Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:20, 15 July 2011

Template:VA

	Vincent van Gogh has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 3, 2006 Peer review Reviewed September 18, 2006 Good article nominee Listed March 31, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 28, 2007 WikiProject A-class review Not approved July 1, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept August 1, 2009 Peer review Reviewed Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Core This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Top-importance). This article is listed on the project's core biographies page. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Netherlands This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Visual arts This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts Template:WP1.0

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Stephen Foley (Tuesday, 3 February 2009). "So is Misplaced Pages cracking up?:It was a utopian vision: an encyclopedia for the people, by the people. But eight years on, Misplaced Pages is plagued by endless hoaxes, and lurches from one cash crisis to another. Will it become a footnote in the history of the web?". The Independent. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on March 17, 2005, December 23, 2006, December 23, 2007, December 23, 2008, December 23, 2009, and December 23, 2010.

Archives

1-(pre-2008) 2-(2008-2009)

New Yorker piece

Interesting piece in the January 4 New Yorker by Adam Gopnik, on the cutting-off of the ear as a turning point in modern art. JNW (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Good find, we should work it into the legacy section...Modernist (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

More ink has been spilled than blood: in the December 29 NYTimes there's a piece about van Gogh scholar Martin Bailey concluding that the artist cut his ear upon learning that Theo was getting married. One small self-mutilation, so many theories. JNW (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess that takes Gauguin and his rapier off the hook...Modernist (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you artsy guys going to do this, or are you going to leave it to the unschooled like me?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Jeanne Calment

The lady who died in 1997 and met VG when she was a child. Refs can be found at Jeanne_Calment#Recognition. Seems like something that should have a presence in some form in the article. Ty 13:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Why? I am sure thousands of people met Van Gogh. That isn't exactly newsworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 05:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

"15 francs month" correction

Current: On 1 May, he signed a lease for 15 francs month

Corrected: On 1 May, he signed a lease for 15 francs a month

Jvhays (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

the ear again

I've found an interesting article, dealing with the question if it was the whole ear or just a lobe of it, which was cut off. "Dr. Rita Wildegans. The Corpus Delicti Is a Corpuscle". 188.192.54.120 (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Dates

I have noticed that the article has two conventions for dating VvGs works. Which is correct?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Good observation Tony, either way is correct - however I have placed brackets on all the dates of his paintings for consistency...Modernist (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

O.K. but now sometimes you have a comma before the date, sometimes after and sometimes both.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jzjohnson, 19 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I would like to point out that the painting "The Bedroom in Arles" is located in The Art Institute of Chicago, the painting "The Bathroom in Arles" is in the Van Gogh Museum.

Jzjohnson (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

As explained in Bedroom in Arles, there are three versions, of which the pictured one is in the place claimed. Algebraist 22:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Uniltìranyu (Uniltìranyu) 14:48, 20 May 2010 (AEST) When he gave the Ear lobe to the Prostitute, she fainted.

Main image

I prefer the former main image. Am I alone?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That's why my edit summary included "feel free to rv if the other painting is preferred". So revert. APK whisper in my ear 21:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to complicate this, but I like the current image--I think it's the better painting. But honestly, you can't go wrong with either one. JNW (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Change is good, when its good - I think the new picture is fine...Modernist (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know art, but to me the former seems to be more clear in terms of showing the reader what he looked like. Which of these is more well-known in the art community?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

They are both well known. The National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC. and the Chicago Art Institute are both important and well attended institutions...Modernist (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Should the former main image be completely removed from the article or should it be moved elsewhere?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Lets try to keep it in, maybe a section on self portraits...Modernist (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Done...Modernist (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I like them both! I think maybe the current one has more of the yellows and blues that are associated with his more popular works? 81.103.196.19 (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I like them both too. We should just swap ever other month. Ceoil (talk) 08:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

As he did so many, I think we should have a new one on the first of each month. My proposal for July: File:SelbstPortrait VG2.jpg. Or maybe one he had painted in the relevant month... Ty 09:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Support your proposal for July as it stands, warming now to a revolving lead. Ceoil (talk) 11:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree the changes are welcome. The imagery in the self portrait section can also rotate with the lead from time to time...Modernist (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Personal preference aside I would say go with the current image. It seems most true to his typical style and will be more identifiable for viewers who are not completely familiar with his art.--GothExpression 21:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GothExpression (talk • contribs)

