-obtrusive (in edit view) way to link would be beneficial. Ceoil (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Article size is irrelevant; elbow grease is free. The only question is, what format do you like? The cite book templates are uglu underneath the hood but they do automatically standardize format and link to inline cites... but some people don't like the formatting style visible to the reader... 
Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
16:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm agreeing re functionality. Do you have an example of {{wikicite}}? Ceoil (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Maybe
Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
17:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
That seems fine. It's not jumbling up the edit screen with html, which was what was worrying me. Ceoil (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Use <ref>{{harvnb|Walsh|2000|p=421}}</ref> in body text, and harvids in the wikicite? Or more hand-coded [[#Reference-Walsh-2000|Walsh 2000]] with wikicite id=Walsh-2000? 

Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
17:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

How about the format in Huguenot-Walloon half dollar, but without the "p." or "pp."? Ceoil (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I think if we use loc= instead of pp= then the "p." won't display (it will display the way you type it). So (in summary) use Wehwalt's way, with loc instead of p, and wikicite instead of cite book? 
Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
17:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I'm happy enough with Wehwalt's style, but the main thing is that its not this big long html string, which is obviously not what you ever intended. I'm pretty happy to go with your judgement here. Ceoil (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Hozabout I edit "You are called after him." and Wikie as an example to see if you like? Then revert if you don't. 
Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
17:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Looks good. Gentlemen, I think that about wraps it up. Ceoil (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

(

Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
18:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

OK WORKS wikicite documentation doesn't mention one bug/feature... 
Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
18:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Excellent. Ceoil (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

As

Lingzhi
thinks I'm a lazy ass who doesn't work around here and must follow his every word....

  1. Read Template:Sfn#How to use. specifically:
    In the body of the article:
        {{sfn| last name(s) of author(s) | year | p=page number or pp=page range or loc=other location }}
  2. Every example in Template:Sfn uses p or pp for page number. Follow the template instructions.
  3. Best to use {{cite book}} instead of wikicite. Cite book has the advantage of COinS... People can import the references into their reference software. Cite book also has error checks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgwhite (talk • contribs)
I have been extraordinarily patient here. In addition to personalizing the discussion needlessly, Bgwhite has raised 2 issues:
  1. His original mass edit using awb, along with truculent edit summary (which was later repeated when my reversion of the edit was immediately reverted), reflect purely stylistic issues. He wishes to place a "p" or a "pp" before a page number or range of page numbers. He presents the line of reasoning that "all examples in template documentation use p/pp", but this is irrelevant. Unless the option to elide them is deprecated, then it is still a viable stylistic option.
  2. The second issue he raises is far more substantive, but it NOT the reason he reverted my reversion (and was in fact completely unconnected to his edit). He suggests (later) that using citation templates such as {{cite book}} is in some respects preferable to {{wikicite}}. (He gave a slightly technical summary along with wikilinks, which you can read). That is correct. However, there are 2 problems:
  1. converting all references would be a nontrivial, toilsome undertaking, and
  2. the citation style is significantly different from the standing style... which is also as Ceoil preferred (and perhaps Modernist too? I am not sure). respecting standing styles is as per some guideline somewhere which I can track down later... 
    Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
    09:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Is there not an element of preference here, which is determined by local consensus and maintaining internal consistency? Lingzhi has completed a huge undertaking here in just two weeks, to gripe and try and unilaterally reverse it now seems needless and well, hugely demotivating. Ceoil (talk) 10:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Of course there is. No one can unilaterally force working editors to adopt any style, which is of course why I reverted the original mass edit...but if everyone agrees to use cite book I will do it.... there are tools to make changing to cite book easier, but do we want to do it... 
Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
23:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
The shortened footnote versions are just Harvard citations stuffed inside <ref></ref> tags. The shortened footnotes should use {{sfn}}; they should not use the parens from {{sfnp}}. There's no reason to put parens in the shortened footnotes.
This article should use p. and pp. for page numbers. That's how users of the templates expect to cite pages. This article should not be any different. An added benefit is bots will come along and enforce p. for single pages and pp. for multiple pages; the bots leave |loc= alone because that parameter is used in odd cases. Currently, this article is using the |loc= parameter to avoid inserting p. or pp. That's not the intended usage of that parameter. The parameter is for when page is inappropriate or there's some other problem; for example, Smith (1989, §15.2) claims...; Smith (1989, fig. 13) shows....
{{cite book}} (or {{citation}}) should be used instead of {{wikicite}}. The former uses broken out fields and enforces consistent formating (editors don't have to italicize book titles; the template does it.) There is little difference in the presentation.
Current {{wikicite}}
  • {{wikicite|reference= Arnold, Wilfred Niels. ''Vincent van Gogh: Chemicals, Crises, and Creativity''. Boston: Birkhäuser, 1992. ISBN 978-3764336165|ref={{sfnRef|Arnold|1992}}}}
  • Arnold, Wilfred Niels. Vincent van Gogh: Chemicals, Crises, and Creativity. Boston: Birkhäuser, 1992.
    ISBN 978-3764336165
{{cite book}}, {{tl}cite journal}}, etc. (most common WP cite template series; uses periods; |ref=harv required)
  • {{cite book |last=Arnold |first=Wilfred Niels |title=Vincent van Gogh: Chemicals, Crises, and Creativity |location=Boston |publisher=Birkhäuser |date=1992 |isbn=978-3764336165 |ref=harv}}
  • Arnold, Wilfred Niels (1992). Vincent van Gogh: Chemicals, Crises, and Creativity. Boston: Birkhäuser.
    ISBN 978-3764336165. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help
    )
{{citation}} (less common; uses commas; |ref= not needed)
  • {{citation|last=Arnold |first=Wilfred Niels |title=Vincent van Gogh: Chemicals, Crises, and Creativity |location=Boston |publisher=Birkhäuser |date=1992 |isbn=978-3764336165 |ref=harv}}
  • Arnold, Wilfred Niels (1992), Vincent van Gogh: Chemicals, Crises, and Creativity, Boston: Birkhäuser,
    ISBN 978-3764336165
The major change is the year moves next to the author, but that change makes sense when Harvard refs are used; why should the reader have to look in the middle of the reference to find the year?
Glrx (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Glrx, you say "I think the change should follow". Are you volunteering a few weeks work, or just passing by. Is this a red line case for you or are you just wandering, half heartedly following a general debate, backing a friend. Or are you willing to roll up sleeves, and put your money where your mouth is. Unless, I'll take you as agenda driven. Ceoil (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
@
Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
05:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Users

Lingzhi and Glrx for humouring my ignorance and helping to educate me. I don't know how I have edited a gazillion times and written a few dozen articles without mastering this area. On the other hand I can spot passive voice or an illegitimate subjunctive at 100 m in poor light. Now that you have both explained the reference formatting argument, I am coming round to Glrx's point of view. To answer Ceoil's valid concerns about workload, if we agreed to implement the suggestion, how onerous would it be to do so? Would you be willing to help with the conversion? And I accept too that protocol dictates a discussion here before implementing major changes in referencing style. So let's do that. --John (talk
) 22:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

There are different options on the table.
Converting {{sfnp}} to {{sfn}}, should that be chosen, is a straightforward replace text.
Converting |loc= to |p= could be a replace text and let a bot do the heavy lifting. I believe AWB would also do it, but I don't use it.
Converting {{wikicite}} to {{cite book}} is an hour's worth of editing on one section. The templates will complain about missing/duplicated parameters. The edits are mostly removing existing formatting and inserting |title=, |first=, |last=, |date=, |publisher=, and |location=. You can see example templates above; they are not major edits; the order of the parameters does not matter.
And yes, I would help. See
Starry Night, where I linked the cite books before I knew about the discussion on this page (I only see watchlisted pages after they have been quiet for a few days, and this page has been on fire). Glrx (talk
) 23:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
As I have repeatedly stated, if people who actively edit this page reach
Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
00:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
@
Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
08:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you then
Lingzhi for all your work so far. As I said, I am happy to work with any referencing style and I see the logic in using page numbers rather than "loc". @Ceoil:, @Modernist:, any thoughts? For me, it'd be good to be able to continue with the article improvement work, from which this discussion may be distracting us. --John (talk
) 23:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, thank you Lingzhi.
BTW. An election of switching to {{cite book}} templates does not require any editor to learn how to use those templates. All an editor need do is add a reference with the appropriate information. Another editor can come along and template the reference. The purpose of the templates is not to make more demands on people's skills or time. Glrx (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
All right. Having read your arguments and thought about it, I weakly support all three changes. As a FA reviewer I look for refs simple enough that even I can edit them. I was a bit puzzled over the existing ref format (I stress this is down to my relative ignorance on this subject) and I would be more comfortable with sfn, p instead of loc, and cite book instead of wikicite. Your offer to make the change tips me over to this position. Other than matters of protocol and precedence, which I think have been addressed, does any other editor have any deep objection? --John (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

