text:
Annie Chapman

Annie Chapman (born Eliza Ann Smith; 25 September 1840 – 8 September 1888) was the second canonical victim of the notorious unidentified serial killer Jack the Ripper, who killed and mutilated a minimum of five women in the Whitechapel and Spitalfields districts of London from late August to early November 1888.

Although previous murders linked to Jack the Ripper (then known as the "Whitechapel murderer") had received considerable press and public attention, the murder of Annie Chapman generated a state of panic in the East End of London, with police under increasing pressure to apprehend the culprit.

Early life
Annie Chapman was born Eliza Ann Smith in Paddington on 25 September 1840. She was the first of five children born to George Smith, and Ruth Chapman. George Smith was a soldier, having enlisted in the 2nd Regiment of Life Guards in December 1834. Reportedly, the location of Chapman's earliest years revolved around her father's military service in London and Windsor.

Chapman's parents were not married at the time of her birth, although they married on 22 February 1842, in Paddington. Following the birth of their second child in 1844, the family relocated to Knightsbridge, where George Smith became a valet. The family eventually relocated to Berkshire in 1856.

According to her brother, Fountain, Annie had "first took a drink when she was quite young", quickly developing a weakness for alcohol, and although both he and two of his other sisters had persuaded her to sign a pledge to refrain from consuming alcohol, she "was tempted and fell" despite the "over and over" efforts of her siblings to dissuade her.

Family relocation
Census records from 1861 indicate all members of the Smith family—except Annie—had relocated to the parish of Clewer. Chapman is believed to have remained in London, possibly due to her employment commitments as a domestic servant. Her father, George Smith (also known as William Smith ), was the valet to Captain Thomas Naylor Leland of the Denbighshire Yeomanry Cavalry. On 13 June 1863, Smith accompanied his employer to a horse racing event. He lodged with his employer that evening at the Elephant and Castle, Wrexham. That night, George Smith committed suicide by cutting his throat.

Contemporary accounts describe Annie Chapman as an intelligent and sociable woman with a weakness for alcohol—particularly rum. An acquaintance described Chapman at the inquest into her murder as being "very civil and industrious when sober", before noting: "I have often seen her the worse for drink." She was 5 feet in height and had blue eyes and wavy, dark brown hair, leading acquaintances to give her the nickname "Dark Annie".

Marriage
On 1 May 1869, Annie married John James Chapman, who was related to her mother. The ceremony was conducted at All Saints Church in the Knightsbridge district of London, and was witnessed by one of her sisters, Emily Laticia, and a colleague of her husband named George White. The Chapmans' residence on their marriage certificate is listed as 29 Montpelier Place, Brompton, although the couple are believed to have briefly resided with White and his wife in Bayswater.

In the years following their marriage, the Chapmans lived at various West London addresses. In the early 1870s, John Chapman obtained employment in the service of a nobleman in Bond Street.

Children
The couple had three children: Emily Ruth (b. 25 June 1870); Annie Georgina (b. 5 June 1873); and John Alfred (b. 21 November 1880). Emily Ruth was born at Chapman's mother's home in Montpelier Place, Knightsbridge; Annie Georgina was born at South Bruton Mews, Mayfair; and John Alfred was born in the Berkshire village of Bray. John was born crippled. The Chapmans sought medical help for their son John at a London hospital before later placing him in the care of an institution for the physically disabled close to Windsor.

Although Chapman had struggled with alcoholism as an adult, she had reportedly weaned herself off drink by 1880. Her son's disability is believed to have contributed to her gradual reversion to alcohol dependency. In 1881, the Chapman family relocated from West London to Windsor, where John Chapman took a job as a coachman to a farm bailiff named Josiah Weeks, and the Chapman family living in the attic rooms of St. Leonard Hill Farm Cottage. The following year, Emily Ruth Chapman died of meningitis on her brother's second birthday at the age of 12.

Following the death of their daughter, both Chapman and her husband took to heavy drinking. Over the following years, she is known to have been arrested on several occasions for public intoxication in both Clewer and Windsor, though no records exist of her ever being brought before a magistrates court for these arrests.

Separation
Chapman and her husband separated by mutual consent in 1884. John Chapman retained custody of their surviving daughter, while Annie relocated to London. Her husband was obliged to pay her a weekly allowance of 10 shillings via Post Office Order. The precise reason for the couple's separation is unknown, although a later police report lists the reason for their separation as Annie Chapman's "drunken and immoral ways".

Two years later, in 1886, John Chapman resigned from his job due to his declining health and relocated to New Windsor. He died of liver cirrhosis and edema, on 25 December, leading to the cessation of these weekly payments. Chapman learned of her husband's death via her brother-in-law. Her surviving daughter, Annie Georgina (then aged 13) is believed to have either subsequently been placed in a French institution or to have joined a performing troupe which travelled with a circus in France. Census records from 1891 reveal both of Chapman's surviving children lived with their grandmother in Knightsbridge.

Life in Whitechapel
Following her separation from her husband, Annie Chapman relocated to Whitechapel, primarily living upon the weekly allowance of 10s from her husband. Over the following years, she resided in common lodging-houses in both Whitechapel and Spitalfields. By 1886, she is known to have resided with a man who made wire sieves for a living, consequently becoming known to some acquaintances as "Annie Sievey" or "Siffey". At the end of 1886, her weekly allowance abruptly stopped. Upon enquiring why these weekly payments had suddenly ceased, Chapman discovered her husband had died of alcohol-related causes.

Shortly after John Chapman's death, this sieve-maker left Chapman—possibly due to the cessation of her allowance—and relocated to Notting Hill. One of Chapman's friends said she became depressed after this separation and seemed to lose her will to live.

1888
By May or June 1888, Chapman resided in Crossingham's Lodging House at 35 Dorset Street, paying 8d a night for a double bed. According to the lodging-house deputy, Timothy Donovan, a 47-year-old bricklayer's labourer named Edward "the Pensioner" Stanley would typically stay with Chapman at the lodging-house between Saturday and Monday, occasionally paying for her bed. She earned some income from crochet work, making antimacassars and selling flowers, supplemented by casual prostitution.

Eight days prior to Chapman's death, she had fought with a fellow Crossingham's Lodging House resident named Eliza Cooper. The two were reportedly rivals for the affections of a local hawker named Harry, although Cooper later claimed the reason the two had fought had been because Chapman had borrowed a bar of soap from her, and after being asked to return it, Chapman had simply thrown a halfpenny upon a kitchen table, stating: "Go get a halfpenny's worth of soap." Later, in a fight between the two at the Britannia Public House, Cooper struck Chapman in the face and chest, resulting in her sustaining a black eye and bruised breast.

On 7 September, Amelia Palmer encountered Annie Chapman in Dorset Street. Palmer later informed police Chapman had appeared visibly pale on this occasion, having been discharged from the casual ward of the Whitechapel Infirmary that day. Chapman complained to Palmer of having felt "too ill to do anything".

After Chapman's death, the coroner who conducted her autopsy noted her lungs and brain membranes were in an advanced state of disease which would have killed her within months.

8 September
According to both the lodging-house deputy, Timothy Donovan, and the watchman, John Evans, shortly after midnight on 8 September, Chapman had been lacking the required money for her nightly lodging. She drank a pint of beer in the kitchen with fellow lodger Frederick Stevens at approximately 12:10 a.m. before informing another lodger that she had earlier visited her sister in Vauxhall, and that her family had given her 5d. Stevens then observed Chapman take a box of pills from her pocket. This box then broke, whereupon Chapman wrapped the pills in a section of envelope she had taken from a mantlepiece before leaving the property. At approximately 1:35 a.m., Chapman returned to the lodging-house with a baked potato which she ate before again leaving the premises with a likely intention of earning the money to pay for a bed via prostituting herself, stating: "I won't be long, Brummie. See that Tim keeps the bed for me." Evans last saw Chapman walking in the direction of Spitalfields Market.

A Mrs Elizabeth Long testified at the subsequent inquest into Chapman's murder that she had observed Chapman talking with a man at 5:30 a.m. The two had stood just beyond the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street, Spitalfields. Long described this man as being over 40 years old, slightly taller than Chapman, with dark hair, and of a foreign, "shabby-genteel" appearance. He was wearing a brown low-crowned felt hat and possibly a dark coat. According to Long, the man had asked Chapman the question, "Will you?" to which Chapman replied, "Yes."

Long was certain as to Chapman's identity and the time of this sighting, as she had heard the chiming of a nearby clock strike the half-hour just before she had entered Hanbury Street. If she had indeed seen Chapman, she was likely the last person to see her alive, and in the company of her murderer.

