Talk:Vincent van Gogh

Death

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commit Suicide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reset

Hi all. Without wanting to fall afoul of WP:OWN, the several editors who brought the article to FAC back in the day did discuss this specific use of language, and all preferred the phrase "died by suicide". The choice was unanimous, drawn from life experience and non-wiki guidelines such as[2]. Ceoil (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Happy (not even really up to me, but happy) to revert to previous consensus language: my hackles were only raised with the framing of process laid out above. Remsense ‥ 论 22:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Remsense, this is an instance where would prefer to follow eternal guidelines by mental health professions rather than the hodge-podge of war-torn wiki-guidelines by god knows whom. Ceoil (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

If I may: I don't have the previous disputes in front of me, but if it's viable I would consider seeking consensus to strengthen the language of the relevant MOS passage if at all possible to avoid future disputes if it is meant to be understood as a guideline in practice. Remsense ‥ 论 22:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thats a really great idea. If you bring it up on the guideline talk page I think it should quickly gain consensus. Would be happy to also comment there; if your uncomfortable with the exposure will take a look and consider it myself; though I'm not much of a wiki-lawyer! Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Yup. John (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I would support this, but the last time this was discussed the outcome was to leave it up to individual editors. John (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Another option might be simply "shot himself" (in the chest), as his resulting death was from immediate. He managed to return home and it took him two days to die, with his brother in attendance. If medical attention had been more immediate/ expert, he might even have survived. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that would work for me. John (talk) 10:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

In that statement in the lead section, "van Gogh is believed to have died by suicide after shooting himself in the chest" the "died by suicide" is quite redundant. Furthermore, the "is believed to have" is not supported by the main body, which is quite definite he did it. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

If it were up to me, I'd go with [...] van Gogh shot himself in the chest and died two days later, leaving pertinent details in the relevant section as the lead seems a tad long. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Quite agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• The lead was in a hell of a mess. Who adds American spelling to an article clearly labelled as EngvarB? Better now I think, but I dread to look at the rest of the article now! John (talk) 14:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  I found (only) three more "colors"! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  As I suspected, Randy and his pals have been having fun with the article since we worked on it. In some cases the degradation to the quality of the article is severe. What to do? John (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Does it seem viable to just revert to a "known good" version and reimplement clear improvements piecemeal? Frankly, if a FA is fairly recent (i.e. post-2014 or so) this should nearly always be seen as a possible option in its maintenance. Remsense ‥ 论 03:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  Not sure I'd want to revert to a 10-year old version, FA or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  My intent is to indicate a general process: whether it's best to revert large passages or small patches, whether eight years back or 18 months, I think it should be in the toolbox for many articles that are otherwise ostensibly in danger of FAR. Remsense ‥ 论 08:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  Can't disagree. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  I was tempted but it seemed anti-Wikipedian to just revert. Instead I've started to go through the article and clean up Randy's mess piecemeal. John (talk) 10:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  So that's a Big Randy Mess, not just a "Big Mess"?? Vans-R-Us-123 (talk) 11:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Which grandfather?

Which grandfather was VvG named after? I'm guessing the paternal. We should state it. John (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2024

It is thought that Van Gogh had Ménière’s disease as his paintings have short brush strokes and look as though through the lens of somebody suffering with vertigo. It also explains why he spent much of his later life bedridden.

https://balanceanddizziness.org/stories/famous-dizzy-people/vincent-van-gogh-menieres-disease/#:~:text=Vincent%20Van%20Gogh%20(1853%2D1890)&text=While%20depression%20is%20most%20often,illness%20now%20includes%20Meniere's%20disease. Kimzer1985 (talk) 07:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: the sources provided are not reliable for these claims, and it is not clear this is a significant fact for the article in any case. Remsense ‥ 论 07:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

"...he spent much of his later life bedridden."? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Dutch capitalization

After various discussions at WT:NETHERLANDS I created the template {{Dutch name capitalization}} for articles that use Dutch convention for names. Should we use this convention for Van Gogh? (Van Gogh capitalized always except when preceded by a name or initial). ReyHahn (talk) 10:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

This applies just for the Netherlands, or all low countries? And historically, as well as for modern times? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

This applies for the Netherlands only. Belgium names for example have different capitalization rules.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks. And has it always been this way? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

In Dutch, I think so yes. In Wikipedia it is of constant debate, so it is a matter of convention between users for each article.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm sure that's very useful for all relevant articles. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I can see that there were two early discussions on this:

• Talk:Vincent van Gogh/Archive 1#Capitalization (2005, conclusion use Van Gogh)
• Talk:Vincent van Gogh/Archive 4#Name (2011, conclusion to use Van Gogh)

Is there any other discussion where this convention was overruled? Clearly the article writes van Gogh as of now.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)