Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:00, 21 July 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vincent van Gogh article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Template:VA

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

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

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

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

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

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Jeanne Calment

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

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

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[REDACTED] use van Gogh...Modernist (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

What consensus, Modernist? Where was this ever discussed?

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

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

• Comment. I found previous discussion in archive. Glrx (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, there were other discussions in which it was agreed that in similitude with Theo and other family members we would use Vincent, and otherwise Van Gogh, here is another link to a further discussion and here also ...Modernist (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Besides the 2 above archived discussions, It was further discussed amongst Ceoil, Tyrenius, JNW, me and a few others during the last couple of years...Modernist (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment I'll try and give some logic for the Dutch choosing "Van Gogh" over "van Gogh" (although I'm not saying Dutch rules should apply on the English Misplaced Pages....): Van means "of" (a preposition), so capitalizing the van, makes sure while reading a sentence you immediately identify it as a name and don't mistake it for the preposition. It's an extra help when reading. Hence Vincent van Gogh, and Van Gogh, both names, and both beginning with a capital. So in Dutch it is: Edwin van der Sar, and Van der Sar, with a small "der", because capitalizing that part wouldn't add anything. That's at least how I've learnt it, so question is does that help in English. Joost 99 (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Van Y when the family name is used alone.

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

Footnote 1: Netherlands / Holland / Brabant

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

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

Add some ties to recently created articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

FA candidate?

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

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

Canon of Dutch History

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

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

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

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

Dutch pronunciation

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

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

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

Images referenced from box

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

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

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

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

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

I have removed the box, for the following reasons,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography

I'd like to start tidying the sources and bibliography. Any objections to combining the bibliographic entries so we don't have two sections? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If you think it matters, all under one heading - General, biographical and art historical...Modernist (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I think if the sources are there, it's easier to scan only a single alphabetical list instead of two. But that might be a problem only a I have, so I thought I raise it. It's not really all that important. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I had wondered why there were two lists - having obtained the name of the author in the "References" section one has to scan both lists. In fact it is unclear to me why some publications are in one list rather than the other. I believe that having a single list would be preferable.

Another comment on the references. How widely available are exhibition catalogues of earlier exhibitions? They may be "reliable" but if they are not available in a standard university library then the information becomes difficult to verify. For some of the info in the article, I suspect that more accessible but equally reliable sources could be used. Aa77zz (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Aa77zz - that's my feeling too. The sources need tidying and I want to start somewhere. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I kind of like the separate designations actually. Is it really that confusing or difficult?...Modernist (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No, not really. I haven't looked at it yet on my desktop with the big monitor, but on the laptop I have to do a lot scrolling to get from a ref in the references and then find the correct source. So, in that sense, it's a bit annoying. But let's see what others say. The other question I have, some sources seem to be both biographical and art historical - so how does one know how to designate. Or do they go to both? Just wondering. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Lets not put any of them in both lists, I think that would be really confusing...Modernist (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Many of them are there since before my time on the page, which is a while ago, and many of them are not used. Also, Im not sure its always an accurate distenction, or helpful. You can usually tell by the publisher anyway. More useful would be to split into sources (used), and further reading (not used). In other news, I'll like to replace all the web cites with book sources (not goolge book sources mind), with the exception of webcites for the letters. I have Pomerans, and could cite the letters to him, but I dont theink there is much point, better to have them accessable. But where its not a direct quote, or where the quote is used to prove something that is grey or open to intrepatation, I would try and reduce the reliance on such primiary material. Ceoil 21:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Re the letters, I have Pomerans too and some of his chapter headings are useful, but agree the online letters should be used. A couple of things about this: first, it's really best not always to use the letters (primary source) but instead a secondary source that interprets the letters. I think if we can do that we might have to link to both, instead of doing the qtd in thing, link to the secondary source & to the letter, if this makes any sense. Second, the letters are quite beautiful and are a nice story - I'd like to make a page for the letters, the background, when & how they were published, etc. Won't get to immediately but when it's done, we can trim the letters section here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Grand, webcites for dry fact from letters only, secondary sources otherwise, but we keep the sourcing of qoutes to the webcites source. It would be the only web source I'd let in though, given the amount of art historical material out there; and relying on poorly PR'd and recent journal research, news articles or google bits would be a bad idea IMO. And we have a lot of that. Ceoil 01:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