Murder
Shortly before 5:00 a.m. on 8 September, the son of a resident of 29 Hanbury Street, John Richardson, entered the back yard of the property to check the padlocked cellar in the yard was still intact and to trim a loose piece of leather from his boot. Richardson verified the cellar was still padlocked, then sat on the rear steps of the property to trim the loose leather from his boot, noting nothing untoward. He then exited the property via the front door approximately three minutes later, having not proceeded beyond the steps to the back yard.

At approximately 5:15 a.m., a tenant of 27 Hanbury Street named Albert Cadosch entered the yard of the property to use the lavatory. Cadosch later informed police he had heard a woman say, "No, no!" before hearing the sound of something or someone falling against the fence dividing the back yards of numbers 27 and 29 Hanbury Street. He did not investigate these sounds. Annie Chapman's mutilated body was discovered shortly before 6:00 a.m. by an elderly resident of 29 Hanbury Street named John Davis. Davis noticed that the front door was now open, while the back door was shut. Her body was lying on the ground near the doorway to the back yard, with her head six inches (15 cm) from the steps to the property. Davis alerted three men named James Green, James Kent, and Henry Holland to his discovery, before all three ran down Commercial Street to find a policeman as Davis reported his discovery at the nearest police station.

At the corner of Hanbury Street, Green, Kent, and Holland found Divisional Inspector Joseph Luniss Chandler and told him, "Another woman has been murdered!" Chandler followed the men to Chapman's body before requesting the assistance of police surgeon Dr George Bagster Phillips and more officers. Several policemen arrived within minutes. They were instructed to clear the passageway to the yard to ensure Dr Phillips had access. Phillips arrived at Hanbury Street at approximately 6:30 a.m.

Dr Phillips was quickly able to establish a definite link between Chapman's murder and the murder of Mary Ann Nichols, which had occurred on 31 August. Nichols had also suffered two deep slash wounds to the throat, inflicted from the left to the right of her neck, before her murderer had mutilated her abdomen, and a blade of similar size and design had been used in both murders. Phillips also observed six areas of blood spattering upon the wall of the house between the steps and wooden palings dividing 27 and 29 Hanbury Street. Some of these spatterings were 18 inches (45 cm) above the ground.

Two pills, which Chapman had been prescribed for a lung condition, a section of a torn envelope, a small piece of frayed coarse muslin, and a comb were recovered close to her body. A leather apron, partially submerged in a dish of water located close to a tap, was also discovered close to her body.

Contemporary press reports also claim that two farthings were also found in the yard of Hanbury Street close to Chapman's body, although no reference is made to these coins in any surviving contemporary police records. The local inspector of the Metropolitan Police Service, Edmund Reid of H Division Whitechapel, was reported as mentioning these coins at an inquest in 1889, and the acting Commissioner of the City Police, Major Henry Smith, also referenced these coins in his memoirs. Smith's memoirs, written more than twenty years after the Whitechapel murders, are generally considered to be both unreliable and embellished for dramatic effect.

Inquest
The official inquest into Chapman's death was opened at the Working Lad's Institute, Whitechapel, on 10 September. This inquest was presided over by the Middlesex coroner, Wynne Edwin Baxter. The first day of the inquest heard testimony from four witnesses, including John Davies, who testified to his discovery of Chapman's body. Davies testified he had lived at Hanbury Street for two weeks and had never seen the door to the yard of the property locked. He added that any individual who knew where the latch to the front door of the property was could open it to facilitate access to the backyard. Also to testify were Timothy Donovan and John Evans, both of whom testified they had positively identified the body of the deceased as Annie Chapman. Donovan also testified he had last seen Chapman alive at approximately 1:50 a.m. on 8 September, and the last words she had spoken to him were: "I have not sufficient money for my bed. Don't let it. I shan't be long before I am in."

Character testimony
Fellow Crossingham's Lodging House resident Amelia Palmer also testified on the first day of the inquest that she had known Chapman for several years, and had been in the habit of writing letters for her. Palmer testified that although Chapman had a fondness for alcohol, she considered her a respectable woman who never used profane language. She also testified Chapman had "not as a regular means of livelihood" been in the habit of selling sexual favours for money, adding she most often earned her income by performing crochet work or purchasing matches and flowers to sell for a small profit and had only begun resorting to prostitution following the death of her husband in December 1886. Every Friday, Chapman would travel to Stratford to "sell anything she had". The lodging-house deputy, Timothy Donovan, testified Chapman had always been on good terms with other lodgers, with the quarrel and resulting fisticuffs between herself and Eliza Cooper on 31 August being the only incident of trouble at the premises involving her. Donovan also testified that although Chapman would typically drink to excess on Saturday nights, she was most often sober for the remainder of the week.

Medical testimony
The third day of the inquest saw testimony from police called to the crime scene and the subsequent post-mortem. This medical testimony indicated that Chapman may have been murdered as late as 5:30 a.m. in the yard of Hanbury Street. Previous testimony from several tenants of 29 Hanbury Street had revealed none had seen or heard anything suspicious at the time of Chapman's murder, with John Richardson testifying on the second day of the inquest that the passageway through the house to the back-yard was not locked, as it was frequented by residents at all hours of the day, and that the front door had been wide open at the time Chapman's body was discovered. Richardson also testified he had often seen strangers, both men and women, loitering in the passageway of the house.

On 13 September, Dr George Bagster Phillips described the body as he observed it at 6:30 a.m. in the back yard of the house at 29 Hanbury Street: "The left arm was placed across the left breast. The legs were drawn up, the feet resting on the ground, and the knees turned outwards. The face was swollen and turned on the right side. The tongue protruded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips. The tongue was evidently much swollen. The front teeth were perfect as far as the first molar, top and bottom and very fine teeth they were. The body was terribly mutilated ... the stiffness of the limbs was not marked but was evidently commencing. He noticed that the throat was dissevered deeply; that the incision through the skin were jagged and reached right round the neck ... On the wooden paling between the yard in question and the next, smears of blood, corresponding to where the head of the deceased lay, were to be seen. These were about 14 inches from the ground, and immediately above the part where the blood from the neck lay. ...

The instrument used at the throat and abdomen was the same. It must have been a very sharp knife with a thin narrow blade and must have been at least 6 to 8 inches in length, probably longer. He should say that the injuries could not have been inflicted by a bayonet or a sword bayonet. They could have been done by such an instrument as a medical man used for post-mortem purposes, but the ordinary surgical cases might not contain such an instrument. Those used by the slaughtermen, well ground down, might have caused them. He thought the knives used by those in the leather trade would not be long enough in the blade. There were indications of anatomical knowledge ... he should say that the deceased had been dead at least two hours, and probably more when he first saw her but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood. There was no evidence ... of a struggle having taken place. He was positive the deceased entered the yard alive ...

A handkerchief was round the throat of the deceased when he saw it early in the morning. He should say it was not tied on after the throat was cut." Chapman's throat had been cut from left to right so deeply the bones of her vertebral column bore striations, and she had been disembowelled, with a section of the flesh from her stomach being placed upon her left shoulder and another section of skin and flesh—plus her small intestines—being removed and placed above her right shoulder. The morgue examination revealed that part of her uterus and bladder was missing. Chapman's protruding tongue and swollen face led Dr Phillips to believe that she may have been asphyxiated with the handkerchief around her neck before her throat was cut, and that her murderer had held her chin as he performed this act. As there was no blood trail leading to the yard, he was certain that she was killed where she was found.

Phillips concluded that Chapman suffered from a long-standing lung disease, that she was sober at the time of her death, and that she had not consumed alcoholic beverages for at least some hours before death. He was of the opinion that the murderer must have possessed anatomical knowledge to have sliced out her reproductive organs in a single movement with a blade about 6–8 inches (15–20 cm) long. However, the idea that the murderer possessed surgical skill was dismissed by other experts. As her body was not examined extensively at the scene, it has also been suggested that the organ was removed by mortuary staff, who took advantage of bodies that had already been opened to extract organs that they could then sell as surgical specimens. In his summing up, Coroner Baxter raised the possibility that Chapman was murdered deliberately to obtain the uterus, on the basis that an American had made enquiries at a London medical school for the purchase of such organs. The Lancet rejected Baxter's suggestion, scathingly pointing out "certain improbabilities and absurdities", and saying it was "a grave error of judgement". The British Medical Journal was similarly dismissive, and reported that the physician who requested the samples was a highly reputable doctor, unnamed, who had left the country 18 months before the murder. Baxter dropped the theory and never referred to it again. The Chicago Tribune claimed the American doctor was from Philadelphia, and author Philip Sugden later speculated that the man in question was the notorious Francis Tumblety.