(←)

  • sfnp --> sfn Oppose the difference is purely subjective (i.e., a matter of taste), and anyone who says otherwise is selling something.
  • loc --> p Oppose see above.
  • wikicite --> cite book Oppose Neutral
    Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
    21:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Edits

I've edited the references. I used {{

cite contribution}} with |id= for exhibits, but they may be better served with {{cite conference}}. Glrx (talk
) 23:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@
Lingzhi
:
Huh? I'm not watching Ceoil's pages. (I don't see a retired banner on his user page.) This talk page was archived a few days ago,[1] so it came around on my watchlist, and I decided to do the edits that I'd promised. Notice I did not touch option 1 (sfnp to snf) or 2 (loc to p). I did not see any specific opposition to 3.
You offered to do these changes.[2]
Where did I misread consensus?
BGWhite wants 1,2,3.
Ceoil seems to have backed some form of templates because the citations are inconsistent.[3] Ceoil stated an opposition to html, some apparent support of style at Huguenot-Walloon half dollar (which uses sfn and cite book). Ceoil was happy with Wehwalt's style (half dollar article) and would defer to Lingzhi's judgment.[4] Ceoil wished to protect your work.[5] Ceoil's concern is met with your neutral !vote about cite book.[6] I read Ceoil as against 1 and 2 and neutral-to-pro for 3.
Modernist has not weighed in.
John is weak support for 1,2,3.[7]
Lingzhi was against 1,2 and neutral for 3.[8] Then, after my 29 March edits, Lingzhi reverts them and flips to oppose 3.[9]
Glrx supports 1,2,3.
Where did I misread consensus?
Glrx (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Letter dates, enumeration, text differ

VvG's letters are numbered differently, have different dates and different text between various websites. My thought has always been to make them consistent -- all from one website. I think the Van Gogh museum and accompanying books are probably the authoritative versions and numbers. I will use those, unless anyone objects. 

Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
02:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

No objection from here at least, Lingzhi. Ceoil (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Consistency makes sense...Modernist (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

"Both" in the opening paragraph

"His short life, expressive and spontaneous use of vivid colours, broad oil brushstrokes and emotive subject matter, mean he is recognisable both in the modern public imagination as the quintessential misunderstood genius."

Both in the modern public imagination... and what? Am I missing something here or should the word "both" be omitted, as it seems only one thing is referred to? Else otherwise rephrase perhaps. 91.198.180.1 (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Cheers 91; there was a second claim taken out recently in copy editing by me, slopply it seems. Thanks for spotting. Ceoil (talk) 08:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Etten reference

In the Etten, Drenthe and The Hague section, Etten refers to the wrong Etten (Located in Gelderland). It should refer to Etten-Leur, which is the correct town, located in Brabant. --Exmpletree (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

dorn, schroeder, sillevis

Closest I can find is this:

healthy invigorating extreme sadness

Hey the quotes about healthy invigorating environment, murky wheatfields, extreme childhood sadness are in there twice 

Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
10:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes they are. On it. Ceoil (talk) 10:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Early years

I got Naifeh and Smith's Van Gogh:The Life (2011) from the library and have been making my way through slowly. Some of the information about his formative years seemed interesting and important so I've worked a bit to the "Early Years" section - up to the point he moved to The Hague to work with Cent van Gogh. I've added about 200 words, which I think is ok, but would rather have others take a look and decide. I've parked what I've done in my sandbox here, and there's a lot more info in note form here in sandbox talk if we might want to add even more. Anyway, if and when you all have a chance to look at it and decide to use, it's there to copy over. Victoria (tk) 16:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Have read through and very interesting and very nice work. Would be pleased if you copy across. Ceoil (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added a bit more and copied over, so have at it. There's lots about what he learned at Goupil, and how he ended up in England (basically in lieu of being fired), so I'm off to read those sections and make more notes. We shouldn't lean exclusively on his book, but it's probably okay for one section and then to fill in throughout. What do you think? Victoria (tk) 15:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

Known for "Painting, drawing"(s) seems very trite; are we tied to these fields. Note, I am not opposed to an infobox per se, just a less stupid one. Ceoil (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

It would be better to have something more descriptive. I'm also not sure that Anton Mauve in the education field is correct. But I'd like to take a look at infobox artist, now that I understand how infoboxes are populated with info from Wikidata. Will do that a bit later. Victoria (tk) 13:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Imported from wikidata? Well, wot and ouch, but glad you are looking into it. Ceoil (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Gerda or RexxS, as resident experts, would ye mind giving a hand or opinion here on best way to fill the fields pls. I ask was the article is basically pre-FAC, and ye guys have knowledge. Ceoil (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Etten

I've run into a problem. Our article says the family moved to Etten in the spring 1881. But Vincent was visiting there and living there on and off during the late 1870s. Naifeh and Smith say the family moved before Christmas but I've read so much today my eyes are spinning. I thought that meant Christmas 1880, but in fact it was right after he was fired from Goupil, before he went he went to Amsterdam, so I think it must have been mid-1870s. Does anyone have a source to check. I've gone through history and that sentence has been in the article since before 2011, and none of us noticed. Victoria (tk) 22:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

P.s - I deleted it and pasted in another set of edits from the sandbox, diff here, sandbox here. I think the section is ok without it, but we should figure out when that move happened and weave it in at the appropriate place. If no one else can find it easily I'll have to try to parse it from Naifeh and Smith. Victoria (tk) 00:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Sund's first mention of Etten is a Spring 1881 move. Checking others. Ceoil (talk) 10:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I was hoping it would be easy. Pomerans says Vincent moved from Cuesmes to Etten in April 1881, (in the Letters, page 81 of my edition), and in this March 1877 letter Vincent asks Theo in the postscript if he's coming to Etten for Easter, so they would have moved there earlier. I can probably find it in Naifeh and Smith, but not through skimming/speed reading. Will keep looking. Also, feel free to back out any of those edits from yesterday - I was getting a little confused with the chronology. Victoria (tk) 13:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Victoria, I would like to meet somebody who has the neck to back out edits as thoughtful and well researched as we are seeing from you here. Pfff and thank you as always. I am preoccupied today, but back soon. Ceoil (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh, just saw this. No prob being preoccupied. It happens to best of us (will happen to me tomorrow). I've found it and fixed. Carrying on. Victoria (tk) 19:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Very impressive work today. I'm in recovery mode this evening after a barbecue last night with old friends. Count me as pleasantly knackered for the moment. Ceoil (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Pleasantly knackered sounds fine. You all have done a ton of work since I last visited this page and I think it's coming on very well. I've found what I needed, added what I wanted, and am finished for now. Victoria (tk) 23:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks V, have been binge watching S4 of Orange is the New Black all day, which was unexpectantly nice, now zzzzzzzz. Ceoil (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—

Talk to my owner
:Online 15:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

