Talk:Vincent van Gogh

"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:

• Sillevis, John; Dorn, Roland; Winklbauer, Andrea (March 1996). Van Gogh und die Haager Schule. Wasmuth Ernst Verlag. ISBN 978-3-8030-3079-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Hmm, odd that it's in German. That looks right though. I can't get a preview to look at the source. Victoria (tk) 14:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
• Adding, in snippet view looks like the text is in Italian. I have Naifeh in hand. Page 262ish of that bio mentions Weissenbruck and De Brock, but not the other two. We might be able to swap out. Still looking. Victoria (tk) 14:33, 23 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)

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)

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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110727030913/http://www.vangoghmuseum.nl/vgm/index.jsp?page=4596&lang=en to http://www.vangoghmuseum.nl/vgm/index.jsp?page=4596&lang=en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110131033534/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/doubleissue/mysteries/portrait.htm to http://www.usnews.com/usnews/doubleissue/mysteries/portrait.htm

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

Y 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{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: [1]. 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, [2]. 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)

• It is properly referenced and it stays in the article....read this please WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, thank you...Modernist (talk) 03:55, 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)

• I think we should keep it; along with the other theories, personally I do not entirely trust Naifeh and Smith's version either. Essentially speculation albeit well - written speculation; with a commercial spin...Modernist (talk) 13:43, 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)

• In the news - [3]...Modernist (talk) 15:39, 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 Modernist, @Ceoil and Kafka Liz:, 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)

• Victoriaearle We is us...Modernist (talk) 12:57, 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)

Text squashing

Is anyone else bothered by this? Gaugin's visit is a particularly egregious example, with the multi image box smashing against a standard thumbnail. However many of the multi image boxes on their own exceed recommended sizes per 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)

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)

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...Modernist (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• Perhaps the postman didn't have syphilis. ;-)  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)

"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 [4] 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, [5]. 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. Cassianto^Talk 21:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• It's fixed...Modernist (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Cassianto^Talk 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. Cassianto^Talk 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? Cassianto^Talk 18:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Nowadays that is a good rule of thumb, yes. --John (talk) 18:43, 9 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.

• Re Van Gogh had no recollection of the event, suggesting that he had may have suffered an acute psychotic episode, I have hedged strongly and attributed to Naifeh and Smith. However - they do no use the word psychosis, nor does Sweetman. Those are the only biographies I have at hand. If anyone has Hulsker, Rewald, Traubualt, or Pickvance, we might be able to pin on any of them. If we can't I'm wondering whether it's a word we should be using, and pinging Casliber to weigh in (I'll post to his page too). According the bios I do have at hand Van Gogh claimed to be suffering from hallucinations. This is also when Dr Rey came up with the diagnosis of a "kind of epilepsy", a mental epilepsy, which was apparently based on Bénédict Morel's Degeneration theory. I've not mentioned any of this but wondering if it should be added and would welcome Casliber's advice (way out of my comfort zone!) [Note: psychosis now removed]
• I've commented out thIs sentence: "Family letters of the time make it clear that the breakdown had not been unexpected.{{sfnp|Van Gogh|2009|loc=Concordance, lists, bibliography: Documentation. It is sourced to a Concordance of letters, very difficult to navigate and find which specific one/s is/are cited. My suggestion is we add at least a date to whichever letter/s cited. [note: now removed from the article]
• Right now the article says Theo went to Arles on Dec 27; the two sources I have say he left immediately and was in Arles on Christmas day. So this needs to be checked in Rewald, I'm fine going with whatever is in that source. Theo's engagement is important in the context that he had only been engaged for a day (if he left Paris 24 Dec per Sweetman and Naifeh and Smith) and was less than thrilled at having to leave Paris at that moment. Not sure if it's worth spinning that out in the article or not, so I'm putting it up for discussion. For now I've left it in the note, which imo works fine too.

• 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)

• Sorry Vic...Modernist (talk) 20:37, 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)

• In medicine we have the meme/adage/saying/observation that "common things occur commonly" - STDs were common and many had long term sequelae. If his sister committed suicide it does make me suspicious of abuse/trauma history and personality issues or mood disorder. Alcohol and absinthe have well-documented serious health issues. I have no idea how much confirmation there is of family illnesses and that would be very good to have in the daughter article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:29, 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, Modernist, which was not examined in the documentary. And I realise this kind of book and television show are viewed with irritated disdain by 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 Modernist, Ceoil, John, 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)

• Me three. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Vase with Twelve Sunflowers

The article has Still Life: Vase with Twelve Sunflowers (in the text), Vase with Twelve Sunflowers (in a caption) and 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)

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! Victoria (tk) 15:30, 11 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 Modernist, Ceoil, Victoriaearle and John. My 48 edits back in 2009 and 2010 still land me in the top 10 on this page, holding down the last spot on the pie chart in the Revision history statistics. The article I was involved in is a shadow of this fine work, but I am glad to see good editors come together to help this article achieve its potential.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See this section above: [6]. It's really all settled. And I have no intention of discussing the state of Theo's penis with Jenny. Thanks for popping up. Victoria (tk) 03:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Lead - "became interested in the French Impressionists"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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