Discussing Chapman's time of death, Dr Phillips estimated that she had died either at or before 4:30 a.m., contradicting the inquest eyewitnesses Richardson, Long and Cadosch, all of whom indicated Chapman's murder had occurred after this time. However, Victorian methods of estimating the time of death of an individual, such as measuring body temperature, were crude by modern methodology. Phillips himself highlighted at the inquest that Chapman's body temperature could have cooled more quickly than normally expected.

Conclusion
The inquest into Chapman's murder lasted five days, with the final day of hearings being adjourned until 26 September. No further witnesses testified on this date, although coroner Baxter informed the jury: "I have no doubt that if the perpetrator of this foul murder is eventually discovered, our efforts will not have been useless."

Following a short deliberation, the jury, having been instructed to consider precisely how, when, and by what means Chapman came about her death, returned a verdict of wilful murder against a person or persons unknown.

Investigation
On 15 September, Chief Inspector Donald Swanson of Scotland Yard was placed in overall command of the investigation into Chapman's murder. Swanson later reported that an "immediate and searching enquiry was made at all common lodging-houses to ascertain if anyone had entered [their premises] on the morning with blood on his hands or clothes, or under any suspicious circumstances".

Leather Apron
A leather apron belonging to John Richardson lay under a tap in the yard of 29 Hanbury Street. This apron had been placed there by his mother, who had washed it on 6 September. Richardson was investigated thoroughly by the police, but was eliminated from the enquiry. Nonetheless, press reports of the discovery of this apron fuelled local rumours which had first been published in The Star on 4 September following the murder of Mary Ann Nichols that a Jew from the district known as "Leather Apron" was responsible for the Whitechapel murders.

Journalists, frustrated by the general unwillingness of the Criminal Investigation Department to reveal many details of their investigation to the public, and eager to capitalise on the increasing public unrest regarding the Whitechapel murders, frequently resorted to writing reports of questionable veracity. Imaginative descriptions of "Leather Apron", using crude Jewish stereotypes, appeared in the press. The Manchester Guardian reported that: "Whatever information may be in the possession of the police they deem it necessary to keep secret ... It is believed their attention is particularly directed to ... a notorious character known as 'Leather Apron'." Rival journalists dismissed these accounts as "a mythical outgrowth of the reporter's fancy".

John Pizer, a 38-year-old Polish Jew who made footwear from leather, was known by the name "Leather Apron". Via knifepoint, Pizer frequently intimidated local prostitutes. He appeared before the Thames Magistrates' Court on 4 August 1888, charged with indecent assault. Pizer is also believed to have stabbed a man in the hand in 1887.

Despite there being no direct evidence against Pizer, he was arrested by a Sergeant William Thicke on 10 September. Although Pizer claimed to the contrary, Thicke knew of Pizer's local reputation, and his "Leather Apron" nick-name.

Pizer was released from custody on 11 September after police were able to verify his alibis on the nights of the murders of both Chapman and Nichols. He was called as a witness on the second day of the inquest into Chapman's murder to publicly clear his name, and demolish the public suspicions that he was the killer. Pizer also successfully obtained monetary compensation from at least one newspaper that had published several articles naming him as the prime suspect in the Whitechapel murders.

Pawnbrokers
Two brass rings—one flat; one oval—Chapman is known to have worn were not recovered at the crime scene, either because she had pawned them or because they had been stolen, possibly by her murderer. Theorising her murderer had removed these items of jewellery in order to pawn them, police unsuccessfully searched all the pawnbrokers in Spitalfields and Whitechapel.

Edward Stanley
The section of a torn envelope recovered close to Chapman's body, bearing the crest of the Royal Sussex Regiment and postmarked 'London, 28 August 1888', was briefly believed could be traced to Edward Stanley, thus placing him at the scene of Chapman's murder. Stanley was soon eliminated as a suspect as his alibis for the nights of the murders of both Nichols and Chapman were quickly confirmed. Between 6 August and 1 September, he was known to have been on active duty with the Hampshire Militia in Gosport, and on the night of Chapman's murder, eyewitnesses confirmed Stanley had been at his lodgings.

Further enquiries and arrests
In addition to John Pizer and Edward Stanley, police investigated and/or detained several other individuals in their investigation into Chapman's murder, all of whom were released from custody. On 9 September, a 53-year-old ship's cook named William Henry Piggott was detained after arriving at a Gravesend pub with a recent hand injury and shouting misogynistic remarks. A blood-stained shirt he had left in a local fish shop was quickly traced to Piggott, who claimed that he had been bitten by a woman and that the blood on the shirt was his own. He was investigated, but soon released from custody.

A Swiss butcher, Jacob Isenschmid, matched an eyewitness description of a blood-stained man seen acting suspiciously on the morning of Chapman's murder by a public house landlady, a Mrs Fiddymont. Isenschmid's distinctive appearance included a large ginger moustache, and he was known to have had a history of mental illness. He was arrested on suspicion of committing Chapman's murder on 13 September.

On 18 September, a 40-year-old German hairdresser named Charles Ludwig was arrested after he attempted to stab a young man named Alexander Finlay at a coffee stall while intoxicated. Ludwig was arrested very shortly after this incident in the company of a visibly distressed prostitute, who later informed a policeman: "Dear me! He frightened me very much when he pulled a big knife out." Ludwig was also known to have been wanted by the City of London Police for attempting to slash a woman's throat with a razor.

Isenschmid and Ludwig were both ultimately cleared of suspicion after two further murders were committed on the same date while both were in police custody. Isenschmid was later detained in a mental asylum. Other suspects named in contemporary police records and newspapers pertaining to the investigation into Chapman's murder include a local trader named Friedrich Schumacher, pedlar Edward McKenna, apothecary and mental patient Oswald Puckridge, and insane medical student John Sanders. No evidence exists against any of these individuals.

Media moniker
On 27 September, the Central News Agency received the "Dear Boss" letter, written by an individual claiming to be the murderer. The author of this letter paid reference to the press naming him as "Leather Apron", stating: "That joke about Leather Apron gave me fits". The author concluded this letter with the words "Yours truly, Jack the Ripper". This name quickly supplanted "Leather Apron" as the media's favourite moniker for the murderer.

Funeral
Chapman's body was moved from Hanbury Street to a mortuary in Montagu Street, Marylebone by Sergeant Edward Badham in a handcart large enough to hold one coffin. This was similar to the cart previously used to move the body of Mary Ann Nichols.

Chapman was buried shortly after 9:00 a.m. on 14 September 1888 in a service paid for by her family. She was laid to rest in a communal grave within Manor Park Cemetery, Forest Gate, east London. At the request of Chapman's family, the funeral was not publicised, with no mourning coaches used throughout the service, and only the undertaker, police, and her relatives knowing of these arrangements. Consequently, relatives were the only people to attend the service.

A hearse supplied by Hanbury Street undertaker Henry Smith travelled to the Whitechapel Mortuary in Montague Street to collect Chapman's body at 7:00 a.m. Her body was placed in an elm coffin draped in black and was then driven to Spitalfields undertaker Harry Hawes, who arranged the funeral. Chapman's relatives met the hearse outside the cemetery. Her coffin plate bore the words "Annie Chapman, died Sept. 8, 1888, aged 48 years."

The precise location of Annie Chapman's grave within Manor Park Cemetery is now unknown. A plaque placed in the cemetery by authorities in 2008 reads: "Her remains are buried within this area.".

Film

 * A Study in Terror (1965). This film casts Barbara Windsor as Annie Chapman.
 * Love Lies Bleeding (1999). A drama film directed by William Tannen. Chapman is portrayed by Michaela Hans.
 * From Hell. (2001). Directed by the Hughes Brothers, the film casts Katrin Cartlidge as Annie Chapman.

Television

 * Jack the Ripper (1988). A Thames Television film drama series starring Michael Caine. Annie Chapman is played by actress Deirdre Costello.
 * The Real Jack the Ripper (2010). Directed by David Mortin, this series casts Sharon Buhagiar as Annie Chapman and was first broadcast on 31 August 2010.
 * Jack the Ripper: The Definitive Story (2011). A two-hour documentary which references original police reports and eyewitness accounts pertaining to the Whitechapel Murderer. Chapman is portrayed by Dianne Learmouth.

Drama

 * Jack, the Last Victim (2005). This musical casts Michelle Jeffry as Annie Chapman.

title: Annie Chapman


text:
General Motors A platform

The General Motors A platform (commonly called A-body) was an automobile platform, and was GM's original, and oldest, platform used by all early GM products, beginning with the Chevrolet Superior. From this platform, all North American platforms B, C, and D were developed.

Starting in 1926 through 1958, GM used four different designations based on different wheelbase dimensions used which helped Fisher Body standardize coachwork provided for various bodyshells/platforms with the A-body for Chevrolet, most Pontiacs, Buick, and Oldsmobile vehicles. The A-body was temporarily suspended in 1958 until it was reintroduced in 1964.