I like the rotation idea, but shouldn't the opening -infobox- image at least be "identifiable" (as the previous user also stated) and typical for Van Gogh's image known throughout the world? Joost 99 (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, so far this is my least favorite, I'll change it in a day or two...Modernist (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Pronuciation

Can someone find/make a definitive guide to the pronunciation of "Gogh"? I'm an American and always heard it said as "Go". Recently, Vincent featured in an episode of Doctor Who where they consistently pronounced it "Goff". Which (if either) is the proper Dutch way to say his name? --174.70.117.125 (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Footnote 1 gives quite a lot of detail on different pronunciations. Algebraist 23:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Summary

A user (Modernist) has reverted my edit.

The whole summary in the preferred version is repetitive. It describes van Gogh as underappreciated/unknown and an influence on twentieth century/moderna art in three places, my version makes the former assertion twice - I should have gone further. The summary also contains peacock and weasal terms which editors are supposed to avoid, for example: "Today, he is widely regarded as one of history's greatest painters"; the peer of Titian, Rembrandt or Picasso? Not quite I would suggest.

The sentence closing the second paragraph is problematic: "Today many of his pieces ... are among the world's most recognizable and expensive works of art." The point about recognition may well be true, if we restrict it to the sunflowers series, but who says so? The current version is an exaggeration. "Expensive"? The few which remain in private hands sell for very high prices when they they are auctioned, but prices of impressionist and post-impressionist art have only risen dramatically, to be the most "expensive" works of art, in the last thirty years or so. A substantial portion, those long in the collection of van Gogh's nephew for example, have never passed through the art market. Many entered public collections before the war. The summary is thus imprecise, claiming more than can be sustained or misleading.

My version of the second paragraph cuts out anything superfluous to an outline of the qualities the artworks possess. Philip Cross (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

response

Uh, I disagree profoundly with this user - Philip Cross and his assertions. Common sense, almost every museum and history book refute the nonsense I am reading above in this thread. Vincent van Gogh is simply one of the five most revered artists of the last 200 years. His career was short, profound, and as described in the lead relatively unknown in his lifetime. His story has become a major modern myth. Today, he is widely regarded as one of history's greatest painters"; the peer of Titian, Rembrandt or Picasso? - I see absolutely no problem with that comment. Editor Philip Cross asserts - Not quite I would suggest, and I reject that comment, yeah - Philip Cross - Van Gogh is regarded as one of history's greatest painters, are you kidding me?

While I do not reject the idea of improving the introduction - I see none in the Philip Cross proposal...Modernist (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• In terms of popularity -

Misplaced Pages facts

In June 2010:

• El Greco - 17,861 hits
• Titian - 21,406 hits
• Paul Cézanne - 29,621 hits
• Henri Matisse - 43,633 hits
• Raphael - 46,607 hits
• Rembrandt - 47,852 hits
• Jackson Pollock - 54,574 hits
• Claude Monet - 69,519 hits
• Michelangelo - 114,712 hits
• Andy Warhol - 149,632 hits
• Pablo Picasso - 165,881 hits
• Vincent van Gogh - 205,264 hits
• Leonardo Da Vinci - 236, 101 hits

suggested remedies

I see contention on several specific facts in the lead. We should consider each as a separate fact for inclusion with the requirement that each has a fully cited expanded explanation in the main text. The following are contentious facts for consideration and in need of fully cited explanation in the main body:

• his fame grew in the years after his death - done - see legacy, I added one more reliable source..,

• Firstly we have this article: Posthumous fame of Vincent van Gogh which discusses this question at length. As did world renowned art historian John Rewald in The posthumous fate of Vincent van Gogh 1890-1970, (first published in Museumjournaal, August-September 1970), and reprinted in John Rewald Studies in Post-Impressionism, p. 248, published by Abrams 1986, ISBN 0-8109-1632-0. Aside from the enormous interest in Post-Impressionism in the early 20th century, exemplified by Matisse, Picasso and German Expressionism, Lust for Life and the Letters to Theo (that were published first in German and then in several languages) ignited enormous public interest in his work that grew stronger and stronger. The Hollywood movie with Kirk Douglass and Anthony Quinn pretty much made him a household name, but the paintings simply strike a basic chord in people...Modernist (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Today, he is widely regarded as one of history's greatest painters - The 10 greatest painters of all time - , and the 10 most expensive paintings

