Talk:Vincent van Gogh/Archive 3

Edit request from Jzjohnson, 19 May 2010
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 -

Wikipedia 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/wiki/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/wiki/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)

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 Wikipedia'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
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/wiki/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 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 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:

--Gallery-of-art (talk) 07:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Discover featured Van Gogh's Artwork powered by Google.
 * 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)

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)
 * Discover featured Van Gogh's Artwork powered by Google.
 * Then why not link to the site hosted by Google? It is clear that you are abusing Wikipedia 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)

Jeanne Calment
The lady who died in 1997 and met VG when she was a child. Refs can be found at Jeanne_Calment. 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)

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)

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 Wikipedia. Otherwise, we're a laughing stock. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  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 Wikipedia....): Van means "of" (a preposition), so capitalizing the van, makes sure while reading a sentence you immediately identify it as a name and don't mistake it for the preposition. It's an extra help when reading. Hence Vincent van Gogh, and Van Gogh, both names, and both beginning with a capital. So in Dutch it is: Edwin van der Sar, and Van der Sar, with a small "der", because capitalizing that part wouldn't add anything. That's at least how I've learnt it, so question is does that help in English. 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 Wikipedia! - Ipigott (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Dutch pronunciation
I radically changed the Dutch IPA transcription of the name. It read [faŋˈxɔx], which is totally inaccurate. [faŋˈxɔx] 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 [vɑn ˈɣɔχ]. - 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)

Personal attacks
Cool the personal attacks...Modernist (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have archived the previous attacks and basically troll like arguments by a newbie. In my opinion those unproductive remarks should stay archived. If consensus disagrees then ok...Modernist (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's just link to it - I think that's all that's necessary. Certainly in my view it's becoming disruptive. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There are no personal attack here from me. If you feel attacked then you can tell me and I will cetainly apologise. I notice that you didn't jump to my defense when I manifestly was being attacked by an editor here in a very aggressive and foul-mouthed way.


 * I'm not going to edit-war you over the deletion of my threads here. Will you please cite "severely dark" or accept that, like all uncited material that is challenged, that content will be removed.


 * Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Your dispute with Ceoil ,which did not originate here and has to do with sockpuppetry, should never have been brought to this page, as I've said multiple times. Edits such as this are not necessary and yes, they are personal attacks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * From my Talk page where you are also rasing this


 * But I din't bring the dispute to the Talk page at the VvG page as you can easily vetrify from the diff I provided. What I said was
 * A chance encounter with Ceoil reminds me it's been some time since I've been back here. I'm glad to see the article active and flourishing in capable hands.
 * which is as nice as pie as I claim above. What veiled threat? There is absolutely no way I shall ever do anything of the sort or ever have. Amongst other things I wouldn't even dream of deleting content on my user page or any other user page unless there were issues of privacy involved, that sort of thing.
 * I really do hope these assurances finally set your mind at rest.


 * I don't think I can usefully repeat myself here. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

4457 van Gogh
Worth mentioning in Legacy that he has an asteroid named after him? FightingMac (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes sure, why not.lapsking (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Trivia? I'm not crazy about listing everything named for him...Modernist (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not necessary and not advised to add trivia to pages such as these. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In the Dutch BLP. By the way I'm restoring the for 'severely dark'. Goes out again I elevate it. I've taken stuff to the prefects only once before in near ten years editing (a 'third opinion' recently) but I will do it if this nonsense carries on. 'Severely dark' is just plain wrong, a sort of mid 1950's romanticisation that long ago departed van Gogh scholarship. With my template I invite the community, including the originating editor, to revise their copy, failing which I shall delete and substitute an alternative, more reflective of modern day opinion. FightingMac (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Another redaction I see. The diff is noted. But why is the Sweetman refernce removed citing "dark"? I don't understand that at all. Meanwhile I've restored the template. Please understand I am challenging "dark" and I want to see it cited. This is one of our most fundamental policies. Will editors please respect it. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Archiving?
The page is getting long and sometimes hard to navigate. Does anyone feel strongly about auto-archiving? I know how to set it up (I think...). Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Try it...Modernist (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've tried it; we'll see what happens. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Death section
A lot of work has been carried out recently on this section. Unfortunately, all the edits seem to have warped the beginning of the section which now reads "Van Gogh suffered a severe setback in December 1889, when recently acquitted from the hospital, his bouts of illness became more pronounced. that he was at the peak of his ability." Can anyone sort this out? - Ipigott (talk) 08:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, I combined the new with an earlier version, it reads better now...Modernist (talk) 10:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the "severely dark", we really have to follow the sources. I've checked some of what I have at hand and this is what I've found: Will check more and post here and perhaps others can check their sources as well. The critics/biographers seem in agreement that there was a shift in July - so the section may need rewriting to reflect that. June was cheerier than July. In July he also received a letter from Theo that upset him, which maybe should/could be mentioned. One last thing: I'd prefer not to add a huge amount of cites as it's indicative of instability and edit warring. My sense is that it's best to say something like most critics believe blah, blah, but others think blah, blah, fwiw. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sweetman, David: The biography of that time-frame is fairly well summarized/ paraphrased in the page now, including a direct quote.
 * Walther & Metzger: The two months in Auvers shows a cheerful artist (page 646); critics believe Wheatfield shows his "darkest premonition" but van Gogh himself saw the painting as a "blend of sadness and consolation" (page 680) > see letter 649
 * van Uitert, et al: His five canvases at the end of June are reminiscent of Daubigny with a "twightlight" or "evening" mood. (page 280)
 * Hulsker: In June the artist was in a cheerful mood; in July he was desparate. Crowfield is "somber and hopeless". (pp. 431-437)
 * Letter 649: "I have set to work again although the brush is nearly falling from my hands...I have painted three more large canvases. They are vast stretches of corn under troubled skies and I didn't have to put myself out very much in order to express sadness and extreme loneliness...."
 * Robert Rosenblum comments: In the Crows over Wheat Fields, the flock of crows hardly needs the artist's words to explain their import, for these black creatures, traditionally associated with death, surge over the horizon and invade the foreground, menacing omens of some undefined, but imminent disaster.

Rosenblum compared the painting with an earlier painting Rooftops, View from the Atelier 1882, (in the article) in which there is clear deep space perspective and birds in the distance, and he quotes Vincent saying about the early painting the flying birds are signs of the beginning of a new day. Rosenblum then mentions a work by Friedrich - a landscape of black ravens flying over a field and at a time - the mid 1820s when he, like van Gogh was suffering not only professional discouragement but both mental and physical illness....Modernist (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with overly citing an article; even an academic textbook will allow room for the sources to speak for themselves. I thought it was apparent the sources which followed were sufficient to explain the "severely dark" perspective. I changed the wording only because "severely" could be seen by some as overstating the case.--Chimino (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I missed that you took out the tag, but I realized I'd hadn't cited both sentences, so I added in-line comment to be clear about it. I realized it could have been interpreted that the first sentence wasn't cited. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I've ordered Sweetman's book that is cited and will comment further when I've seen it. Is the first sentence "While most of Vincent's late paintings are somber, they are essentially optimistic and reflect a desire to return to lucid mental health" a copy-paste or close paraphrase from that book? If so why wasn't there attribution in earlier builds of this article? In the markup there is a comment that the cite is for both the two preceding sentences. My own thought, noticing the American spelling of 'sombre', when I saw it was that it was copy-paste. If it's not Sweetman then what in Sweetman cites it? (Added as I moved to 'Save'): I notice from the edit history that Truthkeeper88 says the first sentence is a close parpahrase from Sweetman, so why wasn't it cited in the past as per Wikipedia policy on copyright and could we please have a page number and preferably the quote here. This is something I will definitely pursue.

Regarding the July 10 letter Hulsker simply ignores the closing remark in the same paragraph he is quoting from,"these canvases will tell you what I can’t say in words, what I consider healthy and fortifying about the countryside." This is a key source for this painting and to misrepresent it like this is simply intellectual vandalism. Compare also Vincent's letter around the same time to his mother and sister Wil"For my part, I’m wholly absorbed in the vast expanse of wheatfields against the hills, large as a sea, delicate yellow, delicate pale green, delicate purple of a ploughed and weeded piece of land, regularly speckled with the green of flowering potato plants, all under a sky with delicate blue, white, pink, violet tones.I’m wholly in a mood of almost too much calm, in a mood to paint that."