The A-body designation was resurrected in 1964 for a new series of intermediate-sized cars including the Chevrolet Chevelle, Pontiac Tempest, Oldsmobile Cutlass, and Buick Skylark. These later A-bodies underwent a switch in drive layout from rear-wheel drive to front-wheel drive in 1982. The switch in the drive layout spawned the G-body.

 * 1923–1958 and 1964–1981 GM A platform (RWD)
 * 1982–1996 GM A platform (FWD)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: General Motors A platform


text:
Shibu Soren

Shibu Soren (born 11 January 1944) is an Indian politician who is currently member of Rajya Sabha representing Jharkhand and the leader of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha. He formerly served as 3rd Chief Minister of Jharkhand, first in 2005 for 10 days (2 March to 12 March), then from 2008 to 2009 and again from 2009 to 2010. He is also the President of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) political party, a constituent of the INDIA Alliance. He was the member of Lok Sabha from Dumka from 1980 to 1984, 1989 to 1998 and from 2002 to 2019 and Minister for Coal in the Union Cabinet from 2004 to 2004, 2004 to 2005 and from 2006 to 2006, when a Delhi district court found him guilty in the murder of his private secretary Shashi Nath Jha in 1994. He has also been indicted in the past on other criminal charges.

Life
Soren was born in Nemra village of Ramgarh district, in what was, at the time, Bihar state, India. He belongs to Santal tribe. He completed his schooling in the same district. During his schooling his father was murdered by thugs employed by money lenders.

At the age of 18, he formed the Santhal Navyuvak Sangh. In 1972, Bengali Maxist trade union leader A. K. Roy, Kurmi-Mahato leader Binod Bihari Mahato and Santal leader Shibu Soren formed Jharkhand Mukti Morcha. Soren became the general secretary of JMM. JMM organised agitations to reclaim the tribal lands which were alienated. They started forcibly harvesting in the lands. Shibu Soren was known for delivering summary justice against landlords and money lenders, sometimes by holding own courts. On 23 January 1975, he allegedly incited a campaign to drive away "outsiders", or the 'non-tribal' people. At least eleven people were killed. Soren and numerous others were charged with various crimes related to this incident. After extended legal proceedings, Soren was acquitted on 6 March 2008. However, possibly related incitement charges—dating from two earlier deaths in 1974—remain pending.

He lost his first Lok Sabha election in 1977. He was first elected to the Lok Sabha in 1980 from Dumka. An arrest warrant was issued against him. He was subsequently elected to the Lok Sabha in 1989, 1991 and 1996 as well. In 2002, he was elected to the Rajya Sabha. He won the Dumka Lok Sabha seat in a by-election the same year and resigned his Rajya Sabha seat. He was re-elected in 2004.

He became the Union Coal Minister in the Manmohan Singh government, but was asked to resign following an arrest warrant in his name in the thirty-year-old Chirudih case. He was one of the main accused amongst 69, with allegations to kill 10 people (including 9 Muslims) on 23 January 1975, in a clash between tribals and Muslims. After the warrant was issued, he initially went underground. He resigned on 24 July 2004. He was able to secure bail after spending over a month in judicial custody; released on bail on 8 September, he was re-inducted into the Union Cabinet and given back the coal ministry on 27 November 2004, as part of a deal for a Congress-JMM alliance before assembly elections in Jharkhand in February/March 2005.

On 2 March 2005, after much political bargaining and quid pro quo he was invited to form the government in Jharkhand by the Governor of Jharkhand. He resigned as Chief Minister nine days later, on 11 March, following his failure to obtain a vote of confidence in the assembly. In 2019 Lok Sabha Elections he lost to Sunil Soren of BJP from Dumka constituency.

Life imprisonment and acquittal
On 28 November 2006, Soren was found guilty in a twelve-year-old case involving the kidnapping and murder of his former personal secretary Shashinath Jha. It was claimed that Jha was abducted from the Dhaula Kuan area in Delhi on 22 May 1994 and taken to Piska Nagari near Ranchi where he was killed. The CBI chargesheet stated that Jha's knowledge of the reported deal between the Congress and the JMM to save the Narasimha Rao government during the July 1993 no-confidence motion and an act of sodomy was the motive behind the murder. The charge-sheet asserted that: "Jha was aware of the illegal transactions and also expected and demanded a substantial share out of this amount from Soren."

Soren resigned from his post of Union Minister for Coal after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh demanded that he should do so in the wake of the verdict. This is the first case of a Union Minister of the Government of India being found guilty of involvement in a murder. On 5 December 2006, Shibu Soren was sentenced to life imprisonment. A Delhi court rejected his bail plea, stating: 'We cannot overlook the fact that the appellant (Soren) has been convicted after a detailed and elaborate trial only in November 2006 and sentenced in December 2006.

The bench also noted that he was also being tried in a number of other cases, including the case of mass murder in Jharkhand.

On 25 June 2007, Shibu Soren was being escorted to his jail in Dumka, Jharkhand when his convoy was attacked by bombs, but no one was hurt.

The Delhi High Court on 23 August 2007 overruled the District Court and acquitted Soren, stating that "The trial court's analysis is far from convincing and not sustainable."

The five men convicted by the Tis Hazari court were held guilty of criminal conspiracy, abduction and murder primarily on the basis of forensic evidence provided by a post-mortem report of a body discovered in Jharkhand, namely a skull superimposition test and skull injury report. This was in addition to eyewitness accounts and some circumstantial evidence.

Personal life
He is married to Roopi Kisku. He has three sons Durga Soren, Hemant Soren, and Basant Soren and a daughter, Anjali Soren. His son, Hemant Soren as the Chief Minister of Jharkhand He is currently CM previously from July 2013 to December 2014. His elder son Durga Soren was MLA from Jama from 1995 to 2005. Durga's wife Sita Soren is former MLA from Jama, now in BJP. Basant Soren is president of the Jharkhand Yuva Morcha, a youth wing of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha and current MLA from Dumka.

title: Shibu Soren


text:
Talk:Transactional analysis

Basic Editing of the Article
It seems to me that right now the article reads like it was written by a disorganized committee. I am going to rearrange the sections; I believe that at a bare minimum, that this is what is called for. --NBahn (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the second "History" section needs some serious reworking..... --NBahn (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Image
The animated image at the top says nothing by itself or together with the caption text. Can I suggest a proper caption that explains the animation or moving it down to a section of the article that does? --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggest away! --NBahn (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ego states
I had a quick (VERY quick) glance on the section about ego states and I think some differentiation in functional model and structure model is directly needed. Understanding this difference is very important to understand the whole concept of ego states. Maybe I will take care about this issue soon, but I will be happy if someone else did it because I have to finish a thesis at the moment... - MAE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.250.60 (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Where is the Criticism section?
On a superficial look through the article, I cannot see any empirical evidence for this construction actually corresponding to reality. Its not too difficult to invent schemas that seem appealling but which are not actually true. 92.29.142.75 (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

 * My understanding is that the Wikipedia is not the place for opinion and/or debate and/or proof. What evidence do you have that everything in the Wikipedia is required to be real? Sam Tomato (talk) 01:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I cannot see any empirical evidence for this construction actually corresponding to reality either. I will invent my own theory of drama rectangle and demand a wikipedia article about it. There will be victim, perpetrator, rescuer and bystander. 84.72.10.196 (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds a bit like Neuro Linguistic Programming which has an extensive criticism section. TA and NPL seem to resemble each other but there is no criticism section of TA. While I am a big fan of theories of plural intra psychic personae I think the article should include a criticism section, if only to let students realise that they are on somewhat shaky ground. How about, Fay Short, Phil Thomas "Textbook of Counselling and Psychotherapy Core Approaches and Therapies" as well as giving a thorough introduction to TA claim that TA is "often regarded as pseudoscience by its critics" (p 323 ). --Timtak (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Every psycological branch is a pseudo science, so I would be careful to put this as a critic to TA. See Pseudoscience Superseve69it (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * that link does not say anything about ψ being pseudoscience. instead it explains (or tries to) what psichological motives might make people belive in pseudoscientific ideas.176.63.176.112 (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC).

This has clearly not been resolved and whether the criticism is valid or not their is A LOT of it which deserves acknowledgement in this article. 216.243.16.154 (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

TA is not only post-Freudian but, according to its founder's wishes, consciously extra-Freudian.
My complaint is about the confusion: post-Freudian and extra-Freudian are pointing to the same link: Freud. As I am researching psychology, I would rather expect them to point to respective (different) pages so I can find out about each of them; or to nothing at all. What's the reason to point to Freud each time, while the ideas are different by definition, and different from the original research? Zb00001 (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Australian TA group
I'm not familiar with this topic so the article was my introduction to the material. It references an ego-state refutation by an "Australian TA group" and then later another TA criticism by an "Australian TA analyst". Both citations point to Tony White - his personal blog as well as a published article. As a newcomer, it looks very shady. I have no idea whether or not this analyst or this unnamed TA group is well-known or credible enough to merit their mention. In the history, someone originally noted this "Australian group" as "marginal" but it was scrubbed as being biased.

