Talk:Vincent van Gogh
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vincent van Gogh article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|||
| Article policies
|
||
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | |||
| Vincent van Gogh has been listed as a level-3 vital article in People. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as FA-Class. |
| This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, realise, defence, artefact), and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
| This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|

| This article is one of 1,000 core topics of Wikipedia. All core topics should be Featured Articles in the future. Help achieving that level is welcome. |
| This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 1 month may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. |
Contents
You have a mistake[edit]
you confuse left and right with his brother, 1.Vincent looks like Vincent in other photos, 2. read how Earthlings define left and right when analyzing photographies - we say what we look,
(but when dancers turn, officially we say how they feel they turn, not how we look them, because the turning technique is a standardized motion, thus an ideal reference to it and not to what we see exists)
Coordinates[edit]
{{geodata-check}}
The following coordinate from ixes are needed for
—2600:387:3:805:0:0:0:AD (talk) 12:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC) Of
Done. I've adjusted the coordinates of his tomb, which are the only ones in the article. Deor (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Death or Accidental Homicide?[edit]
There is legitimate question as to whether Van Gogh committed suicide. Rather, there is credible suspicion that he was shot by Gaston and René Secrétan, two boys playing with a gun -- whom Van Gogh unselfishly protected by silence. At a strictly forensic level, the case cannot be considered closed, and Wikipedia writers should not prejudge the matter. Van Gogh's alleged suicide is accepted uncritically because it fits with 20th century romantic notions of the painter, not because hard evidence decisively settles the issue. I cannot locate any news story that refutes the accidental homicide hypothesis.
Readers are entitled to at least know there is controversy.
http://www.dailyartdaily.com/mystery-vincent-van-gogh-death/ Practical321 (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- There are sources about the alternative theory. However, reliable sources about van Gogh do not give the alternative theory much weight. As a result, neither should we. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
If the alternative sources do not have much weight, as you mention, why is there no counter to the Controversy of Naifeh and Smith biography in wikipedia's article on Van Gogh's death? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Vincent_van_Gogh The two pages in Wikipedia seem to support two different theories... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.80.29 (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Degenerate art[edit]
Could it be mentioned that van Gogh's art was considered degenerate by Hitler and his Nazis? Proper sources, however, are probably not easy to find (something like this would not pass, wouldn't it?).--Adûnâi (talk) 08:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Good idea. Degenerate art already mentions van Gogh and gives a source of Adam, Peter (1992). Art of the Third Reich. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc. ISBN 0-8109-1912-5, pp. 121–122. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes a sentence or two would be very interesting to readers. Modernist you have the best grasp of the sources on legacy, but I can do also if needed. Ceoil (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- I don't agree with the inclusion; it's beyond irrelevant. This was an exhibition (the Degenerate Art show) that Vincent was not included in; and that espoused a philosophy based on hatred, ignorance, and racism; it most certainly should not be included in this article about an artist who died long before those morons gained power in Germany. It's far more relevant that the Germans were instrumental to Van Gogh's international success by showing his work and publishing his letters in the early years of the 20th century...Modernist (talk) 01:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes a sentence or two would be very interesting to readers. Modernist you have the best grasp of the sources on legacy, but I can do also if needed. Ceoil (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Avoiding Romanticizing His Last Words[edit]
Maybe when talking about Van Gogh's final words, it could be contextualized as a preventable mistake made by someone who was struggling with alcoholism, mental illness, and deprivation. Maybe even include a note with links to mental health/suicide prevention services with the article? I would suggest consulting with a psychiatrist about the wording of the article if possible. It is a wonderful article, but media depiction of suicide can have such a profound impact that it is always good to exercise extra caution when covering it.
