Talk:Walter Sickert

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment

You artist-types never want an infobox, so this is basically a B.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 18:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Awaiting evidence, removed from article:

Cornwell turned to mitochondrial DNA testing - a more modern, though not exact method, to associate Sickert to within the same 1 percent of the population at the time as Jack the Ripper.

Hmm, "not exact method" indeed. I don't know of any sample of DNA for either Jack the Ripper or Sickert. At this point, all Jack the Ripper theories are like who wrote Shakespeare theories, entertaining excursions based on other than factual evidence. Ortolan88

---

Also removed the following astonishingly broad assertion:

She also adds that; like other serial killers, he would have continued to commit additional murders for as long as he was capable or desired to.

Replaced with:

She also believes that he may have committed other murders.

The removed sentence is POV out the wazoo. Ortolan88

---

The last edit, supposedly for POV, added inaccurate statements (the claim that it was a fact that DNA was "matched" -- something Cornwell's DNA experts don't even claim) and added more statements in favor of Cornwell's theory without statements disputing hers. These articles can't be neutral unless each claim has both sides addressed. It seems pretty clear to me that it was an attempt by a Cornwell supporter to slip in things in her favor.

Merging with text from the Patricia Cornwell entry

We've had two separate articles focusing on Cornwell's theory against Walter Sickert for some time, and they have separate information and differences. I'm moving the bulk of the text from the section on Patricia Cornwell to here, to be incorporated on this page so we don;t have two places going off on their own. I'll merge later or if someone else wants to they can tackle it:

--

She contends Sickert had the psychological profile of a killer. She asserts that he was unable to have intercourse because his penis was disfigured at birth or through some accident. The killings coincide with the marriage of Sickert's close friend, which she claims provided the spark which exacerbated his awareness of his purported disabilities and ignited a latent anger.

Cornwell cites Sickert's artistic genius as useful for crafting the Ripper's letters, disguising handwriting and varying sketching styles. She also feels that the letters contain specific information related to crimes, and as such are unlikely to be from any other than the Ripper. She also points to Sickert paintings, some of which show women in prostrate poses Cornwell claims are similar to victims at their crime scenes.

In recent speeches, Cornwell says that new evidence has come to light since her book. Paper manufacture experts now assert that reams of paper supposedly used by Jack the Ripper to write several letters to Scotland yard and paper purchased by Sickert's mother bear the same small-press watermark. She also claims that there are matches in the cutter's marks, which are a result of the rough cutting of each quire (or small package) for packaging. A 'quire' was usually of 24 sheets.

All in all, Cornwell claims that the Ripper wrote hundreds of letters and killed almost that many people over the years. She blames almost every unsolved murder that happened in the London area from 1885 until his death on the Ripper, whom she asserts must be Sickert.

Ripperologists and other critics of her theory point out that most, if not all, of the Ripper letters are considered hoaxes by all other authorities, so trying to prove that Sickert wrote one or more of them doesn't prove that he killed anyone. The evidence she claims supports the idea that Sickert had a disfigured penis also supports the more accepted theory that he had a fistula in his anus. Details in the letters and supposedly seen in the paintings she claims only the killer would know were published in newspapers and a book released in France. Sickert could have easily gotten ahold of the book in question, as he also lived in France off and on. In fact, evidence shows that he was probably in France on the nights of several of the Ripper murders.

Critics also note that Cornwell admits that she did not have a theory about the murders until about a year before her book came out and is convinced that the first name mentioned to her as a possible suspect must be the one who really did it. They note that, unlike authors of popular crime fiction, criminal investigators generally don't get to pick the person whodunnit before they do the research.

-- DreamGuy 01:39, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Why should this fantasy in the head of Cornwell be on the Walter Sickert page? This page should have only the minimum information regarding the Ripper theory, much the same as some of the other "fantastic" suspects such as Lewis Carroll or the Duke of Clarence I propose expanding List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects and perhaps renaming, so that it covers these individuals including the above three I mentioned earler in greater detail. [unregistered user 80.43.205.224] - Turkey

