Adding/updating {{OnThisDay}} for 2013-11-13. Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OnThisDayTagger
|
m HasteurBot 7 Adding Society Task Force Parm
|
||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
{{HistSci|class=C|importance=Mid}} |
{{HistSci|class=C|importance=Mid}} |
||
{{WP Scotland|class=C|importance=Mid}} |
{{WP Scotland|class=C|importance=Mid}} |
||
{{WPMED|class=C|importance=Low}} |
{{WPMED|class=C|importance=Low|society=yes|society-imp=???}} |
||
{{WikiProject Psychology|class=C|importance=Mid}} |
{{WikiProject Psychology|class=C|importance=Mid}} |
||
}} |
}} |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 13, 2013. |
There are very very few citations in this article. I've marked where I would like to see some. LookingGlass (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Donald Robertson, the author of The Discovery of Hypnosis, a new edition of Braid's writings, and the only place where most of his works are published. I previously added some references to Braid's writings, published in the complete edition which someone has now anonymously removed. They've added a comment to their revisions which states: "Setting up better references that are not conected with the promotion of a commercial organization, plus other corrections and amendments." I assume what they mean is that the complete edition of Braid's writings is published by the National Council for Hypnotherapy. To set the record straight, unlike most publishing houses, this is actually a *non-profit* organisation. I therefore think it's a bit unreasonable to systematically purge any references to a book just because it's published by them.
The person who made these edits also introduced some errors into the article. For example, the article I published in IJCEH was not translated by Hilary Norris-Evans, she simply advised on minor amendments to my own translation. I'm not sure about the claim that this article was a loose translation of a German article, as far as I'm aware, it was translated into French from the English original; it's prefaced by an introduction in French by Braid himself addressed to the French Academy of Sciences and so the French translation seems to predate Preyer's German version, contrary to the comments added to the article. --HypnoSynthesis (talk) 07:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The changes that were made were to direct readers to the sources (Braid's Neurypnology and Bramwell's Hypnotism) that were freely available on the web; and, also, sources that can have their texts searched.129.94.78.159 (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement that "the whole book was made available free of charge online" is not correct; in fact it is immediately obvious, following the link that you have provided that your book is not available as what Google calls "FULL VIEW", it is only available as what Google calls "LIMITED PREVIEW — and, as a consequence, many parts of the book can not be seen (and, moreover, can not be downloaded).
Each and every one of your own-book-promoting references were changed so that they directed readers to a particular page in either Braid's Neurypnology or Bramwell's Hypnotism, two works that were not only "fully readable", but, also, "fully downloadable". Perhaps, you could consider make the entire book a "FULL VIEW" and "fully downloadable" on Google; otherwise, the references to Braid and Bramwell must stand.
Also, not commercial? [1] "This book has been published to help raise the profile of NCH by spreading its name as publisher around the net"129.94.78.159 (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hostile attitude? Over the last few days I have added a number of historically important links that allow Wiki-readers to VIEW and DOWNLOAD an extended set of universally available references made up of both journal articles and published works that are available FREE of CHARGE, with UNLIMITED ACCESS, that are pertinent to understanding Braid and his work.Lindsay658 (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the move request was RenametoJames Braid (surgeon) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
James Braid (physician) → James Braid (surgeon)
In summary, any continuation of this outright, deliberate, non-veridical, and misleading misrepresentation of Braid’s true status will only contribute to the massive contemporary (in 2009) misunderstanding of this very important man and his valuable work.••• Lindsay658 (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The importance of the differences between the English physicians and Scottish surgeons in the early nineteenth century was considerable, and any retrospective conflation of the two warring factions, prior to the Medical Act of 1848 is a serious mesrepresentation of fact.
John Elliotson, F.R.S., F.R.C.P., (1791–1868), physically about as tall as Elton John, was an eminent physician, and his dalliance with mesmerism – he never used mesmerism in any legitimate medical context, only using it to display the supposed clairvoyance of the Okey sisters (who later admitted to having simulated everything), and to lead one of the Okey sisters regularly down into the wards of the London University Hospital in the dead of night, to provide Elliotson with both diagnoses and prognoses of inmates — made him the enemy of the eminent surgeon Robert Liston, F.R.C.S. (Edin) (1794–1847), physically about 2 meters tall, who was, in part, responsible for the removal of Elliotson and his theatrical (and non-medical) displays from the rooms of the university’s hospital.