To do list pre-FAC

  • Ensure all the images are properly licenced - a mechanical and time consuming exercise but better before than after. I'll do this
  • Posthumous popularity, particularly requested by
    Iridescent
    . Modernist's broad knowledge needed here. -
    quote " Van Gogh is one of those figures where for most people (outside the Netherlands, at least) virtually the whole public perception of him is based on his depiction in fiction, ranging from Lust for Life to Dreams to Leonard Nimoy to Doctor Who. I'd be prepared to bet a substantial sum that if you asked people to give a fact about him, most would say "he's the guy who cut his ear off to impress a prostitute" or "he's the guy who invented modern art", and the story of how these misconceptions became so widespread is an important aspect of his story." - Iridescent
    Modernist & Victoria, I'm ok as to how he became famous *in an art historical context*, but sources are shady, sniffy even, as to how that transfered into "house-hold name". Any ideas on approach? Ceoil (talk) 09:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • It's the letters. My understanding comes from an essay by John Rewald called The Posthumous Fate of Vincent van Gogh 1890-1970 published in Studies in Post-Impressionism (1986), by John Rewald that explains how the impossible became possible. Vincent was barely known with a small following of friends and relatives when he died. His brother Theo was an art dealer well connected to the mainstream artworld of the time; and well positioned to promote Vincent's work and reputation. But Theo died soon after Vincent. Everything fell onto Theo's widow; who had just recently had a baby (named Vincent). Theo's wife Johanna van Gogh-Bonger barely knew her brother-in law and had not been married to Theo very long either. However as Rewald explains she knew how important Theo regarded Vincent's work, and so she kept everything and returned to her family in Holland with all of Vincents work except for 10 paintings left on consignment with Durand-Ruel Gallery in Paris. Over time Johanna learned about Theo and Vincent through the letters. When they were published Vincent's fame along with his paintings began to grow on the European art world like wildfire...Modernist (talk) 10:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Regarding the 10 paintings Johanna left with Durand-Ruel Gallery in 1890; nothing sold; ten years passed; the gallery contacted her in Holland with an offer from an art collector to buy the ten paintings for a tiny price (like 100 francs each), she refused; and the gallery returned the 10 paintings to her. The would be art collector was Ambroise Vollard...Modernist (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I should say that my above synopsis of Rewald's extraordinary essay about The Posthumous Fate of Vincent van Gogh is grossly simplified; but Rewald in essence reveals Vincent's amazing evolution from unknown eccentric artist to legendary romantic genius...Modernist (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Style, requested by Tim, reinforced by John on talk, above. I wholeheartedly agree. This may involve reintegration of elements from "work" back into "life", and the creation of a dedicated section on technique and progression, and a broad and critical overview of his development, rather than a narrow appreciation of specific sequences. Again I'm asking for Modernist's insight and expertise, to help guide.
  • Here is an interesting link: [10]. Regarding Post-Impressionism (Vincent's stylistic idiom) Van Gogh's recent biographers Smith and Naifeh say: Especially vital to an understanding of the art of the period in which Van Gogh was working is Rewald's Studies in Post-Impressionism (edited by Irene and Frances Weitzenhoffer) (1986). We also wish to pay homage to Meyer Schapiro's Vincent van Gogh (1983), which so often captures the essence of the artist's work, and to Robert L. Herbert's Impressionism: Art, Leisure and Parisian Society (1988), which adds so importantly to an understanding of the movement that Rewald pioneered...Modernist (talk) 11:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Modernist, this is excellent context. Ceoil (talk)
This is all excellent Modernist. What do you and Ceoil think about using it as a start for a legacy section? I've set one up in my sandbox and will play there in the meantime. Do you have sources, refs, and all that good stuff? Victoria (tk) 16:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Lingzhi availability. Mr Ling has helped big time in keeping this project going, baled us out on references, and is a rock; I would like to know that he is sniffing around during a candidacy, even if only as a shoulder to cry on.
  • In short, a further week before nom is requested. Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Until I dig into sources, can't tell how he became a household name. I took a look last night in the bio I have at hand (it should get back to the library today), and it ends with his death, so no help there. I have a couple of others; will check. Not sure whether I still have Jstor access but that might be the place to start; dunno. Thinking about it. Will report back later. Sorry, btw, the PR never got on my watchlist, so I'm just coming up to speed. Re style, I have a two volume monograph, can pull material from there (the Walthers/Metzger source). But we'll need more. And I'll need a little time. A few days or so. Victoria (tk) 09:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm thinking not so much JSOR as sunday supplements to piece this together, esp NYT and the UK Independent. Somebody like Schama would be ideal, Matthew Collings a holy grail in terms of unifying. Dunno either wrote anything on VvG, I guess probably. Lucky we have google. Ceoil (talk) 10:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Ok. I found a few files left over from 2011 and parked them in my sandbox. They might help re style. The household name will need googling I suspect. Will be back later. Like Ling, couldn't sleep, but it's a holiday weekend. Victoria (tk) 10:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Here's a start, [11]. That article links to four more. Might be helpful. Victoria (tk) 10:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (ec with above) Thanks for the kind words. I can't make promises. I have been editing tonight, forex, because I cannot sleep though my family are all in dreamland. But I really am on vacation and whenever the gang is awake we'll be doing family stuff. 
    Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
    09:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Absinthe Hallucinations

The part about van Gogh's Absinthe drinking causing hallucinations should be removed, as there is no peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any kind of hallucinations being caused by Absinthe, and the Wikipedia article on Absinthe even says so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.41.12 (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, removed and resolved it seems. Thanks for raising. Ceoil (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
There's still references to it under his death. 'especially absinthe' should be removed. 73.170.156.225 (talk) 03:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The ear and the gun

According to Naifeh and Smith in their biography Van Gogh, on page 704, he cut through his earlobe but, unable to cut through the cartilage, he didn't remove the entire ear. I would question the account the doctor wrote for a novelist 40 years later. Regardless, for the purposes of this article we have to use the best scholarly sources we have and the account as written before this edit is the one we should present on Wikipedia. Those edits should be reverted, imo.

Also, according to the same book, page 869, no gun was found. That they wrote a ten page appendix with 114 footnotes about the fatal wounding is the best scholarly source we have. In fact they believe he was shot accidentally, but it's difficult to be certain. That a gun was found in 1950 isn't enough, in my view, to add to this article in Wikipedia's voice. If it shows up in a better source at a latter date, then we can revisit. So I'd like to revert this edit too. Victoria (tk) 20:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to present our readers with the newly found information. As with all historical details, no-one will ever know for sure. So it may be best to present this as such, and explicitly say that there are differing opinions on both these matters. Personally I find the account of the very same doctor written down for a biographer years later quite convincing, and I tend to think that people who knew Van Gogh may have tried to minimize the extent of the ear wound in order to perhaps try and play down the notion of Van Gogh's insanity. But that's just me, and each reader should be able to make their own consideration on the matter I feel. As for the gun, it was in a private collection until 2012 and hardly anyone knew about it. Teio Meedendorp of the Van Gogh Museum clearly thinks that this is the gun. But with this too, I feel we should also present the opinion that it may not be the exact same gun. Mark in wiki (talk) 07:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I vote "Just Say No" to speculative stuff that is a pet theory of one author or another. Tons of speculation exists on the Internet, but unless speculation is done by credible authorities on the subject, we should leave it to other websites. 
Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
07:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Would you like to back out all the Naifeh and Smith edits? If so, I don't have a problem with that. The book is overdue at the library, racking up fines, and I'm ok with returning it and not bothering with this. Victoria (tk) 14:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • That's up to you; however I'm suggesting it all stays....because it's all referenced speculation...Modernist (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree in terms of speculation, but there are lots of biographies available and we have to look at the quality of the referencing. If you'd like it stay, then that's fine - that's why I opened a thread to discuss.
  • In terms of the Naifeh and Smith edits, here's what happened: I went to the library to get Hulsker and Pomerans only to find they'd wiped out their art section, so I ended up with Naifeh and Smith because it was easy to order from another branch library - the others not so easy - and it's the most recent. I've not used them for the ear or the gun, but the book was at hand yesterday when I started this thread. To date I've only worked in a sandbox, I've posted my edits for approval, but if you think their bio can't be trusted, then we need to discuss what to do about those edits. The edits to the "Early life" section can be rolled back to how it was pre-Naifeh and Smith, if you'd like. Victoria (tk) 14:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • IMO Naifeh and Smith have written an intensely informative book; worth referencing. I am of the opinion however that their theory regarding Vincent's demise is not based on fact but speculation that has a commercial spin. I place my trust in the varying experts and the varying speculations that we reference; although in my opinion the letters are the most reliable as a source. As I mentioned I trust art historian John Rewald in particular...Modernist (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'd missed that a new book has been published and there's an exhibit opening about the ear and the gun. Here's the New York Times' write up about it.
  • On the subject of Rewald - I've struck out trying to get my hands on a copy of that. Tried the used book store this morning, but no luck. It's on Questia, but I can't get access. Still trying. Victoria (tk) 16:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed additions and restructure

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.

After some sandbox work and a few test edits, I'm wondering what everyone thinks about a proposed restructure that would be something like this version?

The "Letters" section is gone (per the PR) but I'm thinking we can move the hatnote and some more text to the Posthumous fame section. The rest of the text can go the letters article, which is still skimpy and can use more work anyway. Alternatively, we can keep where it is, but it does shove the word up, because of additions I've made.