The problem with moving it to the JtR suspect page is that it was all moved out of these because it went into far too much detail and violated NPOV by devoting too much time to what's a minor theory in Ripperology. Most of the info on Ripper theories that went into great details were moved to the pages for the individual involved. The problem with putting this on the Patricia Cornwell page is that Sickert has attracted several different Ripper theories over the years, not just Cornwell's. There are also the Stephen Knight and Jean Overton-Fuller theories to consider. It makes sense to put them all in one place, and since they all focus on Sickert, that's the logical place for them. If you think that it overshadows everything else in Sickert's life you could expland that part of his article. I do know that if you try to move it to the JtR suspects page it'll just get moved back. DreamGuy 21:14, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia not Ripperpedia. This kind of unsubstantiated theorizing does not belong in a serious biography. IT most certainly belongs on the Cornwell page as she is the author of this garbage. If someone wrote a book that said that Queen Victoria was Jack the Ripper and managed to sell a few hundred thousands copies despite the theory being entirely speculative, do you seriously think that there should be a paragraph on the Queen Victoria page that page devoted to the theory? Should we have a paragrapgh on the George W. Bush page about the theory that he is actually a Reptilian Humanoid because David Icke reckons he is and has managed to sell a few thousand books? [unregistered user] - aka Turkey

Cornwell is NOT the sole author of this garbage, as if you had bothered to read this page you would have found out. At least five different authors I can think of off the top of my head link him as either being the Ripper or supporting him. You can't move it all to the Cornwell page because she didn't come up with the idea in general or most of the theories. Sickert's alleged connection to the Ripper murders is one of the most noteworthy things about his life, and pretty mention every modern reference to him as a painter mentions the fact that he has been named as a suspect. Several of his biographers believe he wrote the Ripper letters and/or killed people. The information (as well as the criticism of these theories) belong here. Now go register or actually read my previous comments (or even the article itself) before you go jumping into a ill-informed rant like you run the place. DreamGuy 23:27, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

"Cornwell is NOT the sole author of this garbage" - so you admit it IS garbage!?

No. It shouldn't ALL be moved into the Cornwell page. Cornwell's own preposterous claims should be on her page just as David Icke's preposterous claims should be on his page and not the various people he claims are reptiles. This information should be placed in List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects. You say that this information was moved from there because it took up too much room. Looking at the history it looks like this detailed information was moved from Jack the Ripper because it took up too much room, but since then List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects has been created. I have just checked the size of this page it is 17.5k, just over half the size of the optimum Wikipedia article, so there is plenty of room there for this information. - Turkey

Now that it looks like you actually bothered to register, you might try signing your posts. Yes, the list of proposed suspects page was created, again (as it was it's on separate page at one point, then brought into the main article, then split back out), but it's not overall space that's the main concern (17.5K), but the amount of space given to each suspect on that page compared to each other. That's why more in depth coverage was moved to articles about the suspect. Your opinion that the accusations are garbage is noted, but then that pretty much proves that you are way biased and have no business telling other people about how encyclopedia articles are written. The various theories about Sickert being the Ripper or an accomplice should all be on his article, not spready out willy nilly across the site. The accusations are the most notable parts of his life, and if they didn't kept being brought back up Sickert would have slipped into obscurity long ago. The only reason there have been exhibita of his art recently was to play off of the publicity that Cornwell's book gave him. One more time: if you feel that the Ripper information overshadows the rest of his life, then you go add more info about the rest of his life, don;t you try to remove other information just because you are all pissed off. Get a grip and try acting responsibly. DreamGuy 09:56, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

They were moved to articles about the suspects BEFORE List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects was created. It now makes sense to put that information back, certainly for those people who are highly speculative suspects i.e. Lewis Carroll, Prince Eddy and Walter Sickert, why blacken their biographies with theories that have already been proved wrong? - Turkey

The question of proving wrong is one of opinion, not fact. You consider the theories all garbage, but that's your opinion. Wikipedia is a place for objectively discussing notable things about people, not to force your opinion on others. Some of the items were moved out of the Jack the Ripper article before the new page on suspects was created, some after. The consistent goal is to take in-depth discussion of theories to the pages for each suspect, not to throw them all on one page. Wikipedia articles are not solely biographies, they are for discussing all notable aspects of that person, and the fact that they were each named as suspects are some of the most notable things about them. Contrast that with, say, the Lewis Carroll page where the accusation was less notable, but a summary still exists. To even claim that people should not "blackening" biographies shows that you have no understanding of the NPOV policy or how debates are handled at all. Please excuse yourself from the articles under debate until you read up on Wikipedia policies. DreamGuy 11:10, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Please desist from condescending remarks. I have not been forcing any opinion on anyone anywhere. You appear to be doing that. I have only edited one article related to this subject and that was the Patricia Cornwell page. I have been reinstating the information about her book and you have been reverting it. It is as plain as the nose on your face that information that had little foundation in fact belongs on the page of the author and not on the page of the man whose name she is trying to blacken. you accusing me of violating NPOV. Please explain in what way (by reverting a page to a state that I didn't even initiate) I am doing that? IVoteTurkey 12:00, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ripper and Sickert

