Talk:Vincent van Gogh/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Bullet wound: chest or abdomen?

This article quite clearly states that Van Gogh was shot in the chest. The separate article on his death says he was shot in the abdomen. The two articles also discuss the trajectory of the bullet in contradictory ways-- down ward in the abdomen vs. striking a rib. Is one article just wrong? Was he shot twice? Is there uncertainty in the historical record? I do not have the sources to adjudicate this discrepancy, but an editor with the requisite sources and interest should address the issue and make necessary edits to one or both articles. MayerG (talk) 12:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Well starting to look first at what we have, the very first source used in the lead section here (which is only a newspaper report of the 2019 gun auction anyway) doesn't seem to say anything about the location of the wound(s)? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Van Gogh was only shot once, and I think the discrepancy in language has to do more with the conflation of "abdomen," "chest," and even "stomach" ("fatal stomach wound" is used in the Death of Vincent van Gogh article) and is due to translation, conflicting understandings of anatomy, and/or imprecision in language use. The controversy section [1] primarily relies on the Naifeh and Smith book. In the Appendix, Naifeh and Smith use "upper abdomen" to locate the gunshot wound, and they separately cite Adeline Ravoux's 1960s account of van Gogh's death which includes, presumably in translation, ""bottom of the chest."" Continuing to look at what we have, the article from The Guardian [2] calls the Naifeh and Smith theory of manslaughter a "bizarre claim." Whether or not subsequent representations or interpretations of the Naifeh and Smith book employ "chest," theirs is not a theory which necessitates representation in this article. Perhaps the Death article could be improved by clarification. Hexcodes (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

One bullet, yes? So what do the original French sources have for the location? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

It was certainly one bullet, and am inclined to think the differences in the sources is down to "discrepancy in language", per Hexcodes. Its about two years since I read these sources (still have all the books but am time pressed!), so put this open to informed suggestion here. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Ceoil, I would appreciate any leads on original French sources. I'm still looking for Ravoux's eyewitness account in French. Hexcodes (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

A guess just from a medical point of view is that the abdomen seems logical, if van Gogh was shot in the chest walking back to his lodging would have been a bit more Gauguinish. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

That auction story from Le Figaro does mention the date and place, but it doesn't give any clue to body location. And there's not a huge controversy about the fact he shot himself and the exact wound location anyway. The date and the place are not disputed. So I'm really not sure why we have any source, but especially that one, in the lead section. Maybe it should be removed or at least re-located? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

There is also a detailed description of the events at the Auberge Ravoux article. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

And the source at that article (in a malformed citation) is from a contemporary report in the local newspaper L'Écho-Le Régional which is reproduced lower down in this image. Ideally that should have a translation at the upload page? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't have a translation there, I don't read French, does anyone have a few minutes to translate? Thanks in advance. That the bullet hit a rib and ricocheted down into the stomach accounts for both options - van Gogh did shoot into his chest but the bullet didn't go very far before bouncing through his body downwards. Imagine if he had given himself 10 or 50 more years to paint, like Monet, what amazing avenues he would have taken visual art (when the fame and money started rolling in the travel he would have done to paint the early 20th century, and then maybe finding his own "Water Lilly pond" and planting himself there). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I have now requested a translation here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't see any request for a translation in the link you provided. — MiguelMunoz (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

And it says "...at nine, he came back with a smile on his face and completely calm, even though his stomach had been punctured by a gunshot. Mr. Van Gogh had attempted suicide." Martinevans123 (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

This primary source is useful. I vote abdomen over chest per the translation of the local paper as well as over stomach as stomach is an internal organ (Randy Kryn, would you agree?). With regard to what could have been, imagine if van Gogh had gotten to see his impact on the Fauves. Hexcodes (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

He would have run circles around the Fauves (literally, as they were painting). From the several pages it seems that the shot was into the chest, hit a rib, and bounced around the abdomen. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

This is La Danse, wherein each dancer is a van Gogh clone and Matisse is painting from inside the circle. Hexcodes (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd want to see a comparison of the scholarly sources. I am assuming the anonymous newspaper reporter was giving a second-hand account of what the doctors and/or other witnesses had said, rather than his own eye-witness testimony. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I would prefer abdomen over chest, as that's drawn from a specific account, which mentions that stomach. However, given the ambiguity, we may want to just say torso, and mention that it's not clear. Or we could say chest or abdomen. But we should probably consult a translator before we decide. — MiguelMunoz (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I removed the auction story. Once we reach a consensus here, a different citation can be used for the lead. Hexcodes (talk) 02:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Why does the article state unequivocally that Van Gogh committed suicide. There is ample reason to believe he was shot by one of the boys in the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.87.134 (talk) 00:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

What was van Goghs address?