The van Uitert cite comical of course. We are talking abour 'dark' as in mood here.

However much or little TruthKeeper88 cites, there will remain question of WP:UNDUE here. The bottom line is that Van Gogh's last 70 or so paintings at Auvers are not "severely dark" or "considerably more dark" (than what?). On the contrary they include some of the most sublimely and placidly beautiful paintings ever to see the light of day and to romanticise Vincent's achievement in this way, is to do him, and art itself, a very great disservice indeed. Impossible even to understand what the agenda can be here.

I'll see how it goes, but I think it's becoming plain the section needs attention from experts. FightingMac (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is just that your opinion. I categorically and totally disagree with you; nor do I feature or countenance the veiled threats in your edits here, like you better do this or I'll be back or you better not do that or I will escalate. I've also noticed that your interpretations are plain wrong - plain and simply wrong, please temper your remarks...Modernist (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * FightingMac, your attitude is too aggressive for me. I had a window of time to copyedit and to make WP:MOS fixes here. The window closes tomorrow. If you want to buy the book and check my work, that's fine. I would have copied out the relevant section, had you asked. I haven't read your entire post, very long, but something about Hulsker leaving out something - I probably didn't copy out verbatim the entire span of pages, because it's not usually necessary. Anyway, I'm working on a another page, and will have less time here, so am unwatching for a time. Also, please don't ever again refer to me as "our little Truthkeeper". Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Truthkeeper88, I'm sorry to read this and I comment further on my Talk page. It's not aggression, just passion. I'm pretty sure I never referred to as "our little Truthkeeper" (not my style at all). If you would like to diff me on that, I would be more than happy to apologise unreservedly. I don't think you left out something from Hulsker, I think he left it out. Pretty sure. I'll wait to see what Sweetman says before adding more. Thank you very much for your input. Believe me i did not mean to be agressive to you and I'm sorry indeed that you feel so. FightingMac (talk) 05:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Modernist, that's not very encouraging for consensus building :-). I've just made a remark on my Talk page to the effect that one possible approach would be to concede a remark I gather Hulsker makes somewhere (I don't have Hulsker) to the effect that while WFwC is certainly not his last work, in the sense of innovation it can be so regarded, and I don't really quarrel with that judgement, although pesonally I don't fingo speculation much.
 * What we need to agree here, Modernist, is that his last works are not "severely dark" or "considerably more dark" and there should be no difficulty about that because it's flat out not true that it is. What is "dark" about  Auvers Town Hall on 14 July, Bank of the Oise at Auvers, Daubigny's Garden or Tree Roots and Trunks, of which one or other of the last two are most commonly cited as his very last painting?
 * No "my opinion" about it. Just fact, and of course it must be properly cited if this claim, I would say it actually slanders Vincent's memory, is to be included, and if it is eventually to be included then it must be balanced with any of a multitude of sources to the effect that it isn't, that Vincent's last work is a vibrant expression (hence Expressionism) of nature and the world about him, certainly seen from the perspective of solitude and introspection, but not dark, and in truth, never dark. To believe that is not only fundamentally to misunderstand his work but also to deny the evidence of your own eyes.
 * But we do finally have a citation at last. I'll wait for Sweetman to see what he actually has to say and then return.
 * I've been very patient here (blanked three times I believe by you ). You must not be surprised if I come across aggressively in the circumstances, but when I say I mean to pursue this that is simply all I mean. I don't mean it in any way as threat. FightingMac (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So far all I have heard here from you is either erroneous interpretations of sources and your particular opinion of others work and VvG paintings...Modernist (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * FightingMac, I don't read the line as saying all VG paintings in his final period were "dark", only what is stated...they became increasingly dark, and many examples reflect that. Most importantly, it is a lead-in for the verifiable sources who back it up later in the paragraph. If we're stating our own opinions here (which is what this seems to all be about), compare the couple in Starry Night Over the Rhone, who are viewed in a purely romantic setting, to that of Undergrowth with Two Figures, where the couple are interpreted to be overpowered by their environment. If you disagree with this general assessment made by the majority of scholars over the years, feel free to provide counterpoint research by similarly verifiable sources. Otherwise, this is a lot of noise about very little.--Chimino (talk) 06:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Chimino, thanks for this. What is actually in the article presently is this "Those completed in the days before his suicide are considerably more dark." Anyone reading this would conclude that it's saying the paintings completed in the few (several days) before his suicide are considerably more dark than earlier paintings and that's simply not true. End of story. Not opinion but fact. I asked for a cite and finally I've got one. David Sweetman's bio and that's our starting point for consensus. I've ordered a copy and I'll return when I've seen what he actually says. What other scholars have you seen who say Vincent's Auvers painting are "dark"? FightingMac (talk) 07:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Six sources have been offered. Money and time has been spent to satisfy you. I will copy out the Sweetman passage later in the day. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I misread this: "or little TruthKeeper88". I've struck my comment. Nonetheless, we do not cherry pick sources. We comprehensively use all the best scholarly sources available. We do not use student papers, or webcites, we use secondary sources. We do not denigrate a source because it doesn't mesh with what we believe. We follow the sources. It's that simple. This is all very clear in WP:V. In the meantime, I need to unwatch here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 05:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Agree with all the rest. In the talk page of "Wheat Field with Crows", but not in its article, I did quote a student paper to show how fundamentally Kathleen Erickson (a theologian and not an art critic), cited by Modernist, misunderstands the painting at the most fundamental level of its composition. I do quote the best scholarly sources I know - Walther and Metzger, Obst, van der Ween and Knapp, Jansen et al FightingMac (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @Modernist: A couple for example? Of both 1 erroneous interpretations (I'm not aware I added any content offering 'interpretations - my whole point here from the outset is that we shouldn't be dong this unless they are cited from other critics) 2 my particular opinions (ditto). I would be happy to correct as genuinely required. FightingMac (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For starters you claimed on more than one occasion that he didn't paint in July because he didn't have any paint - patently false. Yesterday you claimed that the source said this painting At Eternity's Gate, was created in April - False, the source says April-May meaning it was begun in April and completed in May - and several sources correctly say May; that's 2...Modernist (talk) 05:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's something for you to chew on - Art historian Robert Rosenblum writes - In the Crows over Wheat Fields, the flock of crows hardly needs the artist's words to explain their import, for these black creatures, traditionally associated with death, surge over the horizon and invade the foreground, menacing omens of some undefined, but imminent disaster...Modernist (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, and heres something for you to chew on back as well from the Kathleen Erickson (a theologian with a single book on van Gogh) you cite at Wheatfield with Crows
 * Art critics, who have seen Crows over the Wheatfield as a disturbing symbol of van Gogh's imminent suicide, have misunderstood van Gogh's intent...(Kathleen Erickson At Eternity's Gate:The spiritual Vision of Vincent Van Gogh p. 164) FightingMac (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * One more thing - this thread seems once again to be all about you and your opinions about others - It will be archived if this continues...Modernist (talk) 05:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I said nothing of the sort. Do you imagine I'm stupid to cite July paintings and then say he had no colours in July? In the last two or three days I said he didn't have colours and wasn't painting and that is so. It's sourced from Hirschig's letter to Plaeschart I quoted on your Talk page and I've seen it elsewhere. Whatever its veracity, and it is verifiable, it's not 1 an interpretation and it's not ant content I supplied in the article. As for At Eternity's Gate that isn't 2 opinion, it's cited everywhere as begun in April, not at Auvers but at Saint-Rémy, and since it must come somewhere round his 80th last painting not really very relevant to the discussion at hand, which is about his last paintings at Auvers. I would also question whether a paining about a "dark" subject necessarily reflects Vincent's mood. Hulsker says so but what exactly are his sources? Does Vincent mention the painting in his letters, the only real source we have for his mood?
 * Other examples (real ones)?FightingMac (talk) 06:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Per your last, I'm simply responding to your queries in a neutral manner. Are you implying I don't have the right? Please don't blank this section once again. The Sweetman cite is very important and should stay on the record. That's what been offered and where we can start to reach consenus. FightingMac (talk) 06:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Posts to user pages such as this make the atmosphere untenable. It's clear that no amount of sourcing will suffice to satisfy the request to source "severely dark"  A summary of Sweetman is here per request:  p. 337, he states that no one knows what happened in the last few days; contemporary reports are contradictory; p. 338 V sends sketches of four drawings to Theo: "The finished paintings are so strikingly different it might seem for once that there [break to page 339]  is direct corollary between the present and his own mental state," followed by description of "calm and serene" wheatfields  Under Clouded Skies and "tortured and violent" Crows over the Wheatfield. Of "Crows" he writes "The painting recalls the van der Maaten engraving as if the funeral procession has already passed out of sight. And the recollection of all those works in which dark birds menace the peace of scene seem to confirm this picture as the last cry of the haunted artist living our his anguish in paint." Anyway, I don't like being referred to as "management" or as a person who perpetuates a "lie". I said I'd produce this and here it is, but I've removed the cite from the page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Deatth section: where the bullet went
All that stuff about where the bullet went and van Gogh being in surprisingly good shape, smoking his pipe, succumbing to an infection and so on, needs to be cited.