Ok this is my position - I believe that this page is far too heavily weighted towards the allegations about Sickert being Jack the Ripper. There is far too much information on this page for what is supposed to be a serious biographical piece about him. The Ripper allegations are almost universally discounted by both serious Ripperologists and biographers of Sickert. Indeed Wikipedia user JohnK has pointed out the Columbia encyclopaedia and the Encyclopaedia Britannica do not contain any mention of the Ripper allegations. I contend therefore this this information should be placed elsewhere and that this article should contain a brief mention of these allegations but link to some other place where this information is covered in more depth. It has been agreed (for the moment) that the Patricia Cornwell article should remain as a host of the information surrounding her book and her allegations. The question therefore remains what to do about the other allegations and discoveries of other authors and researchers. It seems to me that the obvious place to put this information is list of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects which would probably have a tendency to duplicate this information anyway. Now I hope we can continue this discussion without it descending into insults - I do not like being accused of being a - "newbie with an obvious bias" or "rude" or "snotty" or of "breaking the three revert rule" (I have proven that I haven't) "vandalism" or any of the other things. All I have done is re-instate the details of Patricia Cornwell's book on her page and to have asked for that page to be protected when someone kept deleting it. I have not made any other edits on this subject - indeed I have not attempted to change anything on this article in particular because I was trying to achieve agreement through discussion before doing anything that might upset people. IVoteTurkey 10:19, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, you are a newbie, you have demonstrated an obvious bias by claiming on many talk pages that anything that "blackens" a person's name should not be in an encyclopedia, you have clearly been rude (which you yourself apparently agreed because you apologized for it), and you were busy reverting posts with no discussion. So, if you don't like having those things pointed out to you, don't do those things.

Now, regarding your arguments above, you have made these same arguments on just about every talk page that deals with Jack the Ripper suspects now. Your attempt to force all discussion of any Jack the Ripper suspect theories onto one page has been soundly rejected by a large number of editors. That simply is not going to happen.

As discussed on the Talk:Patricia Cornwell page, at some point we'll be moving most of the Ripper information off this page but leaving a summary, much like I did earlier on the Lewis Carroll page, but probably longer because there are more theories and books to mention. The reason it hasn't happened yet is we are trying to come to an agreement on the Cornwell page about the best way to do it. That was stalled after you had to make more snide remarks and yet again suggest moving everything about every Ripper suspect to one page, even though that had been rejected by everyone except you mutliple times. We'd probably already be done if it weren't for your obstinance. DreamGuy 18:21, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

DreamGuy - I despair- I really do. Please note that the above post by myself was made on December 8. This was before a consensus had been reached about what to do with the Sickert information. I made the above post after you said the following on the Talk:Patricia Cornwell page - "Discussing fate of Sickert article (whether it duplicates info as currently and as proposed as a compromise above, sweeps it all under the rug and refuses to mention anything at all, or something else) on that talk page instead of here. " - I replied on that page by saying that I agreed with your proposal - and I immediately (check the timestamps) came to this page to kick off the discussion as suggested by you, by stating my position. I was suprised to find that the discussion didn't move to this page at all but continued on that page. IVoteTurkey

In the above paragraph you accuse me of "claiming on many talk pages that anything that "blackens" a person's name should not be in an encyclopedia" - I challenge you to find anywhere where I have said any such thing. I haven't. It's certainly not something I believe. You are misrepresenting me and not for the first time. IVoteTurkey

So far as well as well as misrepresenting me numerous times you have consistently directed disparaging, condescending and rude language towards me. You have threatened to ban me, you have accused me of "vandalism", of breaking the three revert rule and of breaching NPOV. These charges are false. In the hope that we might be able to bury the hatchet I made an apology although I don't really have anything to apologise for other than somehow managing to irritate you. You have ignored that apology. You have not reciprocated and apologise for making a false claim against me. On your userpage you say something like "all round good guy", I'm afraid I am beginning to doubt that - please don't let me lose faith in your ability to live up to this epithet. Will you now accept my apology and shake hands and apologise for making false claims against me? IVoteTurkey 23:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am an all around good guy, but not to people who abuse me and this encyclopedia. I stand behind my complaints against you and wish you would focus on what's good for this site instead of your ego. Drop it, move on and play straight, or you just end up reconfirming what I've said about your actions all along. DreamGuy 09:06, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