Can someone who is more knowledgeable about this subject either specifically attribute these criticisms to Tony White and mention he is well-known or credible (I do see he's written books, had awards, etc) if that's the case, or get rid of them? 24.0.209.76 (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC) --anon

Animation
The animation next to the lede is confusing and explains nothing. A simple diagram would be much better here. Maybe the animation could be used later in the article, but I doubt it. --193.254.155.48 (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you.  Lova Falk     talk   17:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

 * I moved it lower in the article. Wiki-psyc (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's still highly annoying, and illustrates nothing. It's just an animated version of a book-jacket illustration, an unenlightening dancing hamsters gimmick sans music. Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Rewrote introduction
Transactional analysis (TA to its adherents), is a psychology idea that humans are social creatures and that a person is a multi-faceted being that changes when in contact with another person in their world. It integrates the theories of psychology and psychotherapy because it has elements of psychoanalytic, humanist and cognitive ideas. TA was first developed in the late 1950s by Canadian-born US psychiatrist Eric Berne.

The previous version was more difficult for the average person to understand and did not give a clear definition of what TA is.

Thanks! Thewhitebox (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

 * I took another pass at it - building on your work.
 * Transactional analysis' is a psychoanalytic therapy wherein social transactions are analyzed to determine the ego state of the patient (whether parent-like, child-like, or adult-like) as a basis for understanding behavior.[1] In transactional analysis, the patient is taught to alter the ego state as a way to solve emotional problems. The method deviates from Freudian psychoanalysis which focuses on increasing awareness of the contents of unconsciously held ideas. Eric Berne developed the concept and paradigm of transactional analysis in the late 1950s.[2] Wiki-psyc (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Timothy Leary is not the founder of Transactional analysis
Timothy Leary is not the founder of Transactional analysis and version 678286435 is incorrect. 13:06, 28 August 2015 678286435

These are the most reliable sources: https://www.itaaworld.org/eric-berne-founder http://www.eatanews.org/about-ta/eric-berne/

Wiki-psyc (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

 * For the record, I think I might know from whence this canard arose. Leary once said he proposed a thesis (like ~1956) reviewing interpersonal psychology, and his advisor looked surprised and sneered that "the term is an oxymoron." (Even today, college classes occasionally teach that psychology is of the individual, sociology is of the group, and never the twain etc.) I've never taken it literally, but maybe others have.

 * Berne credited his Friday-night poker group as being a proving-ground for his developing theories. Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Poorly written /disorganized (deleted text copied here)
This article is really a labor to read. I rewrote the introduction and history and moved a few things around, but it still needs a lot of work. 13:06, 28 August 2015 678286435 Several mentions of a need for a controversy section should be heeded. I'm hatting the The "Key Ideas" section here should anyone want to take it on and clean it up. Wiki-psyc (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Key ideas
There is no "universal" ego state. For example, each Child ego state is unique to the childhood experiences, mentality, intellect, and family of each individual; it is not a generalized childlike state.

One ego state can become contaminated from another ego state. For example, when a person mistakes Parental rules and slogans for here-and-now Adult reality (the Adult ego state has become contaminated with the Parent), and when beliefs are taken as facts (the Adult ego state has become contaminated with the Child). Or when a person 'knows' that everyone is laughing at him because 'they always laughed'. This would be an example of a childhood contamination (a Child contamination of the Adult), as here-and-now reality is being overlaid with memories of historic incidents in childhood.

Ego-state symbiosis is also possible according to Berne. In a symbiotic relationship, one participant borrows an ego state from the other participant and incorporates it into his or her personality. For instance, soldiers may absolve themselves of the question of the morality of their actions by deferring to their superiors. In this case, the soldier has incorporated the superior's Parent ego state into his own persona (e.g. Banality of evil).

Although TA theory claims that ego states do not correspond directly to thinking, feeling, and judging, as these processes are present in every ego state, this claim appears to be self-contradictory to the claim that the Adult is like a computer processing information, therefore not feeling unless it is contaminated by the Child. A deeper understanding of TA is necessary in order to resolve this paradox. For example, Berne discusses how each ego state (Parent, Adult, and Child) can be perceived to be a further division of Parent-Adult-Child within the ego state itself. 'Born to Win' discusses how one of the goals of TA is to achieve integration of the other ego states into the Adult (an integrated Adult ego state) so that the awareness of the entire persona is elevated to the level of the Adult's perception of reality.

Berne suspected that Parent, Adult, and Child ego states might be tied to specific areas of the human brain; an idea that has not been proven.

The three ego-state model has been questioned by a TA group in Australia, who have devised a two ego-state model as a means of solving perceived theoretical problems:

"The two ego-state model says that there is a Child ego state and a Parent ego state, placing the Adult ego state with the Parent ego state. [...] How we learn to speak, add up and learn how to think is all just copied from our teachers, just as our morals and values are copied from our parents. There is no absolute truth where facts exist outside a person's own belief system. Berne mistakenly concluded that there was and thus mistakenly put the Adult ego state as separate from the Parent ego state." It is not clear, however, whether the concept of a learned perception of reality is counter-indicative to Berne's theory of identifiably separate modes of rational and moral thought.

Transactions and strokes

 * 'Transactions' are the flow of communication, and more specifically the unspoken psychological flow of communication that runs parallel to spoken communication. Transactions occur simultaneously at both explicit and psychological levels. An example would be a sentence spoken in a sweet caring voice but with sarcastic intent. To read the real communication requires both surface and non-verbal reading.
 * 'Strokes' are the recognition, attention or responsiveness that one person gives another. Strokes can be positive (nicknamed "warm fuzzies" ) or negative ("cold pricklies").  A key idea is that people hunger for recognition, and that lacking positive strokes, will seek whatever kind of recognition they can get, even if it is recognition of a negative kind. We test out as children what strategies and behaviours seem to get us strokes, of whatever kind we can get.

People often create pressure in (or experience pressure from) others to communicate in a way that matches their style, so that a boss who talks to his staff as a controlling parent will often engender self-abasement or other childlike responses. Those employees who resist may be removed or labelled as trouble-makers.

Transactions can be experienced as positive or negative, depending on the nature of the strokes within them. However, a negative transaction is often preferred to no transaction at all, because of a fundamental hunger for 'strokes'.

The nature of transactions is important to understanding communication.

Kinds of transactions There are basically three kinds of transactions:
 * 1) Reciprocal/Complementary (the simplest)
 * 2) Crossed
 * 3) Ulterior – Duplex/Angular (the most complex)

Reciprocal or complementary transactions A simple reciprocal transaction occurs when both partners are addressing the ego state the other is in. These are also called complementary transactions. Example 1:
 * A: 'Have you written the report?' (Adult to Adult)
 * B: 'Yes - I'm about to email it to you.' (Adult to Adult)

Example 2:
 * A: 'Would you like to skip this meeting and go watch a film with me instead?' (Child to Child)
 * B: 'I'd love to - I don't want to work any more. What should we go and see?' (Child to Child)

Example 3:
 * A: 'You should have your room tidy by now!' (Parent to Child)
 * B: 'Will you stop hassling me? I'll do it eventually!' (Child to Parent)

Communication like this can continue indefinitely. Clearly it will stop at some stage, but this psychologically balanced exchange of strokes can continue for some time.

Crossed transactions Communication failures are typically caused by a 'crossed transaction' where partners address ego states other than the one their partner is in. Consider these examples.

Example 1a:
 * A: 'Have you written that report?' (Adult to Adult)
 * B: 'Will you stop hassling me? I'll do it eventually!' (Child to Parent)

This is a crossed transaction likely to produce problems in the workplace. 'A' may respond with a Parent-to-Child transaction; for instance:
 * A: 'If you don't change your attitude, you'll get fired.'

Example 2a:
 * A: '"Is your room tidy yet?' (Parent to Child)
 * B: 'I'm just going to do it, actually.' (Adult to Adult)

This is a more positive crossed transaction. There is, however, the risk that 'A' will feel aggrieved that 'B' is acting responsibly and not playing their expected role, and the conversation will develop into:
 * A: 'I can never trust you to do things!' (Parent to Child)
 * B: 'Why don't you believe anything I say?' (Child to Parent)

This can also continue indefinitely.

