Talk:Animal magnetism

message: Please can the redirection from "mesmerism" be removed.  
Even in the context of the current form of this article here, I can see no sense or rationale at all for the redirection.  As an aside there is a worrying tendency in wikipedia to merge and redirect articles.  Cross referencing is usually all that is required.  Ths article is called Animal Magentism and yet the majority of it is concerned with discussing mesmerism from a negative standpoint.  This is absurd.  
Secondly there is no poasitive rationale for the redirection.  In my case for instance I want to find out about mesmerism and not necessarily about animal magnetism.  I first researched Mesmer about 40 years ago and wanted to refresh my memory using wikipedia.  Now though, I have had to go to Mesmer's page, which should be about him as a person rather than about his theories, find what external links I can and go there.  Even if I do build up my knowledge on the subject there is no longer anywhere on wikipedia where I can contribute this!  Surely this defeats the very core aim of it.
Mesmerism may or may not be associated, or even a part of a field under the label Animal Magentism, but these considerations are irrelevant.  The only valid reason I can see for redirection/amalgamation is if something does not merit an independent entry.  Everything that is written in this article here supports the fact that it does merit a separate entry.  I can think of two heavyweight reasons for this.  The first is because of the influence of the idea on our thinking about the origins of hypnosis and the controversy that surrounds it.  This is acknowledged throught the Animal Magnetism article.  Secondly Mesmerism is something that in Wikipedia's own guidelines should have a separate article.  Having a separate entry would also remove the need for those sections of this article here that seem to be merely concerned with stating that Mesmerism is not what Animal Magentism is about!  
Please allow each reader their own reasons for being interested in Mesmerism and respect the fact that they neither need nor welcome the benign and paternalistc censorhip of wiki in the mergeing.
LookingGlass (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A plea for removal of redirection 

message: This page doesn't really describe Mesmer's theory in any meaningful way, and is rather light on other details. Suggest either merging with Franz Mesmer or pulling the explanation from that page here and expanding it?
Advantage of keeping a separate page is that the phrase Animal Magnetism is in widespread use, but usually *not* referring to Mesmer's theory. This alternate meaning ought to be given more prominence.
:I agree; in fact, I found this article pretty useless.  This page seems to address "mesmerism", not the common colloquial usage of "animal magnetism".  But the article doesn't say what that *is* at all.  It mostly discusses some the two terms, and gives a few other circumstantial details.  Could someone who has some idea of what this actually is please update the article to explain?
::I also agree. The first paragraph doesn't explain the phrase at all. There is no clear "animal magnetism is <fill in the blank>. The first sentence: Animal magnetism is a term proposed by Franz Mesmer in the 18th century. It would be far better if the first sentence stated what the term actually means, instead of just explaining the history of the term (although it could certainly do both). 173.172.70.38 (talk) 11:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Indescriptive

message: :"Mesmer chose his term to clearly distinguish his variant of magnetic force from those which were referred to, at that time, as mineral magnetism, cosmic magnetism and planetary magnetisms."
Didn't he use magnets at least in his early therapeutic attempts?  That would indicate that he didn't seek to distinguish between animal and mineral magnetism. Maikel (talk) 10:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Two types of magnetism?

message: *Fulford, Tim. Conducting the Vital Fluid: The Politics and Poetics in the 1790s. Studies in Romanticism 43.1 (2004): 57-78. Humanities Hwwhilson. Web. 1 Feb 2010.
*Wilson, Eric G. Matter and Spirit in the Age of Animal Magnetism. Philosophy and Literature 30.2 (2006): 329-345. Project Muse Standard Collection. Web. 1 Feb 2010.
*Porter, Roy. Under the Influence' Mesmerism in England. History Today 35.9 (1985): 22-29. EBSCO Host Humanities International. Web. 3 Feb 2010.
*Gigante, Denise. The Monster in the Rainbow: Keats and the Science of Life. PMLA 117.3 (2002): 433-448. JSTOR. Web. 8 Feb 2010.
*Ford, Jennifer. Samuel Taylor Coleridge and the Pains of Sleep. History Workshop Journal no.48 (1999): 169-186. JSTOR. 7 Feb 2010.
*Mancini, Silvia. Animal Magnetism and Psychic Sciences, 1784-1935: The Rediscovery of a Lost Continent. Diogems 48.2 (2000): 94. EBSCOhost Academic Search Premier. Web.
*Fara, Patricia. An Attractive Therapy: Animal Magnetism in Eighteenth-Century England. History of Sciene 33 (1995): 127-177. Astrophysics Data System. Web. 3 Feb 2010.
Kibzx (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Wilhelm II was born in 1859. And as most people will know, he suffered an arm injury during birth which meant that his left arm was "lifeless". It is said that among the many attempts that were made to "correct" this "deficiency" (seen as unacceptable in an heir to the throne) there was a procedure in which the child's arm was sown into the carcass of a freshly-killed rabbit, so that the "spark of life" might jump from the still warm carcass into the "lifeless" arm.
I was wondering if this method could be regarded as a late offshoot of animal magnetism??
Otto von B. (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wilhelm II and the dead rabbit 

message: There is an inconsistency in regards with the Franz Mesmer article. On the issue of the Royal Investigation, the investigation was not directed to validated or contradict the cures only the existence of the new "fluid"/method, and they found no evidence of that. There was no expressed verification or conclusion if in fact it was or not charlatanry (that we today know it probably wasn't, doesn't alter the fact that this was not verified at the time), it also creates inconstancy with the move out of Paris.  --79.168.10.241 (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency 

