Talk:Vincent van Gogh

Not commercially successful....

Surely this has to be one of the most pathetic and tiresome first sentences in the history of Wikipedia, if not the history of art: 'Van Gogh was a Dutch Post-Impressionist painter who was not commercially successful during his life'. As if 'commercially successful' is the only thing that makes an artistic life truly valuable; the holy grail of this day and age: being commercially successful.

Can someone please change this testimonium paupertatis and make it into something more poetic, or at least academic... 213.124.169.240 (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

argee. an older version is better but could be improved. Hold on for a for a few days and will address. Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 04:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the older version linked above by Ceoil is much better. I have no idea why it would have been changed to the sentence that IP 213 correctly finds fault with. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Have edited it a bit, not wanting to have the legitimate concern hang out there much longer. Ceoil, please polish it to perfection! Randy Kryn (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I think we need to have a full rollback to an earlier version. The lead is now five instead of four paragraphs, and info has been added throughout that's not in the sources cited. I have some of the book sources used here but need to locate them and then will take a look at the text. I've noticed the changes and have been getting slightly alarmed. Victoria (tk) 20:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Johnbod (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I've made a start. I'm removing theories - we've discussed these on talk - and am removing material that's overly detailed for this page but can go to the subpages. Now that I think about it, the cause of death theories can also possibly go to that subpage. The lead still needs to be put back as it was. Will try to take a look tomorrow. Victoria (tk) 03:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Adding: I've rolled the first few paragraphs back to this version which passed FAC. For some reason the lead is still at five paras, but the infobox is bloated - esp. the b/c of the sig - so leaving the lead longish for now. We can hash is out when people are back from summer holidays. Victoria (tk) 03:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Haven't read your changes, seems like a lot of content removal. For now just wanted to say that the bold signature looks really good in the infobox. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Randy, I removed a section here that included external links embedded in the text and is a section that should go to a subarticle. If anyone disagrees we can revisit, use high quality scholarly sources for the tree roots paintings, and set up a section like the other sections, i.e self-protraits etc. I'm not sure it's needed but if we decide to go that way, it's best to make it the same as the others.

I commented out a stacked image in this edit because it breaks the formating. It can go back but should be part of the images work mentioned below.

I removed theories re death in this edit and this edit. Consensus is not to include theories per previous talk discussions. Of course that can always be revisited but there is Death of Vincent van Gogh, which is better for the theories than the main bio.

In this edit I reinstated the first para from the lead from the FAC version per WP:FAOWN, and because it's better written. Reinstated two other paras too. We may need to discuss.

Finally, re the sig: it takes up a lot of space. Now that there isn't a TOC for unlogged in readers, and an infobox that's bloating, it's taking up space we might not have. But we can discuss. I'll wait until everyone is around to continue. Victoria (tk) 20:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Images

I ran across Sunflowers (Van Gogh series) and saw a problem with long blank spaces and not so aestatic looking images. I came to this article to see how a featured article would have it listed. There are long blank spaces and inferior images here also.

Is there a reason that some kind of "notes" could not be used leaving just the needed caption for an image? At the very least, the images could be made larger in the same space, which would be more aestetic. -- Otr500 (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Otr500 the captions are different here than on the sunflowers article, unless I'm missing something. Can you give an example from a specific image in a specific section in this article of such a caption? Also, the images may need reformatting to better suit the new user interface. I'm not seeing white space or blanks spaces, but everyone sees something different, depending on device, operating system, zoom level, etc. Can you give an example of a specific section where you seeing the white space? Also not quite sure what you mean by inferior. Can you give an example? Thanks, Victoria (tk) 03:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for the reply (I had an edit conflict). As for "inferior" I mean not as good or great looking as could be mainly because of size. I am on a 17 1/2" touchscreen laptop. I didn't fire up the 14" laptop or tablet to see how they look on other screens. On my Moto G Power cell phone the images are larger, clearer, and are presented down the page instead of four across, with each taking almost a full page.

The images in the "Nuenen and Antwerp (1883–1886)" section are small, The extended caption is very long, and I think unnecessary, and is why if some of the caption information were used as a note, the images could be enlarged some and possibly still save space. This is the same for the "Paris (1886–1888)", and all others concerning galleries it appears. One of the images in the "Saint-Rémy (May 1889 – May 1890)" section has an extended "tail" in the caption which could look better. Look at the "Portraits" section and the "Self-portraits" subsection.

As I stated, the galleries in the sections and subsections, it seems most of them, have long captions hanging down the page leaving spaces around them. I just wonder if using notes for the extra explanatory parts, would shorten the captions, and possibly allow the images to be enlarged some thus making general improvements. It seems to me I am just re-explaining what I already included above so I hope I have actually clarified things.