We do have a lot of that. I've decided to ignore and think I'll just replace once I start writing. That's how I went through Hemingway & Pound - overwrote what was in place and pruned out sources I didn't want as I went along. I think it saves a bit of time, but doesn't really matter how it's done as long as we lean on good sources. I think Hulsker is also very good for dry fact - he gives more information than any of the other biographies I've looked at, but not as much context. Context has to be woven in from other sources. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Self-portrait by van Gogh actually a portrait of Theo?

According to some media accounts, the van Gogh Museum has said that a self-portrait previously believed to portray the artist is now believed to capture the likeness of his brother, Theo. I was going to post the link to EL but thought I'd raise the issue here as well. I'll leave it to the van Gogh-a-philes to sort out the mystery. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Infobox

I think we need it...Modernist (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Please join the treathed discussion above where reasons for its removal were given. You can give your reasons for keeping there. Ceoil 21:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Lets make the discussion clear about getting a consensus. Earlier discussion was about images. Glrx (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep the infobox. It gives the article a similar look and feel to other articles. The redundancy does not hurt the article. Glrx (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep see my remarks above , To reiterate and clarify - I think every article is unique and although I have opposed using infoboxes at other articles; in this particular article it's both necessary and desirable...Modernist (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I replaced the box - see Edouard Manet, Edgar Degas, Mary Cassatt, Claude Monet, Paul Cezanne, Camille Pissarro, Pablo Picasso, Henri Matisse, Auguste Renoir, Georges Seurat, Paul Gauguin...Modernist (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm usually no fan of inboxes, as they often tend to reduce complex subjects to the sheerest outline, and can be a hindrance to presentation. In this case, though, I think Modernist is right. Not only is it consistent with other subjects, but it's a fairly indispensable way of giving a quick overview to folks who may be coming here for their first taste of the subject. MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep per Modernist and MarmadukePercy. Visually, an infobox isn't inappropriate or jarring in an article that has numerous multiple image boxes, i.e., that's already visually busy and structurally complex. JNW (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment, no problem now with keeping, was being bold but concensus from people I respect is against me, so end of story. Ceoil 19:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: I've remained neutral on this issue (as well as the others), but can't help but mention the sentence fragment below Vince's portrait. I'd prefer "This was Van Gogh's last self portrait, given as a birthday gift to his mother.", but perhaps that's the (former) English major in me.--Chimino (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, correct the sentence ...Modernist (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Done.--Chimino (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources

This has been lightly discussed up page a little, but I want it to have its own section - in my view we need to go to the best scholarly sources if this is to have a chance at FAC. From what I can tell Hulsker is well regarded as a biography, and Pomerans has many interpretive sections interspersed between the letters. I'd consider the letters a primary source and best avoided unless a secondary source points to them. Also, I think we should avoid using Jo van Gogh's biography. Aside from the fact that it was written over a century ago, Hulsker questions the reliability, so it's best to use the most recent scholarship. I do have hardcopy books at hand now, and once the bare bones are laid down will begin to flesh out with pdf files. I'll email the pdfs around; and if anyone sees something we should use, I can download. Thoughts? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I have Hulsker, Jan. The Complete Van Gogh and I've used it often as a source, as well as Tralbaut, Marc Edo. Vincent van Gogh, however I think the visions of Johanna are invaluable and should be used as well...Modernist (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be treated as a primary source since all the subsequent biographers lean on it, and instead use the secondary sources (more recent biographies), with references to Johanna where necessary. Hulsker is very clear that in some cased Johanna is unreliable, will try to pull some page numbers for examples. Also, just adding here, I've clicked into the van Gogh family article and am seeing copyvio issues. These are things that need to be weeded out before this article goes anywhere, imo. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Because we have so many subarticles we have the luxury to shove things there and expand to our heart's content, though in my estimation some of those pages are in need of clean- up. Here, where word count will become a factor if we are to do Vincent justice, we should use summary style as much as possible. For me at least, that's easier if I'm summarizing a large page range from a biographer; not as easy when a sentence or para is summarized from a websource. Just saying. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can find we only use the visions of Johanna once in a ref and that is also confirmed by Erickson, and Traulbut's family tree on p.27...Modernist (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not entirely agree with TK that summarising is such an important issue at this stage, although I realise it is one of the factors requiring attention in articles to be reviewed for FA. For me, the most important factors are maintaining the correct perpective and balance throughout the article, ensuring that all major developments are covered and verifying the objectivity of the sources consulted, i.e. not simply citing them. It also appears to me that there are probably a number of additional sources which could be tapped, especially from VvG's letters and responses to them. Finally, I think it would be useful to expand coverage of how and why the low level of appreciation of the artist's work during his lifetime increased appreciably after his death and has continued to do so right up to the present. There must be a number of recent resources here that could be researched. The article Posthumous fame of Vincent van Gogh goes into some of this but it is not very smoothly written and perhaps does not convey the right level of emphasis. I would be interested to hear if others agree with this. In the light of the numerous discussions on the article, I have hesitated to work on its content but may be tempted to do so if progress remains more or less at a standstill. - Ipigott (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I am currently thinking about an essay Clement Greenberg wrote about how basically Vincent died too young. In other words and ironically perhaps his fame and his commercial success began to kick in at about the right age it usually does for most artists. If by 1900-1910 say (when things began to blossom for his work) - if VvG had lived he would have been 47-57 and in the decade from 1910 to 1920 VvG and several of his deceased contemporaries including Gauguin and Cezanne began to attract widespread fame and admiration. I'm looking for Greenberg's essay and thinking about the terrific essay John Rewald published about VvG's posthumous success...Modernist (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that idea (as well as that stated by Ipigott above) is on the right track, if this article is to be expanded further, or at all. Much of VG's appeal, besides the innovative nature of the work itself, is the fact he died before he actually personally realised the effect of his greatness.

There has been alot of back and forth as to what will make the article "FAC-worthy", but in the end, I believe the intent of it all should be educating the public on the article's subject.--Chimino (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

We also have this article Posthumous fame of Vincent van Gogh that can include the Clement Greenberg hypothesis as well as more expansion, by the way I've said on more than one occassion my priority is the article and the art, not FAC...Modernist (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Name