Also, Thomas Wakley (1795–1862), was a surgeon. He was so strongly opposed to Elliotson that, as editor of The Lancet, he eventually banned any references to mesmerism or animal magnetism (and, thus, Braid’s neuro-hypnotism) from the pages of The Lancet.
The two disparate parties, surgeons and physicians, were only brought together, as an act of political convenience, under the single generic term of medical practitioner, by the Medical Act of 1858, with the first registrations coming into effect in January 1859.
The fact that there were these two opposing camps of surgeons and physicians had an enormous effect on things medical and, especially, on the work of Braid, and it makes the fact that he was a surgeon, persistently interested in hypnotism, something quite remarkable.
Because of the dispute, essentially generated by widespread opposition to the physician Elliotson, and his colleague physician and phrenologist William Collins Engledue, M.D. (1813–1859), Braid was unable to have any of his researches published in The Lancet.
On another track, it is also highly significant that the surgeons collectively, with Liston in the vanguard -- who were so threatened by the emerging knowledge that mesmerism could render surgical subjects insensible to pain – so quickly adopted the dangerous, life-threatening use of inhaled sulphurous ether as an anaesthetic agent, almost without any preliminary testing, simply due to the perceived threat from mesmerism.
Therefore, I argue, regardless of what the case might be for individuals living and working in the medical profession, in the United States, in the first decade of the twenty-first century might be, whether one was a physician or a surgeon (and, indeed, whether one had been trained at Edinburgh or elsewhere) was a matter of considerable social and professional significance in the first half of the nineteenth century in England.
Once again, I am urging that the move from the inappropriate and prochronisitic categorization takes place as planned.Lindsay658 (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are inconsistencies with the dates, in regards to the date he started the series of five public lectures and the writing of "Practical Essay on the Curative Agency of Neuro-Hypnotism", to the British Association (btw Association of what? Medicine ?) --79.168.10.241 (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Though very thorough as an historical treatise, one goes begging when searching for the nature and origins of the actual "hypnotizing" techniques. It would seem the articles reference to the subject's focusing on an object, etc. suggests the classic "spinning watch" technique. But it doesn't indicate how Braid happened upon this phenomenon, or whether it was an outgrowth of the work of another.
Nor is there any reference to any application, medical, psychological or otherwise, of this new "science" other than a generic reference to a "remedy to functional nervous disorders." I assume that he did not subscribe to the "cluck like a chicken and take your pants off" aspect of hypnotism.
It seems the author concentrated so intently on (you are feeling sleeeeepppyyy . . .) the minutiae of Braid's life and work that he lost sight of the big picture and most basic questions of the reader looking for answers about hypnotism itself.
(Jackronner (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]
I have removed the following paragraph.
It is factually incorrect in a number of places; and, in particular, its significant error in relation to the rejection of his "report" by the British Association (which, in fact, took place on Saturday, 25 June 1842). It seems that the misapprehension arises from a mis-reading of page 2 of Braid's Neurypnology -- despite the fact that Braid gave the precise date that his Essay was rejected on page 1 of the same work.Dr Lindsay B Yeates (talk) 05:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On 16 January 2013, I was officially informed that the University of New South Wales had approved my admission to the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
My research, undertaken in the domain of History and Philosophy of Science, was overseen by two experienced (Ph.D.) supervisors who also made sure that my dissertation and its contents met all of the scholarly requirements of the University of New South Wales.
The dissertation, James Braid: Surgeon, Gentleman Scientist, and Hypnotist, was externally examined by two eminent U.S. scholars.
Its abstract can be seen at User:Dr_Lindsay_B_Yeates.
An electronic copy of my dissertation has been lodged in the University of New South Wales’ Library’s repository, and its entire contents are freely available to all at: [2].
Whilst it might seem that the insertion of such a link by the dissertation’s author raises the issue of a potential conflict of interest (see WP:COI), I would strongly argue that, given the extensive historical and bibliographic resources in relation to the the early development of hypnotism — and the various controversies involving Lafontaine, M’Neile (and others) with Braid — that this external link will provide for other editors (in particular, a number of important contemporaneous M’Neile, Lafontaine, and Braid resources that have been transcribed, corrected and annotated for the modern reader), I believe that these concerns are unfounded; and I hope that the potential provision of the linkage will be understood as being consistent with the policies relating to the provision of reliable sources (WP:IRS) in general, and reliable historical sources in particular (WP:HISTRS).Dr Lindsay B Yeates (talk) 06:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]