Talk:Vincent van Gogh/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



I'd like to start tidying the sources and bibliography. Any objections to combining the bibliographic entries so we don't have two sections? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If you think it matters, all under one heading - General, biographical and art historical...Modernist (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I think if the sources are there, it's easier to scan only a single alphabetical list instead of two. But that might be a problem only a I have, so I thought I raise it. It's not really all that important. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I had wondered why there were two lists - having obtained the name of the author in the "References" section one has to scan both lists. In fact it is unclear to me why some publications are in one list rather than the other. I believe that having a single list would be preferable.
Another comment on the references. How widely available are exhibition catalogues of earlier exhibitions? They may be "reliable" but if they are not available in a standard university library then the information becomes difficult to verify. For some of the info in the article, I suspect that more accessible but equally reliable sources could be used. Aa77zz (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback Aa77zz - that's my feeling too. The sources need tidying and I want to start somewhere. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I kind of like the separate designations actually. Is it really that confusing or difficult?...Modernist (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
No, not really. I haven't looked at it yet on my desktop with the big monitor, but on the laptop I have to do a lot scrolling to get from a ref in the references and then find the correct source. So, in that sense, it's a bit annoying. But let's see what others say. The other question I have, some sources seem to be both biographical and art historical - so how does one know how to designate. Or do they go to both? Just wondering. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Lets not put any of them in both lists, I think that would be really confusing...Modernist (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Many of them are there since before my time on the page, which is a while ago, and many of them are not used. Also, Im not sure its always an accurate distenction, or helpful. You can usually tell by the publisher anyway. More useful would be to split into sources (used), and further reading (not used). In other news, I'll like to replace all the web cites with book sources (not goolge book sources mind), with the exception of webcites for the letters. I have Pomerans, and could cite the letters to him, but I dont theink there is much point, better to have them accessable. But where its not a direct quote, or where the quote is used to prove something that is grey or open to intrepatation, I would try and reduce the reliance on such primiary material. Ceoil 21:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Re the letters, I have Pomerans too and some of his chapter headings are useful, but agree the online letters should be used. A couple of things about this: first, it's really best not always to use the letters (primary source) but instead a secondary source that interprets the letters. I think if we can do that we might have to link to both, instead of doing the qtd in thing, link to the secondary source & to the letter, if this makes any sense. Second, the letters are quite beautiful and are a nice story - I'd like to make a page for the letters, the background, when & how they were published, etc. Won't get to immediately but when it's done, we can trim the letters section here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Grand, webcites for dry fact from letters only, secondary sources otherwise, but we keep the sourcing of qoutes to the webcites source. It would be the only web source I'd let in though, given the amount of art historical material out there; and relying on poorly PR'd and recent journal research, news articles or google bits would be a bad idea IMO. And we have a lot of that. Ceoil 01:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
We do have a lot of that. I've decided to ignore and think I'll just replace once I start writing. That's how I went through Hemingway & Pound - overwrote what was in place and pruned out sources I didn't want as I went along. I think it saves a bit of time, but doesn't really matter how it's done as long as we lean on good sources. I think Hulsker is also very good for dry fact - he gives more information than any of the other biographies I've looked at, but not as much context. Context has to be woven in from other sources. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Self-portrait by van Gogh actually a portrait of Theo?

According to some media accounts, the van Gogh Museum has said that a self-portrait previously believed to portray the artist is now believed to capture the likeness of his brother, Theo. I was going to post the link to EL but thought I'd raise the issue here as well. I'll leave it to the van Gogh-a-philes to sort out the mystery.[1] MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I was reading about this a few weeks ago [2] and the painting is included and labeled here: [3] and here [4]...Modernist (talk) 03:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


I think we need it...Modernist (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Please join the treathed discussion above where reasons for its removal were given. You can give your reasons for keeping there. Ceoil 21:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Lets make the discussion clear about getting a consensus. Earlier discussion was about images. Glrx (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep the infobox. It gives the article a similar look and feel to other articles. The redundancy does not hurt the article. Glrx (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep see my remarks above [5], To reiterate and clarify - I think every article is unique and although I have opposed using infoboxes at other articles; in this particular article it's both necessary and desirable...Modernist (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I replaced the box - see Edouard Manet, Edgar Degas, Mary Cassatt, Claude Monet, Paul Cezanne, Camille Pissarro, Pablo Picasso, Henri Matisse, Auguste Renoir, Georges Seurat, Paul Gauguin...Modernist (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm usually no fan of inboxes, as they often tend to reduce complex subjects to the sheerest outline, and can be a hindrance to presentation. In this case, though, I think Modernist is right. Not only is it consistent with other subjects, but it's a fairly indispensable way of giving a quick overview to folks who may be coming here for their first taste of the subject. MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep per Modernist and MarmadukePercy. Visually, an infobox isn't inappropriate or jarring in an article that has numerous multiple image boxes, i.e., that's already visually busy and structurally complex. JNW (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment, no problem now with keeping, was being bold but concensus from people I respect is against me, so end of story. Ceoil 19:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've remained neutral on this issue (as well as the others), but can't help but mention the sentence fragment below Vince's portrait. I'd prefer "This was Van Gogh's last self portrait, given as a birthday gift to his mother.", but perhaps that's the (former) English major in me.--Chimino (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey, correct the sentence ...Modernist (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Done.--Chimino (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


This has been lightly discussed up page a little, but I want it to have its own section - in my view we need to go to the best scholarly sources if this is to have a chance at FAC. From what I can tell Hulsker is well regarded as a biography, and Pomerans has many interpretive sections interspersed between the letters. I'd consider the letters a primary source and best avoided unless a secondary source points to them. Also, I think we should avoid using Jo van Gogh's biography. Aside from the fact that it was written over a century ago, Hulsker questions the reliability, so it's best to use the most recent scholarship. I do have hardcopy books at hand now, and once the bare bones are laid down will begin to flesh out with pdf files. I'll email the pdfs around; and if anyone sees something we should use, I can download. Thoughts? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I have Hulsker, Jan. The Complete Van Gogh and I've used it often as a source, as well as Tralbaut, Marc Edo. Vincent van Gogh, however I think the visions of Johanna are invaluable and should be used as well...Modernist (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it should be treated as a primary source since all the subsequent biographers lean on it, and instead use the secondary sources (more recent biographies), with references to Johanna where necessary. Hulsker is very clear that in some cased Johanna is unreliable, will try to pull some page numbers for examples. Also, just adding here, I've clicked into the van Gogh family article and am seeing copyvio issues. These are things that need to be weeded out before this article goes anywhere, imo. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Because we have so many subarticles we have the luxury to shove things there and expand to our heart's content, though in my estimation some of those pages are in need of clean- up. Here, where word count will become a factor if we are to do Vincent justice, we should use summary style as much as possible. For me at least, that's easier if I'm summarizing a large page range from a biographer; not as easy when a sentence or para is summarized from a websource. Just saying. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can find we only use the visions of Johanna once in a ref and that is also confirmed by Erickson, and Traulbut's family tree on p.27...Modernist (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I do not entirely agree with TK that summarising is such an important issue at this stage, although I realise it is one of the factors requiring attention in articles to be reviewed for FA. For me, the most important factors are maintaining the correct perpective and balance throughout the article, ensuring that all major developments are covered and verifying the objectivity of the sources consulted, i.e. not simply citing them. It also appears to me that there are probably a number of additional sources which could be tapped, especially from VvG's letters and responses to them. Finally, I think it would be useful to expand coverage of how and why the low level of appreciation of the artist's work during his lifetime increased appreciably after his death and has continued to do so right up to the present. There must be a number of recent resources here that could be researched. The article Posthumous fame of Vincent van Gogh goes into some of this but it is not very smoothly written and perhaps does not convey the right level of emphasis. I would be interested to hear if others agree with this. In the light of the numerous discussions on the article, I have hesitated to work on its content but may be tempted to do so if progress remains more or less at a standstill. - Ipigott (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I am currently thinking about an essay Clement Greenberg wrote about how basically Vincent died too young. In other words and ironically perhaps his fame and his commercial success began to kick in at about the right age it usually does for most artists. If by 1900-1910 say (when things began to blossom for his work) - if VvG had lived he would have been 47-57 and in the decade from 1910 to 1920 VvG and several of his deceased contemporaries including Gauguin and Cezanne began to attract widespread fame and admiration. I'm looking for Greenberg's essay and thinking about the terrific essay John Rewald published about VvG's posthumous success...Modernist (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that idea (as well as that stated by Ipigott above) is on the right track, if this article is to be expanded further, or at all. Much of VG's appeal, besides the innovative nature of the work itself, is the fact he died before he actually personally realised the effect of his greatness.
There has been alot of back and forth as to what will make the article "FAC-worthy", but in the end, I believe the intent of it all should be educating the public on the article's subject.--Chimino (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
We also have this article Posthumous fame of Vincent van Gogh that can include the Clement Greenberg hypothesis as well as more expansion, by the way I've said on more than one occassion my priority is the article and the art, not FAC...Modernist (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