• I think the auctions confirm that...Modernist (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• he is an important contributor to the foundations of modern art - done many times over - see legacy and influence sections

• His paintings are among the foundations of Expressionism...Modernist (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• his work was a strong influence on the Modernist art that followed - done added another RS in the influence section, - added reliable sourced reference and how about this book? - The Genesis of Modernism: Seurat, Gauguin, Van Gogh, and French Symbolism in the 1880s by Sven Loevgren. (I used a newspaper article from 2007)

• As above - His paintings are among the important foundations of Expressionism - which is one of the most important modernist movements, his understanding of the psychology of color had an impact on several movements in abstraction of the 20th century...Modernist (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Today many of his pieces. . .are among the world's most recognizable and expensive works of art - How's this? - , Carol Vogel, New York Times...

I consider each bulletpointed claim a constestable point. If it is not explained in the text with adequate citations it should be removed. Otherwise removal is dubious.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, I agree each point should be backed up with referenced text, back to the books...Modernist (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you are arguing rather than trying to construct the encyclopedic facts with respect to WP:RS and WP:ATT. I am really concerned about ATT with respect to each of the fact. Please see that they are reffed in the article or remove them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Tony, please read the post immediately preceding yours: "I agree each point should be backed up with referenced text, back to the books...". Ty 02:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I confess not to have anything at hand, but I don't think any of this is problematic. Van Gogh is one of the very few artists for whom these claims are justifiable--his status is iconic--and my guess is that it won't be too difficult to find sources. If there's repetition in the paragraph, that can be cleaned up. JNW (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I would be surprised if this material wasn't in the article, as it reflects wide opinion. A quick search of Google Books, for example, turns up several good sources for Van Gogh as one of the greatest painters. Ty 02:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, a Google search in reference to his paintings' prices: , and his influence on 20th century art is not even in doubt. Of course all this is strengthened with sources, but these are not controversial claims. JNW (talk) 02:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing I'm just stating the facts here on the talk page. Only reliable sources will be added to the article, as they have been consistently added all along...Modernist (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Using RS will end debate. Whether Modernist or Cross is right citing sources is what WP is about. Say things in the lead that you can back up in the text with RSs and there will be no debate. That is all I am saying. The debate is about specific facts regarding Van Gogh's excellence. Just cite your points and all will be fine. I am not standing behind anything in the LEAD that is not reffed in the body regardless of whether I believe it to be true. I am not going to stand behind removal of any of the contentious points above if they can be reffed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion all of the points are referenced in the article by reliable sources...Modernist (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Van Gogh's ear

It seems that recent research has suggested that Van Gogh's ear was cut off by his friend Gauguin in a heated argument. While it's not yet definitive, I think someone should add some mention of it to the article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-news/5274073/Van-Goghs-ear-was-cut-off-by-friend-Gauguin-with-a-sword.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/may/04/vincent-van-gogh-ear dilcoe

That issue has been discussed and is unproven speculation by those authors; and does not accurately reflect what many others have written and said about the events of that night...Modernist (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that. Thanks!

dilcoe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilcoe (talk • contribs) 09:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Discrepancy regarding Van Gogh's self-mutilated ear

Can someone just tell me how to fix the Vincent Van Gogh article? in the "Self Portraits" section it states twice that "All of the self-portraits Van Gogh executed in Saint-Rémy show the artist's head from the left, i.e. with the side opposite his mutilated ear, showing only his good side." This implies that he mutilated his right ear, but earlier in the article (in the "Arles" section) it states "In panic, Van Gogh left their quarters and fled to a local brothel. While there, he cut off the lower part of his left ear lobe." These two statements conflict... the self portrait section says his left was his good side, and the Arles section says it was the side with the mutilated ear.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Buffalothunder" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffalothunder (talk • contribs) 15:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Many of Van Gogh's self portraits are depicting his face as it appeared in a mirror i.e. his left side in the image is in reality the right side of his face...Modernist (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, but it would be more precise to state that all of his self portraits give the mirror image.--RPD (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, appreciated...Modernist (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

So, since "...show the artist's head from the left, i.e. with the side opposite his mutilated ear, showing only his good side" is incorrect, why didn't you fix it? --Espoo (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Hoegi7, 26 August 2010

The location of the painting "Sunflowers" is not Munich. It's in the National Gallery of London. Please view the article http://en.wikipedia.org/National_Gallery.

with best regards

hoegi7

Hoegi7 (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your inquiry. Actually they are related but two different paintings of Sunflowers...Modernist (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Sunflowers, third version: blue green background
  Oil on canvas, 91 × 72 cm
  Neue Pinakothek, Munich, Germany
• Sunflowers, fourth version: yellow background
  Oil on canvas, 92.1 × 73 cm
  National Gallery, London, England

Vincent van Gogh Article links issues

I'm planning on fixing most links that are either broken or doing redirects, with such 301 / 302 / 404 http Status. I've already started by changing the webexhibits.org letters that used to redirect to www.webexhibits.org (31 Links in Total)

If you have any question regarding my modifications, please let me know over here.