I should be curious to know what the primary sources can be. There was no autopsy and no doctor's notes have survived that I know of. FightingMac (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The content is a naive summary of David Sweetman The Love of Many Things pp 341 - 343. Not to cite Sweetman amounts to plagiarism. But it's also poor because the source clearly says it's based on an account of Paul Gachet (Dr. Gachet's son) some 30 years later and speculates that in fact it was a self-serving account designed to protect his father's reputation. Indeed Paul Gachet is regarded as a throughly questionable source in Van Gogh scolarship. The content is sharply at variance with other published accounts of the death and should be removed, or at least edited to cite Sweetman and record that it is based on a questionable account of Paul Gachet's.  FightingMac (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

" ... compelling and poignant expression of the artist's state of mind in his final days."
I see Hulsker p. 478 is cited for this account of Vincent's state of mind at his death based on his painting Old Man in Sorrow: Eternity's Gate completed some two months before.

Does anyone know what Hulsker's primary sources can be? I ask because after Arles the only source we have for Vicent's moods are his letters (which, incidentally, around the time of his death speak only of his calm and resolve to carry on undaunted) and there are no references to Old Man in Sorrow.


 * To be clear, primary sources aren't used, and it doesn't matter...Modernist (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It follows that the remark is essentially speculative and should be removed in line with Truthkeeper88's (redacted) advice, which I thoroughly support, to use only the best sources available and this I shall indeed eventually do when I come to edit this section unless I see convincing reason here (and not merely because some other editor here firmly happens to agree with Hulsker). FightingMac (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I totally disagree and the remark should stay...Modernist (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This November 1882 lithograph Sorrowful old man as well as this February 1883 lithograph Sorrowful woman sitting on a basket are obvious sources for Eternity's Gate and they certainly are mentioned in the Letters (for example here) but without any suggestion they reflect Vincent's mood. But can we all the same, you know, just go ahead anyway and put them in as a poignant indication of Vincent's mood some eight years later? FightingMac (talk) 06:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I mean we could just use common sense couldn't we? FightingMac (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are important policies and you are bordering the line, Common sense does indeed kick in when you realize the guy shot himself 2 months later, not a lot of time...Modernist (talk) 12:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you say. I say we don't know what his condition exactly was and we should be jumping to conclusions. Nor are all suicides are the the consequence of despair. FightingMac (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear - editing in your own words, interpretation of sources, is what many editors do; - sometimes you seem to be demanding a word for word reference - especially for the words dark, darkness, depression, when interpretations of secondary sources are what is required; not verbatim repetitions of the authors exact language...Modernist (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Interpretations? That sounds OR to me. Would you care to clarify that? FightingMac (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Using the lithographs would constitute original research. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You could challenge on OR but all the editor would have to do is to find a secondary source which mentions the lithographs. I've seen several myself. I'm sure it would be in Hulsker, given that's supposed to be a complete catalogue of all his works. The Russian wiki for At Eternity's gate mentions the lithographs, as does Vincent's letters. "What a fine sight an old working man makes, in his patched bombazine suit with his bald head", he says in one of them. FightingMac (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Death:"Shortly after being acquitted from the hospital ..."

 * "Shortly after being acquitted from the hospital, van Gogh suffered a severe setback in December 1889 when his bouts of illness became more pronounced. Although he had been troubled by mental illness throughout his life, the episodes were more serious during his last few years. Sometimes he was either unwilling or unable to paint, a factor which added to the mounting frustrations of an artist at the peak of his ability. His depression gradually deepened"

All of this needs citing of course. None of it is referred to in the content fork Vincent van Gogh's health linked at the start of the section.

1 Dates are mangled. Vincent was first institutionalised Christmas evening 1888 after the famous ear incident. No December 1889 relapse is mentioned in Vincent van Gogh chronology. Perhaps there was one, plainly it should be cited. 2 I don't know of an RS that cites him as troubled wth mental illness throughout his life. Bios usually cite Paris 1886 as the start of his mental illness 3 "Sometimes unwilling to paint or unable to" is undoubtedly true, but should be cited as well the speculative editorialism about his mounting frustration. Primary sources in the Letters will add interest to the article, and any of very many numerous good quality secondary sources can be cited 4 "His depression gradually deepened" is challenged by me with a template and must now be cited. There really is nothing in the letters of the Auvers period to suggest he was sinking into a depression. Even the oft-quoted July 7 and July 10 letters following his difficult July 6 visit to Theo and Jo when they apparently quarreled, nevertheless both end on positive notes of friendship and solidarity.

Are their currently lead editors or not in this article? Why aren't they on the ball on this most fundamental Wikipedia policy of citing sources? FightingMac (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Once again you are so clearly out of bounds with the above remarks. I wonder what in the world you are talking about - After the episode with the ear - he went back to the hospital in Arles in early '89 and in May '89 - May '90 he was at the Saint-Paul Asylum, in Saint-Rémy see this - Saint-Paul Asylum, Saint-Rémy (Van Gogh series). Do you presume to doubt all inferences of mental problems? You seem to present VvG as just a wonderful painter, no depression, no problem who just happened to shoot himself...Modernist (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No, not at all Modernist. Of course not. But the fact is that the diagnosis has never been agreed, as the article makes very clear. So to be encyclopaedic NPOV we should be avoiding a word like 'depression' which does suggest a particular psychiatric condition. Use the word 'melancholic' if you must. But the point remains is that on the basis of the primary source, the letters, there is no evidence of either a deepening depression or indeed a worsening of whatever condition he suffered. Now I don't doubt that there are sources out there which say his depression did deepen, no doubt Hulsker does. All I'm asking is that it's cited. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hulsker points out that there are discrepancies between what the letters say about his state of mind and what the paintings say about his state of mind, which implies that he was talking about different paintings re Wheatfield with Crows...Modernist (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well yes, but not everyone agrees (inluding Kathleen Erickson) that Wheatfield with Crows is a portent of doom. Wouter van der Veen makes the witty remarks that if black bird aare a portent of death then Vincent would have died many times before WFwC. And there are even people who doubt that WFwC is a genuine work of Vincent's. I mean if Hulsker was writing that stuff in Wikipedia right now, he would be shot down, because it is speculation and an example of a kind of history writing that is no longer thought acceptable. We can mourn that perhaps, but it is so.
 * I'm not going to add further to my remarks here. Do I really have to take uncited content through a dispute resolution process? Please just cite it. FightingMac (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't threaten, either do it or don't...Modernist (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Last night I read the French version and see that they source to van der Veen. My sense is that you want to emulate that page, but you have to realize the is a different page, different will be used, it will be structured in a different manner, the images will be displayed differently, etc., etc.,. Please stop the disruption. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I accept that about different pages. I don't want to emulate the page. I just think the French page's handling of references is exceptionally neat. Regarding van der Veen, that is cited in connection with Jo Bonger's work in establishing Vincent's legacy, for which van der Veen is exceptionally complete (the Bonger archives at VGM have yet to be released). I don't think it relevant here in this article because the Legacy section unnacountably omits mention of her. Finally your 'disruption' remark is uncivil and extremely unfair as I struggle under very difficult circumstances to deal with fundamental and serious editing issues here (namely, but not confined to, the proper and adequating citing of sources). I ask you to apologise. The diff is noted. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again comment on the article and not the editors per WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, the French article is different from this article and your endless criticisms are wearing very thin...Modernist (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Dual "At Eternity's Gate" and "The Church at Auvers" image in Auvers-sur-Oise section
They make a frankly odd looking couple ...

