Talk:Sunflowers (Van Gogh series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A giant reproduction of one of the Sunflowers series, provided with viewing benches, substitutes for a deficient landscape in Goodland, Kansas

Giant reproduction[edit]

The image at right is richly charged with cultural information.--Wetman (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colour[edit]

I was just in London last week, (March 29, 2009) and one of these Sunflower paintings at the National Gallery, it had a yellow background. Either this info is incorrect or I saw one that is not listed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zipadyduda (talk • contribs) 16:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the caption of the main picture with a yellow background says "National Gallery, London". What exactly are you trying to say? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You stole my sunflowers![edit]

Didn't van gogh have a humorous quote where he was ticked at Gaughin for "You...! You stole my sunflowers!" --Charizardpal (talk) 07:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transferred from main page[edit]

  • unsourced statement: Many of Van Gogh's sunflower paintings resemble each other but all have unique qualities. --RPD (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This site says that very thing, stating: "There are many pieces within this series of [sunflower] paintings. . .in which there are only minor differences that separate them. The overall layout of the painting along with positioning of the actual sunflowers usually remains the same in the similar paintings." It then goes on to offer an analysis of two similar examples.
However, there's no indication of who is behind the site, who writes the articles and when, and no citations that I saw other than to letters of van Gogh. I have e-mailed them with my critique. Hopefully, they will take it to heart and take their documentation more seriously.
http://www.vangoghgallery.com/painting/sunflowerindex.html . Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sunflowers, third version[edit]

white highlight on vase squeezed direct from paint tube - this statement was recently inserted without reference to a reliable source. Please re-insert after validation! --RPD (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Case of the Missing Myth[edit]

I'm not quite sure that sections in the 'pedia proper ought to be labeled as regarding a particular object or idea when in fact said sections do not, particularly when they indeed fail to mention anything at all resembling the same.

Maybe I'm just too frickin' anal. I don't know. You know what? It's probably me. No, I'm sure. Eff it, man. I'm going to go with this flow! I'm off to add a "Ford Mustang controversy" section to Karl Marx's wikipedia entry. Or, no. Make that... Gaius Julius Caesar's page. Yes, much more apposite, methinx.

And it won't even mention cars! (I'm submersive like dat, yo...)

{PS - purely as relief for the pained, I add that yes, that last one is intentional.}

Ornithorhynchus "Horny Thor" anatinus (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me too - that heading sounds like we are going to get some analysis and instead it is about sales prices. -- Beardo (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wildenstein[edit]

Who is Wildenstein used in the footnotes? Is there a reference for his book? AllenBender (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good question - here's where is starts [1]...Modernist (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Wildenstein" is listed as a citation and can be seen entered into the Notes section. However, there is absolutely no explanation as to who or what "Wildenstein" is. Without an explanation, it could well be original research. A citation stripped of identifying information is no citation at all. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vincent van Gogh - Sunflowers - VGM F458.jpg to appear as POTD soon[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Vincent van Gogh - Sunflowers - VGM F458.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 7, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-06-07. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sunflowers (Van Gogh series)
Sunflowers are two series of still life paintings by the Dutch painter Vincent van Gogh. The earlier series, executed in Paris in 1887, depicts the flowers lying on the ground. The second set, executed a year later in Arles, shows bouquets of sunflowers in a vase. Depicted here is the version held at the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam.Painting: Vincent Van Gogh
Archive – More featured pictures...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunflowers_(Van_Gogh_series) problem with 3 of the sunflowers[edit]

An image error comes up on 3 of the Sunflower paintings you have on the page, they aren't downloading-keep getting the same painting again and again. Can some one fix this?70.182.90.54 (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Section heading? Damage to London Version[edit]

I've gone in and cleaned up the content pertaining to the Oct 2022 tomato soup saga. The original section heading said "Damage". Because there are multiple versions of the painting, I changed the heading to say "Damage to London Version." Any thoughts on how we should treat the heading? Furthermore, because the painting itself was technically "unharmed" should we be using another word instead of "damage"? Maybe vandalism?Kerdooskis (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Under the "initial versions" section on the same page, there is a duplicate discussion about the damage on Oct 2022. These sections should be combined. The lower section about the damage also should be revised to use more formal language. Relspas (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate section headings[edit]

Someone keeps changing the title to "attempted vandalism", without sourcing any evidence that vandalism was intended. As there is no clear evidence that the protesters did or did not know the piece was protected by glass, other than that they would have seen it with their own eyes, it would seem to be misleading to claim knowledge of their intent here. 82.16.147.172 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The term "criminal damage" is used in two of the three references for the section, There is no info at this time about what the motive for the vandals or what they thought the painting had to do with climate change so attempts to use climate protests in the title is misleading at best. MarnetteD|Talk 20:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the protesters had given a reason that would be a WP:PRIMARY source and would be unusable as far as the section header is concerned. The IP is in WP:WHITEWASH mode as of this moment. Things could and will change in the days and weeks ahead but the current section header matches the sources as of now. MarnetteD|Talk 21:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. Claiming that something was attempted is inferring intent. Unless you can show their intent, then it's not based in fact and your sources are merely speculating. The sources show that they neither attempted to get through the glass to the painting despite it clearly being an obstacle to criminal damage, and later in court both plead not guilty to criminal damage. Both were wearing t-shirts saying Just Stop Oil and one made a short speech relating the climate crisis to the cost of living crisis. You are talking out of your arse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.147.172 (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The incident is described as a "climate protest" or the perpetrators as "climate activists" by all of the sources, with the exception of the Telegraph article. Being charged with criminal damage is not the same as actually being guilty of it, so we currently have no source for that descriptor. TWM03 (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dried Sunflowers[edit]

What is this image doing in the section Subsequent history? I can find no reference to its ties to Van Gogh's sunflowers let alone any mention in the article's content. Can someone explain why it's here?

Dried Sunflowers by Egon Schiele.

Maineartists (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article assessment[edit]

Reassess the article to C-class. This article is really less than a C-class. It would be more of a debate as to which of the B-class criteria the article does pass. To keep this simple (KISS) I will use the obvious, #1, The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Eight instances of "citation needed" tags! That is conservative as the last two paragraphs of the "The Paris Sunflowers" section are deserving the tags, as is the first paragraph of the "Sunflowers, friendship and gratitude" section. -- Otr500 (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sunflowers_(Van_Gogh_series)&oldid=1210481533"