It's been agreed to use Van Gogh...Modernist (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The atmospere is so toxic and resistant here, Im not even going to bother posting on this talk after this. This is my last word on this talk page...Modernist Wikipedia is an ency, not a picture book, its text based. And sources should ideally be secondary, not primarily, and not from the first google return. And the article text sould follow the capitilaisation conventions of the title, and majority of sources and the logic of language, and I should not have to put up with blind reverts that erased other edits, from a friend, along with non thinking talk comments like It's been agreed. There is a lot of copy-vio in the article; adherance to non cut and paste sources and not using sources that current editors do not have and cannot stand over will eliminate this. Hence, sources vs further reading. There is much more I could say, but I'll just stick with the page, ignoring the gang here who seem more preoccupied with preservation and Carol than anything else. Drama is a sink and I have others things to be doing than massaging undeserved egos. Ceoil 00:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Per [6], [7], and this comment by Joost - I'll try and give some logic for the Dutch choosing "Van Gogh" over "van Gogh" (although I'm not saying Dutch rules should apply on the English Wikipedia....): Van means "of" (a preposition), so capitalizing the van, makes sure while reading a sentence you immediately identify it as a name and don't mistake it for the preposition. It's an extra help when reading. Hence Vincent van Gogh, and Van Gogh, both names, and both beginning with a capital. So in Dutch it is: Edwin van der Sar, and Van der Sar, with a small "der", because capitalizing that part wouldn't add anything. That's at least how I've learnt it, so question is does that help in English. and The Complete Van Gogh by Jan Hulsker, among others...Modernist (talk) 02:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
This is an old argument, some sources used Van Gogh, some van Gogh. I used van Gogh initially, then in agreement with Tyrenius and other editors it was agreed to use Van Gogh, then there were various other discussions and Van Gogh was the agreed upon use. I have worked this page for a long time - I think it's encyclopedic if you don't and if you think its a picture book then we disagree...Modernist (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is what we make it and it's consensus based...Modernist (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Worked a long time means nothing to me M, poor defence, and as if I just turned up on the article having done nothing here before. Who are you talking to. And equating 'some sources' [unnamed] with 'some other' [unnamed] is trite. I'll formuate an agrument for lower case, give me time. Ceoil 02:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't really care - lower case, upper case it doesn't really matter to me because we can justify either way - I want an agreement - one or the other and we stick to it. I own 2 major Biographies the Jan Hulsker and Vincent Van Gogh by Marc Edo Tralbaut and they are split, I own two or three books by Pickvance and he uses 'van Gogh' and my Irving Stone uses Van Gogh. I probably have other books around - I own 3 by Rewald but I haven't looked, because its absurd. We just need to make a decision...Modernist (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Thats a good argument, finally. I flicked through two of four I have to hand tonight noy put away, two read recently, two from series of essays re-read in the last two months (Sund, McQuilla, Sylvester, Hughes). And then journal articles, or from a few years ago, and books I've bought but not touched. I scored four out of 4 for lowercase, low odds sure. But I know from living in Holland in 2007/2008 than caps for any 'son of' or deritiave or whatever in dutch looks odd capitalised, Rogier Van der Weyden? Ceoil 03:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Rewald is van Gogh, what do you want to use?...Modernist (talk) 03:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Willem de Kooning is another mind bender by the way...Modernist (talk) 03:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd let this go except it betrays a pattern here, but yeah de Kooning is excellent. It took me a long time to get him. 03:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I will change them all back to van Gogh - that's one for you (and actually what I was using a few months ago)...Modernist (talk) 03:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
No, I can do it, if it comes to it. It takes about an hour and a half on wiki, but 1 second on a text editor with a find and replace function. Dont bother man. Ceoil 03:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
The Museum uses lower-cased, FWIW, except when beginning a sentence or title with simply "Van Gogh". As they seem to be the go-to source on so much else related to Vince, should they be the standard? Either way I agree there should be consensus, and it should start from the title of the page on down...--Chimino (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Done, I did it by hand so as to once again go through the whole article - it's been awhile since I did that...Modernist (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
FWIW - it took me the longest time to figure out why the title didn't match the name in the text. Had to read the talk page a few times. I think this is a very positive change. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • This seems to me to be a step in the wrong direction and despite the above comments is certainly not consistent with modern Dutch usage. In general, Wikipedia tends to favour reproducing the national usage for proper names, even to the extent of sorting by first name in Icelandic, for example. Van Gogh is certainly the best known Dutch "Van". It is therefore important that his name should be represented correctly. See the Dutch name article: "In the Netherlands, these prefixes are not spelled with a capital when used in combination with the first name or initial, for example Piet de Wolf or R. van Rijn. In all other cases a capital letter must be used, for example, de heer Van Kampen, or when preceded by an academic title as in dr. Van Wijk." Having worked widely with international organizations over the years, I can confirm that this is also the usage generally adopted in English. I also see that the case of Van Gogh is specifically mentioned in Van (Dutch): "The "v" is written in lower case, except if the first name or initials are omitted, in which case it is capitalised, as in "de schilder Van Gogh" ("the painter Van Gogh") or "de heer Van Teylingen" ("Mister Van Teylingen")." So before adopting "van Gogh" in all cases, I would strongly advise further research on the matter rather than relying on the kind of personal preferences voiced on this talk page. - Ipigott (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I see your point; for example:[8] he is consistently referred to as "Van Gogh", except in conjunction with his first name, which is consistently "Vincent van Gogh".--Chimino (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. This was the approach used before the last revision. I hope there will be support for reimplementing it. If we lose out on Van Gogh, it will be difficult to insist on correct usage for other Dutch names. - Ipigott (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me this a Wikipedia broad issue, there are multiple articles of Dutch people with the same issue and inconsistent use of capitals in the prefix. Maybe this is something that should be decided outside the Van Gogh article. First to decide wether or not to follow Dutch (sur)naming conventions for Dutch people within article texts. And if not, then probably to decide per article which form is used (and to stick to it...). Following Dutch rules will cause some confusion but will also provide consistency (personally I don't care which form is used, as long as discussions like this don't keep resurfacing). Joost 99 (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
As I have said before - I am neutral as to which one we use - But before we go further we need to reach an agreement with everyone who has been working here...Modernist (talk) 11:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Ceoil and Truthkeeper are in favor of using van Gogh because most of the reliable art historical sources use van Gogh...Modernist (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree that this needs to be agreed before moving forward.A random sampling of scholarly material on JSTOR shows van Gogh, Vincent, van Gogh, and Van Gogh. However the sources tend to lean more toward the small v. Honestly, when I first read the page the name was confusing to me; I couldn't understand why the title was Vincent van Gogh, but article used Van Gogh. I had to read the talkpage a few time to understand the logic. I don't think we should expect that the casual reader will look to the talk page - in most casual readers don't know talk pages exist, so I think it should be as simple as possible. I know that some Swiss names beginning with "von" are sometimes capitalized, sometimes not, and am wondering whether this is the case here, but that's irrelevant, honestly. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Our own Wikipedia seems to make it quite clear here and here. The argument presented by Ipigott holds up.--Chimino (talk) 13:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Here are the main contributors to the page [9]. You guys duke it out - I'm only a blip and only wanted to make clear it was confusing to the lay person - that's why I thought it was positive. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I will either reverse myself or we will leave it as is when we decide here...Modernist (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

van Gogh or Van Gogh

Van Gogh

van Gogh

  • Pickvance
  • Rewald
  • Traulbaut
  • Walther & Metzger - Aa77zz (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Hughes - The Portable van Gogh Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Silverman, Debora. Van Gogh and Gauguin (title is all caps) uses small v in text. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Erickson, Kathleen Powers. At Eternity's Gate: The Spiritual Vision Of Vincent Van Gogh Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Boston Museum of Fine Arts [16]

Consensus: van Gogh or Van Gogh

  • Van Gogh. Capitalization rule might be mentioned in a footnote for curious reader. Topic debated before. Little reason to change. Understand rule can throw ough off automatic citations. Glrx (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm making the change...Modernist (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I went over to the Dutch WP to see how it capitalizes the name, and it appears to use "Van Gogh". There was even an amusing version of hint rule above because there was a doubled "van":
"De Duitse kunstwetenschappers vinden steun voor hun stelling in de laatste brief van Van Gogh aan Gauguin."
("The German art scientists find support for their objective in the last letter from Van Gogh to Gauguin.")
Glrx (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Am I correct in assuming that it is agreed that one writes Vincent van Gogh rather than Vincent Van Gogh, the uc/lc issue is only when the first name is omitted? Aa77zz (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

We are writing - Vincent van Gogh, Van Gogh (unless we decide to use van Gogh) and in some cases in proximity to his close family Vincent...Modernist (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Modernist, I see you reversed yourself shortly after writing this, but overwhelming consensus (particuarly from Dutch sources) appears to be as you state it above.--Chimino (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me to be just about fifty fifty with the preponderance of scholars leaning toward van Gogh. I'll change it again if we can find an overwhelming majority of published accounts that demonstrate the other, I'd like to see more experts work...Modernist (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


Unbelievable. Vans and des and so on are called Tussenvoegsels and that article describes their use in Holland:

  • According to Dutch language rules in the Netherlands, the tussenvoegsel in a surname is written with a capital letter only when it is not preceded by a first name or initial. So referring to a Peter whose surname is "De Vries" we write "meneer De Vries" (Mr. De Vries), but "Peter de Vries" and "P. de Vries".

In Belgium they always keep the capitalisation, but Vincent wasn't Belgian.

Bottom line: Modernist is quite right. (Glrx's comment above very salient as well). FightingMac (talk) 09:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Citation style

I personally think that this article would really benefit from changing its style to Template:sfn. By the way, it is a brilliant article and is someone going to nominate it for FAC? TGilmour (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Citation styles are not changed, per WP:CITEHOW. The style first introduced in an article is retained, unless consensus is achieved to change. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I defer to Truthkeeper and Ceoil as to citation styles, whatever they prefer...Modernist (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose sfn. The current citation style is mixed. SFN is essentially used for some repeated references, and some refs are placed in the footnote. I don't see that mixed style as bad, so I would not fix it. I don't see a benefit to consistency. SFN has the problem of always being a double indirect to find the actual source. Mixed style only needs a double indirect for a multi-citation.
Support using Citation templates in the reference section. The visual appearance of the citations would be roughly the same. The change would enforce consistency (not a problem in this article) and allow some bots to examine/edit/expand the citations. WP:CITEHOW#Citation templates and tools is quasi-indifferent to such a change when a specific citation format has not been adopted; the policy does allow other editors to object.
Glrx (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Just as an FYI, the person who started this thread has been blocked indef as a sockpuppet. Re citation templates, per WP:CITEHOW the existing citation style should be retained. Would prefer not to work with templates on a page of this size and scope. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Truthkeeper and retaining the current style makes sense for editing clarity given the complexity of the article...Modernist (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll probably be going through slowly tidying citations and making a consistent style, checking links, etc. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think the French article (an FA) has a very clear citation style. I haven't looked at it in detail but it achieves its effect I think by Grouping references. So you find Hulsker references all in one place, for example. The letters are especially well referenced I think. Can we perhaps move to that style? They're frankly a bit of a mess here at the moment. FightingMac (talk) 08:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I had a look at the French version and we don't do anything like that here. Keeping in mind that this is not yet a Featured article, have a look at these three that are: Caspar David Friedrich, Anne Frank, Edmund Evans. Citations styles vary, but to change requires consensus. Also, because anyone can edit, people come along and drop in sentences here and there without regard to citation styles. We need to tidy a bit, and I've started that process, but per policy we need to stay with the style we have. You might want to have a look at candidate featured articles, and reviews, at WP:FAC to see variances in citations styles, and how consistency is the overriding requirement. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Fine. I was just saying I thought the French looked rather well. Anne Frank is one of the articles I occasionally contribute to. Of course it's reference style is fine. Really I don't see why we can't group authors. FightingMac (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Are you kidding? Anne Frank is one of the articles I occasionally contribute to. I see one edit - May 27, of one sentence, about the Netherlands canon, and then five or six corrections to the same sentence promoting the Netherlands program - not one word about Anne Frank on May 30 or on May 27...Modernist (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm not kidding, Modernist, and I thought I would just mention it in case I ever go back FightingMac (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I am beginning to doubt the relevancy of the Netherlands canon to this article...Modernist (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
To Anne Frank or here? Discussed here at Talk:Vincent_van_Gogh#Canon_of_Dutch_History. Seems a consensus reached there for it. You yourself put it in. But it's not something I'm fantastically committed to. Pretty sure Vincent would have liked it. I spent quite a lot of time doing the Canon of Dutch History translation incidentally. I do lot of translation work in Wikipedia. It's not all picking quarrels on talk pages as you seem to think. What would your doubts be now BTW?I mean what's changed in your thinking to bring you to this pass? FightingMac (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
This is an article about the life and the work of an artist, and while the canon appears to be useful to the 11 to 14 year old students in the education system in the Netherlands, I 'm rethinking whether or not it matters to this article, I am ambivalent at this point, articles get built as they grow...Modernist (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
The point is that the Canon is the course of History study that 11-14 year olds in Holland undertake and if that's not legacy and not notable I don't know what is. FightingMac (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
We don't do this with biographies of authors who are taught in schools, fwiw. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I've never seen it done in an English language style sheet such as MLA which is most often used for the humanities. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 25 July 2011

Vincent Van Gogh liked to paint post - impressionism

According to this source, Van Gogh did not kill himself. Please verify. (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Jnorton7558 (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Links to archived discussions

Severely dark discussions here, and here to the end of the page. Easier to do this than untwist the archives. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Mad Vincent

In the Death section there is a sentence that commences "[Although] he had been troubled by mental illness throughout his life ..." and this assertion had been tagged with a {{Citation needed}} template. Truthkeeper88 removed this template and replaced it with a citation referencing "Pomerans, Arnold. The Letters of Vincent van Gogh, xix".