Cheers. (EllenHodges (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC))

Need some help, evidently

I've tried to alter the header of "Vincent van Gogh", i.e. I've tried to substitute the image in the header, and hoped to supply additional commentary with the altered title & tops. But evidently I did not succeed, so I have to ask for assistance - Ty, Modernist &c, are you around? --RPD (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Gremlins, likely. Ceoil (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Vincent van Gogh 'Mental Illness'

The section concerning his 'mental illness' is completely unfounded, and unjustifiable in being kept in this article. The fact stated in which 150 psychiatrists were not able to place a stigmatized label upon the artist is proof of the pseudo science psychiatry truly is, thus, it has no place in the biography of this man.

Basically, to state Vincent van Gogh as mentally ill, is unproven, it would be better to state him as in a state, or states, of 'mental distress' throughout periods of his life, which ultimately perhaps played a role in his death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.27.214 (talk) 02:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Last painting

In the Auvers-sur-Oise part of the biography section it says that Wheat Field With Crows is often mistakenly believed to be his last work, but that Jan Hulsker lists paintings that postdate it. But then further down the article, under the Wheat Fields part of the Work section, there's a poetic little ending on there claming "A depiction of the golden wheat in bright sunlight was to be his final painting, along with his usual easel and paints he had carried a pistol with him that day". Okay, maybe both of these can be sourced, but as a reader I want consistent information that doesn't contradict itself within a few hundred words. Which should stay? --78.105.178.62 (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the latter claim, which may well refer to this wheat field painting . However, a Google search of 'van gogh last painting' turns up several possibilities.... JNW (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks - I'm not 100% sure of my ground here either on the facts about the subject or about Misplaced Pages's editing policies. You're right, it probably does refer to that painting, which could make my comment earlier a little hasty, but perhaps if it was confusing to me it may possibly have been confusing to others too. Thanks for responding to my concerns, it's appreciated. --78.105.178.62 (talk) 11:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the conflicting information, for the moment I'd choose to go with Hulsker's account. If someone can provide a more recent and credible view, please jump in. JNW (talk) 15:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Dkenner77, 23 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

An edit suggestion/addition for the legacy section.

Vincent Van Gogh was the subject of a specific episode in the Doctor Who television series. A link to the episode is here -

http://en.wikipedia.org/Vincent_and_the_Doctor

It dealt with his madness and a number of his issues. He also reappears in a later episode of the series.

Regards,

Dkenner77 (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This sounds a bit trivial, in terms of the actual topic, so I'll decline it for now. If discussion results in others agreeing, then we could add it. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  22:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the artist and his works, not about a TV show, really not suitable here, however it might do well here: Cultural depictions of Vincent van Gogh...Modernist (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Link to list of works?

I'm in the process of making as many additions to the List of works by Vincent van Gogh page as I can find (image, location, works not listed, etc). Currently there is no link to this page within the main Vincent Van Gogh page, only to specific series of works (sunflowers, self-portraits, etc). Can it be added under the "Work" heading? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.250.62.225 (talk) 11:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. The main van Gogh page is protected from additions by ips, but you should be able to edit from you main account which I presume is User:Chimino. Anyway thanks for the additions to the list. Also, have you been looking at the van Gogh nav box at the foot of the page, might help you. Ceoil 12:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. And I apologize for leaving the comment unsigned...still learning the fine points of "wikispeak". -Chimino —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.206.29 (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Theres a lot to learn....Ceoil 00:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Link to Sinhala

Please add si:වින්සන්ට් වැන් ගෝ to the bottom of this page. Thanks! පසිදු කාවින්ද (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Done...Modernist (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Please add the external links

Please stop adding spam

While we already have links to the letters and relevant museums - please desist in adding links to your commercial enterprise...Modernist (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC) The Dolhuys Museum in Haarlem presented the rare and important exhibition The Van Gogh Dossier : Mad or Genius. The exhibition which offers new insights into the personality of Vincent van Gogh. Special is the relation, scientifically established of his illness and his letters. The link is The Van Gogh Dossier : Mad or Genius. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallery-of-art (talk • contribs) 19:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

SPAM - unnecessary...Modernist (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If you try to tell this is spam, then you do not know about Van Gogh, art science and the Netherlands at all. --Gallery-of-art (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

And the other museums in the Netherlands with work by Van Gogh or dedicated to Van Gogh:

• The Kröller-Müller Museum Otterlo.

