This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, realise, defence, artefact), and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Another self-portrait from the same year, often called the Oslo self-portrait because it is owned by the National museet in Norway, was authenticated in 2020 by the Van Gogh Museum. This painting, with the artist looking sideways, was painted while the artist was in the asylum in Saint-Rémy and is "unmistakeably" his work. The experts believe it was painted after the artist's letter of 22 August 1889 which indicated that he was still "disturbed" but ready to begin painting again but completed prior to his letter of 20 September 20, 1889. In the latter, VanGogh refered to the self-portrait as "an attempt from when I was ill".
"Experts Conclude That This Odd Self-Portrait of Vincent van Gogh Giving the Side Eye Really Is by the Dutch Master". Artnet. 20 January 2020. Retrieved 21 January 2020. an authentic work by the Dutch master. Extensive research conducted by the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam ... while he was suffering from psychosis.
Hi everybody! I'm sure there have been other discussions about this issue: the artist's death. The common hypothesis is the one involving a suicide, but it has not been proven yet and still remains controversial. I wanted to discuss whether it should be positive for the article to avoid affirming he commetted suicide as if it was a proven fact. The Naifeh-Smith hypothesis is gaining a significant following (both the last two films about him consider this alternative explanation, for example). I was thinking if the article could be improved using a less partial point of view. For example in the description at the beginning one can say: "his presumed suicide at 37 came after years of mental illness, depression and poverty.", and later in the biography: "On the night of 27 July 1890, he returned to the Auberge Ravoux with a shotwound in his chest, saying he had shot himself" or something similar. In this way the article still follows the suicide hypothesis as the main explanation of the artists death, but in a more cautious way. Alternative theories are already discussed in the article about Van Gogh's death. I'm not saying this would be the best solution, I just wanted to discuss it. What seems a bit odd to me is that the article clearly says that Van Gogh shot himself, while actually nobody else was present there when it supposedly happened. In this way the article would be more coherent with what is said in the one about the death: "Van Gogh was shot in the stomach, either by himself or by others, and died two days later".
FilBenLeafBoy (Let's Talk!), 22:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi FilBenLeaf. Thanks for posting, of course its all very interesting. The vast majority of scholarly opinion attributes suicide, sadly, backed up by first hand accounts from the hours and days between wound and death. He was an unknown, largely failed artist who could not connect with society and was on a downward spiral: I call occam's razor and that his brother Thoe was no fool- so including a disclaimer that there are new theories re "either by himself or by others" seams to stretch it a bit, given we are an encyclopedia, and supposed to be august, distant and unexcitable. Also film makers are supposed to come with something new, gamechanging, to get their programmes commissioned, so...dont believe the hype. Ceoil (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for answering. I understand your point of view: the suicide theory is followed by the majority of scholars, it is also the most probable, but what I'm proposing is not to discuss which theory is the most likely to be the right one to choose as the one to follow in the article. I asked if the article should follow a more neutral point of view as I described above (still leaning towards the most common theory, but more neutral). The suicide theory is: 1) Van Gogh goes painting in the fields, bringing with him a revolver (nobody knew he had) to commit suicide; 2) after he has painted for much of the day he shots himself and looses consciousness; 3) when he regains consciousness, he looks for the gun, which has disappeared (also his painting staff would not be found), so he walks for miles to the Hotel where he was living; 4) when he arrives he says something like "Do not accuse anyone... it is I who wished to kill myself." This is the most common story. Nothing seems to be simple here, I mean, sufficiently simple for the Occam's Razor to be safely applied. Also in the past there has been debate about what really happened that day, with René Secrétan being questioned about his role in Van Gogh's death.
Given the neutral point of view Wikipedia tries to achieve, maybe it could be better to speak of "presumed suicide" rather than considering a theory as a proven fact. For example consider the article about Primo Levi, in that case, however, both hypothesis are equally probable and are presented giving them the same credit. Here a theory prevails over the others so the article could generally follow it, still without affirming it as something verified or almost universally accepted by scholars. FilBenLeafBoy (Let's Talk!), 16:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
The subject has been raised here before and discussed here and here. I've read Naifeh & Smith's extremely extensive written in difficult-to-read small font, but at the end of the day it's only a theory. We need to stick to what the preponderance of the reliable sources say and so far Naifeh & Smith are outliers. Any other web sources & such suggesting that he didn't kill himself point directly back to Naifeh & Smith's biography. Victoria (tk) 17:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
This probably falls within wiki's policy on fringe theories. I can't think of a formula, either in the article or the notes, where you can mention that is only 0.0002% likely that he was murdered, without creating material doubt as to the facts in the readers mind. As such, am against inclusion. I dont like the comparison to Primo Levi, or the suggestion of going down the "on the one hand" route. Per Victoria's point on earlier discussions on this, "We don't simply hoover/vacuum up what we find on the web and regurgitate". Ceoil (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
No proof other than the police reports they have? It is far more than 1000ths of a fraction possible, it’s probable. Ridiculous that people can’t accept this extensive research. What is proved is the danger of the fundamentalist mind and intellectual elitism and how that prevents any further discussion or investigation. The language and level of condescension used to disqualify this theory despite investigative proof is quite deplorable. Conduct yourselves in a scholarly manner with an open mind, else remove yourselves from further discussion. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the associated article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. Whatever anyone's opinion on any theory, this article will neither determine nor aim to present the truth of what happened.
Wikipedia's goal is to summarize what independent reliable sources say about a subject, discussing each point of view with emphasis equivalent to its discussion in such sources. If the overwhelming majority of reliable sources said that can Gough choked to death on a Big Mac, Wikipedia would report that. Editors, of course, would want to say this is nonsense, but Wikipedia would report it, cite the sources and move on. If a significant portion of reliable sources said he was abducted by aliens and moved to a new home on Pluto, we would report tha as well.
The discussion here should be focused on what reliable sources say and how much attention (if any) to give minority opinions that contradict the general consensus. Strong opinions about which theory is "correct" are not helpful in that regard. - SummerPhDv2.0 20:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Calling what you stated hypocritical would be an gross understatement given others above are also giving their “strong opinions.” Furthermore, there is plenty of gossip and conjecture written on individuals both living and dead throughout Wikipedia. In general, Wikipedia should never be used as a final source of information for anything with the possible exception of statistical information already found in traditional sources. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure you mean "hypocritical". That would imply that I have been giving my strong opinions about the subject. I do not have strong opinions about whether or not there is any merit to this story, only that it does not seem to be mainstream.
That other articles have problems is not a reason to no uphold Wikipedia's standards here. Other articles have misspellings, bad grammar and typos, but editors certainly clean them up when they spot them, rahter than saying, "Well, other articles have errors. I guess it would be bad to fix this one."
No, Wikipedia should definitely not "be used as a final source of information for anything". Wikipedia is a summary of reliable sources. It is not a reliable source and does not pretend to be. Curious about the history of remote controls? Wikipedia is a great place to look. Want to know how to treat uterine cancer? Look elsewhere. Need a general understanding of a 17th century war on another continent to figure out what's happening in a novel you're reading? Wikipedia has you covered. Looking for the tensile strength of aluminium for a construction project? You're in the wrong place. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Wasn’t it his right ear that he partly severed? This article says left so am I wrong? MJ Hurricane (talk) 05:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, no - I forgot that he had used a mirror when he did ‘Self-Portrait With Bandaged Ear’ so scrap my question! I should not have been so quick to query! MJ Hurricane (talk) 05:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
No problem :) Ceoil (talk) 08:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)