The style section has been developed/added to, some paragraphs moved, and the series would be a subsections of style. I think some of the "Style" can judiciously be cut down and/or, perhaps, moved into the bio. I would like to add a little more, too, but want to wait to see if this will work.

I rearranged the series sections so that they lead with the portraits, (he was painting portraits before moving to Arles), then tried to follow a rough chronological order, except that I moved the self-portraits to the end. I thought it worked that way as a lead-in to the death section (we might have to lose the image of the newspaper report of his death). I realize his final canvases weren't self-portraits, but it seems poignant to move from the expressive self-portraits to the "Death" section, and it solved problems with text squash.

Finally, I wonder if the "Influence" section can be combined with Posthumous fame - since that latter section brings us to present day - or somehow rearranged. The "Influence" seems a little lonely but I'm loath to bulk it up. Word count is becoming a problem.

I still see a fair amount of work, in terms of pruning bits here and there, copyediting, formatting stray sources, checking which sources are being used etc., but I think this might work.

Thoughts? Pinging

Lingzhi, and John. Apologies in advance if I've left out anyone. Victoria (tk
) 23:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I support the restructure re Style, and can do some work here, if you want to transfer it over. Also merging post & legacy seems fine. Some trimming and expansion needed there also. Ceoil (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I like the current organization that we are working with now including the letter section. Rather than reorganizing I think we should continue refining the text and imagery as we have been doing...Modernist (talk) 02:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 02:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
No. It needs to be heavily reorganised. Various editors, including Iridescent, John, Victoria and LingZhi have been arguing for exactly the opposite for months. The current focus is, amongst other things, too narrowly bent on specific works and series, to the point where any broad discussion of his overall progression is choked. I think these series summaries should be merged with the corresponding sect in the bio timeline, to leave room for a more substantial, nuanced and detached 'style' sect, as Victoria has been working in sandbox. I have tried a few times in the last few months to resolve this, but have been reverted each time ('better before'). Something has to give here. Ceoil (talk) 03:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
@Modernist:, in fairness, all I've done is a hell of a lot of reading (heavy lifting), added a few paragraphs at the end of an existing section, moved a single paragraph, moved a section, added a few sentences here and there, and per the PR made a suggestion. This has been a lot of work and taken a lot of time, and I've had the respect to work in a sandbox. The suggestion isn't to your liking and that's fine. But equally I think it would be ok (if I wanted to continue) that I have the confidence to work in mainspace. I believe I'm a good enough editor not to be relegated to a sandbox nor to have my suggestion summarily dismissed. All that said: I learned a long time ago that it's not worth letting Wikipedia upset me or to have friends upset with each other. I only came back to editing for this and it didn't work out, which is fine. It's really not a big deal and worth anyone getting upset over. Victoria (tk) 04:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, yes, but it's not personal, and we have *all* worked together many times before, so its about agreement on a course, we are all adults here and can disagree on matters without falling out, I'm sure. I think the weaving of the series into the bio and dedicated and subheaded sect on stylisic dev would be better. As per the sandbox. This I feel strongly about. But I'm not about to pull out handguns, yet. Ceoil (talk) 05:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Its also worth revisiting history - Carol, who eventually had to be asked to leaved this page, added (sometimes indirectly) all these sections - there were well founded and proven issues of copyvio & close paraphrasing, at the time, also note the scattershot, and in its current state, incoherent approach. Ceoil (talk) 11:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I would support a restructuring. The present style does not look quite right to me. It's certainly not like any other reference work I'm familiar with. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for commenting. Apologies for pinging and pulling you in; I felt you often get overlooked so I decided to include you. Sorry about that. Victoria (tk) 04:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
No, thank you. I appreciate it...but I don't want to be part of this article for a lot of reasons. That said, as a reader, I don't think the current structure really works. In any case, don't apologise. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 04:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
As I said in my opinion we currently have a lot to work with; but it's about the paintings; it's always been about the paintings...Modernist (talk) 11:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
No, its about the painter, which is where we have gone wrong. The article needs to step back and survey. Liz is quite correct; the TOC currently doesn't correspond with any book index worth a damn that I've seen. Sorry to be so blunt, but a lot of thought and work is being relegated. Ceoil (talk) 11:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Note; per FAMILY - Liz is my beloved wife. Ceoil (talk) 11:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I love never being able to comment on areas in my field without this disclaimer. Some things are priceless. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Apparently Irving Stone fell in love with the editor of his Lust for Life manuscript, and married her...Modernist (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Obviously it's about the painter, and we haven't gone wrong at all. The structure is correct. We have a lead; the letters, a chronology of his life through places and time; until the end; (all good, although can always improve), a Style section that frankly is beyond weak; The Series section that should be expanded because it's about the paintings (or we wouldn't be here); We have the section about his death and finally his resurrection....I mean his fantastic mythic fame....Works better than any book!...Modernist (talk) 11:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, I see where you are coming from, sort of, but disagree. A pity, but there you are. The article is stalled, *perfect* now, is what I am reading. We can all go home. As you close the door can you also remove the final vestiges of Carol;s close paraphrasing I mentioned above and that we have been weeding out for several months. Also the bare url refs. Ceoil (talk) 11:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Quite to the contrary I am saying clearly that each section needs work; the style section sucks; the series section needs more not less and overall we are not writing a book but a fucking great article...Modernist (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
(after ec) Modernist I have a single question: who is we? Clearly the heading shouldn't have used the word restructure because as restructures go it's very minimal. Most are additions. A lot of reading and work went into it. But? It's not allowed in? I need to have edits approved? This is frankly hurtful. Victoria (tk) 12:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • By the way Carol made only 20 edits total in around May 2011 to this article; mostly links to the other articles that she did work on; she didn't add hardly a word to this article...Modernist (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
They were copied over, is the problem. As its being brought up, we should probably air dirty linnen, and think about a plan for resolving. Another one for Ceoil and Vic to quitely take care of? Probably. Ceoil (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • What dirty linen are you talking about?..Modernist (talk) 12:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • You were here when it happened. When I look at the book sources and the article text on the series I get a sence of the uncanny. Hopefully, for a few reasons, this is not news. But I suppose not, hence the "quitely take care of comment". Ceoil (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • WTF are you saying? That the links lead to plagiarized articles? Which links? Which articles? Be specific?...Modernist (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
No, as was proven at the time, but overlooked was the wiki text was at times verbatim the source text. Or did I just dream all that argro and proof. Sorry if I wasnt clear in 'dragging up' proven facts, once again. Remember? Ceoil (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • If you both think that this article is compromised by Carol....hmmm...maybe it should be abandoned....hmmm....I think it's a great article that still needs work...Modernist (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

At the top I made a proposal for additions, ie. it still needs work. I tried to add. It wasn't accepted. That's all we need to be discussing here, and maybe why those additions aren't any good. End of story. I'm archiving this. If anyone objects, go ahead and unarchive. Victoria (tk) 13:09, 17 July 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.

I am not going to undo Victoria's closure, but I will say this: the article is quite close to being great. Everyone here has put in fantastic work, and I still believe this can go to FA if we all just take a breath or two. Call me Pollyanna, but there it is. I've voiced my humble opinion (if it is worth anything - best ask the mister) regarding a revamp on the Style section, but apart from that I see few issues. Please, guys, don't give up. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Way forward

Modernist, I, and victoria are all deeply invested in this article, and I dont think with out any of us, this could become a potential FAC. I support the archiving of the unfortunate stuff above, and I certainly spoke in anger. Whatever. Lets get back to facts, which is the outline of a style section. Nobody disputes it want, and it of course can be sub-headed into works sections. Lets agree on that as a starting point, and go back to being [people that actually bounce of each other and enjoy discussion. Modernist, your opinions are always taken on board, even though I might disagree. People are allowed to disagree. Ceoil (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  • All true; focus on the style section is really needed; and by the way I am indebted to all of you for your excellent referencing; which I suck at...Modernist (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Ha ha, I'll sort that long as you continue to fix my attempts to spell even basic English. Ceoil (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
It would be a dark day indeed if the two of us fell out. This might sound hollow, but its always been an honor. Ceoil (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • People who never argue have no opinions. People who have no opinions have no accomplishments. Questions? This will be on your quiz on Monday. 
    Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
    23:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Expensive Self-Portraits