It's been agreed to use Van Gogh...Modernist (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The atmospere is so toxic and resistant here, Im not even going to bother posting on this talk after this. This is my last word on this talk page...Modernist Misplaced Pages is an ency, not a picture book, its text based. And sources should ideally be secondary, not primarily, and not from the first google return. And the article text sould follow the capitilaisation conventions of the title, and majority of sources and the logic of language, and I should not have to put up with blind reverts that erased other edits, from a friend, along with non thinking talk comments like It's been agreed. There is a lot of copy-vio in the article; adherance to non cut and paste sources and not using sources that current editors do not have and cannot stand over will eliminate this. Hence, sources vs further reading. There is much more I could say, but I'll just stick with the page, ignoring the gang here who seem more preoccupied with preservation and Carol than anything else. Drama is a sink and I have others things to be doing than massaging undeserved egos. Ceoil 00:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Per , , and this comment by Joost - I'll try and give some logic for the Dutch choosing "Van Gogh" over "van Gogh" (although I'm not saying Dutch rules should apply on the English Misplaced Pages....): Van means "of" (a preposition), so capitalizing the van, makes sure while reading a sentence you immediately identify it as a name and don't mistake it for the preposition. It's an extra help when reading. Hence Vincent van Gogh, and Van Gogh, both names, and both beginning with a capital. So in Dutch it is: Edwin van der Sar, and Van der Sar, with a small "der", because capitalizing that part wouldn't add anything. That's at least how I've learnt it, so question is does that help in English. and The Complete Van Gogh by Jan Hulsker, among others...Modernist (talk) 02:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This is an old argument, some sources used Van Gogh, some van Gogh. I used van Gogh initially, then in agreement with Tyrenius and other editors it was agreed to use Van Gogh, then there were various other discussions and Van Gogh was the agreed upon use. I have worked this page for a long time - I think it's encyclopedic if you don't and if you think its a picture book then we disagree...Modernist (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is what we make it and it's consensus based...Modernist (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Worked a long time means nothing to me M, poor defence, and as if I just turned up on the article having done nothing here before. Who are you talking to. And equating 'some sources' with 'some other' is trite. I'll formuate an agrument for lower case, give me time. Ceoil 02:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't really care - lower case, upper case it doesn't really matter to me because we can justify either way - I want an agreement - one or the other and we stick to it. I own 2 major Biographies the Jan Hulsker and Vincent Van Gogh by Marc Edo Tralbaut and they are split, I own two or three books by Pickvance and he uses 'van Gogh' and my Irving Stone uses Van Gogh. I probably have other books around - I own 3 by Rewald but I haven't looked, because its absurd. We just need to make a decision...Modernist (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thats a good argument, finally. I flicked through two of four I have to hand tonight noy put away, two read recently, two from series of essays re-read in the last two months (Sund, McQuilla, Sylvester, Hughes). And then journal articles, or from a few years ago, and books I've bought but not touched. I scored four out of 4 for lowercase, low odds sure. But I know from living in Holland in 2007/2008 than caps for any 'son of' or deritiave or whatever in dutch looks odd capitalised, Rogier Van der Weyden? Ceoil 03:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Rewald is van Gogh, what do you want to use?...Modernist (talk) 03:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Willem de Kooning is another mind bender by the way...Modernist (talk) 03:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd let this go except it betrays a pattern here, but yeah de Kooning is excellent. It took me a long time to get him. 03:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I will change them all back to van Gogh - that's one for you (and actually what I was using a few months ago)...Modernist (talk) 03:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I can do it, if it comes to it. It takes about an hour and a half on wiki, but 1 second on a text editor with a find and replace function. Dont bother man. Ceoil 03:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The Museum uses lower-cased, FWIW, except when beginning a sentence or title with simply "Van Gogh". As they seem to be the go-to source on so much else related to Vince, should they be the standard? Either way I agree there should be consensus, and it should start from the title of the page on down...--Chimino (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Done, I did it by hand so as to once again go through the whole article - it's been awhile since I did that...Modernist (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW - it took me the longest time to figure out why the title didn't match the name in the text. Had to read the talk page a few times. I think this is a very positive change. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• This seems to me to be a step in the wrong direction and despite the above comments is certainly not consistent with modern Dutch usage. In general, Misplaced Pages tends to favour reproducing the national usage for proper names, even to the extent of sorting by first name in Icelandic, for example. Van Gogh is certainly the best known Dutch "Van". It is therefore important that his name should be represented correctly. See the Dutch name article: "In the Netherlands, these prefixes are not spelled with a capital when used in combination with the first name or initial, for example Piet de Wolf or R. van Rijn. In all other cases a capital letter must be used, for example, de heer Van Kampen, or when preceded by an academic title as in dr. Van Wijk." Having worked widely with international organizations over the years, I can confirm that this is also the usage generally adopted in English. I also see that the case of Van Gogh is specifically mentioned in Van (Dutch): "The "v" is written in lower case, except if the first name or initials are omitted, in which case it is capitalised, as in "de schilder Van Gogh" ("the painter Van Gogh") or "de heer Van Teylingen" ("Mister Van Teylingen")." So before adopting "van Gogh" in all cases, I would strongly advise further research on the matter rather than relying on the kind of personal preferences voiced on this talk page. - Ipigott (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I see your point; for example: he is consistently referred to as "Van Gogh", except in conjunction with his first name, which is consistently "Vincent van Gogh".--Chimino (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. This was the approach used before the last revision. I hope there will be support for reimplementing it. If we lose out on Van Gogh, it will be difficult to insist on correct usage for other Dutch names. - Ipigott (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me this a Misplaced Pages broad issue, there are multiple articles of Dutch people with the same issue and inconsistent use of capitals in the prefix. Maybe this is something that should be decided outside the Van Gogh article. First to decide wether or not to follow Dutch (sur)naming conventions for Dutch people within article texts. And if not, then probably to decide per article which form is used (and to stick to it...). Following Dutch rules will cause some confusion but will also provide consistency (personally I don't care which form is used, as long as discussions like this don't keep resurfacing). Joost 99 (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