I believe that Cornwell also says that the paper used on the "Ripper letters" has been matched with the same batch of hand-cut sheets as used by Sickert in letters to his mother. This examination was carried out by a "forensic paper expert". Is this an exact science? Should this be referred to in the article? -Streona (talk) 06:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we want to go into the details too much here. As I recall, she claimed that the Oppenshaw letter was linked to a batch of paper used by Sickert, but I think the science was far from exact. However, you can find the discussions online easily enough. Paul B (talk) 10:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Other articles now exist and ready for Jack the Ripper information from this page

Two new articles exist that were created to cover the bulk of the Jack the Ripper information currenlt on this page. Portrait of a Killer covers Cornwell's claims and Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories covers the parts where he is helping out the royal/Masons/whomever in a coverup. Most of the JtR material on this page can be moved and merged (as needed) with the appropriate article with summaries left behind here. I'll eventually get around to it myself if nobody else jumps on it. DreamGuy 20:17, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Disappointing

This article is very disappointing and almost an embarrassment to Wikipedia. It beggars belief that it is almost entirely concerned with the suggestion that Sickert was Jack the Ripper and has little to say about his life and his works. No-one seriously believes this to be the case. A new biography of Sickert by Matthew Sturgis is published this week[1] and has received good reviews, I've just read the review in the Sunday Times. In the book Sturgis only covers the Ripper connection in an appendix and apparently completely demolishes the theory. I would suggest that this article should give the subject similar treatment. Jooler 10:40, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you'd read the comments above, you'll note that several people had complained, and that after much discussion I created two new articles so that the bulk of the Ripper information could be moved elsewhere. Instead of doing a drive-by snipe at the article, perhaps you'd actually read the discussion and help make the changes, especially since the people who would raised such a huge fuss previously can't be bothered to help? DreamGuy 18:44, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Walter Sickert's maternal grandfather

Walter Sickert's sister was Helena Swanwick, and biographical material about her mentions that their mother Eleanor was the illegitimate daughter of a Cambridge don (a Fellow of Trinity College) and an Irish dancer. Furthermore this grandfather privately acknowledged paternity but broke with her again when she announced plans to marry Walter and Helena's father Oswald Sickert, and he wrote her out of his will. After this grandfather's death, his sister helped financially support Eleanor, out of a sense of obligation towards her niece. Walter and Helena also had a great-aunt named Anne Sheepshanks.

Putting all this together, is it possible that the grandfather in question was Richard Sheepshanks?? He had an unmarried sister named Anne who inherited a great deal of money from him (after his death she donated £12,000 to Trinity College, a very large sum at the time), and had been elected a Fellow of Trinity College in 1817.

If anyone out there has one of the Sickert biographies handy (Cornwell's book, or Matthew Sturgis Walter Sickert - A Life), or access to Helena Swanwick's 1935 autobiography I Have Been Young, it would be interesting to find out if there was indeed such a family connection.

I just was listening to Cornwell's book and she does confirm that Richard Sheepshanks was Elenor's father. I'll add the reference.--dahlej

References

• [2]
• [3]
• [4] (in French, "grande-tante" = great aunt)

-- Curps 20:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Painting in Southwark Art Collection

I have removed the following line which, standing alone with no context, is merely puzzling: "Artist Mark Wallinger conjectured that Sickert had known and seen his subject of Sick Doctor prior to death, and rendered from a photograph an image otherwise too macabre." Although properly sourced (to The Observer, 19 March 2000), this is problematical, as the painting, apparently of Sickert's personal physician, dates from 1929, by which time painting from photographs was Sickert's standard procedure. I've not been able to get a look at the Observer article and the passage's meaning is unclear--how and why would the image have been otherwise too macabre? Ewulp (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Nationality

I have changed the lead from "born in Munich, Germany" to "English", and have described his birthplace, migration and change of nationality in Training and early career. This is based on the following sources:

English painter. Born in Munich, of Danish and Anglo-Irish descent, he came to England from Dieppe in 1868 and remained cosmopolitan all his life.