In the "Self-portrait" section we say that Self-portrait without beard was sold for $71.5, which is unreferenced and so needs a cite. In the "Posthumous" section we say that Self-Portrait with Bandaged Ear "was sold privately in the late 1990s for an estimated US$80–90 million." I've tried to find a cite for the bandaged ear self portrait to replace Artwolf.com and am not having much luck. I did find this from Artnews that the painting is now in Zurich, that Niarchos purchased it, but nothing about the purchase price (unless I'm missing it). Could use help find sources for these two. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 00:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

"This was included for a reason"

I removed the drawing Worn Out from the Nuenen and Antwerp section. It was linked in the gallery but is actually without its own article, instead piping to At Eternity's Gate, which can be found in the Saint-Rémy section. Seeing as there is consensus over at FAC that there are too many images and that "less is more", I removed the drawing and kept the painting. Modernist added the drawing back, saying it was "included for a reason", without giving one. I would like to know the reason. Why do we need a near identical drawing of a much more famous painting? - HappyWaldo (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

This is an article that hopefully has some meaning. As mentioned in the text [13] at the end of his life in 1890 he asks his family to send him some early drawings - they send him the one that you are deleting - the one that indicates despair and hopelessness; the one that he paints, the one that he probably thinks about - At Eternity's Gate; it matters - this artist who committed suicide soon after actually had thoughts; that this article hopefully can elucidate...Modernist (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
"there is consensus over at FAC that there are too many images..." - no, I don't think there is. Certainly not from me. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I think the whole point here are the paintings; I've regretfully removed a few; although I am tempted to re-add them...Modernist (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I think the mistake I made was suggesting we try to accommodate the galleries for the mobile view. Now that Modernist has worked on this extensively I see that it's really not possible to get it right for mobile and non-mobile (whatever that's called). On my monitor it displays as rows of three with lots of whitespace. Have uploaded a sample at File:Vangoghfacsample.png. My sense is that's the best we can get, and I'll be quiet about this now. Thanks Modernist for all the tweaking. Victoria (tk) 16:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Getting there

For me this version looks good, [14]. A couple of sections where the 160 px galleries have six images have overflows, but that is easily rectified. The sections where the galleries are still at 180 can either be left as they are, or they can be downsized and probably gain a few images. Again, I can only speak to what I can see. Thoughts? I think it's better to hash this out instead of people being upset, but that's just my opinion. Victoria (tk) 20:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Ref on Van Gogh

Modernist took away a "cn" tag after I noticed a paragraph was lacking a citation, and left the edit summary "that's enough". I'm afraid it's not and this will need to have a closing cite. All paragraphs should close with a citation. It may simply be a case of adjusting the position of a reference somewhere and might not need another reference, but it really ought to be fixed. CassiantoTalk 21:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. CassiantoTalk 21:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Given the enormous number of edits on this page, it's probably more useful to mention it in the review (which I'm watching closely), instead of tagging. Tagging can make nominator feel that they have to scramble to supply a ref immediately. I do have one somewhere that covers the entire list, but cannot at this moment remember exactly where I read it so will have to review all my books and pdfs. Unfortunately I left some pdfs on a bookshelf on Jstor, didn't bother to download, and lost access there today. Regardless, providing a ref to cover all of the listed instances is a minor issue not difficult to take care of, can almost probably be done with a single source, but I have to ask that you and everyone else gives us time to sort these issues out. Victoria (tk) 00:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't have the time to sit down and write a review at the moment, otherwise I would have mentioned it. Tagging is not something I enjoy doing. I've had a pop at others myself for doing it, notably on the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane article. I knew the page was being monitored and I was confident that the issue would be fixed. To convey my message in a timely fashion would've meant that I'd either have to leave a tag or bury a hidden comment, which could get missed altogether. CassiantoTalk 07:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Stylistic issues

Thanks everyone for the many edits! It's wonderful to see so many people collaborating on this single article. A few notes about stylistic issues, and hopefully John will correct me if I'm wrong:

  • Per Engvar Dr has no fullstop (period). So we should have Dr Gachet, Dr Rey, etc. throughout.
  • Dashes & hyphens: we're using spaced endashes. I have a script that fixes the hyphens in page ranges and run it every few days, so there's no need to worry that won't be done.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but might keep this list here and add to it as we go along. Again, thanks for the help. Victoria (tk) 00:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

John, if I'm not mistaken, a full stop after any honorific is AmEng; am I correct? CassiantoTalk 18:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Nowadays that is a good rule of thumb, yes. --John (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


Text squashing

Is anyone else bothered by this?

MOS:IMGSIZE, and the varying sizes from section to section make for clunky reading. Maybe some trimming is in order. I would suggest a maximum of two images per section. Maybe the rest can go in a gallery at the bottom. - HappyWaldo (talk
) 14:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Several mini-galleries at intervals are better. Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I think there are several issues. One is that the mobile view doesn't support the multiple image template, so it looks like this. (An aside, interesting that view shows I have notifications, but not so on my laptop). Safari has a nice reader view, but it just disregards the multiple images, so there are none. I was vaguely aware, but didn't follow it, that there was an RfC making the packed mode standard for galleries, which wouldn't be a good idea here. So, essentially the challenge is to try to format this for various browsers and devices keeping in mind that we want to showcase the paintings. Not that many years ago we were formatting for huge monitors; now for tiny ones. I think we'll need to do some experimenting to get it right. Victoria (tk) 16:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The Rfc by no means made "the packed mode standard for galleries", thank God. Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I can try small galleries; if requested...Modernist (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
@Johnbod:, that's good to know. As I said I was only vaguely aware. Modernist, I don't know how galleries format on the mobile view or readers, but with experimentation we can find out. If you don't mind, it might be worth the effort. I'm done for the day (thanks all for being patient!), so it's all yours now. Victoria (tk) 17:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll try either tonight (est) or tomorrow am...Modernist (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Modernist; I can do the converting the html if you can look at arrangement, placing, sizing etc. Ceoil (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks everyone, and good luck with the FA nom. - HappyWaldo (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I know the images are still being tinkered with, but are we really going to go with variations in size exceeding the default 220px thumbnail? It seems unattractive and needlessly complicated to me, and only worsens the text squashing issue. - HappyWaldo (talk) 07:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi HappyWaldo, it's an enormous change and is a slow process. Three people are working on it and we'll get there, but formatting these types of images for this type of article is a challenge so please bear with us. If you have suggestions to make, I think it would be best to take them the FAC instead of movig images out of sections, and changing the lead image, then and bringing it back. If you comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vincent van Gogh/archive2 it gives a chance for everyone to weigh in and for us to reach a consensus, and it helps in terms on keeping everything in a single place while we're undergoing this process. Victoria (tk) 18:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
It was a mistake to remove the images. As for the lead, I thought it would be interesting to mix things up with a portrait by another artist, knowing also that it would eventually be swapped with another portrait, given there are so many great ones to choose from. While John's edit summary convinced me not to pursue it at this time, I still think Russell's portrait deserves to be showcased at some point in the future. From now I on will discuss before making any major changes. - HappyWaldo (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that during this period with this much intensive editing. That's very helpful.
Modernist and Ceoil: the galleries were dropping into the next line (and causing lots of whitespace), so I made a few test edits to try to prevent. Feel free to undo anything I've done. Victoria (tk) 01:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Replacing the newspaper clippings?

In April 1885 Vincent wrote to his brother Theo about his first masterpiece The Potato Eaters. He was currently working on the painting, which was to become one of his first complex compositions with multiple figures and illustrated the letter with a sketch of the work, writing ""See, this is what the composition has now become. I’ve painted it on a fairly large canvas, and as the sketch is now, I believe there’s life in it."

Since the article is already quite overladen with pictures and there are many paintings we like to show, I don't know if the the newspaper clippings really add much. That the two incidents were briefly noted in the press could just as well be mentioned in the text, without showing the clippings. Given the importance of the letters I think it would be very useful to show one of the letter. How about this one to Theo about The Potato Eaters? P. S. Burton (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure we have space to put it in the letters section because those two photographs are important there (thanks, btw, for uploading those versions). We have lots of letters in the letters article, which still needs work, so maybe this can go there. Re the newspaper clippings, I'm not in love with them. I'd prefer to see one of the self-portraits (or both in a multiple image x 2) in the ear mutilation section. Victoria (tk) 10:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the newspaper clippings lend some credibility and are needed...Modernist (talk) 03:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with them; as placed they are not causing issues. I think they also create an everyday link back to the man. Ceoil (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Galleries

Following in the comments above and John's at the FAC, a few things before I bail out: the galleries look great but might need slight adjustments. I've tried adding text for text-to-image ratio, and have been successful with "Portraits" and "Cypresses", so that's one option (but there's a lot of reading/writing involved for sections that have their own subpages). The sections that have galleries dropping into the next line are "Self-Portraits" and "Orchards", and adding "clear" templates only shoves the whitespace around. Either we add more text to those two sections or cut an image from the gallery.