Not necessary - there are already links in the article to Kröller-Müller Museum...Modernist (talk) 12:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• The Van Gogh Village Nuenen.

All the letters of Van Gogh by Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam:

Already there in the EL section, with a second link in the EL section to the letters as well...Modernist (talk) 12:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• The letters - Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam.

The Paintings of Van Gogh powered by Google:

• Discover featured Van Gogh's Artwork powered by Google.

--Gallery-of-art (talk) 07:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

SPAM - unnecessary...Modernist (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Not at all (except the letters). New, modern, 2011!! And let others decide, please. --Gallery-of-art (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It is misleading to post what you refer to as 'the paintings of Van Cogh powered by Google,' when there is, in fact, a real google art project. What you are trying to post are commercial links, which are unhelpful, and uninformative. MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Discover featured Van Gogh's Artwork powered by Google.

Is not commercial. It is an overvieuw of all the paintings Google had put in their Art Project. Fine, very good stuff. Real 2011!! --Gallery-of-art (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Then why not link to the site hosted by Google? It is clear that you are abusing Misplaced Pages in order to promote vangoghreproductions.com. MER-C 03:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Do with the suggestions I made. I have no personal purposes at all. --Gallery-of-art (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

status of Painter on the road to tarascon

The article implies the painting was destroyed in Magdeburg by fire during WWII. The official status according to the "Lost Art" (www.lostart.de) project is missing due to the fact that most of Magdeburgs treasures had been stored in a salt deposit near Staßfurt to prevent damage from bombing and fighting, so there is a good chance this happened to the painting as well (considering its status and importance). After the war the vast majority of those artworks were gone. There is an argument whether due to the local public or allied troops. However....there is a good chance that painting is still intact. Maybe the text should be altered to give a hint that the painting is missing instead of destroyed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.144.202.235 (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

done...Modernist (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

well spotted, but given the fact that the painting is so well known and has such high value, and the likelyhood that all involvend in what ever happened have passed away, is it likely that it would not have emerged by now if it still existed. Ceoil 15:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Well Ceoil, you have a point (unfortunately :-) but i would like to remain optimistic and i guess the approach Modernist used suits both of us quite well, in the end, if the painting is still intact and stowed away in a decent place (not a moldy attic) maybe its goin to show up again...remember, not everyone is an art lover ^^ ...time will tell, thx to you two —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.143.217.94 (talk) 08:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The Hague / Clasina Maria "Sien" Hoornik

If "In 1904, Sien drowned herself in the river Scheldt", then her year of death is not "unknown", as stated. Which is true?

217.155.163.30 (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Done, good catch...Modernist (talk) 01:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Van Gogh or van Gogh?

Our text can't seem to make up its mind, which looks a tad shoddy. Ericoides (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This article uses Van Gogh determined by consensus, other related articles in wikipedia use van Gogh...Modernist (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

What consensus, Modernist? Where was this ever discussed?

My view is that the "van" part of his name should only ever be capitalised if it's the start of a sentence (Van Gogh travelled to Arles, where ...); otherwise it's lower case (The greatest issue van Gogh faced there was ...).

We need to be consistent (a) within this article most particularly, but also (b) throughout Misplaced Pages. Otherwise, we're a laughing stock. -- Jack of Oz 22:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• 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 and here also ...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)

Its a thing that comes up a lot; we have settled on a working compromise, though its unlikely to please everybody. I think the most important thing is that we have consistency. If thats missed pls give a hand. Ceoil 02:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I've made one change. I didn't realise that it was our style to have Vincent van Gogh AND Van Gogh (I'd have assumed that it would either be Vincent van Goch AND van Gogh; or, Vincent Van Gogh AND Van Gogh, but I was clearly mistaken. The Dutch page – and they should know best – has, like us, Vincent van Gogh AND Van Gogh). Ericoides (talk) 11:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Its not a conspiracy, its an agreed on form, applied on by too little, and sometimes careless, hands. Thanks for your help. Ceoil 11:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Who mentioned a conspiracy? Ericoides (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Them'. Ceoil 13:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you OK? Ericoides (talk) 13:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine. But look it takes all sorts on a page like this, I didn't know where you were coming from. We get a lot of oddness, theories and spam, and so tend to be at first hand dismissive. Sorry. Ceoil 13:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

That's OK. Lest anyone else query my motives (and I thought my comments above were conciliatory, in any case), I've made an improvement to the article by changing the spurious Cypress link. Ericoides (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

See this - Van (Dutch) clearly Van Gogh is correct...Modernist (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Note - we use 'Vincent' when in close proximity to Theo and other family members...Modernist (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment 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 Misplaced Pages....): 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. Joost 99 (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Wholesale changes. Unfortunately, someone is now doing a wholesale changes of "van Gogh" to "Van Gogh" -- even when it is preceded by "Vincent". The result is several articles now have "Vincent Van Gogh" when they used to have VvG. Glrx (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed...Modernist (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'm coming in rather late on this but I have been attempting to encorage correct usage in all the articles on Van Gogh which. In English, as in Dutch (but not Flemish), the rule is

X van Y for the first name plus the family name, and

Van Y when the family name is used alone.

This is not just true for VvG but for all the other Dutchmen in Misplaced Pages! - Ipigott (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Footnote 1: Netherlands / Holland / Brabant

The footnote says 'However, though Van Gogh's parents were from the Netherlands, he grew up in Brabant...' which is confusing on a couple of levels. The historical entity Brabant is divided into North Brabant, a province of the Netherlands where Van Gogh was born, and the Belgian province Flemish Brabant. Perhaps what is meant is that his parents were from Holland, where a different dialect is spoken. Elsewhere, in a caption the Kröller-Müller Museum is placed in Holland. That should be Netherlands, since it is not in the province of Holland, but rather in Gelderland province. The Dutch are tolerant of foreigners calling the whole country Holland, but it is better to be precise in references. 66.245.41.237 (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Changed. I saw his father was born in Benschop, Utrecht, so I kept it general (parents not born in Branbant). Joost 99 (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Add some ties to recently created articles

This is such a great, well-edited article - and very well read - so I wanted to touch base before making a few changes. I thought it might be nice to sprinkle some sentences or phrases that include links about:

• Van Gogh's family in his art
• Peasant character studies that culminated in the masterpiece, The Potato Eaters
• Still life by Vincent van Gogh (Paris) and Asnières representing break-through works in VvG's artistic career
• Undergrowth (sous-bois) - Barbizon School movement
• Copies by Vincent van Gogh made while in Saint-Paul Asylum
• Hospital in Arles (Van Gogh series) - probably all this needs done is just add the link (not a sentence)
• Montmartre - View from Vincent's window (in the article), an example of works made in Montmatre

Any thoughts or concerns? Is it best if I make all of the changes at once so that someone could take a look at the set before they're final? Thanks!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Do it. Ceoil 19:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, wikilinking is what the site is all about.--Chimino (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I'll get to it tomorrow if not later today.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

FA candidate?

I personally think this article is perfectly referenced and wonderfully written, and totally warrants being brought to a featured article nomination. Sir Richardson (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It's getting there...Modernist (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Canon of Dutch History

I thought it worth mentioning in the legacy section that van Gogh is in the Canon of Dutch History taught in elementary Dutch schools, one of just 50 topics in the list. Well no matter, but I'm sure *he* would have thought it notable :-) but then of course he wasn't a culture snob was he? FightingMac (talk) 08:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree; as van Gogh was a Dutchman largely influenced by the masters of his country, I think it's quite notable his life/work is now considered a cornerstone of national education in the Netherlands, and should be re-added to the legacy section.--Chimino (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It's added to the Posthumous fame section...Modernist (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ty; you and Ceoil are doing great work getting this ready for FA (I hope).--Chimino (talk) 12:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Dutch pronunciation