Ulterior transactions Another class of transaction is the ulterior transaction, where the explicit social conversation occurs in parallel with an implicit psychological transaction; for instance:

 * A: 'I need you to stay late at the office with me.' (Adult words), body language indicates sexual intent (flirtatious Child)
 * B: 'Of course.' (Adult response to Adult statement), winking or grinning (Child accepts the hidden motive).

Phenomena behind the transactions

Life positions In TA theory, 'Life Position' refers to the general attitude about life (specifically the subconscious feeling as opposed to a conscious philosophical position) that colours every dyadic (i.e., person-to-person) transaction. Initially four such Life Positions were proposed:
 * 1) I'm not OK, You're OK (I-U+)
 * 2) I'm not OK, You're not OK (I-U-)
 * 3) I'm OK, You're not OK (I+U-)
 * 4) I'm OK, You're OK (I+U+)

Berne further developed life-position theory to include more complex three-cornered life positions such as: In children, responses such as 'Let's go and play and then we'll deal with those not-OK people later' may be expected from this position, whereas in adults this position may lead to gang criminality.
 * 1) I'm OK, You're OK, They're not OK

Life (or childhood) script
 * Script is a life plan, directed to a reward.
 * Script is decisional and responsive; i.e., decided upon in childhood in response to perceptions of the world and as a means of living with and making sense of the world. It is not just thrust upon a person by external forces.
 * Script is reinforced by parents (or other influential figures and experiences).
 * Script is for the most part outside awareness.
 * Script is how we navigate and what we look for, the rest of reality is redefined (distorted) to match our filters.

Each culture, country and people in the world has a Mythos, that is, a legend explaining its origins, core beliefs and purpose. According to TA, so do individual people. A person begins writing his/her own life story (script) at a young age, as he/she tries to make sense of the world and his place within it. Although it is revised throughout life, the core story is selected and decided upon typically by age 7. As adults it passes out of awareness. A life script might be "to be hurt many times, and suffer and make others feel bad when I die", and could result in a person indeed setting himself up for this, by adopting behaviours in childhood that produce exactly this effect. Though Berne identified several dozen common scripts, there are a practically infinite number of them. Scripts discussed in psychotherapy are mostly destructive as the patient's script is psychopathological, however scripts may just as easily be mostly positive or beneficial.

Redefining and discounting
 * Redefining means the distortion of reality when we deliberately (but unconsciously) distort things to match our preferred way of seeing the world. Thus a person whose script involves "struggling alone against a cold hard world" may redefine others' kindness, concluding that others are trying to get something by manipulation.
 * Discounting means, to take something as, worth less than it is. Thus to give a substitute reaction which does not originate as a here-and-now Adult attempt to solve an actual problem, or to choose not to see evidence that would contradict one's script. Types of discount can also include: passivity (doing nothing), over-adaptation, agitation, incapacitation, anger and violence.

Injunctions and drivers TA identifies twelve key injunctions which people commonly build into their scripts. These are injunctions in the sense of being powerful "I can't/mustn't ..." messages that embed into a child's belief and life-script:
 * Don't be (will not exist)
 * Don't be who you are (Don't Be You)
 * Don't be a child
 * Don't grow up
 * Don't make it in your life (Don't Succeed)
 * Don't do anything!
 * Don't be important
 * Don't belong
 * Don't be close
 * Don't be well (don't be sane!)
 * Don't think
 * Don't feel.
 * In addition, there is the so-called episcript: "You should (or deserve to) have this happen in your life, so it doesn't have to happen to me." (Magical thinking on the part of the parent(s).)
 * In addition, there is the so-called episcript: "You should (or deserve to) have this happen in your life, so it doesn't have to happen to me." (Magical thinking on the part of the parent(s).)

Against these, a child is often told other things he or she must do. There is debate as to whether there are five or six of these 'drivers':

 * Please me/others!
 * Be perfect!
 * Be Strong!
 * Try Hard!
 * Hurry Up!
 * Be Careful! (is in dispute)

Thus in creating his script, a child will often attempt to juggle these, example: "It's okay for me to go on living (ignore don't exist) so long as I try hard".

This explains why some change is inordinately difficult. To continue the above example: When a person stops trying hard and relaxes to be with his family, the injunction You don't have the right to exist which was being suppressed by their script now becomes exposed and a vivid threat. Such an individual may feel a massive psychological pressure which he himself doesn't understand, to return to trying hard, in order to feel safe and justified (in a childlike way) in existing.

Driver behaviour is also detectable at a very small scale, for instance in instinctive responses to certain situations where driver behaviour is played out over five to twenty seconds.

Broadly speaking, scripts can fall into Tragic, Heroic or Banal (or Non-Winner) varieties, depending on their rules.

Ways of time structuring There are six ways of structuring time by giving and receiving strokes:
 * 1) Withdrawal
 * 2) Ritual
 * 3) Pastimes
 * 4) Activity
 * 5) Games
 * 6) Intimacy

This is sorted in accordance with stroke strength; Intimacy and Games in general allow for the most intensive strokes. Berne actually ordered them: Withdrawal, Ritual, Activity, Pastimes, Games, Intimacy.

Withdrawal This means no strokes are being exchanged

Rituals A ritual is a series of transactions that are complementary (reciprocal), stereotyped and based on social programming. Rituals usually comprise a series of strokes exchanged between two parties.

For instance, two people may have a daily two stroke ritual, where, the first time they meet each day, each one greets the other with a "Hi". Others may have a four stroke ritual, such as:

A: Hi!

B: Hi! How are you?

A: Getting along. What about you?

B: Fine. See you around.

The next time they meet in the day, they may not exchange any strokes at all, or may just acknowledge each other's presence with a curt nod.

Some phenomena associated with daily rituals:

 * If a person exchanges fewer strokes than expected, the other person may feel that he is either preoccupied or acting high and mighty.
 * If a person exchanges more strokes than expected, the other person might wonder whether he is trying to butter him up or get on good terms for some vested interests.
 * If two people do not meet for a long time, a backlog of strokes gets built up, so that the next time they meet, they may exchange a large number of strokes to catch up.

Pastimes A pastime is a series of transactions that is complementary (reciprocal), semi-ritualistic, and is mainly intended as a time-structuring activity. Pastimes have no covert purpose and can usually be carried out only between people on the same wavelength. They are usually shallow and harmless. Pastimes are a type of smalltalk.

Individuals often partake in similar pastimes throughout their entire life, as pastimes are generally very much linked to one's life script and the games that one often plays. Some pastimes can even be understood as a reward for playing a certain game. For example, Eric Berne in Games People Play discusses how those who play the "Alcoholic" game (i.e., alcoholics, their Persecutors and their enablers) often enjoy the "Morning After" pastime in which participants share their most amusing or harrowing hangover stories.

Activities (work) Activities in this context mean the individuals work together for a common goal. This may be work, sports or something similar. In contrast to Pastimes, there is a meaningful purpose guiding the interactions, while Pastimes are just about exchanging strokes. Strokes can then be given in the context of the cooperation. Thus the strokes are generally not personal, but related to the activity.

Games

Intimacy Intimacy as a way of structuring time allows one to exchange the strongest strokes without playing a Game. Intimacy differs from Games as there is no covert purpose, and differs from Activities as there is no other process going on which defines a context of cooperation. Strokes are personal, relating to the other person, and often unconditional.

Games and their analysis

Definition of game A game is a series of transactions that is complementary (reciprocal), ulterior, and proceeds towards a predictable outcome. Games are always characterized by a switch in roles of players towards the end. Games are always played by Parent and Child ego states, and games can have any number of players; however, an individual's role can shift, and people within games can play multiple roles. If a person uses their Adult in a game then this would be a manoeuvre and not a game on the part of the person using their Adult ego state. Adult functioning is conscious. Game playing is out of awareness.

Berne identified dozens of games, noting that, regardless of when, where or by whom they were played, each game tended towards very similar structures in how many players or roles were involved, the rules of the game, and the game's goals.

Each game has a payoff for those playing it, such as the aim of earning sympathy, satisfaction, vindication, or some other emotion that usually reinforces the life script. The antithesis of a game, that is, the way to break it, lies in discovering how to deprive the actors of their payoff.

Students of transactional analysis have discovered that people who are accustomed to a game are willing to play it even as a different "actor" from what they originally were.

Analysis of a game One important aspect of a game is its number of players. Games may be two handed (that is, played by two players), three handed (that is, played by three players), or many handed. Three other quantitative variables are often useful to consider for games:

 * Flexibility: The ability of the players to change the currency of the game (that is, the tools they use to play it). In a flexible game, players may shift from words, to money, to parts of the body.

 * Tenacity: The persistence with which people play and stick to their games and their resistance to breaking it.