Anyway, I just wondered if someone could look at this and see if there is room for improvement. Thanks, -- Otr500 (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Otr500, we'll have to discuss images once everyone is back from the holidays. The new interface (Visual editor 2022) has changed things and browers, etc. have changed since we arranged these images. I'm on a laptop and the "Nuenen and Antwerp" section renders as a four across gallery for me. There is a stacked image there (which I believe was added since the gallery was decided) which is problematic because stacked images don't cascade and cause lots of layout issues. I have the tools column on the right of the page collapsed, and am zoomed in at 125%. What we've done in the past is tried lots of different layouts and checked on as many different devices as we can. We probably need to go through that exercise again. Thanks for mentioning. Victoria (tk) 20:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Reply: --- and there is no hurry. It sounds to me like my concerns will be addressed in the near future. By-the-way, I am zoomed to 125% also. Have a great week, -- Otr500 (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

It will take a little work. At 100% & full screen the galleries render in a single line for me. Since I choose to use a small screen (laptop) and need to boost to 125% to read, I've accepted that the images won't render perfectly. A larger concern is that images have been added/removed. So we should discuss whether to revert back to the images in this version, which we workshopped extensively. Pinging Ceoil to chime in upon return from where ever. That would involve copy/pasting all galleries from the FAC version to the current version, which I'm thinking is what we should do. Victoria (tk) 03:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

If you get a chance to work on them ping me if you don't mind. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• I didn't look before replying but it looks like someone has been working on it. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Death

Vincent did not commit suicide. 2601:18C:8F81:8A00:3907:B643:6A94:66ED (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

On 10 February 2023, I wrote on this Talk page: Why does the article contain no mention of the theory that Van Gogh's death was not by suicide? It was advanced in Naifeh and Smith's prominent biography, which is cited in the article for other things. Was there a consensus that it is not even worth mentioning? Maurice Magnus (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC). I received this reply: Because it's a very recent (ie last 20 years) theory that has often been debunked. The talk archives have a lot on it. Ceoil (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that it is wrong not to mention Naifeh and Smith's theory, along with other scholars' reactions to it. Wikipedia should not censor serious hypotheses, and Naifeh and Smith's was serious. They are legitimate biographers, not crackpots or conspiracy theorists, as that term is used derogatorily. Maurice Magnus (talk) 11:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Even if Naifeh and Smith's theory has been conclusively debunked (which I don't believe it has), it should be mentioned for its historical interest. Maurice Magnus (talk) 11:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Turbulent skies of Vincent Van Gogh’s ‘The Starry Night’ align with a scientific theory, study finds

[1] Doug Weller talk 09:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Chain Pier, Brighton (1827) by John Constable also gets a mention! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Good find Doug Weller. Would suggest placing Starry Night as the opening image of Turbulent flow with a link to the article within the caption (I almost just did so but you deserve "the honors", an award given by Martinevans123). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, don't mind me... I've just got the blues... Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn Thanks but I'm useless at images. Could you do it for me? Doug Weller talk 15:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for bringing this interesting reference here. Randy Kryn (talk) 07:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Commit Suicide

The Wikipedian @Remsense is resolutely in favour of including suicidal terminology reading "to commit suicide" which has various connotations and these are described thusly: Suicide terminology. Moreover this is included in the lede, which is an important section and such terminology brings nothing to the table, so removing it should be a non-issue. Please present your rationale. PuppyMonkey (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

As I said before, this would be an appropriate change to enforce in articles if it were one of our content guidelines. It is not: instead, it is a recommendation by external advocates. Imposing external guidelines in articles as if they were guidelines established by the consensus of the Wikipedia community is inappropriate. Trying to sneak the change in as a minor edit several days after I asked you to bring it here first is completely unacceptable. If it's not clear, the burden is on you to make the case for why the content should be changed.

As for the content, I haven't been convinced by the reasons provided so far. We generally use language in line with what our sources use, and while I understand the logic of the advocates' argument, I am not compelled to agree with the extent of their conclusions. Remsense ‥ 论 01:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The only burden I should have is that the change is better than the status quo, which it is. And this argumentation is already completely laid out for me in an existing Wikipedia article. With no policy either for or against the phraseology, all you have is precedence. The use of English changes over time with the culture, and currently using the word "commit" is outdated as the Legality of suicide is changing around the world. PuppyMonkey (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

(third party) Suicide terminology is an encyclopedic article on the subject. The wording for what is considered acceptable on Wikipedia can be found at MOS:SUICIDE. To wit:

The phrase committed suicide is not banned on the English Wikipedia, although many external style guides discourage it as being potentially stigmatising and offensive to some people. There are many other appropriate, common, and encyclopedic ways to describe a suicide [...]

Emphasis in original, footnote removed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't tell which side you're endorsing @Tenryuu. PuppyMonkey (talk) 02:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm saying if you two can't figure it out on the talk page, stop edit warring and file a request for dispute resolution. I'm here to point out what is considered acceptable stylistically on Wikipedia; that's it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the elucidation. I should've thought to link the relevant part of the MOS much sooner. Remsense ‥ 论 04:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

To rephrase my position in terms of the verbiage above: the phrase is not disallowed, so it's not acceptable for editors to treat it as if it is disallowed, i.e. to remove it from articles as a matter of course. Some more particular reason, or otherwise some superior version of the passage, is what would justify a change. Remsense ‥ 论 04:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)