What is his address? 2.25.70.61 (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

He moved around a lot. You might want to read The Yellow House. 15:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Graham Beards (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

That's no excuse. Lincoln moved around a lot but we've still got his Gettysburg Address. EEng 02:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Van Gogh's death

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)

Because its 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)

Ps, i'm not dissing your bringing this up; it a valid question, but unless there is more substantial info since the last discussion, then hopefully most of the counter arguments are in the archives. Ceoil (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Here is the last one [3]. Ceoil (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The surname isn't "Van Gogh"

At the top, it says "In this Dutch name, the surname is Van Gogh, not Gogh."
This is wrong. His surname is "van Gogh". Not "Van Gogh" 155.4.221.27 (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done small jars tc 10:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2023

Please modify this short description:

{{Short description|Dutch painter (1853–1890)}} 112.205.163.46 (talk) 09:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done small jars tc 11:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Menieres Disease

I have Ménière’s disease myself and I’ve been researching it a lot and have found several articles (some from the 90’s and early 00’s) discussing menieres as a diagnosis for Van Gogh. [4]https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-07-25-mn-1005-story.html 2603:8001:B101:9140:13F:AC16:926F:5AEA (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Why are there no sources for the introduction of this article?

There's a bit of information in the opening paragraphs of this article that, while persistent in the narrative of his life in pop culture, there is substantial, interdisplenary scholarship written that offers a more factual account of the events, rather than one sensationalized for dramatic narratives' sake.

Given the emotionally-charged nature of parts of van Gogh's biography in general, I think it would be worth adding citations for some of these details, so that the curious user can more easily access the sources of these details. Corvus.pica.pica (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Corvus.pica.pica: Please read MOS:CITELEAD. If you feel that some content absolutely needs to be sourced in the lede, you'd have to get consensus from other editors that are interested in the article. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

We don't really need all that formality. If there's something in the lead that's likely to raise questions in the minds of some fraction of readers, there's no harm adding a cite there (and it's easy to do since, by definition, the cites must already exist lower down in the article). EEng 01:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Corvus.pica.pica That is a lot of descriptive wording to get your question across. Just what content exactly are you questioning? It would help this conversation stay on track, rather than veering off into a debate about whether leads should have citations or not. Please present what is so: "emotional-charged", "sensationalized" for "dramatic narratives' sake" here so we can better understand if it needs citing or not. Thanks. On a side note, most leads do not have citing because they are an "accessible overview" of the content found within the article; which is cited with sources. Maineartists (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Sentence needs to be corrected

"Van Gogh's mother was a rigid and religious woman who emphasized the importance of family to the point of for those around her."

To the point of what? EEng 01:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RizlaRune (talk • contribs) 21:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Please List Films and Other popular media depictions of VvG

Dear esteeeeeamed editors of the semi-protection entitlementdom, may I humble beg your attention and services in order to have a humble list of popular media depiction of the poor commonoer, Vincent van Gogh. For the easing the trouble May I suggest at the least simply copy pasting from other relevant pages like my poor self is doing below:

Film legacy (of VvG's brother Theo)

The van Gogh brothers' relationship figured in the Vincente Minnelli 1956 movie adaptation of Irving Stone's 1934 biographical novel Lust for Life. In it, Hollywood star Kirk Douglas played Vincent, and British actor James Donald appeared as Theo.

The family relationship was the more central subject in Robert Altman's movie Vincent & Theo (1990), starring British actors Tim Roth as Vincent and Paul Rhys as Theo.

The brothers' relationship is also featured in Maurice Pialat's 1991 film Van Gogh, with Jacques Dutronc playing Vincent and Bernard Le Coq as Theo.

The delivery of Vincent's final letter to Theo after Vincent's death, and the circumstances surrounding his death, was the subject of the 2017 film Loving Vincent, which was animated by oil paintings made with Van Gogh's techniques.

Julian Schnabel's meditation on Vincent's artistic life, At Eternity's Gate (2018), featured Willem Dafoe as Vincent and Rupert Friend as Theo.

(Jo van Gogh-Bonger, wife of Theo van Gogh) In popular culture

Vincent van Gogh as a subject in popular culture is well known, but recently Jo van Gogh-Bonger has also been a focus. Novels based on the life of van Gogh-Bonger include Johanna. A Novel of the Van Gogh Family (1995) by Claire Cooperstein, The Secret Life of Sunflowers by Marta Molnar and La viuda de los Van Gogh [The widow of the Van Goghs] by Camilo Sánchez A fictionalized account of her life is found in volume 2, "Mrs. Van Gogh", of the doctoral dissertation of Caroline Smailes A one-woman show by actress Muriel Nussbaum, Van Gogh and Jo was performed at Fairfield University in 2005. Mrs. Van Gogh, a play by Geoff Allen, who previously authored the play Vincent and Theo, was performed in 2012 at the University of Auckland, NZ, with a reviewer panning it as "Wikipedia for the stage," lacking in emotion and failing to convey why she spent a lifetime promoting Vincent's work. There are two documentaries on YouTube focusing on Jo's role, one short "The Woman who Made Van Gogh Famous" and a longer one, "How Van Gogh's Sister-in-Law Made Him a Renowned Painter". A biography focusing on Jo's life, Jo van Gogh-Bonger: The Woman who Made Vincent Famous, was written by renowned van Gogh scholar Hans Luitjen and published in Dutch in 2019. An English translation by Lynne Richards was later published in 2022. A film adaptation in English of Camilo Sánchez's Spanish-language novel is due for release in 2023 by Cinema7.

14.139.163.86 (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

• Cultural depictions of Vincent van Gogh is where this goes. It is already quite large. Some of these are probably WP:UNDUE though. Good to see your refs. Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

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)