However, at the page cited I read only this:"Throughout his life, admittedly, his letters bear witness to a man possessed, frequently agitated, enraged, dejected, obsessed, but never deranged, or emotionally or intellectually unstable." There are some additional remarks about Vincent's attitude to mental illness in artists but there is nothing, on the face of it, that cites Vincent as troubled by mental illness throughout his lfe. Indeed scholars generally agree that his symptoms of mental illness only surfaced in Paris in 1886, that is to say manifested themselves only in the last four years of his life.

Can we have an explanation please of this remarkably cavalier treatment of a respected source? Immy69 (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

hmmm....--Chimino (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
It was another sock, [17]. An overview biography would be helpful for statements like those, instead of picking through the hundreds/thousands of pages of source material I've amassed.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Sock or not, there seems to be some truth in the statement. Perhaps it's worth looking into? Some accounts refer to his mental illness starting only in 1888. Any other opinions on this? - Ipigott (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
It is worth looking into, but I didn't want to respond to the sock. I threw in a source when a cn tag was added, during a particularly bad week and obviously did a sloppy job of it. I've said before, the page needs to have the sources upgraded. I have lots of books now and will do what I can as soon as I get the time. In the meantime, go ahead and remove the source and re-add the cn tag. Huslker and others mention his illness as early as his boyhood - the incidents when, for example, he left school for unexplained reasons. It simply all needs to be put together and that requires time I don't immediately have. As for the sock, no I don't think we should jump to immediate demands. The is no deadline. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Just to add - Pomerans is very clear that he's discussing the mental illness as reflected or not in the letters. But I really think we can only feed a troll so much. Sorry if I'm being curt. I'll remove the section myself and let others deal with it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
There is certainly no rush on this. Just take your time. I totally agree with you that more needs to be done on upgrading the sources. If you are prepared to take the time and trouble to help out with all this, so much the better. I'm sure the article will benefit greatly. - Ipigott (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
My time if fairly limited at the moment. Have just done a quick database search. This article I don't have access to, but another by Arnold, same title, I'm attempting to download - am having some problems. In that the author says the illness was well manifested as early as 1880 when Vincent's father wanted him to be institionalized. So more than two years. When I'm successful with the download, I'll post more - have only scanned the first 2 pages of 23. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
But this is surely original research which I thought Wikipedia discouraged? The situation is exactly as the first contributor describes it. There is no history of mental illness that Van Gogh suffered all his life, although numerous commentators have tried to establish one. His childhood and teens were entirely normal. He faced a breakdown in his spirits, suggesting the melancholic temperament of many creative geniuses, in his early twenties, but overt symptoms of mental illness did not display themselves before his Paris period commencing 1886 and indeed arguably, as another contributor suggests here, not before 1888.
You also duck the issue raised by the first contributor and that is to provide an explanation for misrepresenting a hugely well respected source in the way you do. It's hard to believe that was merely 'sloppiness'. What is your agenda please? What are your credentials in Van Gogh scholarship please? I am struck by the numerals '88' at the end of your username. What does that signify please? HGademann (talk) 00:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC) sock account now blocked. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
It's incredibly difficult to take seriously any "issue" you raise when changing usernames like socks (no pun intended).--Chimino (talk) 01:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Wheatfield with Crows

In the Death section this painting is described thus, "In particular, the work Wheatfield with Crows serves as a compelling and poignant expression of the artist's state of mind in his final days, a painting Hulsker describes as "somber and hopeless", painted by a "desperate" artist" and references Hulsker 1980, p.478.

But I can see nothing at Hulsker 1980, p. 478. that really supports this. He contests the standard identification of this painting with either of the two referenced in letter 469 (on or about 10 July 1890), a passage of which is quoted in the article in the sentence immediately preceding, not least because the same paragraph of that letter, but omitted in the article, also refers to Vincent's vision of the countryside as wholesome and invigorating.

What Hulsker actually says is, "Yet on closer inspection, Wheat Field ... with Crows, for all its somber and threatening aspect, does not at all fit Vincent's description." The intention is to query its established provenance in the letters and not to describe Vincent's state of mind and nowhere does he describe Vincent as "desperate".

In fact Hulsker is exteremely economical in his selection of works which show signs of Vincent's mental collapse, mentioning at p. 442 only a few studies and paintings such as 1923 Two Peasant Women Digging in a Snow Covered Field at Sunset. Nowhere does he mention Wheatfield with Crows or At Eternity's Gate as example of paintings which reflect his mental state, collapsed or otherwise.

The "compelling and poignant expression of the artist's state of mind in his final days", now merely an uncited editorialism, was originally cited as Hulsker 1980, pp. 444-9. However Hulsker makes no such comment. What he writes at p. 444 is, "Another unmistakable rembrance of times long past was the important and striking painting of an old man with his head in his hands, 1967. Here again, Vincent has copied himself, or as he would say "translated" his image into the language of colours. The original was the drawing from The Hague years, 267, of which Vincent had also made a lithograph that he had inscribed "At Eternity's Gate" (286). It is possible that he had a copy of the lithograph in Saint-Rémy. If that was not the case, and if Theo had not sent him the old drawing 267, then it would have been something of a miracle for Vincent, after a lapse of seven and a half years, to be able to reconstruct the subject so accurately, down to the smallest details, even allowing for minor differences such as the position of the head." (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you should be bold and go ahead and edit the article as you see fit. I had the 1990 US edition of Hulsker's dual biography of Vincent and Theo, which I've returned it to the library. I'll change the date on the cite. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation source

I'm not looking to start a discussion on the pronunciation – there's plenty of that in the archives.

Anyway – footnote 1 in the article details various pronunciations of Van Gogh's name. What's the source for this? As a BrE speaker I don't think I've ever heard "van-gokh" (compared to van-gof or van-goh), which leads me to question the source of the information in the footnote. matt (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

In German it would be a almost hard g, kinda of a strangled choking noise, hence the van gokh - and the family was at some point from Germany. At any rate, I have read about this in one of the sources, will look it up as soon as I dislodge the van Gogh material from the stack of books. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
They had an extended discussion of this in the British panel show QI. In his native country, we were told, they would pronounce the entire surname as like a throat-clearing sound. They had a Dutch man there to say it. I can't do proper phonetic spellings, so my best approximation is ckhckhOckhckh. Erm... that looks like a bad joke, doesn't it? But I don't know how to put it any better. It's much like the noise you make when hawking up phlegm with the 'O' sound from "top" stuck in the middle. --bodnotbod (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

About Died Brother

alice miller talk about van gogh and her died brother in "for your own good", available for free here:

"Something else resulted from this unusual family constellation: mothers who after losing one child have another often idealize the dead child (the way unhappy people frequently fantasize about the missed opportunities in their lives). The living child then feels impelled to make a special effort and to accomplish something extraordinary in order not to be overshadowed by the dead sibling. But the mother's real love is usually directed toward the idealized dead child, whom she imagines as possessing every virtue--if only it had lived. The same thing happened to van Gogh, for instance, although only one of his brothers had died. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


According to "60 Minutes" (10/16/11), van Gogh probably did not commit suicide. Evidence points to him being shot (probably accidentally) by brothers in the neighborhood. When asked by police if he shot himself, he said, "I believe so" and added "Don't blame anyone else." A partial confession years later suggests he was covering up for the boys that shot him, and welcomed this end to his suffering. (talk) 05:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)don

See also: Brian Pearson (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent speculation about his death

In a biography of van Gogh, published in 2011, authors Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith argue that van Gogh did not commit suicide. He was shot accidentally by two boys he knew who had “a malfunctioning gun”.[1] The authors point out that the bullet entered van Gogh’s abdomen at an oblique angle, not straight as might be expected from a suicide. They claim that van Gogh knew the boys, one of whom was in the habit of wearing a cowboy suit, and had gone drinking with them. Naifeh said, "So you have a couple of teenagers who have a malfunctioning gun, you have a boy who likes to play cowboy, you have three people probably all of whom had too much to drink." He said "accidental homicide" was "far more likely." [1] The authors contend that art historian John Rewald visited Auvers in the 1930s, and recorded that version of events was widely believed. The authors postulate that after he was fatally wounded, van Gogh welcomed death and believed the boys had done him a favour, hence his widely-quoted death-bed remark: "Do not accuse anyone... it is I who wanted to kill myself."[1] [2]


  1. ^ a b c Gompertz, Will (October 17, 2011). "Van Gogh did not kill himself, authors claim". BBC News. Retrieved October 17, 2011. 
  2. ^ Van Gogh Museum unconvinced
I removed the above awaiting consensus...Modernist (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Van Gogh did not kill himself, authors claim

The new biography of van Gogh by Naifeh and Smith has attracted attention in the press and been reported by BBC News. The authors contend that van Gogh did not shoot himself. They claim that he was accidentally shot by two boys known to him, who had a "malfunctioning gun". I've added a summary of this new contention, citing BBC News as ref to Death section of article. Since his death by suicide is such a key part of van Gogh's biography, I've added a Note to the lead, summarising contention of this new biography. Please edit if regular editors of this page consider this change to be inappropriate. Mick gold (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I think its inclusion as a summary is appropriate, as the story has been around for decades, is well sourced, and was heard by Rewald. It's buttressed by anecdotal evidence, that these youngsters teased and ridiculed the artist for their amusement. JNW (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I removed most of the above, however if you think it is relevant and more than speculation then re-add what can be verified, I am confused as to exactly what Rewald said...Modernist (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
It's good to be skeptical, given that there's probably a new theory floated every other day (I like the one from a few years ago about Gauguin lopping off Vincent's ear with a sword). A skeptical response: [18]. If this proves to be a short-term news story without legs it will eventually be cut; at the moment I'm more ambivalent than my initial statement above. JNW (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Too bad Gauguin didn't meet up with those kids - could've used his sword and saved the day...Modernist (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Van Gogh's Ear

A while back I read this BBC article about a book that says van Gogh lost his ear in an incident (either a fight or an accident) with Paul Gauguin, a friend and fellow artist. I don't have access to the book and can't verify the credibility of the author's argument but (while it is easy to dismiss injuries as self-inflicted when dealing with a person suffering from a mental illness) this alternate story might be worth a note on the page if the evidence is solid. Thoughts? (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This was discussed at length 2 years ago in '09 [19]...Modernist (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Van Gogh: the Life

Has anyone had the chance to look at this new biography in any detail? I see that it has already had an impact on Vincent van Gogh's death and is likely to influence other VG articles too. The BBC has it as a headline news item today entitled Van Gogh did not kill himself. Any views on this? - Ipigott (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it might be a good read...Modernist (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Wheras the wording concerning the book itself is good I believe, I'd say that Wikipedia can't really say "Van Gogh shot himself" or similar now. The source from the Van Gogh museum takes the "we can't really know what happened" angle rather than the "he definitely killed himself" angle. A quick glance at the main death of van Gogh article suggests it sticks clearly to the facts, reporting on the shooting from van Gogh's return to the inn where eye-witness accounts begin. I think this article needs to do the same. He went out, he came back with a gunshot wound. He said that he attempted suicide. Fact. Then at the bottom we can say "It is widely assumed VG killed himself, but in 2011..." U-Mos (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
It's a newly published book and until an editor reads it in its entirety, I don't think we should base what happened on a single source. The majority of sources suggest he killed himself. It would be fine to mention the new source with the new theory, but I wouldn't feel comfortable doing so without reading the source. The sidebar by the art historian in the linked article doesn't seem to be completely convinced by the theory, so if it's to become controversial, then that's what we need to reflect. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I just don't think there's any harm (the opposite, in fact) in just outlining what undoubtedly happened in the main body of the "death" section. U-Mos (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The problem is using the term undoubtedly. We need to follow the sources. A single, newly published source has mentioned the boys. I believe I may have read something about the boys in another biography but can't remember which off the top of my head and would need some time to trawl through them to check. I like what MickGold has added to the death article - this is a theory, and others are skeptical about it. If we can get consensus to mention the new source and the new theory, that would be fine, but to throw out the accounts in all the other biographies would not be fine. They need to have equal weight. I don't see a huge rush is needed here, we're not a news source and it would be nice if someone could actually read the source before adding the information, as I mentioned above. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
How would directly saying that most sources believe he commited suicide be giving the theories equal weight? I use the term "undoubtedly" to refer to the elements of the story that no reliable sources have challenged, ie. the events from when van Gogh returned to the inn wounded. U-Mos (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I didn't mean that the new theory should have the same weight as all the other sources, but that it should be weighted appropriately. Most sources say he shot himself; a single, newly published source claims he was shot and he confessed to committing suicide to protect the boys. I think it's fine to mention the new theory; I don't think it's fine to abandon the other sources in favor of the new source. All we have to do is report what the sources say - so we have many sources saying one thing and one source saying another. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Until consensus develops and agreement begins to form I think what we have - covers the new story:

In a recent biography of van Gogh, published in 2011, authors Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith argue that van Gogh did not commit suicide. He was shot accidentally by two boys he knew who had “a malfunctioning gun”.[1] However experts at the Van Gogh Museum remain unconvinced.[2].[3]..Modernist (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


  1. ^ Gompertz, Will (October 17, 2011). "Van Gogh did not kill himself, authors claim". BBC News. Retrieved October 17, 2011. 
  2. ^ Associated Press (October 17, 2011). "Van Gogh museum unconvinced by new theory painter didn’t commit suicide but was shot by 2 boys". Washington Post. Retrieved October 17, 2011. 
  3. ^ ABC News

Truthkeeper, I'm sorry but you are totally misunderstanding my suggestion. I no way am I saying that we should abandon older sources, as that would be a blatant case of WP:RECENTISM at the very least. But neither can we, in my opinion, say in the main body of the section that "van Gogh killed himself". "Generally believed", "usually thought", "most historians agree", whatever, but it needs something there for clarification of the slight uncertainty surrounding the circumstances regardless of the new theory this book holds. U-Mos (talk)

Done, for now...Modernist (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yellow Boxes

In this article many of the pictures have attached to them yellow boxes which appear when the mouse is placed over them. Some of these boxes contain several sentences, which cannot possibly be read in their entirety since the yellow boxes only appear for a few seconds. Perhaps the author can find a solution to make them readable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasionus (talkcontribs) 10:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If you don't move your mouse the yellow box should stay in place - it basically tells you what the caption says and seems to be a byproduct of the templates. Leave your mouse on an image long enough to read the yellow strip if it appears...Modernist (talk) 11:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 3 November 2011

Please consider adding to your VIncent van Gogh general bibliography my recently published biography of him. It is entitled "Bone Dead, and Rising: Vincent van Gogh and the Self Before God." See my website at There you will find on the purchase page links to the book at the publisher's website as well as Amazon. The Wikipedia citation should read: Davidson, Charles. [ITAL]Bone Dead and Rising: Vincent van Gogh and the Self Before God[ITAL]. Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2011. ISBN 978-1-60608-616-2 (It is published under Wipf and Stock's imprint Cascade Books)

If you have any questions, please contact me at or (434) 237-1016. Thank you very much.

Sincerely, Charles Davidson Lynchburg, VA

Charlesnd (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your request, with all due respect to your excellent new book; as it hasn't been used as research or consultation in this article as of yet, it's currently an inappropriate addition. If important and new additions to the text result from your book it will be added...Modernist (talk) 04:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Van Gogh's photo

I really don't understand or know which experts disagree that it is not a photo of Vincent! All the evidence points to it as being him! The experts agreeing that it is Vincent are specialists in diffferent fields, forensic, historians, anthropologists and many van Gogh researchers and authors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Apparently museum experts disagree [20]...Modernist (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Link to Etten in Etten, Drenthe and The Hague section not correct

Please consider correcting the link to Etten in the Etten, Drenthe and The Hague section.

In The Netherlands there are 2 towns called Etten. The one used now is the wrong one. The proper Etten is located in "Noord Brabant" is close to Zundert and is now part of Etten-Leur — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Using Etten-Leur as the link...Modernist (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

1000 Missing van Goghs

With all due respect we need more definitive sources, and concrete facts before including this in the article. See this link [21] that directly contradicts the claim below and this article which makes no mention of 1000 lost works Lost works by Vincent van Gogh...Modernist (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Other corroborative texts would help...Modernist (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your interestest for my suggestion :-) Concrete facts are very easy: Van Gogh mentions around 1000 works more than the catalogued ones. Van Gogh Gallery (which is not a scholar website and a reliable source) is about a different topic: destroyed works (it means works who we know for sure were destroyed and not works which we know were lost and perhaps are still exhisting). So nothing to do with my text. Anyway all the lost works are listed, perior per period. So it's very easy to amplify the voice under a formal point of view (bibliography) as well as under a substantial point of view (lists). Before, please, consider that this wiki-entry is a general one. So, honestly, I don't know if it is correct to go deeper. Please, let me know your opinion. --History1976 18:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by History1976 (talkcontribs)

Frankly I don't know enough about these 'missing 1000 works' to really have an opinion. I'd like there to be more reliable sources, verification and specifics before I am comfortable including the material. Hopefully we'll have other opinions weighing in as well...Modernist (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I went in library today. Next days I will increase the sources section as well as I will better explain facts. It's an amazing topic, because for some periods most of the works are lost. Meanwhile, thanks for your support :-) --History1976 17:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by History1976 (talkcontribs) Hi, I had no time to write :-( I will do next days sorry :-) --History1976 17:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by History1976 (talkcontribs)

Please take all the time that you need. There is no need to rush...Modernist (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Lost Works

More than 1000 works by van Gogh (paintings and drawings) were lost during his life or in the very few years after his death. This surprising number rises from the comparison between his letters and other contemporary written sources from Van Gogh’s family and the catalogued works. The first scholar deeply interested in this problem was Jan Hulsker, author of the worldwide recognized Catalogue Raisonné of Van Gogh’s paintings[1]. Most of the lost works belongs to the years before Van Gogh Parisian stay, when the artist moved many times. A relevant number, around 300, were dispersed after his brother's death, when Theo’s wife, Johanna Bonger, sold them to Parisian second-hand dealers, as Emile Bernard wrote in a letter to the art critic George-Albert Aurier[2]: most of these works were picked up by collectors, but a part is still missing. Anyway a so impressive number of lost works didn’t become a comparable number of discoveries: only very few van Gogh original paintings and drawings emerged during the last 100 years. The first complete catalogue of lost works has been published in 2005[3].

Copy and paste - the last reference -
A. De Robertis and M. Smolizza, Vincent van Gogh. Le opera disperse. Oltre 1000 disegni e dipinti citati dall’artista e introvabili, Nuoro, 2005, pp. 227 (Vincent van Gogh. The Lost Works. More than 1000 drawings and paintings quoted by him and not to be found). The book reconstructs each work on the basis of written sources and comparable images (preparatory sketches, comparable works, more rarely old photos). The research was supported by materials from world leading scholars as Annette Tellegen-Hoogendoorn and Martha Op de Coul as well as by the archives and/or staff of the main Museum related to van Gogh, among them the Rijksmuseum Vincent van Gogh in Amsterdam, the Kröller-Müller Museum in Otterlo and the Begijnhof Museum in Breda.

also needs reference

Many paintings and drawings from this and earlier periods were lost when his family moved from Nuenen to Breda in March 1886 and stored Vincent's belongings in an attic. [citation needed]


  1. ^ Jan Hulsker published a large number of studies about Van Gogh's correspondence, notably in 1958, 1970, 1971, 1973, 1993. His Catalogue raisonné’s first edition appeared in 1977.
  2. ^ Emile Bernard, Lettres de Vincent van Gogh à Emile Bernard, Paris, 1911
  3. ^ A. De Robertis and M. Smolizza, Vincent van Gogh. Le opera disperse. Oltre 1000 disegni e dipinti citati dall’artista e introvabili, Nuoro, 2005, pp. 227 (Vincent van Gogh. The Lost Works. More than 1000 drawings and paintings quoted by him and not to be found). The book reconstructs each work on the basis of written sources and comparable images (preparatory sketches, comparable works, more rarely old photos). The research was supported by materials from world leading scholars as Annette Tellegen-Hoogendoorn and Martha Op de Coul as well as by the archives and/or staff of the main Museum related to van Gogh, among them the Rijksmuseum Vincent van Gogh in Amsterdam, the Kröller-Müller Museum in Otterlo and the Begijnhof Museum in Breda.

Vincent/Theo confusion

"The original burial plot was leased for 15 years; the intention was to bury Vincent alongside Theo. Vincent's remains were exhumed on 13 June 1905, in the presence of Jo Bonger, Dr. Gachet and others, and relocated, eventually for Theo to be buried beside him. The precise location of the original grave is no longer known. In 1914, the year she had van Gogh's letters published, Jo Bonger had Theo moved from Utrecht and reburied with Vincent."

This is the content that appears on the front page, however there is some confusion between Vincent and Theo. It was Theo's, not Vincent's, remains that were exhumed and relocated to Auvers. The second half of this sentence ("eventually for Theo to be buried beside him") doesn't follow from the first half and is probably the victim of some earlier copying and pasting.

The section reads as though the original intention was to move Vincent's remains in order to be close to Theo, but surely the reverse is true. The end of the section above confirms that Theo was to be moved to be next to Vincent.

Manyon411 (talk) 07:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right, that section went through some hacking. I'll take a look at it and the sources. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Vincent's remains were exhumed and relocated in the same cemetery (around 1904 off the top of my head) basically so that Theo's remains could be reburied beside him, but that didn't take place for some time, I think about ten years later. A nearby bush had sent its roots down to his skull, for people who like that kind of detail. It would have pleased him I think. RobvanderWaal (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

picture of theo van gogh

Theo or Cor van Gogh?

The picture depicted of Vincent van Gogh's brother is an error: it is that of the other brother: Cornelis van Gogh... Zzorch (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

And your proof is??? Here is a picture of Cornelius [22]...Modernist (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Death not suicide: Naifeh and White Smith

  • It's mentioned - see Death section...Modernist (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, I didn't notice the single sentence at the end.Tks!Ling.Nut3 (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


This does not mean what I suppose the author of the article intended it to mean. Did you mean "affected his appreciation and use of colour" or something similar? It's hard to say for sure from context. Userboy87 (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 July 2012

Please add the following to the list of External Links Van Gogh Gallery Van Gogh’s biography, paintings, drawings, and letter sketches.

AuctoriCMS (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry it looks too commercial...Modernist (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

shouldn't "at The Hague" be "in The Hague"

it's in the text captioning a photo. A gallery is not "at New York" or "at London"; should be "in The Hague" (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Good catch, done...Modernist (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit Requested.

This article is locked, so I request the following edits.


Original: In January 1879, he took a temporary post as a missionary in the village of Petit Wasmes in the coal-mining district of Borinage in Belgium.
Edit Requested: This line can be changed to, In November 1878, Van Gogh moved to Pâturage, in the coal-mining district of Borinage in Belgium. Here he preached to the small Protestant group in Petit Wasmes that was entrusted to his care. After a month, in December 1878, he took a temporary post as a missionary in the village of Petit Wasmes.
- Letter from Vincent to Theo, sent from Petit-Wasmes on December 26th 1878.
- Letter from Louis Piérard, written in 1939, from his book "La vie tragique de Vincent van Gogh".


Original: Van Gogh failed the exam, and left his uncle Jan's house in July 1878.
Edit Requested: Please provide a link to the letter from Vincent's father to Theo, written on July 8th 1878, which states "Vincent came home last Friday evening." This was July 5th 1878.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by BiditMazumder (talkcontribs) 16:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

30 March 1853 – 29 July 1890) was a Dutch post-Impressionist painter whose work, notable for its rough beauty, emotional honesty and bold color, had a far-reaching influence on 20th-century art. After years of painful anxiety and frequent bouts of mental illness,[1][2] he died aged 37 from a gunshot wound, generally accepted to be self-inflicted (although no gun was ever found).[3][note 2] His work was then known to only a handful of people and appreciated by fewer still. Van Gogh began to draw as a child, and he continued to draw throughout the years that led up to his decision to become an artist. He did not begin painting until his late twenties, completing many of his best-known works during the last two years of his life. In just over a decade, he produced more than 2,100 artworks, consisting of 860 oil paintings and more than 1,300 watercolors, drawings, sketches and prints. His work included self portraits, landscapes, still lifes, portraits and paintings of cypresses, wheat fields and sunflowers. Van Gogh spent his early adulthood working for a firm of art dealers, traveling between The Hague, London and Paris, after which he taught for a time in England. One of his early aspirations was to become a pastor and from 1879 he worked as a missionary in a mining region in Belgium where he began to sketch people from the local community. In 1885, he painted his first major work The Potato Eaters. His palette at the time consisted mainly of somber earth tones and showed no sign of the vivid coloration that distinguished his later work. In March 1886, he moved to Paris and discovered the French Impressionists. Later, he moved to the south of France and was influenced by the strong sunlight he found there. His work grew brighter in color, and he developed the unique and highly recognizable style that became fully realized during his stay in Arles in 1888. The extent to which his mental health affected his painting has been a subject of speculation since his death. Despite a widespread tendency to romanticize his ill health, modern critics see an artist deeply frustrated by the inactivity and incoherence brought about by his bouts of illness. According to art critic Robert Hughes, van Gogh's late works show an artist at the height of his ability, completely in control and "longing for concision and grace".[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Van Gogh Neo-Impressionist

Wasn't Van Gogh a Neo-Impressionist not post-impressionist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC) No!hes always been a post-impressionist_matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewvasquez787 (talkcontribs) 21:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Reference format

I see that someone has gone through and added a lot of {{Harvnb}} templates for page numbers of references. That may or may not be a good thing overall; I'm just wondering, was it fully discussed here before implementation, sort of as is suggested at WP:CITEVAR? In any case, it highlights a problem, which is the lack of consistency in giving page numbers here. Some are given with "p." or "pp.", some without; and, at least since the latest edits, some single pages are given with "pp.". Might it perhaps improve the article to agree on a single clear format, and then implement it? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Support edit. The editor apparently has a copy of Tralbaut and added page numbers. That's a good thing. Technically, the editor switched citation styles and to templates, but the formating variation with the current reference style is minor (e.g., the year changes position and gets parens). I support the change because it adds the hyperlinks and lets the 'bots chew on the refs. Glrx (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not a vote. It's clearly against citevar and having spent a lot of time working on these refs to make them consistent, as have others, at some point they'll have to be reworked. Not worth the hassle at the moment, imo. Victoria (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Per above. It's not broken so leave it be, refs are consistent and coherent after years of work...Modernist (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Letters section

Should this section be before his biography? Looks odd having it sat there between the intro and the details of his early years. Maybe in or before the legacy section is best? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Good suggestion, however we felt the letters should start the story. The reason we placed it at the beginning of the article is this sentence: The most comprehensive primary source for the understanding of Van Gogh as an artist is the collection of letters between him and his younger brother, art dealer Theo van Gogh. Our most comprehensive appreciation and understanding of his life and work comes to us primarily through the letters. The paintings as great as they are might have been lost especially after the early death of both brothers except for the letters. Which is why we elected to begin with that section...Modernist (talk) 01:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

An interesting observation

I'm not an art expert nor I have read this article yet, but there's a few things I wanna suggest.

It is widely known that van Gogh became famous only after his death. Google Ngram Viewer also shows that. [23] It also shows that in English language books, the name Vincent van Gogh made a huge breakthrough, in terms of usage, in the early 1950s (apparently in 1953). Is there any particular reason? Is anybody willing to do a research and find out what happened (i.e. why and who published a huge number of books on van Gogh) in 1952-54? The only sentence that indirectly talks about this phenomenon is this sentence: "Abstract Expressionism of the 1940s and 1950s is seen as in part inspired from Van Gogh's broad" in the Influence section.

In French sources, books that mentioned or were entirely on van Gogh peaked circa 1914.[24] I think this might be something to look into. --Երևանցի talk 21:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The Gun

In the section on Van Gogh's death, the 2nd paragraph makes the statement that no gun was ever found. The last paragraph in this section mentions Gustave Ravoux, "the owner of the gun."

One of these statements must be wrong; how could anyone know the owner of the gun if no gun was found? I assume 2 different editors at work here, and a reconciliation is needed. I know nothing of the circumstances - could someone better informed than I clear up this mystery? (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)History Lunatic

The story is that Gustave Ravoux (the innkeeper) gave Vincent the gun to scare away crows, as repeated in Tralbaut's 1969 biography (p. 329). I don't know what his source was, presumably the much later reminisces of his daughter Adeline (bear in mind that Tralbaut was writing at a time when it was still possible to interview some of the characters of the time: Adeline for example died in 1965). The gun indeed was never found. Jennie Matthews 97 (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

van Gogh and the ear incident

According to an article published in The New York Times on May 5, 2009, two art historians in Germany challenged the story that van Gogh cut his ear. Instead, they suggested that it was Gauguin, and van Gogh was protecting his friend. I have not read the book by those historians (Hans Kaufmann and Rita Wildegans), titled "Van Gogh's Ear: Paul Gauguin and the Pact of Silence," and do not know what happened to this hypothesis. I would appreciate if somebody follow up and comment on this story. --Curacuriositas (talk) 13:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I did check up on it. There's a piece by Martin Gayford, one of our sources, here. On the whole I think it's not worth mentioning on grounds of weight (why mention something that presently gets no support from the experts?) It also strikes me as something implausible on swordmanship grounds (neatly slicing off an ear without other injury? ... hmhh) Jennie Matthews 97 (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
We didn't mention it - although there was a discussion at the time [25] - because it seems farfetched, I agree with Jennie...Modernist (talk) 12:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, sorry I hadn't realised it had already been discussed at some length before. I completely agree with the consensus view there. Jennie Matthews 97 (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Don McLean

Is there room in this article, perhaps under the last topic of Legacy, to mention Don McLean's beautiful tribute "Vincent", and to link to that artist's article?[1][2] Mr. McLean gave such a thought-provoking viewpoint on Van Gogh's life, that I think it deserves mention. MarkGoldfain (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I also think that that song deserves a mention. However, that would probably be more fitting in a section called something like "Van Gogh in popular culture", since "Legacy" is currently more about his influence and recognition within the realm of visual art, rather than his influence and recognition among the general public or among artists working in other mediums (like songwriters). I think that a section along the lines of "In popular culture" should be created (perhaps as a sub-section within "Legacy") if there is enough notable things to put in it, and that McLean's "Vincent" should be mentioned if that section is created, but I think I should leave that to other editors who have more knowledge on the topic, since this is a very good article and I don't want to risk bloating it with things that aren't really important to the topic. BreakfastJr (talk) 06:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
See here: Cultural depictions of Vincent van Gogh...Modernist (talk) 10:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


Rationale for revert

I have reset the page to how it was before Modernist reset it to how it was before I edited it.

There were two edits since Modernist's reset; one was another user independently making one of the changes I had made in my edits (showing that it was probably a good idea), and another was the addition of a link at the bottom, which I've kept in.

Some of the changes I made in my edits were just directly following guidelines in the Manual of Style. Two examples are that double quotation marks should be used for quotes instead of single quotation marks (except for quotes within quotes), and that punctuation should only be included within quotations if that punctuation was originally in it. Both of these are in MOS:QUOTEMARKS.

Apart from those sorts of things, I do understand that the changes were somewhat subjective, and were not fixing mistakes so much as changing the style. I also understand that some of these might just be personal preference. However, none of these changes (such as serial commas) were actually against any guidelines, and I don't think there's even any reasonable reason to find them personally distasteful (at worst, they're neutral).

Also, some of those changes are ones which—while not explicitly recommend in any guidelines—do enhance the clarity of the article, as far as I can see. For example, I replaced "In preparation for Gauguin's visit, Van Gogh bought two beds" with "In preparation for Gauguin's visit he bought two beds" (to clarify the meaning of "he"), and I replaced "admitted" with "stated" in "In his final letter to Theo, Van Gogh admitted that as he did not have any children, he viewed his paintings as his progeny", because "admitted" unnecessarily and inaccurately made it sound like viewing his paintings a his progeny was about something to be ashamed of and something which made Van Gogh feel guilty.

None of these changes were very significant at all, but I think they make this good article just ever-so-slightly better, and so I've returned them. BreakfastJr (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I've returned the imagery to the format that works best; please leave them as is. I've left your other edits in place. As the main contributor to this article - with more than 1000 edits I do appreciate your input, thanks for your effort...Modernist (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that's all totally fine. Also, thank you for all your work on this and other articles. BreakfastJr (talk) 11:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

sentence in the intro.

hi. i think this one: "His work included self portraits; landscapes; still lifes; portraits;..." needs work. i can imagine the semicolons-rather-than-commas being the result of wishing to avoid too many commas, esp. in relation to the ones near the end of the sentence, but in my opinion, the semicolons just don't work. commas are the proper thing here, right? maybe a punctuation guru needs to check me out, but i don't think so. in any case, i always say write it correctly and let the chips fall where they may in terms of how it looks or is perceived, etc. and if w/the commas where the semis currently are it looks just too weird, then it wouldn't take too much to re-work the sentence to avoid the perceived pitfalls. everything else in the intro looks great; i like the clear, economical style. (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

p.s. i'm confused by the links appearing beneath my comment (don mclean, etc); they're unrelated to me, fyi. (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Lead image

Why does Modernist keep changing the lead from "Self-portrait with a straw hat" to a different self-portrait [26] while throwing around insults, as if he hadn't made the change three days ago, overturning consensus, for a less famnous self-portrait? [27] It was Self-portrait with a straw hat for months.Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The current self portrait is an important late work. Typical of his intense paintings in his later years...Years ago we had many discussions about the lead and agreed that I would periodically change it, [28]; I have contributed substantially to this article over many years...Modernist (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
FWIW I originally added the previous lead here [29] in June 2012; and here [30] in Dec. 2011 and here in July 2011 [31] and many other times over the previous 8 years...Modernist (talk) 02:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps there could be a new discussion as to this matter on this talk page. 'Years ago' (it seems four from the link) should not settle the issue forever and ever. Consensus may be different with editors who have come along since. I detect a tinge of article ownership. Although one has contributed substantially over the years does not make one a gatekeeper. What harm could a new discussion cause? Thanks. Fylbecatulous talk 13:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Self-portrait with a straw hat" - just adding a vote for the lede image. Shows his style well, and I think that a positive view of himself is a good way to start the article. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The current image displayed, Self-Portrait, September 1889, (F 627), Oil on canvas, 65 cm × 54 cm. Musée d'Orsay, Paris.. is visually jarring in a negaive manner and leaves much to be desired in presenting this article in the best possible professionalism. If we are restricted to 'this' or 'the other', I will echo Sminthopsis84 above in that 'straw hat' is the preferred image. I shall await any further discussion or nominations to see if we have better choices than these two. The tactic of driving potential contributors away with uncharitable edit summaries leaves me nonplussed. I shall not be moved. I have cut some recent teeth in the Featured Pictures candidates process where incivility is a favourite playtoy. Fylbecatulous talk 19:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - because there are plenty of self-portraits available it's nice to swap out the lead image periodically. We've been doing it here as long as I can remember and shouldn't really be controversial. So if this is a !vote for a particular image, I can't comment because I've not watched the most recent events, but if it's a !vote to continue the lead image swapping, then I support. Victoria (tk) 16:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
If you're going to swap, do it in a sensible way. It's trivial to code something that will change the image based on, say, (Year+day of month) modulo number of images). Let's not just randomly swap whenever we feel like it; Van Gogh's self-portraits vary in quality, and the current one is probably the worst to lead his article with. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Starry Night is his most well-known work

Restored my edit saying that Starry Night is Van Gogh's most well-known work rather than merely one of his most well-known works. My edit was reverted by user Glrx with the reason "not in source; one of a museum's most popular paintings" This does not matter because being one of the museum's most popular paintings does not indicate whether it's Gogh's best-known painting or one of his best-known. It is not in the source that it is one of his most well-known paintings either. As pragmatically it is obvious that it is his most famous work by a large margin from looking at culture or discussing art with a layman, and the source cited supports neither edit more than the other, I am restoring my edit because it is definitely his most famous work. Being the one of the most popular paintings at a museum does not suggest that it is only one of his most popular paintings any more than it suggests that it is his most popular; if anything, it is a bad source because it doesn't prove the claim that it is his best-known work, but it definitely doesn't say anything that goes against my edit.

This also makes it consistent with the Starry Night page itself. Uchiha Itachi 25 (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

But the cited ref does not say that it is his best known. It is certainly a well-known work, but to say best requires a source. We do not use wikis as a source, so what The Starry Night article says is irrelevant here. (BTW, the lede says best-known, but the text of that article does not say it is his best-known and does not supply a source for the statement.) Glrx (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
My mistake. I'm sorry. I knew that we do not use wikis as a source, but I incorrectly thought that the The Starry Night page had cited a source for the claim and that that justified my edit. I have since found a source from the most popular site for viewing Van Gogh's work,, and replaced the older citation with it. Uchiha Itachi 25 (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Punctuation Error

As I cannot edit the page, I will point out here that the sentence "He had two small rooms; adjoining cells with barred windows." is incorrect. What appears on either side of a semicolon should be a stand-alone sentence. "Adjoining cells with barred windows" is not. The semicolon should be replaced by a colon or re-written.

Done...Modernist (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Feel free to delete this section to avoid clutter.

Van Gogh Death and the story of the graves makes no sense

The following makes no sense - whoever wrote this needs some English lessons himself. Annotations identify the areas of confusion in the form [" text "]

The original burial plot was leased for 15 years[" Which burial plot - theos or Vincents?"] ; the intention was to bury Vincent alongside Theo. Vincent's remains were exhumed on 13 June 1905, in the presence of Jo Bonger, Dr. Gachet, and others, and relocated [" where? To theo's grave I presume"] , eventually for Theo to be buried beside him [" this is hopelessly confusing - which way is it - which grave moved"]. The precise location of the original grave ["which grave, Theo's or Vincent's"] is no longer known. In 1914, the year she had Van Gogh's letters published, Jo Bonger had Theo moved from Utrecht and reburied with Vincent.[159] [" Again nonsense - if he was exhumed (as above) and relocated the assumption is that they were now together - so they both must have been relocated at the same time ... I give up"]

Suggested Text below (well this is what I think is meant)

Theo's original burial plot was leased for 15 years ; the intention was to bury Vincent alongside him and so Vincent's remains were exhumed on 13 June 1905, in the presence of Jo Bonger, Dr. Gachet, and others, and relocated to be alongside Theo's grave. The precise location of Theo's grave is no longer known. In 1914, the year she had Van Gogh's letters published, Jo Bonger had Theo and Vincents grave move from Utrecht to the present location. [159] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Good catch; a simpler, referenced version has been added...Modernist (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Much better. It is a very interesting story, but I suggest that if it is to be elaborated, it is done so with some caution. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2015

 Per, further speculation about Van Gogh's ear is updated by German historians.

Rangers641 (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Rangers641Rangers641 (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 20:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Old and useless news...Modernist (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


Post-Impressionism is an art movement of late 19th century France which was where Vincent Van Gogh - a Dutch painter worked and achieved his reputation

The lede currently says:

Vincent Willem van Gogh (Dutch: [ˈvɪnsɛnt ˈʋɪləm vɑn ˈɣɔx];[note 1] 30 March 1853 – 29 July 1890) was a Post-Impressionist painter of Dutch origin whose work—notable for its rough beauty, emotional honesty, and bold color—had a far-reaching influence on 20th-century art.

  • Which is in my opinion correct...Modernist (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
@Modernist, it might be true that post-modernism might be a french movement, but lets keep in mind that picasso was also part of an artistic movement that started in france and included frenchmen. I don't see what your opposition to the sentence is, I only see that you want to keep the sentence for your opinion's sake with all due respect. (N0n3up (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC))
N0n3up - Your comment verges on violations of these - WP:Civil and this WP:NPA...Modernist (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The lede seems perfectly accurate. He was a Post-Impressionist painter of Dutch origin. Coldcreation (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
N0n3up - Stop Edit warring - you have no consensus for your changes...Modernist (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I have no consensus? you said that it sounded correct in "your opinion" without giving any supportive argument. Just because he was part of a French movement doesn't change the fact that he is Dutch, since the majority of the artists are first refereed with their nationality, for example in Picasso's article. (N0n3up (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC))
No one is saying that he is not a Dutch painter - we are saying that this was a Post-Impressionist painter of Dutch origin works better than this: was a Dutch painter of the Post-Impressionist movement because the implication in your version subtly implies that the Post-Impressionist movement was all inclusive rather than essentially French; - all the major leaders of the Post-Impressionist movement were French - with the exception of Van Gogh. Van Gogh, Toulouse Lautrec, Gauguin, Cezanne, and Seurat...Modernist (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Modernist I understand, but this was not about whether he is Dutch or not, its the fact that the art movement he took part of is interfering on how we address his nationality as you intended, which is unrelated. For example, Picasso was a Spaniard who took part of art movements that originated in France, and like you mentioned, the majority in that certain field were French, yet the art movement that he took part of had nothing to do with his nationality, as you can see his article. And at that time, there were many artists who settled in France, specially Paris that were of different nationalities, thus going back to what I said of the artistic movement and the artist himself. (N0n3up (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC))
What's wrong with "...a Post-Impressionist Dutch painter"? With comma as desired? In any case, saying he's "of Dutch origin" is somewhat odd for someone who spent, what, four years of his life in another country? It's also quite against how we cover other expatriates, for example, Michael William Balfe worked much of his life in London, but is still called Irish, and George Frideric Handel is named as a German "who spent the bulk of his career in London". Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes and Whistler is considered American. No one says that he is not a Dutch painter. It's a question of wording - Van Gogh is a Post Impressionist; and Van Gogh is a Dutch painter; however Post-Impressionism is a French art movement; Van Gogh is the only leader of the movement who is Dutch and the movement itself refers to French Impressionism...Modernist (talk) 11:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
While agreed, "Post-Impressionist Dutch painter" dcan't be read as "Dutch" modifying "Post-Impressionist", and I think is clearer. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I made a slight modification, added a comma and an a; seems ok now...Modernist (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it works now - using the phrase major Post-Impressionist - which completes the thought. Followed by - A Dutch painter who etc....Modernist (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

Could "aspirated to become a pastor" in the second paragraph be replaced by "aspired to become a pastor"? In my opinion, "aspirate" means something entirely different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Done, good find!..Modernist (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2015 about extra website link

Please insert next website link into the "Externe Links / Overig" on this page.

The European map with information about more than 500 relevant Van Goghlocations and links to his letters and Streetview and more.(in UK FR en NL language) Vincent in Topographical perspective.

Remmetvanluttervelt (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 16:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! My query was with the location of 87 Hackford Road - one of the places Van Gogh stayed whilst he was in England (3rd paragraph of the 'early life' section) The page says it is in Brixton, when today it is in fact in Stockwell. I wondered if this was to do with the boundaries being different at the time that Van Gogh was there, or just a mistake? When visiting the road, with its blue plaque and newly built Van Gogh Walk nearby, it's evident that it is a proud Stockwell land mark so I thought it would be worth questioning the claim it is in Brixton! (plus its good to have have an accurate address to make it easier for any one who would like to visit!) Would also be interesting fact to mention if it does in fact say Brixton because that is what the area would have been known as in 1873!

Best wishes

Cfh003 (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

SFN citation formatting

IMO, this article would benefit from adding SFN formatting to all those books. 7&6=thirteen () 13:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Prefer not, per WP:CITEVAR. Victoria (tk) 20:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support-but-it-is-a-lot-of-work. For sfn to work right, the sources need to be citation/cite(ref=harv). A wholesale conversion of the sources would be a lot of work. The up side is some automated checking of the refs. The appearance of the refs would change slightly. I would be OK with a slow conversion. Glrx (talk) 08:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I've done a lot of work trying to keep the cites consistent and think sfns pose a barrier to editors who might want to edit here but not familiar with that citation style. I have quite a few books I bought for this article but never used and at this point am happy to give them away if someone wants them. My feeling is that it would be better to lean as much as possible on book sources (even though the letter are available online) and use short cites. But I've not edited here for a while and understand that things change. Victoria (tk) 12:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Cite the books is easy and basically the same provided one uses citation templates. All one has to do is add "ref=harv" after a |. Then the sfn template includes the author(s) last name(s), date of publication, followed by "page(s)=". It benefits the reader, links to the full citation, is automatic, permits transparent citation to the pages(s) of the work, and is generally easier to keep track of then using page specific references. That's just my personal opinion.
I am, however, wary of change unless we get a clear consensus. Changing citation style formats WP:CITEVAR See Talk:Scottish art in the eighteenth century. Compare here and here demonstrates how some editors react to changes. I do not want to do the work, only to have somebody trash it because of their variant of ownership. There are editors who are inalterably opposed, and appeals to logic or readers convenience are unavailing. 7&6=thirteen () 12:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I do not see the proposed changed as a huge step away from the current format. Instead of writing <ref>Tralbaut (1981), pp. 286-87</ref> one would use <ref>{{harvtxt|Tralbout|1981|pp=286–287}}</ref> or {{sfn|Tralbout|1981|pp=286-287}} The conversion could be done piecemeal and would not impact the visual appearance of the article significantly. Glrx (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Victoria - it's not broken...Modernist (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Victoria (tk) 13:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support It's easier for new editors to comply with, and it's less messy and easier to edit around. No, it might not be broken, but it could be improved and made easier. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Long standing precedence for not using them in this article. Ceoil (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I should be willing to help implement. I have most of these books in my collection (and a few more). Ping me if "yes" is ever decided. c1cada (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Jeanne Calmant Quote

I just watched a vid of Jeanne Calmant, She sais: Knew him towards the end of his life, he was ugly, burnt by alcohol. He would choose fabrics in the shop, my husband would serve him, he would touch the fabric and choose. He frequented the brothels, not for the prostitutes or the high paid mistresses, because he didn't have money, only to drink.

She was 13 when she met him in Arles (she came from Arles). Vincent was deeply unpopular in Arles because he was so manic. After the famous ear incident, they got up a petition to get rid of him. As for prostitutes he was impotent by this time. He patronized one particular establishment with his mate Gauguin. There are hints in his letters that he didn't approve of Gauguin's ways. He himself at this time was striving for celibacy, following the example of Degas. Vincent did paint one rather good brothel scene. The owner of that establishment had a painting by William-Adolphe Bouguereau, the French girlie painter still esteemed today by a certain class of connoisseur, gracing his walls. Gauguin, who loathed Bouguereau vehemently, caustically observed that finally Bouguereau's work was being hung in a milieu suited to it. c1cada (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


"The weather worsened in July" ... In fact it was one of the hottest summers in living memory. Vincent died of his wound at the end of July in an attic room under (I believe) a tin roof in a heat wave. It must have been hell. One of the reasons that wheatfield painting cannot have been his last was that by the time Vincent shot himself, the harvest had already been taken in.

It's too much to hope of course that a scholarly Wikipedia editor might have thought it worth while to note (as other scholars indeed do) that letter 649 (letter 898 in the 2009 edition - why aren't we using that?) continues:

You’ll see this soon, I hope – for I hope to bring them to you in Paris as soon as possible, since I’d almost believe that these canvases will tell you what I can’t say in words, what I consider healthy and fortifying about the countryside

rather more positive than the doom laden preamble. Van Gogh scholarship has moved on since the Kirk Douglas film. c1cada (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

87 Hackford Road

Hello! My query was with the location of 87 Hackford Road - one of the places Van Gogh stayed whilst he was in England (3rd paragraph of the 'early life' section) The page says it is in Brixton, when today it is in fact in Stockwell. I wondered if this was to do with the boundaries being different at the time that Van Gogh was there, or just a mistake? When visiting the road, with its blue plaque and newly built Van Gogh Walk nearby, it's evident that it is a proud Stockwell land mark so I thought it would be worth questioning the claim it is in Brixton! (plus its good to have have an accurate address to make it easier for any one who would like to visit!) Would also be interesting fact to mention if it does in fact say Brixton because that is what the area would have been known as in 1873!

Best wishes

Cfh003 (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Both Van Gogh Museum and Naifeh & Watson place it in Brixton. I see Lambeth today when I look it up, but know nothing about London boroughs past or present. I don't think the Van Gogh Museum any longer thinks that drawing genuine. Looks pretty dubious to me. c1cada (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Vincent mentioned that he was childless and he viewed his paintings as his progeny

"In his final letter to Theo, Vincent mentioned that he was childless and he viewed his paintings as his progeny."

Neither in RM25 nor in the letter 902 there is no such mention. --Urod (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 March 2015 fixing dead website link

Currently reference 162, Blumer, Dietrich. "The Illness of Vincent van Gogh"[dead link], American Journal of Psychiatry (2002) is a dead link.

The correct address would be — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExponInt (talkcontribs) 05:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Done, thank you...Modernist (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit request: fixing some dead links

These following three references were dead links, corrected link is listed after

Reference 98, "Fishing Boats on the Beach at Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer, 1888"[dead link]

Live link is

Reference 144, Van Gogh Museum collection[dead link]

Live link is

Reference 208, Hubbard, Sue. Vincent Van Gogh and Expressionism[dead link],; retrieved 3 July 2010

Live link is,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=17&cntnt01returnid=57

ExponInt (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Vincent van Gogh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Van Gogh or van Gogh

Here we go again. There is this long discussion among others: [32]...Modernist (talk) 11:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I referred to a much more recent discussion in 2011 before I made my changes.
But to add to my edit summary: if the title is "Vincent van Gogh" (and it always has been), then there is simply no case to capitalise "van" other than when that word starts a sentence (apart from file names, book titles, direct quotations, Van Gogh Museum, etc). Alternatively, call him "Van Gogh" throughout, but then we have to change the title to "Vincent Van Gogh". But nobody would like that.
We cannot have it both ways. I chose the better of the two. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 12:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Look I sort of agree with you, but the problem arises in the myriad other articles that he appears in. I've been dealing with this issue for years. Did you mean this 2011 discussion? [33]...Modernist (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's the one. But on your main point: surely the decision on how a person is referred to on WP, is made at their own article. And all other references to that person in other articles should follow suit (but redirects have a role to play here). -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 12:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's why we are using Van Gogh not van Gogh. Here are the next comments following your question in that 2011 thread with relevant links:

Comment. I found previous discussion in archive. Glrx (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, there were other discussions in which it was agreed that in similitude with Theo and other family members we would use Vincent, and otherwise Van Gogh, here is another link to a further discussion [34] and here also [35]...Modernist (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Besides the 2 above archived discussions, It was further discussed amongst Ceoil, Tyrenius, JNW, me and a few others during the last couple of years...Modernist (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

As you can see this has been discussed ad infinitum...Modernist (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, not quite ad infinitum. Things have been known to change here at Wikipedia. Previous consensuses have been known to be replaced by newer and sometimes diametrically opposite consensuses. Nothing is ever set in stone here.
Now, I must admit that that I didn't fully read the 2011 thread, so thanks for bringing me up to speed. But I have to say I hate the compromise we seem to have adopted, and I will do what I can to have it changed. So, consider this a revisiting of the debate.
Two matters that seem to be me to be irrelevant to the argument are (a) how he's referred to in other articles, and (b) what happens in Dutch orthography.
  • (a) For example, we call Sergei Rachmaninoff that, and not Rachmaninov, because "Rachmaninoff" was his own preferred spelling and that informed the decision made at his own Talk page. You'll find plenty of other articles where he gets called Rachmaninov, Rakhmaninoff, Rakhmaninov et al, but what those other articles do has no bearing on the matter.
  • (b) Italian, French, German, Dutch and other languages using Latin script have all manner of conventions that English does not share. Such as Italian capitalisation rules for opera titles and the like: anglophones would generally prefer La Bohème, Il Trovatore etc, but Italians write La bohème, Il trovatore etc, so we follow suit here only because these are Italian titles that never get English translations. If they were given English translations, they would most certainly be "The Bohemian Life" (or whatever) and "The Troubador". English does not take its marching orders from other languages about things like this, so what the Dutch do with "van Gogh" when separated from "Vincent" is a matter for the Dutch.
But after the dust has settled, we still have an excruciating inconsistency that causes offence. I like the way we treat "de Gaulle" at Charles de Gaulle. I can't say the same for "Van Gogh" [sic] [ugh!].-- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh, another thing I changed but which has been reverted, was correcting the Defaultsort from "Gogh, Vincent van" to "Van Gogh, Vincent". Regardless of the above capitalisation issue, nobody but nobody would look for him under G for Gogh. Nobody in the anglosphere, that is. What the Dutch may do is neither here nor there. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Done - from "Gogh, Vincent van" to "Van Gogh, Vincent"...Modernist (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2015

I would like to have this line added to the external links

Dijstelberge (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how this adds to the article. Stickee (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Lust For Life

No mention of the movie, Lust for Life (film)? 2001:56A:F414:D300:ADA3:39C3:43AC:9A42 (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It's all here: Cultural depictions of Vincent van Gogh, as seen in the template...Modernist (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Van Gogh or van Gogh?

The article is not consistent with his name. Which is it? (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Ping User:Fram. Ceoil (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
"Van" is not capitalized if it is medial. Therefore "Vincent van Gogh" or "Van Gogh" are correct; "Vincent Van Gogh" should not be used. See Tussenvoegsel. Glrx (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
How do we fix it? (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


I think I might have gone overboard in removing images yesterday, and am happy to see many restored. However, would like to switch the format for some sections to gallery, eg the self portraits, where we could comfortably accommodate two rows of three, with some text expansion, which I can look after. Ceoil (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate all of the added images, may i make one suggestion? The Starry Night, as his most famous painting, may be better for the infobox or a happier self-portrait at the least, there are dozens to choose from... I hate to see his illness overshadow his art which I kind of feel that the bandage portraits do. Lipsquid (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The infobox self-portrait changes from time to time...Modernist (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I did not notice and have only been following the article a short time. Still not a fan of the ear bandage portraits in the infobox, but I appreciate the response and the additional information very much. Thank you. Lipsquid (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Engvar question

I notice that this article was written in British English, but now seems to be in American English. For example, this version uses "colour", but the current version prefers "color". Was this done after discussion, or is it just drift? If it was written in one dialect, we normally prefer to keep it like that unless there is good reason to change it. Was there? --John (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

No, its drift. Thanks for pointing out. A scrip or automated tool would be handy here, I think. Ceoil (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I had a wee hack at it. --John (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Indeed you did. Ceoil (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


  • From the lede:
Although he drew as a child, he did not paint until his late twenties..
in January 1882 [...] Mauve introduced him to painting in oil and watercolour
Van Gogh drew and painted with watercolours while at school

--Hillbillyholiday talk 21:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Paintings as his progeny?

Vincent was childless and in his final letter to Theo, said that he viewed his paintings as his progeny. The historian Simon Schama said that Vincent "did have a child of course, Expressionism, and many, many heirs."

A lovely passage, but is it accurate? I've seen the BBC documentary and this is indeed what Schama says. However, Vincent's last two letters to Theo make no such claim. (RM25 and 902 dated 23 July 1890)

Going through the letters to Theo, the nearest thing I've found to Schama's assertion that Vincent "viewed his paintings as his progeny", is from Letter 673 (3 September 1888)

Ah, my dear brother, sometimes I know so clearly what I want. In life and in painting too, I can easily do without the dear Lord, but I can’t, suffering as I do, do without something greater than myself, which is my life, the power to create. And if frustrated in this power physically, we try to create thoughts instead of children; in that way, we’re part of humanity all the same.

It may be original research, and far be it from me to accuse Schama of massaging the facts to create a snappy soundbite, but I think the section needs rewording. --Hillbillyholiday talk 03:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Did Schama say that bit about the last letter? If not, just delete that sentence ... and I love that quote you put above this; add it in an appropriate way.   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, here's a link to moment in the documentary where he says it: [36] re. the quote above, thanks, it took some digging, but I'm concerned of overstepping ther limits of original research and/or synth. --Hillbillyholiday talk 03:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Meh. I still say take that one sentence out. Put in Vincent's quote above, and follow it with Schama about Expressionism.. then.. I actually haven't read the article; I'm fixing refs... but I think what Schama said about Vincent wanting to move people etc. rings true.. wonder if we can find that in his letters (or is it already in the article?) and put it in without mentioning Schama 's name again... don't want one critic's name or voice to become too foregrounded...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, I had a crack at rewording the first sentence, but I'm not too sure whether it will last. --Hillbillyholiday talk 04:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


Lovely article, but I feel there are too many quotes. Thoughts? --John (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

  • I've only skimmed, but I felt that on occasion there were other quotes that were preferable to the ones provided.. and perhaps one or two too many, yes. When I'm done fixing all the cites I'll actually read the article :-), and I'll see what I think then.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Possibly a few too many, but Vincent's correspondence is worth quoting extensively. He was an accomplished writer and his letters provide the best evidence of his views on art, his state of mind, and are important when it comes to dating his works. That said, I'm sure we (and by "we", I mean "you") could easily render some quotes into prose. --Hillbillyholiday talk 01:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I could list them here and we could haggle, or I could just be WP:BOLD and take a hack at them, and you or someone else could restore any they feel I have removed unjustly. I feel like I will do the second, if that is ok. --John (talk) 11:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I feel like this is a better balance of quotes with summary. --John (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh I misunderstood what you meant to change. Yes, looks better, and no, it doesn't disturb what I was trying to do. Sorry if my confusion confused you.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree, much better. Ceoil (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Try to use only one I think  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

gave ear to brothel keeper or prostitute

Naifeh & Smith p. 704 have Vincent giving the ear section to a brothel keeper and saying "remember me"; our article cites a Hulsker (which particular one I don't know, no year of publication supplied) saying V. gave it to a prostitute saying "guard it well"  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Good spot. Someone with a more comprehensive knowledge of the sources than me, what weight do the good sources give to the different versions of this aspect of the Van Gogh myth? Because that is what the article should reflect. I have some other thoughts which I will post later. --John (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Ok thanks. Will take a look. Ceoil (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Rough outline: Gauguin threatens to leave, and the night before christmas eve he and Vincent fight, possibly a/the blade is drawn (McQuillan, 67). But we only know Gauguin's account, it was blackout for VvG. Vincent is drunk (the end of a bender with Gauguin) (Sund, 235) (Gauguin is prob also), cuts off his earlobe with a razor, wraps the bits in tissue (?) and staggers to a brothel to hand it to a prostitute named Rachel,(McQuillan, 68), at a brothel both he and Gauguin used to gamble(...I recall from somewhere) whore at (sund, 235), making the "guard" remark as he hands it to her.(refed separately, but widely accepted). Rolin carries him home (McQuillan says hotel, digging...), and he collapses, bleeding heavily. Police find him the next morning (McQuillan, 68) and have him hospitalised. Theo is telegraphed by Gaugian(McQuillan, 68), and arrives on the 25th, but leaves soon after, probably with Gauguin.(Sund, 237) Vincent kicks up a storm and is released a few days later again.(Sund, 237) Then paints the red/orange "bandaged portrait", now in Athens.(Sund, 237) Not seeing anything re "remember me". He recovers and returns to the yellow house, but has second attack in February and neighbours and mayor raise petition to have him institutionalized, which police enact and he is readmitted. Signac visits. (McQuillan, 68-69)Ceoil (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ceoil: can you please provide fullrefs w. page numbers?I will fix later  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Added now. Also have made it its own section, given John's cmts below, but not trilled at the title "December 1888", if there are better suggestions. Ceoil (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Your edits retained the cite to Hulsker (pp. 380-382)and the sentence "A local newspaper reported that Van Gogh had instructed the prostitute to 'guard this object carefully'" I don't have any books at all, and Hulsker is not previewable except in snippet view (for the 1980 edition of "complete' on p. 382, and also p. 322 of 'dual biography', 1990): "referring to an event that occurred on the previous Sunday, 23 December: Last Sunday night, at half past eleven, a certain Vincent Vangogh, painter, native of Holland, appeared at the maison de tolérance No. 1, asked for a girl named Rachel, and handed her... his ear, with these words: 'Keep this object like a treasure.' Then he disappeared. The police, informed of these events, which could only be the work of an unfortunate madman, looked the next morning for this individual, whom they found in bed with scarcely a sign of life."  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Oversight on my behalf. Dont have Hulsker either, and it seems from an earlier edition on the article from when I got involved (around 2012). I'd like to see him minimised as he has been challenged on a few issues now; in this para the claim ("guard") is easily replaceable from other sources. "like a treasure" should go imo. The stuff about " police" is certainly true, in all sources, but who they were informed by is unknown. An "unfortunate madman" could also be read as a deeply hungover and scared artist, which a number of sources come close to saying. Its a funny business; misspend anonymous youth, half remember recollections, Gauguin with career interests, and then a mythologising later art and publishing industry. Ceoil (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Good then. All is well.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Image placement

Some are very difficult now on the screens I am looking on, especially "Saint-Rémy (May 1889 – May 1890)" which has horizontal 3 x left and 2 x right forced images. The choices are excellent, but need to be better aligned with the text. I'm inclined to go with Modernists inclination, overall the images on the page are especially well chosen and balanced. Ceoil (talk) 00:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

  • When you fix them, be sure to clear out the text after image groups. I have once or twice used {{clear}} to fix a column of three or four words squished beside them.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

OK to change subheader?

I want to change Bibliography to Works Cited so I can move the journal cite down into that section. I'm hoping to avoid any new web cites (consolidate into existing source), but in the end I may need to move a web cite down there too... tks  Lingzhi ♦ (talk)

No problem Ceoil (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Also, it appears Modernist has a copy of Hulsker, so am now more comfortable. Ceoil (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I do have Hulsker's The Complete Van Gogh, 1984 edition...Modernist (talk) 20:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).