Why not replace "At Eternity's Gate" with as an example of the Northern influence mentioned in the section (plus added bonus of crows) and shunt back "At Eternity's Gate" to Saint-Rémy where it properly belongs (May 1890 is in that section header as well)? FightingMac (talk) 11:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree the section looks fine as is...Modernist (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree with you. It looks extremely odd to me and not a little puzzling. FightingMac (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * On something like this we go with consensus. I like the juxtaposition of the two images and would be opposed to changing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine with consensus. Two against one so far. What do you like about the juxtaposition, Truthkeeper88? Just curious. FightingMac (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems like badgering, no requirement to respond here, answers speak for themselves at this point...Modernist (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

In response to FightingMac

 * This is in response to FightingMac on the five threads above, 4457, Death, Compelling, Death again, Duel. One of Wikipedia's five pillars is the fundamental policy of WP:V in which the first sentence states: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.
 * Regarding the "severely dark" that you challenged, numerous reliable secondary sources were offered:, , ,.
 * In the threads above, you've requested primary sources at least twice. We don't use primary sources, we use secondary sources, and we have good secondary sources at hand. Policy regarding primary sources is here.
 * As for the request to add a source to the statement that he suffered from depression for 2 years before his death, something like this needs to be downloaded and read. There's quite a bit more available on just this topic in academic databases, and in the biographies.  It takes time to access and read the material, but it's being done.
 * Finally for the third of fourth time, please respect the current citation style, per WP:CITEHOW. We are not using templates on the page, so any refs formatted based on templates need to be reformatted. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, yes Truthkeeper. I'm fine with all this. Just cite it. You gave a cite yesterday and that was fine. I ordered the book to check it out and then you deleted the citation. I don't understand why you did that. So long as there is a cite that I can check it is absolutely fine with me on WP:VERIFY grounds. Then I can get on with adding some WP:NPOV content citing any of numerous authors who say on the contrary his work at Auvers wasn't in the least bit "dark". What can be the problem if there are multiple sources saying his work was "dark" as you say? Modernist in one of the redacted posts also suggested a source I could look at, but it's not about "me". It's about the article. I asked him to cite it. He didn't. I totally don't understand it. Will you please just cite something and we can move on here. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The source that I suggested was art historian Robert Rosenblum's Modern Painting and the Northern Romantic Tradition...Modernist (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well then please cite it, preferbaly with a page number to iad the reader and it would be a courtesy as well to quote the relevant section here. Then we can move on. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 13:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I added pages to the Rosenblum ref that I used, I haven't used his references to the dark, foreboding and somber nature of Wheatfield with Crows yet...Modernist (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Can't see it citing "dark" yet, Modernist. FightingMac (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you read? I said I haven't added it yet...Modernist (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, misunderstood. Can read (civil?) Thank you. I look foward to squinting at it through thick glasses. FightingMac (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The relevant section was quoted here previously, with other sources as indicated above, and you disagreed, although all reliable sources. There's no need to ask someone to do that again, for you to denigrate again. Furthermore, per WP:There is no deadline nothing has to be done immediately. The section was sourced, you called it a lie, said you'd disapprove of the source, so it seems counterproductive to jump to unreasonable demands. People do this as a volunteer service, and have real paying jobs that take precedence. Please keep that in mind.  This has now become excessively disruptive. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not say the source was a lie, Truthkeepr88. I did say on someone else's user page (a distinguished academic I suspect) that the remark itself was a lie, so I passionately believe. I did not expect to be overheard and if I was overheard I would have hoped that a gentleman or lady would have shrugged their shoulders and moved on to mind their own business. Why did you withdraw your cite? That was fine with me. I ordered the book (at some expense) to check it out. Am I to conclude that I will be disappointed?
 * But Im not adding futher here, because it will be redacted on past form. Thank you FightingMac (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Everything is public here. I withdrew because it was clear that you want what you think is the truth and not to follow sources, contrary to our fundamental pillars. I was tired of being badgered. I will reinstate the thread from yesterday. Also please keep in mind that people choose to edit pseudonymously. Unless someone gives up the information, generally we don't know or don't ask about the gender, age, qualifications, and profession of editors. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Of course I wasn't "outing" the user concerned and you must have followed me to his Talk page. And yes of course everything is public but one would like to think on Talk pages one can let one's hair down a bit without worrying overly much about being overheard. Will you please stop trying to teach granny to suck eggs. I've been editing Wikipedia (for the most part pleasantly) for years. Your constant harping on like this, at first merely comical, then irritating, is now uncivil. I ask you to apologise and to cease and desist. FightingMac (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @Modernist. I queried above the civility of your remark "can your read?" but I see no apology. I ask you to apologise and to stop your incivility to me, including redacting my input here (the third such redaction I believe) with the comment "you are so out of here". The diff is noted FightingMac (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sweetman citation
I need to make some comments on Truthkeeper88's citation of Sweetman's The Love of Many Things. It is true that he withdrew the cite after I mentioned I intended to check its validity but I feel nevertheless there are issues involved which ought to be aired.

I asked, have asked from the beginning, that the following remark be adequately cited


 * However, the paintings compleated in the days before his suicide are severely dark.

I know of no present-day critic or historian who says anything of the sort and in the circumstances it's perfectly proper to challenge it and ask for a citation.

Truthkeeper eventually responded with an edit of the content as follows (in mark-up)


 * Those completed in the days before his suicide are considerably more dark. Biographer David Sweetman describes Wheatfield with Crows as "tortured and violent".

The first thing to say about Sweetman is that it's a biography 20 years old and much has advanced in Van Gogh scholarship in the meantime, notably the release of definitive editions of his letters (of which more in a moment). The second thing is that it was always unlikely to be a good source for "dark". A casual glance through the preface alights on this


 * "whatever his own sufferings, gloom and depression are not the hallmarks of his work" (p. 2)

However Truthkeeper cites p. 339 for both sentences.

There is absolutely nothing on page 339, or anywhere in the book, that supports Truthkeeper88's first sentence that the paintings completed in the days before his suicide are considerably more dark. Absolutely nothing, as indeed one might expect from the remark quoted in the preface. That is a straightforward and undeniable lie that Truthkeeper88 has been caught in. No wonder he was so anxious to withdraw the cite and remove himself from the article when I mentioned I had ordered the book.

But there's more. Truthkeeper88 has lectured me about the importance of using the best and most reliable sources. Sweetman is certainly not that in the matter of Vincent's death or his last painting which he identifies as Wheatfield with Crows on pp 338-339. But that is based on an incorrect identification of one of the sketches in Vincent's last (posted) letter to Theo. Sweetman identifies one of these as Wheatfield with Crows, perhaps the fault of incomplete editions in his day, but any reasonably knowledgeable student today will immediately recognise that to be false. The sketches are respectively of F781 Wheat Fields After the Rain (The Plain of Auvers)(sketch b) and F782 Plain at Auvers (sketch d) of which there are images at List of works by Vincent van Gogh which can be used to confirm at a glance that these are what is sketched in the letters. Wheatfield with Crows is now reliably dated at around July 10.

It's not impressive.

Truthkeeper88 said on my Talk page he wants to withdraw from the article. I said that surely that wasn't necessary. I do wonder now whether he might not like to consider doing just that. The content he added from Sweetman about Vincent's death, also highly questionable, needs to go as well in my opinion. I notice he did remove it but Modernist has restored it. FightingMac (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a verifiable source. I removed it because I was tired of your incessant carping and character assassination which you adequately prove above. You are cherry picking sources - plain and simple - to meld with your version of truth. In fact I'd intended to reinstate those edits, and now will. Thanks for the lie comment and telling me to withdraw. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you - Mac should withdraw from this article, you are in outrageous violation of NPA...Modernist (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe you have a different book, or a different edition. Here's what I quoted above from Sweetman: "p. 338 V sends sketches of four drawings to Theo: "The finished paintings are so strikingly different it might seem for once that there [break to page 339] is direct corollary between the present and his own mental state," followed by description of "calm and serene" wheatfields Under Clouded Skies and "tortured and violent" Crows over the Wheatfield. Of "Crows" he writes "The painting recalls the van der Maaten engraving as if the funeral procession has already passed out of sight. And the recollection of all those works in which dark birds menace the peace of scene seem to confirm this picture as the last cry of the haunted artist living our his anguish in paint." Tell me that's a lie. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The lie was the statement that your first sentence was cited by the source. It isn't. No way. I have the same edition as yours. At the bottom of page 338 and continuing to the top of page 339 (about the last letter he sent)
 * "The letter contained four sketches of the paintings he had been making ... he had evidently been working on the two wheat field for some time ...one of the paintings is calm and serene while the other is tortured and violent ... the first painting would be Wheat Field under Clouded Sky ... the second painting: ''Crows over the Wheat Field"
 * He misidentified the painting, as any student of van Gogh will recognise today, and you repeat in your content and cite it. FightingMac (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't like Hulsker, you don't like Erickson, you don't like Sweetman, you don't like Rosenblum, you don't seem to understand the concept of 'in your own words'...Modernist (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitions of Dark -, ...