As I have said before - I am neutral as to which one we use - But before we go further we need to reach an agreement with everyone who has been working here...Modernist (talk) 11:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Ceoil and Truthkeeper are in favor of using van Gogh because most of the reliable art historical sources use van Gogh...Modernist (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this needs to be agreed before moving forward.A random sampling of scholarly material on JSTOR shows van Gogh, Vincent, van Gogh, and Van Gogh. However the sources tend to lean more toward the small v. Honestly, when I first read the page the name was confusing to me; I couldn't understand why the title was Vincent van Gogh, but article used Van Gogh. I had to read the talkpage a few time to understand the logic. I don't think we should expect that the casual reader will look to the talk page - in most casual readers don't know talk pages exist, so I think it should be as simple as possible. I know that some Swiss names beginning with "von" are sometimes capitalized, sometimes not, and am wondering whether this is the case here, but that's irrelevant, honestly. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Our own Misplaced Pages seems to make it quite clear here and here. The argument presented by Ipigott holds up.--Chimino (talk) 13:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are the main contributors to the page . You guys duke it out - I'm only a blip and only wanted to make clear it was confusing to the lay person - that's why I thought it was positive. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I will either reverse myself or we will leave it as is when we decide here...Modernist (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

van Gogh or Van Gogh

Van Gogh

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

van Gogh

• Pickvance
• Rewald
• Traulbaut
• Walther & Metzger - Aa77zz (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Hughes - The Portable van Gogh Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Silverman, Debora. Van Gogh and Gauguin (title is all caps) uses small v in text. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Erickson, Kathleen Powers. At Eternity's Gate: The Spiritual Vision Of Vincent Van Gogh Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Boston Museum of Fine Arts

Consensus: van Gogh or Van Gogh

• Van Gogh. Capitalization rule might be mentioned in a footnote for curious reader. Topic debated before. Little reason to change. Understand rule can throw ough off automatic citations. Glrx (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm making the change...Modernist (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I went over to the Dutch WP to see how it capitalizes the name, and it appears to use "Van Gogh". There was even an amusing version of hint rule above because there was a doubled "van":

"De Duitse kunstwetenschappers vinden steun voor hun stelling in de laatste brief van Van Gogh aan Gauguin."

("The German art scientists find support for their objective in the last letter from Van Gogh to Gauguin.")

Glrx (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Am I correct in assuming that it is agreed that one writes Vincent van Gogh rather than Vincent Van Gogh, the uc/lc issue is only when the first name is omitted? Aa77zz (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

We are writing - Vincent van Gogh, Van Gogh (unless we decide to use van Gogh) and in some cases in proximity to his close family Vincent...Modernist (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Modernist, I see you reversed yourself shortly after writing this, but overwhelming consensus (particuarly from Dutch sources) appears to be as you state it above.--Chimino (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me to be just about fifty fifty with the preponderance of scholars leaning toward van Gogh. I'll change it again if we can find an overwhelming majority of published accounts that demonstrate the other, I'd like to see more experts work...Modernist (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Vans and des and so on are called Tussenvoegsels and that article describes their use in Holland:

• According to Dutch language rules in the Netherlands, the tussenvoegsel in a surname is written with a capital letter only when it is not preceded by a first name or initial. So referring to a Peter whose surname is "De Vries" we write "meneer De Vries" (Mr. De Vries), but "Peter de Vries" and "P. de Vries".

In Belgium they always keep the capitalisation, but Vincent wasn't Belgian.