www.samaritans.org/sites/default/files/kcfinder/files/Samaritans%20Media%20Guidelines%20UK%20Apr17_Final%20web%281%29.pdf
I realize you aren't a journalism site, but so many people resonant with Van Gogh and so many young people are exposed to the story I thought the principles of the article could be helpful. And there are many more sites out there that are also helpful about how to cover suicide
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amstanton (talk • contribs) 22:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Amstanton: Wikipedia simply reports verifiable information about notable subjects. We do not provide advice, warnings, etc. - SummerPhDv2.0 23:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Amstanton: Wikipedia is not the place to craft van Gogh's death into an edifying tragedy ("contextualized as a preventable mistake made by someone who was struggling with alcoholism, mental illness, and deprivation"). He did what he did, said what he said, then died. If you would like to present that as a horrible mistake, the result of mental illness, the end game of alcoholism or anything else, this is not the place. Write a blog. Talk to a friend. Whatever. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Our pedagogical intent begins and ends with simple, verifiable facts. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- Or find a expert source that presents such an analysis and provide a quote from them? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- WP:WEIGHT would be an issue. With (literally) millions of pages of sources on van Gogh available, pulling a statement out of context and adding it to the article is a WP:POV problem waiting to happen. Imagine the article we could construct in such a way on any major politician in the world. Depending on the opinion you would like to push, we can make any major figure look like a vile despot or the savior of the world.
- There are always sources discussing an issue -- suicide, bladder control, vegetarianism, whatever -- using well-known people as examples. Such coverage shows only that the person writing on the issue is pulling together threads to weave their narrative. Instead, we would need substantial coverage in reliable sources discussing the issue in the context of discussing van Gogh. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- His last words are a little ambiguous. I'd have no problem with a small sourced addition. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- If the statement is ambiguous, there are likely multiple interpretations. An editor predisposed to use the article as a soapbox is likely to select one based on their POV, an obvious source of bias. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- I've no idea how many sources there are to choose from. If a respected critic made a comment on them, I'd be prepared to add a mention. I'm not "an editor predisposed to use the article as a soapbox" (as far as I know)? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- Amstanton clearly has decided to use the article to promote an agenda.
- After a quick search at scholar.google.com, the first few results came up with four different interpretations:
- 1) If he survived, he would remain sad.
- 2) If he died, he will remain sad in an afterlife.
- 3) If he dies, it will cause sadness among those close to him.
- 4) If he dies, his (purported) killer will remain sad.
- I have little doubt there are numerous other possibilities. None of the sources really made much of the statement, at most giving the statement in French with an English translation and, sometimes, his bother's equally ambiguous comment. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- I've no idea how many sources there are to choose from. If a respected critic made a comment on them, I'd be prepared to add a mention. I'm not "an editor predisposed to use the article as a soapbox" (as far as I know)? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- If the statement is ambiguous, there are likely multiple interpretations. An editor predisposed to use the article as a soapbox is likely to select one based on their POV, an obvious source of bias. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- His last words are a little ambiguous. I'd have no problem with a small sourced addition. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- Or find a expert source that presents such an analysis and provide a quote from them? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- Amstanton: Wikipedia is not the place to craft van Gogh's death into an edifying tragedy ("contextualized as a preventable mistake made by someone who was struggling with alcoholism, mental illness, and deprivation"). He did what he did, said what he said, then died. If you would like to present that as a horrible mistake, the result of mental illness, the end game of alcoholism or anything else, this is not the place. Write a blog. Talk to a friend. Whatever. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Our pedagogical intent begins and ends with simple, verifiable facts. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks for looking. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2018[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Per "Mysteries of the Museum" episode aired on May 24, 2018, Van Gogh may have very well been murdered and did NOT commit suicide. 2605:6000:160C:5AF0:0:2808:636D:4A90 (talk) 03:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 03:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia level-3 vital articles in People
- Wikipedia FA-Class vital articles in People
- Wikipedia FA-Class level-3 vital articles
- Wikipedia articles that use British English
- Wikipedia featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- FA-Class biography articles
- FA-Class biography (core) articles
- Core biography articles
- Top-importance biography articles
- FA-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Top-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Arts and entertainment work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- FA-Class Netherlands articles
- Netherlands Todays FA
- FA-Class visual arts articles
- WikiProject Visual arts articles
- FA-Class Version 1.0 articles
- Top-importance Version 1.0 articles
- Arts Version 1.0 articles
- Wikipedia CD Selection
- FA-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia Version 1.0 vital articles
- FA-Class core topic supplement articles
- Wikipedia Version 1.0 core topic supplement articles
- Wikipedia Version 1.0 articles
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press