message: This page says a lot about what animal magnetism is not but it doesn't talk much about what it is and how it works.
Also, it only talks about Mesmerism work. It would be good to put more modern info about animal magnetism. Mesmer applied animal magnetism in a certain way, but animal magnetism is a broader topic that isn't limited to Mesmer's work.  Etiennecharland (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separating Animal Magnetism and Mesmerism 

message: "Whilst the Commission agreed that the cures claimed by Mesmer were indeed cures, the commission also concluded there was no evidence of the existence of his magnetic fluid, and that its effects derived from either the imaginations of its subjects or through charlatanry.[3]"
This is not only unsourced, the citation (to a note) is misleading, as it gives the impression it is. If anyone has a citation for this, please add it. JJJJS (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Commission 

message: I would propose adding an external link about the spiritual and energy aspect of animal magnetism.
http://www.shamanicattraction.com/what-is-animal-magnetism.aspx
According to the guidelines, this is a link "to be considered": Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.
The information provided in that page are much more detailed that what is on the Wikipedia article but may be too controversial to be part of the Wikipedia article itself. The spiritual aspect of animal magnetism would be best covered through an external reference.
Mdavid9 (talk) 02:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link about spiritual aspect of animal magnetism 

message: I have removed the following dubious claim from the article, pending clarification of the volume number, page number and exact text in Lattanzi to which it is sourced:
:In France and in Italy these practices have been progressively considered by the jurisprudence as admitted practices which  are performed also by non doctors in that they are based on individual abilities which cannot be otherwise categorized. In Italy see the cases of Andalini and Racanelli, in France the case of Alalouf. In certain cases medical coordination is requested or suggested.
::Lattanzi - Codice penale. Rassegna di giurisprudenza e di dottrina - 
The text may prove me wrong, but it strikes me as highly unlikely that Lattanzi would have considered French law since the book is about Italian law. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious claim 

message: One of the most interesting (and also intensely criticized) advocates of "higher consciousness (called by various names) was G.I. Gurdjieff (1866(?)-1949). In his trilogy "All and Everything" (First series published 1950) Gurdjieff devotes devotes not insubstantial description of "hypnotism" "animal magnetism" "Mesmer and Mesmerism", Braid, and what he calls "Hanbledzoin"-presumably a neologism describing (approximately) the same category of phenomena, force, (etc.) that Mesmer had described; although Gurdjieff maintains that the knowledge regarding the phenomenon (and the force or substance or (?)) was known to ancient people back to what he calls the "Tikliamishian" era (predating Babylonian era by 'many centuries'.
Gurdjieff goes on to explain various aspects of "hanbledzoin" or animal magnetism, ways to induce the "hypnotic state" (as meant by people like Mesmer), although Gurdjieff maintains that 'modern man' lives most of his/her life in a different kind of "hypnotic state" which we presently call our 'waking consciousness', equating this 'waking sleeping state' in many ways with what we call "sleep". That is a somewhat different subject than the "hypnotic state" brought about intentionally by 'animal magnetism' or "Hanbledzoin". It presumes, first of all, that the person administering this kind of hypnosis has developed his/her self to a state of consciousness or "degree of reason" in which the person actually HAS and CAN CONTROL this 'magnetism'  and direct its force in relation to others, for curing diseases among other 'paranormal' phenomena.
He also maintains that Mesmer, in particular, was someone who had "re-discovered" some of the lost knowledge (of this subject)and was a 'scientist' of a high order. However, as his success in helping people became well known, Gurdjieff maintains that his discoveries and himself were --as it were, "Pecked to death" by men of inferior knowledge surrounding him.
This seems to accord with the substance in the main article, wherein Mesmer was discredited in his own time.
When reading the works of G. Gurdjieff, one must be very careful, however, since he writes on many levels from the apparently literal, to "allegorical", "parable", "hyperbole", and apparently completely absurd and unbelievable. So a person studying about "hypnotism" in the works of G.Gurdjieff may not find much satisfaction in his specific explanations, nor his writings in their entirety, without years of study and relevant "work on oneself", which subject is out of the realm of this specific subject (Mesmerism) but likely related to it. Mike Beigel (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mesmerism or Animal Magnetism or Hanbledzoin and G.I. Gurdjieff 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: numerous sources including but not limited to http://codeless88.wordpress.com/vodou-possession-and-the-revolutionary-unconscious/, http://www.esalen.org/ctr-archive/animal_magnetism.html, http://books.google.it/books?id=Ke1jd_e7AyYC&pg=PA60, http://books.google.it/books?id=48Lgg5fa78oC&pg=PA261 and http://books.google.it/books?id=yYJNCUyq6FwC&pg=PA166. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Is "animal magnetism" a thing or a practice?  It is equated with mesmerism, a practice, in the Lead, but in other parts of the article it refers to a phenomenon.  The terms are often conflated in the article, it seems to me. This needs sorting out or the reader will be confused. ~ P-123 (talk) 10:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this article is pretty useless. It doesn't really explain what "animal magnetism" is other than an "invisible force", and it doesn't explain the practice of mesmerism at all. Instead it just has lots of useless discussions about people in the 1800s debating what terms to use and lengthy quotations from some scientific studies, none of which explain what animal magnetism or mesmerism is. Someone needs to rewrite this article from scratch. Kaldari (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology confusion?

message: Most of the inline citations are books and there are very few editors here to verify them and evaluate their reliability. As mentioned in the previous discussions, the article is littered with undue, often times dubious statements all of which happen to link to a book (eg. "Jesus was a magnetizer", stated by a "Researcher" who was in fact just an author). Kate the mochii (talk) 05:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual accuracy