Also, I had to tweak the "Arles" section to stop the galleries from dropping into the next line, but I'm wondering whether we want to have the narrative there, which is compelling, broken up with a gallery, so I'm putting it up for discussion. I think P. S. Burton's suggestion of removing the newspaper clipping would give us at least another place to place an image of Vincent with a bandage next to the text of the mutilation. I'll post a link of this discussion to the FAC - don't want to clog up the page there more than necessary. Will be around less next week. Victoria (tk) 01:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I think a combination of three things: Add 'upright' to the leaqd img uin each sect, which reduces wh/space, more text as you have been doing and I can take over, and maybe a 3 row, two row format? 4 seems to be fine on most but not all desktop screen widths, and not really on mobile. Ceoil (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
4 works and consistency matters...Modernist (talk) 19:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm re-reading Rewald because we still need a lot of text...Modernist (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Im not sure two rows of 4, as now in the self-portraits section, is sustainable. My preference is for 2 rows of three, and would be happy to add additional imgs to the other sections to standardise that across the article. Ceoil (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I really like the 2 rows of 4 by the way. I prefer 4 but try it; I also think they should then all have an equal number (6) of images; keep in mind this is about this totally crazy, screwed up guy who made these insanely intense paintings and drawings...without the paintings we would not be here...Modernist (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The more I think about it the more I think 4 works best...Modernist (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Mobile view is here. I'm in the less is more camp, fwiw. At issue is whether to format for mobile/tablet view or for laptop view. It doesn't seem that we can do both. I think two rows of galleries will drown the text. Again, fwiw. Victoria (tk) 23:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

76. --John (talk) 00:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Viewing the mobile the galleries times 3 idea of Ceoil's might work better; I have a big screen desk top...Modernist (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  • the advantage is that compared to the current 4 x 1, we could acommandant more images than we have now. I see you are working on this; it looks very good to me so far. Ceoil (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

:::*I disagree with adding more images. I did a little research during the week, went to the Apple store and looked at the article on devices of various sizes. The smaller tablets display the images in bunches of two, so there are three rows of two, two to three screens per gallery. The larger tablets seem to display at 3 or 4 depending on whether held sideways. The largest problem is that my phone displays completely differently than this mobile view. On my phone all the images are centered, fill a full screen, so the galleries display one at a time. Loading the article is a problem, and scrolling through six screens of images between chunks of text isn't optimal (though I have to admit, the images look great!). It would be nice if the WMF mobile view was a little better, if the multiple picture template we used worked (though that top one with the brothers does seem to work), etc. etc. At this point, after all of this experimenting and work, my view is that it's best to try to get the best format we can with the understanding that we won't get a perfect format for all devices. I'm still in the less is more camp, and believe that a lot of the images in the style sections can be farmed out the galleries in the subarticles. I'm aware this is a frustrating task, but my own opinion (fwiw), is that we want to tell the story of Vincent's life both in words and images and we need to try to find a balance. I might copy a few sections into my sandbox and fiddle there. If I come up with anything better I'll link here. Victoria (tk) 16:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Update: I played around a little in my sandbox here. It seems that if the gallery is downsized from 200 and if the "perrow" parameter is removed (to let the browser decide how to display), it works somewhat better, but I don't have a tablet available to test it on. For the "Flowers" section I'm able to see five in the gallery on my laptop, whereas the mobile view shoves the fifth to the next line. For the "Flowers" section I was able to get four to display in the gallery without interfering w/ the image in the text, and the mobile view seems to keep the single row of four at that size. The phone still formats a single image, one at a time, but four is fewer to scroll through than 6, imo. Anyway, maybe if we were to agree to downsize the galleries a little, it might help. I'll leave my sandbox like that for a few days so anyone who wants can take a look. Victoria (tk) 19:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I've been following from work all the progress during the week on iphone, and it all looks dramatically better in terms of placement, on mobile view in the last 5 days since I edited, or was able to look on on desktop. By the way, well done to all for the other areas of progress this week, once again; to say the least this FAC has been extremely satisfactory in terms of article improvement and cohesive team work. We are all playing to our different strengths. Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Recent research

The BBC has showed a programme which included some important recent research. They claim to have identified the young woman who Van Gogh gave his ear to, and found some of her descendants living near Arles, although they declined to speak publicly. They also found a medical diagram done by a doctor who treated him, showing that he did cut off his whole ear, not just the lobe. Should this be incorporated into the article? PatGallacher (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pat, thanks for this. Yes, and we have incorporated parts, though the extent of the ear removal is still open, and after much debate here, it is left purposely vague. I think the new book needs a few months to settle down and gain wider analysis from art historians before any thing definite can be said. Ceoil (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
It has been discussed; although at one time we used Rachel and then her whole name; it now says a woman, the ear situation is also contradictory....when Dr. Rey treated VvG he saw one thing while others claimed to see something else...the sketch he drew was 40 years after the fact by the way...Modernist (talk) 11:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
My main take is that she was not necessarily a prostitute, though I cant stand over the book's credentials, and these types of theories come and go. One thing I do think we dont bring out enough is how traumatized Gauguin was, at times in our article he might come across as too calculating and heartless. He was in a very delicate situation, not to mention at times, physically threatened. Ceoil (talk) 11:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
IMO Gauguin was using both brothers...Modernist (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Clearly; but all the same, and given the dramatic way things turned out. Ceoil (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
One thing that I still don't understand is how come if Theo died of syphillis, and it's longtime fatal effects; how come Johanna and his newborn baby VwvG weren't also infected. I've also read that Vincent might have been infected as well; seems mysterious to me...
Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I guess he must have been discreet, except 2 guys were violent and crazy and both of them died young...Modernist (talk
) 13:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Illness

I've made some edits to the "December 1888" section to clarify the hospital diagnosis and chronology (some of which might satisfy FAC requests), but I have a few comments/questions.

  • Rewald said Dec. 26 or Dec 27 is wrong: Rewald said Theo rushed to see Vincent - probably on the 25th and returned to Paris on Dec. 26 or Dec 27. I had it wrong...Modernist (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks, M, for checking. Pomerans is vague, w/o date but does say Theo was in Paris for the New Year. I saw a better chance of pulling together Theo's engagement on the same day as Vincent's mutilation, but let's leave it as it is. Victoria (tk) 20:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • No prob. Thanks for checking. I did not know that Theo proposed and had to leave for Arles on the same evening. I've tweaked and brought the engagement back into the text. Victoria (tk) 20:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I've sorted out his movements per FAC: from hospital to the Yellow House, back and forth from hospital and Yellow House, then to Rey when the Yellow House was closed in March.
  • I've sorted Signac's visits: these were late in March when he was out of the Yellow House and in hospital.
  • I'm wondering whether we want to seed in the Saint-Rémy section the information that Dr Rey in Arles, (who was 23 and not yet out of training), communicated to Dr Peyron at Saint Remy the tentative diagnosis of a "kind of epilepsy" (Rey thought it a mental epilepsy) which Peyron documented in the Saint Remy hospital register? My feeling is that if it's adequately sourced here, it might explain where the epilepsy diagnosis comes from, but my big fear is that they were apparently using the term to define mental illness. Again, need Cas' advice on how to deal with this.