 * Intensity: Easy games are games played in a relaxed way. Hard games are games played in a tense and aggressive way.

Based on the degree of acceptability and potential harm, games are classified as:

 * First Degree Games are socially acceptable in the players' social circle.
 * Second Degree Games are games that the players would like to conceal, though they may not cause irreversible damage.
 * Third Degree Games are games that could lead to drastic harm to one or more of the parties concerned.

Games are also studied based on their:

 * Aim
 * Roles
 * Social and Psychological Paradigms
 * Dynamics
 * Advantages to players (Payoffs)

Contrast with rational (mathematical) games Transactional game analysis is fundamentally different from rational or mathematical game analysis in the following senses:

 * The players do not always behave rationally in transactional analysis, but behave more like real people.
 * Their motives are often ulterior.

Some commonly found games Here are some of the most commonly found themes of games described in Games People Play by Eric Berne:

 * YDYB: Why Don't You, Yes But. Historically, the first game discovered.
 * IFWY: If It Weren't For You
 * WAHM: Why does this Always Happen to Me? (setting up a self-fulfilling prophecy)
 * SWYMD: See What You Made Me Do
 * UGMIT: You Got Me Into This
 * LHIT: Look How Hard I've Tried
 * ITHY: I'm Only Trying to Help You (becoming a neglected martyr)
 * LYAHF: Let's You and Him Fight (staging a love triangle)
 * NIGYYSOB / NIGYSOB: Now I've Got You, You Son Of a Bitch (escalating minor disagreements or errors into major interpersonal conflicts)
 * RAPO: A woman falsely cries 'rape' or threatens to; related to Buzz Off Buster, a milder version in which a woman flirts with a man and then rejects his advances

Berne argued that the logic of games is wholly subjective; one person's Parent state might interact with another's Child, rather than as Adult to Adult.

Games can also be analysed according to the Karpman drama triangle, that is, by the roles of Persecutor, Victim and Rescuer. The 'switch' is then when one of these having allowed stable roles to become established, suddenly switches role. The Victim becomes a Persecutor, and throws the previous Persecutor into the Victim role, or the Rescuer suddenly switches to become a Persecutor ("You never appreciate me helping you!").

Why Don't You/Yes But The first such game theorized was Why don't you/Yes, but in which one player (White) would pose a problem as if seeking help, and the other player(s) (Black) would offer solutions (the "Why don't you?" suggestion). This game was noticed as many patients played it in therapy and psychiatry sessions, and inspired Berne to identify other interpersonal "games".

White would point out a flaw in every Black player's solution (the "Yes, but" response), until they all gave up in frustration. For example, if someone's life script was "to be hurt many times, and suffer and make others feel bad when I die" a game of "Why Don't You, Yes But" might proceed as follows:

 * White: I wish I could lose some weight.
 * Black: Why don't you join a gym?
 * White: Yes but, I can't afford the payments for a gym.
 * Black: Why don't you speed walk around your block after you get home from work?
 * White: Yes but, I don't dare walk alone in my neighborhood after dark.
 * Black: Why don't you take the stairs at work instead of the elevator?

"Why Don't You, Yes But" can proceed indefinitely, with any number of players in the Black role, until Black's imagination is exhausted, and she can think of no other solutions. At this point, White "wins" by having stumped Black. After a silent pause following Black's final suggestion, the game is often brought to a formal end by a third role, Green, who makes a comment such as, "It just goes to show how difficult it is to lose weight."

The secondary gain for White was that he could claim to have justified his problem as insoluble and thus avoid the hard work of internal change; and for Black, to either feel the frustrated martyr ("I was only trying to help") or a superior being, disrespected ("the patient was uncooperative").

Superficially, this game can resemble Adult to Adult interaction (people seeking information or advice), but more often, according to Berne, the game is played by White's helpless Child, and Black's lecturing Parent ego states.

' "Drunk" or "Alcoholic"'

Another example of Berne's approach was his identification of the game of "Drunk" or "Alcoholic." As he explained it, the transactional object of the drunk, aside from the personal pleasure obtained by drinking, could be seen as being to set up a situation where the  Child  can be severely scolded not only by the internal parent but by any parental figures in the immediate environment who are interested enough to oblige. The pattern is shown to be similar to that in the non-alcoholic game "Schlemiel," in which mess-making attracts attention and is a pleasure-giving way for White to lead up to the crux, which is obtaining forgiveness by Black.

There are a variety of organizations involved in playing 'Alcoholic’, some of them national or even international in scope, others local. Many of them publish rules for the game. Nearly all of them explain how to play the role of Alcoholic: take a drink before breakfast, spend money allotted for other purposes, etc. They also explain the function of the Rescuer role in the game. Alcoholics Anonymous, Berne said, continues playing the actual game but concentrates on inducing the Alcoholic to take the role of Rescuer. Former Alcoholics are preferred because they know how the game goes, and hence are better qualified to play the supporting role of Rescuer than people who have never played before.

According to this type of analysis, with the rise of rescue organizations that publicize alcoholism as a disease rather than a transactional game, alcoholics have been taught to play "Wooden Leg", a different game in which an organic ailment absolves White of blame.

Rackets A racket is the dual strategy of getting "permitted feelings," while covering up feelings which we truly feel, but which we regard as being "not allowed". More technically, a racket feeling is "a familiar set of emotions, learned and enhanced during childhood, experienced in many different stress situations, and maladaptive as an adult means of problem solving".

A racket is then a set of behaviours which originate from the childhood script rather than in here-and-now full Adult thinking, which (1) are employed as a way to manipulate the environment to match the script rather than to actually solve the problem, and (2) whose covert goal is not so much to solve the problem, as to experience these racket feelings and feel internally justified in experiencing them.

Examples of racket and racket feelings: "Why do I meet good guys who turn out to be so hurtful", or "He always takes advantage of my goodwill". The racket is then a set of behaviours and chosen strategies learned and practised in childhood which in fact help to cause these feelings to be experienced. Typically this happens despite their own surface protestations and hurt feelings, out of awareness and in a way that is perceived as someone else's fault. One covert pay-off for this racket and its feelings, might be to gain in a guilt free way, continued evidence and reinforcement for a childhood script belief that "People will always let you down".

Proposed merge with International Transactional Analysis Association
No significant content Rathfelder (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

 * well, it never occured me to search for "International Transactional Analysis Association" (i wasnt aware of its existence in the first place) while i wanted to find out more about transactional analysis as a ψ idea/model. so in case a merger would be decided, i suggest to have a redirect as well, so that a search for TA would still result in finding the same content, even if under a different title. 176.63.176.112 (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC).

 * There's no article for it to merge with at all. It's a redlink and nothing more. Challenger l (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

 * I just created redirects to Transactional analysis from the following:

 * International Transactional Analysis Association
 * USA Transactional Analysis Association
 * European Association for Transactional Analysis
 * Transactional Analysis Association of Brazil
 * UK Association for Transactional Analysis

 * All are listed at http://www.ericberne.com/eric-berne-links/ (See Eric Berne).

 * None are reasonable targets for a merge, but some or all may become stand-alone articles at some point. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

overdue for editing
It's poorly organized, and prone to "ride off in all directions."

First to go will be the History ==> Fifty years later subsection, as (ironically perhaps) it has been waiting more than a decade for even one supporting ref to appear.

The section explaining PAC is a short course in TA, clear overkill for encyclopedic purposes, and calls out to only one supporting source — at that, little more than a glancing afterthought. I estimate half the section could be cut. Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Revert removed edits
@Diannaa - can I ask you to revert the edits you removed on this page today? They are not copyright issues. I am a representative from ITAA and I was making them on behalf of the organisation. 2A01:B340:63:98C3:70FC:AF4F:805C:7C3D (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

 * We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. Regardless of the copyright issue, the material you wanted to add is not suitable for Wikipedia. What we are looking for is content based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article, not content reproduced from an organization's website. — Diannaa (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Transactional analysis


text:
Talk:Ballistic wire printer

The description of a ballistic wire printer sounds very similar to the description of (and my experience with) what is called a dot matrix printer. The computer printer page suggests that the ballistic wire printer is a subclassification of the dot matrix printer. A link was added in/from ballistic wire printer, to dot matrix printer. Perhaps someone more knowlegable could better define the distinction between the two types.

 * You are correct and the articles have now been merged by a willing person.

 * Atlant 16:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ballistic wire printer


text:
Spybot

Spybot may refer to:

 * Spybot – Search & Destroy, a spyware and adware removal computer program
 * Spybot worm, a family of computer worms

title: Spybot


text:
Douglas Y1B-7

The Douglas Y1B-7 was a 1930s American bomber aircraft. It was the first US monoplane given the B- 'bomber' designation. The monoplane was more practical and less expensive than the biplane, and the United States Army Air Corps chose to experiment with monoplanes for this reason. At the time the XB-7 was ordered, it was being tested by Douglas Aircraft as an observational plane.