Modernist (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Dark is quite plainly be used in the context of "dark mood". FightingMac (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You scoff of van Uitert, you won't accept Pomerans, you dislike Metzger and Walther. This has gone on too long & too far. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The (brief) strike-out of my remarks was not mine. Please stop refactoing my remarks. I like Metzger and Walther very much indeed. Don't know about Hulsker, Erickson is a theologian and not an art critic and her book little noticed, Sweetman I rather like but is simply out of date, don't recognise the others and you don't understand or care about the fundamental requirement to cite your sources. FightingMac (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I should have all the recognition stripped from me for all the work I've done then. I happen to like Sweetman too & Metzger & Walther. I ask you research who van Uitert et. al are before denigrating - you might be surprised. As for the personal attacks - having fun, FightingMac? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Van Uitert, - whom you don't recognize, hence must be comical. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Stop your personal attacks. See WP:NPA...Modernist (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * They are not personal attacks. Which of WP:NPA do you think this fair criticism is? see also WP:CRUSH
 * Civility does not mean that editors cannot disagree. Academe is well-known for spirited debates and disagreements and these often point the way to progress. The key principle is "stay on topic"; that is, arguments should be on the merits and not personalities. Editors should bear in mind that a disagreement with their point is not an attack on their honor.FightingMac (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're accusing the person who has been copyediting of CRUSH? Interesting that you should know of that page, btw, for a new account. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In you own words - I've been editing Wikipedia (for the most part pleasantly) for years. But your account begins in March 2011, doesn't add up...Modernist (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * IP Modernist, much of it in other language wikis, almost all of it extremely boring, already discussed on my Talk page here and there. Been there, done that. Can we focus on content now and not editors but yes BTW if anyone did think there was newbie sport to be had here how very sadly wrong they were. Let's get this back in focus. I want the uncited editorialism on this page to stop. That was my original concern. In particular I want "dark" cited, clarified or removed. It might be politic as well to start being polite and suitably apologetic to me as well, up to you. As for knowing about WP:CRUSH that was indeed within this account dealing with a difficult civil NPOV editor at Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case, a true baptism of fire that. Never come across anything like it before. Indeed nor this (I mean just making stuff up because it's common-sense). Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 09:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Rosenblum cite for "dark" mood
Can we have a quote here please for the Rosenblum (1975 p100) cite for "dark". I suspect Rosenblum is just saying that Vincent's palette became more sombre on his return North, as you would naturally expect. But in "dark" we are not talking about the tone of Vincent's palette (which in fact was for the most part light enough, gloriously drawing on his first lessons from Anton Mauve, an accomplished and magical colourist) but on his mood. "Dark" as in "dark mood". That's quite clear from the context and always has been from the original edit, beginning with a reference to his mental health, then the "dark" comment referencing the suicide, then the mention of At Eternity's Gate as "particularly bleak" (yet its palette is light in tone), and finally the last sentence referring to Vincent's state of mind. FightingMac (talk) 09:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Rosenblum - the flock of crows hardly needs the artist's words to explain their import, for these black creatures, traditionally associated with death, surge over the horizon and invade the foreground, menacing omens of some undefined, but imminent disaster. Definitions of Dark - Somber (Sombre), dismal, gloomy, had a dark view of the future, relating to grim or depressing circumstances, threatening, foreboding, mysterious...Modernist (talk) 10:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you for the quote, but that's just the one painting isn't it, Wheatfield with Crows? That's a well known quote from Rosenblum, I've seen it before, but in no way does that cite "Those completed in the days before his suicide are considerably more dark.". Just the one painting and an interpretation that is disputed even by Kathleen Erickson.
 * This will now have to go to some form of dispute resolution. I shall decide what to do tonight after consulting with friends. I notice that you've now contacted an admin to enquire into my edit history, which is a considerable nuisance to me as well as a considerable waste of everyone's time. FightingMac (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned previously there are other paintings as well like File:Vincent Willem van Gogh 041.jpg, that fit the description, both done in the days before his suicide...Modernist (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I added the source, and the quote and a definition of dark at your request. Robert Rosenblum was an eminent American art historian widely known. As TK mentioned you appear to be cherry-picking sources looking for what suits your ideas. I added the source, and now you complain again...Modernist (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, certainly not. That's Wheatfield under clouded sky F778 and there's no way it can be said to reflect Vincent's dark mood. That's just your personal view and that's OR. What is cited by Rosenblum is Wheatfield with Crows and nothing else. Just the one painting. Everthing else is just your "common sense" at work. FightingMac (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well not quite, lets see what Pickvance has to say about Wheatfield under clouded sky File:Vincent Willem van Gogh 041.jpg. He quotes VvG Two of them are vast fields of wheat under troubled skies, and I did not have to go out of my way to express sadness and extreme loneliness. Pickvance concludes saying It is perhaps van Gogh's most haunting and elemental creation...Modernist (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, no. That is the 10th July letter and the paragraph concludes with a remark about the healthy and fortifying effects of nature. Thus Walther's and Metzger's remark"There is nothing in van Gogh's words to support a simplistic interpretation along the lines of artistic angst and despair - nor is there any evidence for the widely-held belief that it was this painting that van Gogh had on his easel at the time he killed himself."

FightingMac, we've been over this again and again. You don't like the sources, because you yourself believe his paintings were not dark in the days before his death. . Here's what I posted a few days ago, and you scoffed at it, calling it comical and absurd. Will check more and post here and perhaps others can check their sources as well. The critics/biographers seem in agreement that there was a shift in July - so the section may need rewriting to reflect that. June was cheerier than July. In July he also received a letter from Theo that upset him, which maybe should/could be mentioned. One last thing: I'd prefer not to add a huge amount of cites as it's indicative of instability and edit warring. My sense is that it's best to say something like most critics believe blah, blah, but others think blah, blah, fwiw. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Walther & Metzger: The two months in Auvers shows a cheerful artist (page 646); critics believe Wheatfield shows his "darkest premonition" but van Gogh himself saw the painting as a "blend of sadness and consolation" (page 680) > see letter 649
 * van Uitert, et al: His five canvases at the end of June are reminiscent of Daubigny with a "twightlight" or "evening" mood. (page 280)
 * Hulsker: In June the artist was in a cheerful mood; in July he was desparate. Crowfield is "somber and hopeless". (pp. 431-437)
 * Letter 649: "I have set to work again although the brush is nearly falling from my hands...I have painted three more large canvases. They are vast stretches of corn under troubled skies and I didn't have to put myself out very much in order to express sadness and extreme loneliness...." ( [21])

I'd be all for removing the sentence if I couldn't provide a source - yet the six books I have at hand, all well-regarded and scholarly, support the sentence. Each morning I wake up to find the sentence tagged again; each day I'm subjected to derision and reams of talkpage comments - in that sense this has become extremely disruptive. This time could instead have been spent tidying the page, a project I began on a week ago before all this started. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That's all about interpretating sources and not citing them. You've already showed yourself very bad at interorating Sweetman, who flat out in his preface p 2 says gloom and depression are not hallmarks of his work.


 * I want a cite here that says unambiguously, without the need to interpret, that the paintings (and I do mean collectively, not just one or two) are "dark" in nature. FightingMac (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See Trolling -, and pestering...Modernist (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't work that way - your request to cite a word and not the intent of that word is unreasonable, argumentative, and basically unproductive. To cut to the chase thats what all of these hours and hours have been about - your demand to see the word dark in a reference. I have supplied this article with the best sources in the world in Rosenblum and Pickvance and that is enough...Modernist (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And I'll add Hulsker and van Uitert too as soon as I can get to it. Overciting is a sign of edit warring, but unfortunately that's what we've come to. Also I see that you've asked for third opinion; which prob is not a bad idea, but usually only for when two editors disagree which isn't the case here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all Modernist, you accuse me of "trolling". That is uncivil and the diff is noted. I already know it's fruitless to ask you to apologise. It's also quite untrue and unwarranted. It's outrageous that you've now taken to crying to sympathetic administrators with these slanders to gain support. Isn't there some kind of policy that forbids that sort of advocacy? I ask you to stop focussing on the personalities and concentrate on the issue.
 * I stand by what I said and this thread is the proof of your trolling...Modernist (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding "dark", what the content you defend says is that Vincent's last paintings, i.e. is to say at least his last 70 so canvases because the content includes At Eternity's Gate which was completed in early July, are dark in mood and you have not provided an adequate cite for that ridiculous assertion which no art critic today (I suspect ever) would make.
 * Give it up already you are cherry-picking what I did not say...Modernist (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What you are doing now is to play a game of "pretend". Cite some sources referring to Wheatfiled with Crows or At Eternity's gate and pretend that's a cite for the whole two month's 70 odd canvases. It really doesn't wash. Why didn't you cite this sudden abundance of sources before?
 * I've been working - you are the one playing games...Modernist (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding Truthkeeper88's remark, I was under the impression he had withdrawn from the article. It will be useful to see what a third opinion has to say if one is forthcoming. The trouble with this kind of situation is that at any one time comparatively few editors involve themselves with an article.
 * You were clearly under the wrong impression...Modernist (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever dispute resolution procedure we eventually adopt, sneaking off to a friendly admin is not one that I accept or am prepared to abide by and if that does become a nuisance, as it currently shows every sign of doing, I will feel more than justified to taking the issues to admin level myself.
 * I can communicate with anyone I want to - lets be clear - then there is this edit by you - ...Modernist (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I once again wearily repeat the issue here: to say that Vincent's last paintings were dark in mood is simply not true and is to mythologise unacceptably both the man and his work. You have allowed this content to stay uncited in the article for the best part of two years, apparently on the basis of some "common sense" conviction that you know best if you please, and in that time it has been copied onto literally dozens, if not hundreds, of mirror websites. It is an absolute disgrace and a disservice to the whole Wikipedia community whose most basic principles you in fact disregard. FightingMac (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Stop your outrageous personal attack. If you don't like something change it - Yes, I've done lots of work on this article, and I stand by it; and I am not responsible for what you don't like...Modernist (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For your information concerning my understanding of MoS is exactly that - Lede does not 'have' to be referenced. The onus is on the article to back up claims in the lede with references. Although I've added contributions - mostly minor to that article over several years, I didn't write it. Please stop your barrage of personal attacks...Modernist (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Concerning this My understanding is the issue of mandatory referencing ledes has been under discussion for years, and in a short article like the article on Theo, I stand by my comment...Modernist (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that won't do. It's the lede of a section, not the article, and the material isn't referenced again in the section and should thus be cited. And your position was that it was common-sense and didn't need citing. Nor am I attacking you when I point this out. But you have attacked me, not only to my face with remarks like "can't your read?" and "you are so out of here" when you redact (for the third time) my input here, but also behind my back to an adminstrator saying I am "aggressive and edgy", an administrator who then goes on to demand of me, if you please, my IP addresses. Do you in fact object to my seeking a third opinion? FightingMac (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

break
Making a navigation break. FightingMac, I've posted to this page daily and edited the article daily. I did mention on your page that I might step away but that was before you quite severely smeared the sources I cited, and made personal attacks. We'd all be happy for this to stop. It's not fun. The section has been edited and cited. Now you want the 70 paintings mentioned, which quite clearly were not all painted in the days before the death. As I mentioned before, this is en:wiki. Because the Dutch, French and German all mention the 70 paintings does not confer a rule for us to slavishly follow. As it happens I think they should be mentioned, but from a structural point of view I don't believe the death section is the place for them. Articles are built as they get built, when people have time. Since you've been editing for such a long time, although with a new account, you know this. As for asking for an admin to have a look, that's not unusual. I told you that I've been having trouble with sockpuppets; I routinely ask for admin help. Not a big deal at all. Please lay off Modernist - he's contributed a massive amount to the VA articles. You may not agree with every single edit, but I'm seeing this dispute spread across many many pages which truly is disruptive, and is interfering with actual editing. Furthermore, looking at the page headings I see that you dislike Sweetman, you dislike Rosenblum, you've often said you dislike Erikson. The fundamental reality is that sources cannot be rejected on that basis. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not that I "dislike" Erikson. She's just not an art critic, but a theologian and the fact of the matter is her single book was ridiculed. Rosenblum I simply don't know: my libraries don't have copies and it's a very expensive book. Sweetman is new to me. He writes well, but it's simply hopelessly out of date and that's all there is to it.
 * This won't stop until I see a citation I can accept for the statement that Vincent's last paintings were dark. All you and Modernist do is churn Wheatfieldd with crows and At Eternity's Gate. How about you telling Modernist to lay off me? It is a big deal to go to an admin the way Modernist did implying quite unwarrantedly I was a troll. Are you implying that I'm sock-puppeting you? As for the dispute spreading across many pages, all it amounts to is that I am asking for content to be cited when I see uncited content. FightingMac (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As a neutral observer, I believe you & Modernist have followed up FM's requests for sources of citations at every turn, and the entire justification for "dark/somber" has been made.--Chimino (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So would you call Couple Walking Between Rows of Poplars "dark/somber", Chimino, (I mean "dark" in the sense of "dark mood"). Of those 70 or so last paintings how many do you estimate as "dark". Would you care to catalogue for the benefit of the community? And why should At Eternity's Gate, a May 1890 close copy of an 1882 lithograph, be poignantly expressive of Vincent's suicidal state of mind two months later, when the lithograph was made eight years before, long before Vincent had begun to express sign of mental instability and was in a sunnily optimistic phase of his life?
 * I would like to have a reply here, please. FightingMac (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My reply is that it doesn't matter what I believe about his work. If reputable sources (and I have seen about a half-dozen listed on this discussion forum) back up the claim of the somber bendt to VG's last paintings, that should be sufficient. The fact you would make such a demand shows to me this is a personal agenda of yours, and you will not rest until the article says what you wish it to say.--Chimino (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But they don't, Chimino.That's the point. They bang on about WwC and AEG and completely ignore the rest of the Auvers work. And in that case it is legitimate to ask you to supply the deficiency, explain why you think it's reasonable to assert "dark" about the remaining 68 paintings or so they don't mention. You say you love Couple Walking. So do I. What's dark about it? That's a fair question. Kant described the aesthetic impulse as a 'disinterested' one. That is the whole basis of his aesthetics, that indeed we can make subjective assessments in a disinterested way. So do please tell me, not as a neutral observer but as a disinterested observer, whether Couple Walking" is dark'' or not. FightingMac (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I wouldn't describe it as dark, more as a commentary on isolation & loneliness (as I alluded to on my talk page). The reason I compared it to Rhone was the shift over two years from an outlook of romantic optimism to one of loneliness and (perhaps) despair...speaking to the artist's mind-state at the time.
 * At some point, this all needs to end with some sort of resolution. All this back-and-forth is headache inducing as it isn't moving forward. Consensus, as it stands, is to keep the section as-is. You say modern research is disproving the previously held notion of Van Gogh's work reflecting his feelings of despair before his suicide; it would be nice if you could give us some examples to back the assertion...--Chimino (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I did think that was your position and why I was surprised to see "dark" from you. Regarding resolution I asked for a third opinion, which is an accepted dispute resolution procedure, whereas tapping the shoulders of friendly admin, is not and a user specialising in providing those has responded below. Please, Chimino, I have expended a great deal of my time and energy, in the face of remarkable incivility, patiently explaining just why "dark" is plain wrong and no modern critic says anything of the sort. I really don't want to spend more time on it. I too would like to see this resolved now. Lets' wait to see what Modernist's (and Truthkeeper88's) response to the third opinion below is. Thank you again for your input. Appreciated. FightingMac (talk) 09:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