— Oxford Companion to Western Art

German, 19th – 20th century, male. Active from 1866 active and naturalised in England. Born 31 May 1860, in Munich; died 22 January 1942, [...] In 1868, following the annexation by Germany of Schleswig-Holstein, the Sickerts moved to England, where the entire family secured British nationality.

— Benezit Dictionary of Artists

British painter, printmaker, teacher, and writer of German birth.

— Grove Art Online

References

User:Verbcatcher or others: Walter Sickert is currently assigned to Category:Artists from the Kingdom of Bavaria, which is for artists who were citizens, subjects or nationals of the Kingdom of Bavaria. Is this correct? Masato.harada (talk) 09:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Walter Sickert. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029200115/http://www.islington.gov.uk/islington/history-heritage/heritage_lhc/lhc_collections/Pages/specialcollections.aspx to http://www.islington.gov.uk/islington/history-heritage/heritage_lhc/lhc_collections/Pages/specialcollections.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Sickert and Anatomist John Hunter

Whenever I note that the three crows in Sickert's "Ennui" self-portrait constitute a murder, a retired librarian deletes it. A flick or group of crows is called a murder. The same editor also deletes any content edits related to the thematic similarities between Sickert's "Ennui" and Jackson's famous portrait of 18th century anatomist John Hunter, whose life story inspired the fictitious Dr. Jekyll. Nicole Karam (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. You have to provide independent, reliable sources for you additions, otherwise they will be, quite properly, removed. The former occupation of the editor who is following Wikipedia policy in removing your edits is utterly irrelevant to this discussion, please do not stoop to ad hominem attacks on others. Railfan23 (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The male figure in Ennui is not a self-portrait. The model is 'Hubby', his real name unrecorded, an alcoholic who posed for several of Sickert's paintings at the time. Sickert used to pay the fees to Hubby's 'missus', so that Hubby wouldn't immediately take the money and do the obvious with it, but once Hubby started turning up too drunk to work and just disrupted the studio, Sickert dropped his acquaintance. The female figure is Marie Hayes, Sickert's charlady at the time. The stuffed birds under the glass dome are obviously a bit too colourful to be crows. https://www.tate.org.uk/art/research-publications/camden-town-group/walter-richard-sickert-ennui-r1133434 Sickert was abroad in France when most of the Whitechapel murders of 1888 were committed. Almost twenty years later, when he was living at 6 Mornington Crescent, he believed or purported to believe his landlady's tale that a previous lodger in that room was Jack the Ripper (every landlady in London in 1888 was convinced that one of her lodgers was Jack the Ripper), and he painted a gloomy picture of his room and titled it 'Jack the Ripper's Bedroom'. There is literally no chance that the Whitechapel murderer ever lived in Camden Town. He was obviously local to Whitechapel. Nor does any sane person seriously imagine that Sickert had anything to do with the murderer's crimes or even knew anything about them. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

'Jack the Ripper' section is growing again - 2024

Reading this talk page and the history for the article about Walter Sickert, it appears to have gone through waves of editors trying to expand it with information about allegations that Sickert was Jack the Ripper, followed by other editors deleting the information or moving it elsewhere. The claim has largely been dismissed, yet the article still now contains a large section documenting it.

I propose:

- the article should focus on the facts about Sickert, a major figure in British art

- the article should contain a brief mention in the section titled 'Jack the Ripper' that there are several claims, with a link to the article Jack the Ripper suspects and hidden text pointing editors planning any further expansion to that page

- all the text in the current 'Jack the Ripper' section following the second paragraph ending with 'his accomplice' should be merged into Jack the Ripper suspects.

What do others think? Masato.harada (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes to this. At this point Sickert may be better known to the general public for being framed (mainly by fiction writers) as Jack the Ripper than for being an important British artist, so we need to keep a line or two to address this, but the current level of detail seems unwarranted. The recent bit about the alleged Blanche painting is especially silly. According to a source cited, the title of the painting Portrait of Walter Sickert as Jack the Ripper is the invention of the painting's owner, Johann Naldi, who has just published a book about it. From the bit of face seen in the painting the man could just as well be Patrick Macnee, Ian McKellen, Norman Wisdom, Ken Dodd, Matt Smith, or somebody remotely similar. Even if we accept that the painting is by Blanche (uncertain), and that it depicts Sickert (speculative), this is evidence of what?? The spamming of this material by SPAs here and in Jack the Ripper suspects and in Jack the Ripper in fiction and in Patricia Cornwell looks to me like a publicity campaign. Ewulp (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. Masato.harada (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)