That's more than enough for now. If any of this resolves any FAC points, may I ask that someone else post there. I need a short break. Victoria (tk) 16:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Right, I find it becomes difficult to judge consensus when using google scholar and rare topics with few secondary sources. I think the best way to reflect whatever consensus might be is to include the names and occupations of whose opinions we're using. Hence I have added Perry, Blumer, Arnold and Hemphill and occupations where known (surprise surprise..the psychiatrists diagnose bipolar, the neurologists epilepsy and a biochemist AIP...). I think this is necessary as (for instance, Arnold has written extensively on the topic but I have no idea how widely people accept it as valid or regard it as an amusing fringe point of view. I have tried to summarise concisely (I think it needed a bit more so expanded it thus) but am aware we have a hefty daughter article (and yes, I do think the subtopic is notable enough to have its own article as it has been the subject of much speculation for the past 100 years). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

From personal experience treating people with all psychoses and mood disorders, I can say that some folks remember their episodes vividly and others forget them almost completely (yes I know this is effectively OR and can't be used...just pointing it out). Arnold makes some good points but misses what I would have thought the most obvious case against bipolar which is the (documented) brevity and paroxysmal nature of the episodes. Anyway, now I am rambling a bit. I have added some to the daughter article. I might add some more somewhere dpending on what I can find. We have visitors this weekend so my free time is limited. Need to check the absinthe angle and some other stuff...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Cas for taking the time to pitch in. We definitely needed your expertise here. It's now much better. Victoria (tk) 22:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Cas thank you; but to press further, could you give guidance for weighing contemporary sources in terms of credibility (they will be art history rather than anything related to MERDS, but pointers might be useful). Modernist you might also pitch in if you think the balance is out of step from your readings; clearly art historical sands have shifted for and against reading him in there terms, esp in recent (1960s on-wards) decades. Ceoil (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ok yeah, when I read the article, it did occur to me that we need to buff it a little more as it is a notable discussion point. As it was, it was a bit listy. Now as far as what "consensus" is among the medical community, I don't think anyone is able to answer that really due to the paucity of articles on it - we have a bunch of (informed) opinions. The safest way to navigate this issue is to just state who has declared the opinions - I can't see how we can offer any more accurate information than that. Weight is really tricky. The commentary is pretty measured and good-natured and there is some consensus, which I've tried to convey. The lack of primary information from the time means that it is very difficult to refute conclusively someone else's opinion. From what I've seen, we've got some folks early on for epilepsy, a few psychiatrists over the years for bipolar and then Arnold really pushing the case for AIP - I am aware that porphyria has been proposed for the Royal family and vampires as well...so I guess I am wary, but Arnold's paper is pretty sensible (shrugs). I have a bit of a head cold....and its before 9 am and I need my 3rd coffee and to talke the dogs for a walk I think and ruminate on this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I confess that I am utterly confused as to the state of the Van Gogh family health. I am skeptical regarding Theo's death from syphilis as well as I am curious if Vincent was infected; and the fact that another brother Cor committed suicide and sister Wil went mad; did Vincent have some sort of congenital problem that also killed Theo?...Modernist (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is mentioned in Arnold's article about
    Acute Intermittent Porphyria, which Cas references above. I will send it out to everyone. It is interesting, because there was an aunt (I believe) who was ill as well. Victoria (tk
    ) 00:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok Cas, your last comments should form the basis of the opening sect, as now pointed out are obviously very traumatic. I think brevity is key without getting into 'come and go' non expert diagnostic theories, often published without PR and reproduced in Sunday supplements etc. The sect should maybe sum up along the lines of, again as you say, "The lack of primary information from the time means that it is very difficult..." Ceoil (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)One of the biographies I have documents the family history, apparently based on the information Vincent supplied to his doctor when at St. Remy. The biography says that the diagnosis for epilepsy, or mental epilepsy, was clinched for the doctor when he was supplied with the family history. I have looked at the daughter article and thought it needs buffing; there's lots of room there to spin it all out. Victoria (tk) 00:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ceoil: one of the papers summed it up well (about the limited direct onservation of VVG)...wish I could remember which goddamn one it was. I agree that prefacing the para with something like that is important. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
The better sources go in this direction. We need a formualtion that (a) presents the most crediable indirect causations (b) netures the passing urge to include 'just published' theories not yet subjuect to secondary review (c) points out that its too late for us to ever know from this distance, and that attempts at exact prognosis are fanciful. Ceoil (talk) 01:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Right, have been reading this paper again. Arnold actually touches on some of the thinking of observers and has some opinions on the doctors and descendants. I don't know how it gells with other authorities' views on aspects of legacy though. I need to sleep....more tomorrow. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I am slightly concerned at the weight the article gives to the theory that Van Gogh was killed by his use of absinthe. The theory that absinthe was toxic due to its levels of thujone has been thoroughly debunked. Neither is thujone now thought to be a hallucinogen as was once thought. Older sources may make these claims but I wonder to what degree we should report them if they are now known to be false. --John (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Happy to cut it. Wouldn't mind some right now, though. Or some that good stuff that comes from your part of the world. Victoria (tk) 22:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Heh, if it was possible to upload some to Commons and share it with you, I would. Whisky is a great consolation for living in such a cold and dreich (though interesting) country. I don't necessarily want to cut it; I'm not sure what I am proposing. I wonder if Cas Liber has had a chance to think about this yet? --John (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
John, I'd prefer if we spoke in general terms only..about what we dont know. IOWS I agree with you, and see below. BBC, Paxman...not art historical, verbatim publicity blurb, and the eg is just today, though already dated. Key point here, seemingly lost, is if the woman was a prostitute or not. Also, we wont always have Cas around to weigh sources. Ceoil (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I think John has a good point as it is clear there was some primary malady. I have demphasised it thus. Is that enough for the moment? (done this) Additionally, I can't think of a succinct way of saying "and/or" without a bunch of words, but if anyone does, substitute at will. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Lagging behind seriously but will take a look. Cas, I haven't even looked at your sources or the text closely but from a quick skim it looked better. Re family history - my sense is that it can go to the daughter article and while I have sources/biographies at hand (I borrowed from the library but am thinking it would be nice if the WMF bought books for us for such high visibility pages), I'll copy all the relevant info into my sandbox so we have it. I might be able to take scans too. My sense is that the pace here is very fast, yet there's really no reason to rush any of this. Victoria (tk) 00:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Ear - Bernadette Murphy in BBC documentary

On 6 August 2016 BBC Two broadcast The Mystery of Van Gogh's Ear, narrated by Jeremy Paxman, which traced the seven-year search by Bernadette Murphy to discover the truth behind the ear incident. Not only did Murphy clarify the identity of Gabrielle Berlatier, the cleaner at the brothel to whom the ear was given, but also uncovered almost certain proof, in a drawing by Van Gogh's own physician Dr Felix Rey, that the whole ear was severed, not just the lobe. See also: The Guardian, The Telegraph and BBC Arts. An amazing piece of detective work and a riveting programme. I'd suggest the article might need further updating to mention Murphy's work. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Yep, it's all there. The picture, the ear being brought to the hospital, citation to her book. We've got it all. Thanks for mentioning. Victoria (tk) 22:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Really? I searched the article for "Murphy" and drew a blank. Likewise with "Gabrielle Berlatier". The rabid dog bite connection was quite spooky I thought. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I watched it, and read the reviews. Though it provided some interesting anecdotes, it adds nothing to what the article already states, which is that several witnesses claim it was the whole outer ear, and several state that it was only a small part of the ear. It's frustrating I know as we all seek certainty, but it seems this is not possible in this case. It is covered in the article in a footnote. If an intelligent reader like yourself has read the article and not seen it, maybe it should be emphasised more than it is? I thought about suggesting adding the BBC show and its reviews, but the sources we already have are far superior and it is just recentism. We would have to include the Vincent van Gogh episode of
Dr Who, and I don't think that would accord with the FA status we aspire to here. --John (talk
) 22:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I read the article, and saw it, and thought it should be adjusted. I think the Dr Felix Rey sketch provides almost certain proof. I really don't think Bernadette Murphy is comparable with Amy Pond Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC) I make no claims whatsoever about my alleged "intelligence".
Consider – Dr Rey treats the ear of a crazy unknown artist in 1890 as a very young doctor in his 20s; it cannot be re-attached. He draws the sketch 40 years later of a world famous genius; while he's in his 60s hmmm...Modernist (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes that's one of my concerns as well. The other is that these types of books are published every five years or so. Here's a nice, and very lengthy review in the New Yorker about one published in 2010. Once some substantial coverage along those lines is published we can revisit, but not today, not this week, and hopefully not while we're in the middle of a difficult FAC. Victoria (tk) 00:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I see your point,
true art lovers. Here's a brief description of Murhpy's book, and a review in The Times, which someone might want to add in the next five years. Martinevans123 (talk
) 08:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
The trouble is that whatever the merits of this particular book, VVG is right up there with Nazi gold, the Ark of the Covenant and Stonehenge for "amateur solves the mystery which baffled the experts!" hyperbole (while a lot of the 16,000 Google Books hits on "Van Gogh mystery" are false positives, a lot aren't). Unless and until this particular book gets significant academic coverage, it's undue weight to take this one more seriously than any of the others, particularly given that for her thesis to be true Theo and Gachet need to be lying. (The purported motivation for them to be lying—that family and friends were trying to downplay the injury—doesn't really stand up. "No, Vincent wasn't crazy, when he mutilated himself with a razor prior to being committed to a lunatic asylum and shooting himself in the chest, all while being so generally unpleasant that the locals actually went to the trouble of raising a petition to try to get him kicked out of town, he didn't sever the whole ear.") ‑ 
Iridescent
09:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
See also the Ghent Altarpiece, and but especially for sex related crackpot theories, mr Bosch. Ceoil (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I see that Arnold (2004, p.36) discounts schizophrenia, but I guess full-blown delusional paranoia can test the patience of even the closest friend. Number 16 in you list looks like a "must-read" (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
If you want to see how many times you can think "do people really pay money for this crap?" in a five minute period, follow some of the links here. (Despite the attempts to look official, a ropey fansite for VVG impersonators and not actually affiliated to the VG Museum in any way. I'm particularly taken with the idea that VVG was the first artist to come up with the idea of painting flowers, and with the notion that recreating The Starry Night in Lego is a perfectly normal thing to do.) ‑ 
Iridescent
14:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Nah, you're finkin' of dat Italian geezer. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Gauguin's account