Design and development
In 1929–1930, the Douglas Aircraft Company designed a new twin-engined monoplane observation aircraft to compete with the Fokker XO-27, two prototypes of which had been ordered by the United States Army Air Corps in July 1929, as Douglas feared that the advanced Fokker would challenge Douglas's role as the major supplier of observation aircraft to the Air Corps. The Douglas proposals resulted in the Air Corps placing an order for two prototypes, the XO-35 and XO-36, on 26 March 1930. The two aircraft were to differ only in the engines fitted, with the XO-35 having geared Curtiss V-1570-29 Conqueror engines, while the XO-36 used direct-drive V-1570-23, which both produced 600 hp each.

The Douglas design had gull wings mounted high on the aircraft's fuselage, the engines being suspended in streamlined nacelles under the wings by bracing struts. A retractable tailwheel undercarriage was fitted, the mainwheels retracting into the engine nacelles. The fuselage was a semi-monocoque structure with corrugated duralumin covering, which housed the aircraft's crew of four: a nose gunner/observer, a pilot whose cockpit was situated ahead of the leading edge of the wing, an upper gunner who sat in a cockpit aft of the wing, and a radio operator housed within the fuselage. Armament was two .30 in machine guns.

The projected performance of the new twin-engined Douglas and Fokker observation aircraft was much greater than the Keystone biplanes (the Keystone B-3, B-4, B-5 and B-6) that equipped the Air Corps light bomber squadrons, and both Fokker and Douglas were instructed to complete one of their prototypes as a bomber, with the XO-36 being redesignated the XB-7, with provision to carry up to 1200 lb of bombs on racks under the fuselage added.

The XO-36 made its first flight at the Santa Monica, California factory of Douglas in spring 1931. On 22 August 1931, the Air Corps placed an order for a small batch of service test aircraft, consisting of seven Y1B-7 bombers and five Y1O-35 observation aircraft. These differed from the prototypes by having smooth fuselage skins rather than the corrugated skins used on the prototype, while the fuselage was 11 in longer to adjust the aircraft's center of gravity. A revised fuel system was fitted, with more fuel carried in order to give the two-hour endurance specified by the Air Corps. More powerful Conqueror engines were fitted, with all aircraft using geared engines as used on the XO-35.

Operational history
The XO-35 was delivered to the Air Corps at its test center at Wright Field, Ohio on 24 October 1931, with the XB-7 following in July 1932. The twelve service test aircraft were completed between November 1932 and March 1933. The Y1B-7s equipped the 11th and 31st Bombardment Squadrons at March Field, California, while the Y1O-35s were issued to a number of Squadrons, including the 88th Observation Squadron at Brooks Field, Texas. One notable early use of the Y1B-7 was during a May 1933 exercise at Fort Knox, where it was able to outrun biplane fighters like the Boeing P-12, showing that the Air Corps needed more modern fighters.

Despite the aircraft's superior performance to the elderly Keystone biplanes, the Douglas monoplane never entered mass production either in the observation or bomber roles because newer, more capable aircraft, such as the Martin B-10, were under development while a change in Air Corps policy meant that it was no longer interested in buying more twin-engined observation aircraft.

In February 1934, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt cancelled all air mail contracts owing to a scandal relating to the award of contracts, thus initiating the Airmail Emergency, where the Air Corps was tasked with carrying the mail until new contracts could be awarded. The O-35s and B-7s were considered some of the most suitable aircraft in the Air Corps inventory for the air mail role, so the six remaining Y1B-7s and the five Y1O-35s, together with the XO-35, were assigned to air mail routes in the western United States, which included hazardous operations over the Rocky Mountains, the Cascade Range and the Sierra Nevada. By the time the Air Corps involvement in air mail flights ended in June 1934, the twelve O-35s and B-7s had flown 1,412 hours on mail flights, while four of the B-7s had been lost as a result of accidents. The last O-35s and B-7s were withdrawn from use in December 1938.

Variants

 * XO-35
 * Prototype twin-engined observation aircraft. Two 600 hp geared Curtiss V-1570-29 engines driving three-bladed propellers. One built.

 * XO-36
 * Prototype twin-engined observation aircraft. Two 600 hp direct-drive Curtiss V-1570-23 engines driving two-bladed propellers. Redesignated XB-7. One built.

 * XB-7
 * Prototype light bomber, with two direct-drive 600 hp V-1570-23 engines driving two bladed propellers. One built.

 * Y1O-35
 * Service test batch of observation aircraft, powered by 650 hp V-1570-39 or 675 hp V-1570-53 engines. Five built.

 * Y1B-7
 * Service test batch of bombers, powered by 640 hp V-1570-33 or 675 hp V-1570-53 engines. Seven built.

Operators

 * 🇺🇸 United States
 * United States Army Air Corps

title: Douglas Y1B-7


text:
Talk:Monodromy

Untitled
"S" means "solution space" for the diffeqs? May want to explain this. - Gauge 21:31, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Formal?
The formal definition in the article is really a precise definition of monodromy in one particular (algebraic) context. I think this is misleading, and that this section should do one of the following: --David Dumas 19:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Give a sufficiently general definition to encompass the most common use of the term
 * Provide several definitions that cover the most common ways in which the term is used
 * Have its title changed to indicate it only defines monodromy of a Galois field extension

 * Yes, it certainly needs work. I'll change the section title to mention Galois theory, for the moment. Charles Matthews 19:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I've added the technical definition using covering spaces, and I've left the perhaps redundant intuition at the end of the article, hoping a more seasoned wikipedian will know what to do with it. --Orthografer 19:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Reiner: Sept 10, 2010: Whatever you are going to change: please leave the straightforward explanation of the origin of the word monodromy in there - it provides perhaps not just for me a moment of clarity. It is usually extremely difficult to learn anything of depth in mathematics by reading wiki's: Even though I have a degree in physics I find myself endlessly clicking from one "formal definition" to the next when trying to figure out something specific, about which I may have only half knowledge. Most writers in math wiki's seem to really know their stuff, and often the connections between different topics somehow shine through, but nevertheless the final product present themselves to the reader like a complete jungle of hyper-links. Power to the generalists who understand to combine the precise definitions and proofs with a still accurate "in-a-nutshell" explanation and with references to the history of mathematical concepts. I wish there was some kind of hierarchy, road map, or tree like presentation of these vast fields. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.80.103.33 (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge from monodromy operator
The article monodromy matrix is currently a two-line statement about ODE's that is completely incoherent. I think its talking about the the very one and the same monodromy as here, taken from the perspective of an ODE textbook. There's something about a fundamental matrix, but it seems to be more of an adjoint representation of the monodromy group by ODE's or something like that I can't tell. linas (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I think this refers more to Floquet theory Felix1012 (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

On the figure purporting to depict the example log(z)
Concerning the figure (File:Imaginary_log_analytic_continuation.png) associated with the Example, I find it very confusing. I am quite familiar with Riemann's construction associated with connecting a series of sheets by cutting along an axis. As mentioned in this section, the correct depiction is that of the Helicoid.

The circles on the surface shown are even more confusing. The circle described in the Example is |z|=0.5, which gets lifted to a helix in Riemann's construction. That helix would have Re(z) and Im(z) oscillating between [-1/2,1/2], with Im(log(z)) progressing by 2\pi per cycle.

I suggest removing this figure or replacing it with an appropriately modified version of the Helicoid figure (File:Helicoid.svg).

MidwestGeek (talk) 04:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Monodromy and Perverse Sheaves
This page should discuss monodromy results found in perverse sheaves. In particular, simple examples of monodromy should be cited and shown how/where to find proofs.

 * https://math.unice.fr/~dimca/sing.pdf
 * https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.bams/1183531477

This should reflect current usage, not the original/historical meaning
This article (June 12/2021) starts out discussing the original historical meaning of the word monodromy, whereas the common usage is different to the original meaning. If you google "nontrivial monodromy" this will be clear: when people say "nontrivial monodromy" they mean that it is not single valued. Thus the current usage of the word monodromy, is what was historically called polydromy. This is discussed in section 1.2 of arXiv:1507.00711: where the author suggests the sensible attitude: "We shall also adhere here to the prevailing attitude, to call monodromy what should really be called polydromy, and we explain it now". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccgim (talk • contribs) 07:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Monodromy


text:
Category:Skyscrapers in the United States

Skyscrapers in the United States.

Articles in this category should be placed in both a US state category and an appropriate building use category. Skyscraper articles that cannot be categorized both by state and by use are located directly in this category.