Bottom line: Modernist is quite right. (Glrx's comment above very salient as well). FightingMac (talk) 09:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Citation style

I personally think that this article would really benefit from changing its style to Template:sfn. By the way, it is a brilliant article and is someone going to nominate it for FAC? TGilmour (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Citation styles are not changed, per WP:CITEHOW. The style first introduced in an article is retained, unless consensus is achieved to change. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I defer to Truthkeeper and Ceoil as to citation styles, whatever they prefer...Modernist (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose sfn. The current citation style is mixed. SFN is essentially used for some repeated references, and some refs are placed in the footnote. I don't see that mixed style as bad, so I would not fix it. I don't see a benefit to consistency. SFN has the problem of always being a double indirect to find the actual source. Mixed style only needs a double indirect for a multi-citation.

Support using Citation templates in the reference section. The visual appearance of the citations would be roughly the same. The change would enforce consistency (not a problem in this article) and allow some bots to examine/edit/expand the citations. WP:CITEHOW#Citation templates and tools is quasi-indifferent to such a change when a specific citation format has not been adopted; the policy does allow other editors to object.

Glrx (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, the person who started this thread has been blocked indef as a sockpuppet. Re citation templates, per WP:CITEHOW the existing citation style should be retained. Would prefer not to work with templates on a page of this size and scope. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Truthkeeper and retaining the current style makes sense for editing clarity given the complexity of the article...Modernist (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll probably be going through slowly tidying citations and making a consistent style, checking links, etc. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the French article (an FA) has a very clear citation style. I haven't looked at it in detail but it achieves its effect I think by Grouping references. So you find Hulsker references all in one place, for example. The letters are especially well referenced I think. Can we perhaps move to that style? They're frankly a bit of a mess here at the moment. FightingMac (talk) 08:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I had a look at the French version and we don't do anything like that here. Keeping in mind that this is not yet a Featured article, have a look at these three that are: Caspar David Friedrich, Anne Frank, Edmund Evans. Citations styles vary, but to change requires consensus. Also, because anyone can edit, people come along and drop in sentences here and there without regard to citation styles. We need to tidy a bit, and I've started that process, but per policy we need to stay with the style we have. You might want to have a look at candidate featured articles, and reviews, at WP:FAC to see variances in citations styles, and how consistency is the overriding requirement. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine. I was just saying I thought the French looked rather well. Anne Frank is one of the articles I occasionally contribute to. Of course it's reference style is fine. Really I don't see why we can't group authors. FightingMac (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Anne Frank is one of the articles I occasionally contribute to. I see one edit - May 27, of one sentence, about the Netherlands canon, and then five or six corrections to the same sentence promoting the Netherlands program - not one word about Anne Frank on May 30 or on May 27...Modernist (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not kidding, Modernist, and I thought I would just mention it in case I ever go back FightingMac (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I am beginning to doubt the relevancy of the Netherlands canon to this article...Modernist (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

To Anne Frank or here? Discussed here at Talk:Vincent_van_Gogh#Canon_of_Dutch_History. Seems a consensus reached there for it. You yourself put it in. But it's not something I'm fantastically committed to. Pretty sure Vincent would have liked it. I spent quite a lot of time doing the Canon of Dutch History translation incidentally. I do lot of translation work in Misplaced Pages. It's not all picking quarrels on talk pages as you seem to think. What would your doubts be now BTW?I mean what's changed in your thinking to bring you to this pass? FightingMac (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

This is an article about the life and the work of an artist, and while the canon appears to be useful to the 11 to 14 year old students in the education system in the Netherlands, I 'm rethinking whether or not it matters to this article, I am ambivalent at this point, articles get built as they grow...Modernist (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The point is that the Canon is the course of History study that 11-14 year olds in Holland undertake and if that's not legacy and not notable I don't know what is. FightingMac (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

We don't do this with biographies of authors who are taught in schools, fwiw. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I've never seen it done in an English language style sheet such as MLA which is most often used for the humanities. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:59, 17 July 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 {{citation needed}} 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:

• 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...." ( )

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Old Cemetery Tower at Nuenen 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 Misplaced Pages's five pillars is the fundamental policy of WP:V in which the first sentence states: The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages (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)

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