I added Gauguin's account to the "December 1888" section that reads: " Gauguin reported that Van Gogh followed when Gauguin left the house for a walk, and "rushed towards me, an open razor in his hand."[134]"

Because I'm not certain how much weight we should give it, my inclination was to hedge heavily, ie. write something along the lines that "Biographer Sweetman explains that in his account, written 15 years after the fact, Gauguin claimed...." But this makes for difficult reading and it doesn't really dispel the fact that Gauguin claimed Vincent came after him with a razor.

For a few days I've been thinking maybe it should be deleted and about asking for opinions. The comments in the section above reinforce that opinion (and thanks Martin for bringing another perspective). We don't know what happened. All we do know is that it had been raining raining for days; Gauguin may have told Vincent he was leaving (I might check the letters on this point); they probably had an argument; Vincent self-mutilated himself.

A couple of threads above we have input with an expert opinion along the lines that often these sorts of episodes (whatever it might have been) aren't remembered. I guess my question is whether we should pull Gauguin's account, push it to a note, or leave it? If we leave it, we do give the impression that Gauguin was the victim when that might not be true at all. Pinging

Iridescent and Casliber for input. Thanks. Victoria (tk
) 14:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

  • IMO we should leave it with the according to _____15 years later Gauguin said....because Gauguin is such an important player here...Modernist (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep it in, provided there's a "15 years later, written when Gauguin himself was seriously ill" disclaimer. Even if he made the whole thing up (Gauguin wasn't the most mentally stable of people himself and Avant et Après is a bunch of disconnected incoherent ramblings which needs to be taken with a pinch of salt), it's significant that even VVG's close circle felt that by this stage he'd become a violent crackpot, and it isn't just a case of a bunch of uneducated French peasants failing to appreciate the genius in their midst and thus driving him over the edge. ‑ 
    Iridescent
    15:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to agree. Having just done major battle with templates and having reached the end of my tether, going offline for a while. If it hasn't been done, will add attributions, qualifications later. Victoria (tk) 15:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree basically, with Iridescent. Ceoil (talk) 16:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Me too. --John (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Evert Van Uitert, Louis Van Tilborgh and Sjaar Van Heugten (eds.) (1990)

Is this the right book? Are those the correct ISBNs? I think perhaps the other three editors (Johannes van der Wolk, Ronald Pickvance, E. B. F. Pey) were involved only in the book of drawings? But I think these two books were published in a two-volume set. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC) (But I'd favour what's printed on a book cover in front of me, over whatever appears on the internet, every single time.)

The one I have sitting in my lap makes no mention of volume one or two, but the internet sez, so it's certainly possible. Though I thought I could sneak in early in the morning to make these edits and maybe I'm a little bleary eyed, I doubt I'm overlooking it. Here's the g-book link, though that info is also not the same as the book sitting my lap. What I don't understand is why when someone goes out of their way to find and buy a book and use it to write an article they must automatically with a kneejerk reaction either not know what they're doing, not know how to read the copyright page right in front them without having to go to Worldcat of Google books, and automatically be wrong?? This is incredibly frustrating. Victoria (tk) 12:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it seems strange. I'm just very surprised that book doesn't have an 13-ISBN. The images at that g-books page aren't exactly helpful/convincing are they? I sometimes get more help looking at eBay. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC) p.s. should all journals/ publishers be linked in the sources section?

Lead imgs

In terms of meeting Johnbod's request re representational and recognisable images in the lead, are there are better examples to choose from than the Pieta. Maybe a cut from one of the galleries that are overlapping. This would solve two issues with one stroke. Ceoil (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I disagree, the Pieta represents a series of his paintings that we otherwise do not have in the article and it adds a certain historical depth to our view of his work...Modernist (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • But if you think about the stated request. Of course its important, but its not broadly representational; the Pieta is not meeting the expectations of an average reader. I think we have done well to get so far and have expended such energy defending so many images on a potential FAC, that to fall on keeping an example of an odd series as the second lead image would be counter productive. There are better images to push up front is all I mean. If we have to include, then maybe the sequencing has to be rethought. Modernist, my choice would be to promote one of the Almond paintings up there. Ceoil (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
This got lost in an edit conflict earlier, but adding it back in before calling it a night: On my monitor the sections with galleries that overlap into the next line are the flowers and the orchards. So we could move Souvenir de Mauve and either one sunflower or the irises up. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I like this, as it would give either painting more prominance. Ceoil (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I've made a test edit is here and the edit before too. We can boost up a little to match the size of the infobox and maybe only have a single image there? It's hard for me to tell now that I know everyone's monitor shows different sizes, (my laptop is 1280 x 800 and I have default displays set in preferences). Anyway, if we go this route, one suggestion would be to use File:Vincent van Gogh - Sunflowers - VGM F458.jpg which is a featured pic. Earlier today I drove past a field of sunflowers - we've had a hot sultry and wet summer, so they're huge and lovely and it made me think of this, so I thought I'd throw it out for discussion. Victoria (tk) 22:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Here's another test edit and I think it's my favorite version - for everyone's consideration so we can think about wrapping. Victoria (tk) 22:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Well they are all moving in the right direction. Personally, the portrait, followed by 1 with flowers and a landscape, would give the best at-a-glance summary of his range. One thing abiout a big TOC is that there is loads of empty width next to it. Johnbod (talk) 02:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Here's a version with 1 flower and a landscape. It doesn't look great on my screen, but here's the mobile view, which might be better depending on the device. I think if the images are less wide than the infobox they don't look great and if boosted they bleed into the next section, see this version. It's tricky to format!
Vase with Twelve Sunflowers (in a caption). But looking at the linked article Sunflowers (Van Gogh series), there is no painting with that title listed. Not sure if anything needs to be changed. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Maybe someone needs to count the flowers
??

I've revised the figure legends and used the standard titles as given in Walther and Metzger 1997. The National Gallery painting (which by chance I looked at this afternoon) apparently has 14 sunflowers not 12. I've also changed the description on Commons adding the catalogues raisonnés numbers. Aa77zz (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Does anything need to change at Sunflowers (Van Gogh series)? What does the catalogue raisonné say? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
... and how many flowers can you count here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Team work

I would like to say thanks to all that contributed here, to me the promotion brought teamwork at its best. We each; whether through knowledge, familiarity with the sources, standardising the refs, copy-editing the page from head to foot, eagle eyed cold watering, or detailed reviewing; we all brought to the table, and for such a substantial article, none of us could have survived without the other. It was emotional at times, but there you go Without wanting to sound like a twisted old fruit; well done and thank you very much to all involved. Ceoil (talk) 09:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Seconded, thanks to everyone who has contributed...Modernist (talk) 12:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Kudos to the nomination team of
WP:WAWARD
) 03:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vincent_van_Gogh/Archive_5&oldid=1079713205"