I radically changed the Dutch IPA transcription of the name. It read , which is totally inaccurate. would be a transcription of something written as "Faan Choch". 1) While many people in the Northern and Western parts of the Netherlands would indeed pronounce 'v' as /f/ (a linguistic phenomenon called devoicing), the Standard Dutch pronunciation is in fact /v/; 2) As can be seen in this table, an 'a' in a closed syllable is pronounced /ɑ/; 3) While an 'n' before a 'g' would indeed be velarized to /ŋ/ in a word such as vangen, that is not true if the 'g' is part of a separate word, as in Van Gogh; 4) Just like the f-v pronunciation discussed before, many people would indeed pronounce 'g' as /χ/, but the standard pronunciation is /ɣ/. The correct transcription is therefore . - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there a WP:RS for the IPA? This web page says Du. vɑn ˈxɔx Glrx (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The changes in the article may be perfectly correct but we are not looking for personal opinions. We need some authentic references. And I question whether the French pronunciation is relevant. Maybe we should concentrate on the original Dutch and the extent to which British and United States usage reflects this - with pertinent references of course. - Ipigott (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Images referenced from box

While I am not very keen on boxes in art bios, I accept that for VvG a box may be necessary. I do not agree, however, that At Eternity's Gate is a work worthy of inclusion. How about substituting The Langlois Bridge or even The church at Auvers? - Ipigott (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Although I greatly admire the painting At Eternity's Gate and the courage it took to paint it; I switched it for The Night Café...Modernist (talk) 01:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe it is a favorite of VG-philes (personally speaking) due to its intense autobiographical nature of the artist and his mental state at the time, but from a strictly artistic standpoint probably not one of his greatest or most innovative works.--Chimino (talk) 04:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

At Eternity's Gate is indeed an intriguing painting. It is included in the biography as an image but there is no mention of it in the running text. It is interesting that VvG should make a painting of his earlier drawing: Old Man with his Head in his Hands at this late stage. However, when he first mentions the drawing/lithograph in his letter of 26 November 1882, he appears to have been in quite a positive mood. Maybe the article At Eternity's Gate deserves more attention? - Ipigott (talk) 07:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth I'm re-adding At Eternity's Gate partially because of this but mostly because I know its a great painting...Modernist (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the box, for the following reasons,

• The image is now larger
• Most of the info was contained in the first lead para
• He had so many great, great master-pieces, reducing them to a few is necessarly our, as editors, judgement call.
• The works included are a source of dispute
• Poles are evil Ceoil 21:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I restored info box. Redundant info OK; if troublesome, then del from lede. Can always say, "and many others..." Glrx (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Remove from the lead info which is already in the box? Incredible, but not surprising. Ceoil 21:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Would prefer to see the infobox gone. Wanted to suggest it myself. The influenced/influenced by section is subjective, as is the greatest works section. The rest easily accessible in the lead, which will be polished anyway. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This article averages more than 200,000 hits a month. I am in favor of keeping the infobox - because most of the people that come here are not looking to read the entire text; they are probably looking at the paintings; taking a little bit at a time - this guy is a MAJOR myth and in this case the box is useful...Modernist (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by that. The lead para has three sentences, less words than the box, and you dont need to scroll. And do you really think these hoppers from page to page are going to learn any thing they didn't know from the box - Dutch painter, suiceide, or are actually going to click on a 'major work' link and take it in. Its playing to a lowest denominator, it aint worth it. Ceoil 22:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't 'over-estimate' the average reader here. Without the box I can go to 300px for the lede, - talk about shocking...Modernist (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Modernist, we've never fallen out on anything before, and dont want to start now, so we'll go with input from others and thats fine by me. We can state our cases, but its not you vs me. Ceoil 23:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, lets see what the input brings...Modernist (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography

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. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Infobox

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 , 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)

Sources

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)

Name

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 Misplaced Pages 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 , , 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 Misplaced Pages....): 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)

Misplaced Pages 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' with 'some other' 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, Misplaced Pages 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: 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 . 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 Museum
• The Metropolitan Museum of Art
• MoMA , and the
• National Gallery of Art in Washington DC , use Van Gogh as does
• Hulsker and
• Irving Stone...Modernist (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Robert Hughes - Time magazine
• David Sylvester -

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

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)

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)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Good articles without topic parameter
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class biography articles
• GA-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Top-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• GA-Class biography (core) articles
• Core biography articles
• Top-importance biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• GA-Class Netherlands articles
• All WikiProject Netherlands pages
• GA-Class visual arts articles
• WikiProject Visual arts articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Selected anniversaries (March 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (December 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (December 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (December 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (December 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (December 2010)