3O
Hi, I saw this on the Third Opinion page. I may not have followed all of the details in the above, so I'd first like to check if I understand the disagreement properly. It seems the dispute revolves around whether the word "dark" can be used to describe VG's work at a particular point in time. If that understanding is correct, I would suggest that it would be very useful to provide some quotes from RS's that describe his work in that way. I have done some preliminary research hoping to find something along those lines, but have not found anything yet - but I'll keep looking. MissionNPOVible (talk) 06:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at Rosenblum and can't find "dark" used as an adjective for VG's work. Nor in Pickvance (1974/5) or (1986), but don't have access to (1984) so perhaps it's there? There are pretty clear policies again interpretation (WP:OR), so I think we need an actual quote given this is proving contentious.MissionNPOVible (talk) 07:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the closest I've gotten is "In the end, however, the dark and sombre genius himself became the victim of what had seemed to be the path of salvation". Hopefully somebody else can do better, but until they do I think it is appropriate to remove the "dark" descriptor. MissionNPOVible (talk) 07:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for this MissionNPOVible. I'll point it out to Modernist. I have said from the outset that no art critic today describes Vincent's last paintings (and by that we must mean the Auvers period) as "dark" (in the sense of "dark mood"). When I originally raised the question my input was redacted and my templates removed. When I persisted an editor provided Sweetman, an out of date biograper who gets his facts wrong about Vincent's last painting and in fact never cites "dark" but on the contrary on p. 2 of the preface makes his position quite clear: "whatever his own sufferings, gloom and depression are not the primary hallmarks of his work". Presently the editors are recycling references that churn the familiar theme of Wheatfield with Crows and At Eternity's Gate, of which the first is recognised as being the subject of Vincent's July 10th letter and which is accepted as not despairing in tone

"There is nothing in van Gogh's words to support a simplistic interpretation along the lines of artistic angst and despair - nor is there any evidence for the widely-held belief that it was this painting that van Gogh had on his easel at the time he killed himself."
 * while the second is a close copy of a lithograph that Vincent executed in 1882 at a time when symptoms of mental illness had yet to surface and he was full of sunny optimism for the future, nevertheless Modernist on "common-sense" grounds insists it reflects his suicidal mood. For good measure Modernist has chucked in some jolly meat puppetry as well, implying in turn that I am insane, edgy and agressive, a proper little Vincent in short.
 * Well I shan't invite you into the pit, up to you, but I am very grateful indeed for your time. Thank you. Really appreciated. FightingMac (talk) 09:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh I think I'll resist getting overly involved - just happy to provide a 3O and potentially break a deadlock. Thanks for the appreciation though :-) MissionNPOVible (talk) 10:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Given this - if more than two editors are involved, 3O is not appropriate, and this, I prefer to await someone else's opinion, although I appreciate User:MissionNPOVible's input, thank you...Modernist (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll need to re-add it to the 3O page then. Good luck with it all! MissionNPOVible (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding your question about sources, have a look at this thread, third post. But I agree with Modernist, FightingMac is a new account, and you're a new account. Technicially it's not a 30 issue anyway because a number of people are working the page and have consensus; only FightingMac disagrees with wording. This thread, first post, is the most relevant. Furthermore, simply doing a google search on dark isn't the way about this. The best way is to have the sources at hand, and there are many. On wiki pages we don't pluck the direct words out of the sources; we reword them to avoid WP:Close paraphrasing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * e/c My question about sources was about WP:RS, not talk pages, since WP is all about presenting information gathered from verifiable, reliable sources. I have consulted the electronic versions of the books I mentioned and the word "dark" appears only a handful of times across the lot (maybe 8 or 9 times?) but never in a way that could be construed as describing VG's work.  By all means, if you have the sources to hand provide relevant quotes and the matter will be done and dusted.  As no doubt you know, rewording is fine, as long as it reflects the RS's closely, and in any disagreement over rewording, the RS is king.  MissionNPOVible (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I know what your question was. I don't feel like going to the den and re-copying from the actual hard copy books the quotes already posted here. I linked you to those quotes, so take the time to read them, please. Also take the time to read the second link which says exactly what you've said - RS is king. Descriptors such as "funereal", "somber", "despairing" can quite well be reworded as dark. We are talking about a handful of paintings painted in the days during his death. We are talking about a single sentence, and every source I've looked at supports the sentence. Furthermore, I'm objective, because unlike the rest of the people working the page, I don't work in the visual arts. If I'd thought there was a problem with the sentence, I would have pulled it. It reflects, accurately, the sources. Whether an editor dislikes a source or not is irrelevant. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies TK88, I didn't realise you were pointing me to other RS's. Is there any pressing reason why funereal, somber, or despairing can't be used?  I don't know why, but at least someone is unhappy with characterising it as "dark" - and none of them are perfect synonyms - so given there's a dispute, why not opt for an adjective from a RS and avoid the grief? MissionNPOVible (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Because those words belong to the authors. We can use them in quotations with attributions but frankly there's no reason to start a quote farm, which is this case would be a sure sign of edit warring. The sentence has been in the article for years, I went through the history to find it, but forgot to save the diff, and many experienced editors have been working this page without an objection. I don't mind adding a source, I do mind adding six or creating a quotefarm because at some point you run into a problem of weight, and quite frankly we're at that point now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to add regarding sources - I have at hand six or seven books, either recently bought or checked out from the library. I have access to databases but haven't had time to trawl through them yet. Modernist has access to other sources, equally reliable, and Ceoil, who doesn't edit regularly but you'll note his name on the contribs in the history, has access to yet others. We have good sources - this is not the problem. The problem is that FightingMac doesn't like the sources, and that is not how it works here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * e/c Nobody owns those words TK, so there really can't be a problem with using them without attribution. I realised from FightingMac's first response that I'd blundered into the middle of something that in reality has very little to do with the word "dark", but as someone with absolutely no interest in what word is used, I would encourage you to just stick with a verifiable adjective that defuses the whole thing and lets everyone move on.  I've already searched a number of academic databases to no avail, and that's not to say the word isn't out there somewhere, but is it really worth the hassle?  Nevertheless, a RS is a RS, so if one is found then nobody can complain.  MissionNPOVible (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the entire point of copyvio is that people do own words when they write them in copyrighted material. And yes, they do need to be attributed. That you would not be aware of that gives me very little optimism here. Have a look here and related links re close paraphrasing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The other day I added these (see above) two dictionary definitions, of Dark - Somber (Sombre), dismal, gloomy, had a dark view of the future, relating to grim or depressing circumstances, threatening, foreboding, mysterious, which basically explains the RS's words in use...Modernist (talk) 12:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

{outdent}The is a significant difference between using a word that is also used in RS's and breaching copyright - from the very policy you directed me to TK, "Close paraphrasing rises to the level of copyright infringement when taking is substantial." A single word could never be construed as substantial if drawn from a source with more than a few words in it. I'm not sure I understood your point Modernist, if you mean that dark is a synonym for adjectives that appear in RS's, I agree, but as I mentioned above, why bother with a synonym when an adjective from a RS will suffice and make the whole thing go away? What exactly is so important about "dark" if it is synonymous with all the other available words? If it has such specialist meaning in this context (something I freely admit I am unqualified to comment on), then it must not be synonymous with those other words, and one of them should be used instead since they come from RS and "dark" does not. MissionNPOVible (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What you're not understanding is that this sentence has stood in this article, worked on by subject experts, for many years with consensus. There is no consensus to change. If we have consensus then a new discussion begins. At this point we have a single editor who objects; an editor who is happy to launch personal attacks; and an editor who has been disruptive. Those are more serious problems. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * From the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Colombia University Press: "one of his last paintings, Wheat Field With Crows (Van Gogh Foundation, Amsterdam), projected ominous overtones of distress." The sources they used for their entry are (this is a copy/paste): "Complete Letters (tr. 1958); Van Gogh: His Life and His Art (1990) by D. Sweetman; studies by J. Leymarie (1968), M. E. Tralbaut (1969), R. J. Philpott (1984), and R. Pickvance (1984)." We use the same sources and come to the same conclusion. If it's good enough for Columbia University, it's good enough for Wikipedia. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * e/c Well, I think we may be getting closer to the real issue now... Consensus can change, and this is one of the ways it changes. Such attachment to a single word makes me worry a little about WP:OWN, and while I'm not accusing anyone of that, it does seem to be heading in that direction.  There is at least consensus that RS is king, so why not reflect a RS, and once one turns up with "dark" in it, use it.  There's no harm, and lots to be gained, in being gracious.  Incidentally, "dark" isn't in Sweetman (1990), and I don't see "dark" in your quote from Columbia EE either.  Also I think there is a problem with clarity in using "dark" in the article since it seems to be used in two distinctly different ways - which is another good reason to use a different word from a RS.  Anyway, I think I'm starting to repeat myself now, so I'll leave you to it unless you specifically ask me to be involved further.   Good luck!  MissionNPOVible (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time, we will take your views into consideration. This - "one of his last paintings, Wheat Field With Crows (Van Gogh Foundation, Amsterdam), projected ominous overtones of distress." is ok with me...Modernist (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I attempted to make a contribution to this discussion four or five hours ago but it was halted by an edit conflict. I wanted to say that if it is mood you are interested in and not just the "darkness" in the paintings, then I suggest the letter from Theo on 5 August 1890 may be of help. See here. ¶ I have been following this whole discussion with interest as it seems to have partly been a result of the repositioning of At Eternity's Gate which I seem to have triggered completely by accident. While I share many of the concerns of TK and Modernist, I do not agree that the fact that a paasage has not been questioned for years is a justification for maintaining it. I am also surprised about two items in the para in question, namely the inclusion of At Eternity's Gate (which was based on a much earlier sketch when VvG seems to have been in quite a positive mood) and the inclusion of Roots with the comment by VvG that "in those gnarled black roots with their knots, I wanted to express something about the struggle of life". He actually made the comment in a letter of 1 May 1882 in connection with his original sketch of Les Recines. It can therefore hardly be indicative of his mood at the time of his death as it is not a comment on his painted verion from July 1890. ¶ Perhaps it would be a good idea specifically to mention the differing opinions of commentators on the tone of his later paintings, leaving the reader to investigate the sources. And as I have suggested elsewhere, it may well be worthwhile to start a separate article on VvG's death where all this (and much more) could be developed in detail. The article Vincent van Gogh's health fails to cover it adequately. In haste - Ipigott (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ipigott, if the centenary exhibition catalogue uses that description without specifying that it was written 8 years earlier, there's not much I can do about it. We follow the sources. I have to give up temporarily. Please feel free to remove that section. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ipigott, if you want to remove Eternity's Gate - go ahead, I'm ambivalent, a few minutes ago I was contemplating adding more explanation there, but I changed my mind...Modernist (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed the image placement as requested...Modernist (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that, along with removing the reference to AEG, brings everything together, so as to not lead the reader to believe the work "in the days before his suicide" to include the painting. Wheatfield with Crows, which is considered bleak by many reputable scholars, was painted in his final days. Ba-da-boom.--Chimino (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your switch is fine with me...Modernist (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

@TK: That just goes to show that you cannot always rely on a given source. As they used to say at school, "Don't believe everything you read in the papers!" But seriously speaking, now we have access to the VvG letters, we should make full use of their contents in the interests of objectivity. I must say in your defense that I have been impressed by your work to date on this and many other articles as well as with your repeated interest in verifying your sources. Here I think we are in full agreement. @Modernist: I think you misunderstood me. I was not suggesting removing the image of At Eternity's Gate but rather explaining more about the background. As for removing the para in question, I would like to have more agreement on the way forward. My preferred option would be to see the passage rewritten in the light of our discussions and to have it backed up by an article on Van Gogh's death. I could have a go at the latter but would appreciate your contributions and reactions. I hope we can work this all out in a constructive spirit. - Ipigott (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ipigott per your input I moved the painting to the section above, if you want to add text please do, I was going to but instead moved it...Modernist (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In moving the painting it creates less ambiguity in the contentious section with the word 'dark'. The painting was replaced with Wheatfield under Clouded Sky another important July painting. As to per your input - your remark simply triggered my thoughts, thanks, (I can put it back per consensus)...Modernist (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Ipigott is talking sence. Ceoil  16:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ipigott, first, I apologize for snapping at you. Having re-read the source and the caption in the image, I see that the quote in fact refers to Study of a Tree (1882). Quite honestly, I feel rushed. Too many books to read, too much to absorb, and too much background noise. Anyway, it's been removed from the text, and thanks for pointing it out. I think a subarticle on the death, or a reworking of the health article is a good idea. I've also wanted to start a page on the letters, which is an aftermath of the death. So there's plenty to be done and as I keep saying we haven't a deadline. In the meantime, I'd like to continue copyediting to continue to familiarize myself with the page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies accepted although I fully sympathize with your initial reaction. Good to have your support on the death article. I don't quite know when I'll get around to starting it but I see no rush. Unlike FM, it seems to me it is better for us all to take the time all this deserves. I realize I'm a relative newcomer to the VvG articles but maybe I'll be able to make a useful contribution. Good to know we can work together - once the heat cools off over there! - Ipigott (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The heat is a serious problem and shows no sign of abating. This will all work out in the end; it always does. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I want unequivocal statements from you
Truthkeeper88:

A What's your position on the remark on p2 in the preface of Sweetman: "whatever his own sufferings, gloom and depression are not the primary hallmarks of his work"? Where in Sweetman do you find a declaration that his last paintings were "dark"(funereal, whatever)?

B What is your position on Walther amd Metzger's judgement on Wheatfield with Crows"There is nothing in van Gogh's words to support a simplistic interpretation along the lines of artistic angst and despair - nor is there any evidence for the widely-held belief that it was this painting that van Gogh had on his easel at the time he killed himself."

I want unequivocal statements from you about both of these.
 * Completely unnecessary...Modernist (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the original edit this is it. It makes it clear that what is envisaged are all the paintings of his last two months stretching back to At Eternity's Gate. The edit was made on 21 September 2009 and has stayed there unchallenged and uncited for nearly two years and during that time it has been picked up and copied by literally dozens, if not hundreds, of mirror sites.

Will you stop accusing me of launching personal attacks and being disruptive. It is both uncivil and quite unwarranted as well as decidedely hypocritical given that Modernist contacted an administrator if you please and described me by turns as "insane, edgy and agressive".
 * I think your actions here proves the point...Modernist (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And I'll keep trying to seek advice to get these disruptions stopped...Modernist (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying you reject this third opinion as resolution? That you want to continue the dispute resolution process? What would satisfy you? FightingMac (talk) 15:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You lost...Modernist (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Stop these attacks and disruptions, particularly against TK...Modernist (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite. This is now verging on harrassment. Ceoil  16:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your 3rd opinion conceded the point to TK anyway - just read the above, you lost...Modernist (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter anyway, this will go on and on, from one sentence to next. Ceoil  16:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought we were all making good progress together on all this. Why dear FightingMac do you want to relaunch an attack at this point. Just give us all time. You've made your point and we are all busy examining the background and reviewing our approaches. I suggest you leave this alone for at least a couple of weeks and see how it evolves. - Ipigott (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm gone for a couple of hours and find this. Ceoil is right, it will go on and on. Ipigott is right, we need time. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My openion is that some of FM's arguments are salient, but lost in his approach. I think that thats mostly due to the fact that I edit warred with him on the Lavrentiy Beria page, and I though he just simply followed me here, but in fact he does have quite a bit of knowledge. But I blindly reverted him with edit summaries along the lines of 'I dont like you', which I suppose were hard to take, hence his peeved reaction here so far. Whatever, he does seem familiar with the time line, we should try and work together. At present this talk is just a circular time sink and more than a little depressing. FightingMac we could condence down and deal with your arguments outside of the personal.  Ceoil  01:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ceoil. I'll try to put together an article on the Death of Vincent van Gogh which will provide more room for the presentation of detail. One of the problems with the VvG article is that it is not really possible to expand too much on the Death section there. I hope this will take some of the heat out of the dispute. - Ipigott (talk) 06:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, nice work. FM has taken you advice Ipigott and has agreed to back off, saying that most of what he was lobbying for has been met anyway. The hope is that if he comes back to this talk, it will be with more collegial approach. If this is over, I'd say lets archive all this and move on. Ceoil  12:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Lobbying is a very tame word given the section header above. Just have to say. But whatever. It's all fine and well to be gone for a week or so, both of you, and then to step in, without having been in the line of fire, and wipe it all away. And by the way, am more than weary to waking up to find yet more posts on this page. And am not at all happy about the posts at the top of the section. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm being pragmatic. Ceoil  12:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)