Talk:Annie Chapman

message: *Albert Cadosch next door reported hearing woman say/cry "no" when he went to use the backyard toilet.
*I think her old husband might have actually been named Siffey.
*False reports of polished farthings and rings at her feet, rings actually taken, no coins. Partial envelope found. 
*Inquest details.
DreamGuy 09:24, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
:*Dispute over her time of death. DreamGuy 20:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible additions for later

message: Geni says it's under copyright in the US and UK. The uploader and others who were disputing this have agreed. So... why is the image still on the article? Maybe one of the people who edit warred to insist on having the illegal image there would do the right thing and remove it themselves instead of forcing me to do so for them again. DreamGuy (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I said it was under copyright in the US so we cannont use it. The situation in the UK is slightly different but would prevent any use in the UK.Geni 19:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, thanks for lending a hand, Geni. It is much appreicated. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to throw the cat among the pigeons, but what DreamGuy and others may not realise is that even now that the image has been deleted from the commons by Geni, no one will be stopped from uploading it again to this wiki and claiming a fair-use rationale which will most likely stick. ww2censor (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it would NOT stick, as it doesn't meet the criteria in the slightest. There is no encyclopedic purpose in having the photo in the first place, and one of the criteria is if other free images are available, and there clearly are free images. There's no rationale for using this image, especially in light of the major copyright violation Wikipedia was committing for well over a year. DreamGuy (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry DreamGuy, but I don't think you don't know what you are talking about. I clearly see this image as passing all of the fair use criteria if someone want's to claim it, no matter what you think, but that is up to you guys. ww2censor (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, here's the thing, Ww2censor; we seem to have arrived at a consensus that it shouldn't be in this article without the family's permission. As they are unlikely to provide it (and we are of course assuming in the first place that they object to its usage here - w/out material proof of such, we only have a single editor's word to go on), we can keep it out of both this article and related JTR articles. At least, I will work at ensuring that. An orphaned image usually gets deleted here in WP if unused within five days or so. A notice can be made in WikiCommons, so folk are aware of it. I think that covers most of the bases. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I wrote, that is up to you. ww2censor (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the odds of your maintaining a consensus to give any viewpoint in an article about a long dead person special consideration against a conserted challange are likely to be limited. But we shall see.Geni 01:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  So delete the image already 

message: Where do the extended quotes in this article source from?   They are interesting and notable, but appear out of nowhere and are unreferenced.  207.237.232.51 (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes? 

message: Her age at death is given as 48 but her birth year makes it only possible that she be a maximum of 47 at death.  Which is correct?  Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Age at death

message: For a discussion on Hallie Rubenhold's The Five: The Untold Lives of the Women Killed by Jack the Ripper see Talk:Whitechapel murders#Prostitutes? --John B123 (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hallie Rubenhold 

message: This page has a number of mistakes, particularly around the killing itself. The witness that says she saw Annie saw her in the street, not in front of the backyard (whatever that means). Also Richardson went to the steps; he specifically said he did not go out into the backyard. This is all in The Complete History of Jack the Ripper, New Edition by Philip Sugden, widely acknowledged as the most authoritative book on the subject. I'm not going to edit because I'm not a regular editor and so my edits have often been reversed, when I tried on other pages, but I really recommend someone review the details as they are arguably some of the central facts of the killings. 
P.S. the use of photos on the page is excellent.  Mrowand89 (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not errors - they are referenced (and yes, some authors' accounts slightly contradict others' very occasionally- I have noticed that myself but there is a myriad of info. to draw sources from). For example, Richardson went to Hanbury Street shortly before 5 to check the property was secured (a theft of tools had occurred a few months prior at the property). He walked to the back to the yard door (which was closed) and stood at the top of the steps, from where he could see the cellar door (from where 2x saws and 2x hammers had been stolen) was still securely padlocked. He then sat to trim a piece of leather from his boot with a "rusty little table knife without a handle" before standing, pocketing the knife, and leaving to walk along Hanbury Steet, allowing the yard door to close itself. The entire process was three minutes, maximum. This is in Beggs' book Jack the Ripper: The Facts pp 75-76.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistakes