Talk:Charles Lafontaine

The "Further Reading" link
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:.

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 Braid, M’Neile (and others) with Lafontaine — 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)
 * Let's see what others think. --Ronz (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Trilby
I have removed the comment, "He wrote an autobiography, which may have influenced George du Maurier in his writing of Trilby, because there is not the slightest evidence in any reliable source that this is true.Lindsay658 (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Misunderstanding
I have removed the following extraordinary passage inserted by a first-time user who is only identified as "2.43.55.60":
 * It would be correct to say that being Lafontaine born in the catholic church, a preach of a protestant reverend speaking of satanic things could have very little significance for him. In a catholic view of this period the whole english church was excommunicated and therefore out of the grace of God.

Whether Lafontaine was a Roman Catholic (or not), whether he trembled beneath the pronouncements of the Bishop of Rome (or not), and whether all within the Anglican Church were "out of the grace of God" (or not), is entirely irrelevant; the matter at hand is connected with prevailing laws of the United Kingdom, and nothing else.

Among other things, Lafontaine was accused by M'Neile practising witchcraft: a serious offence under the U.K. Witchcraft Act of 1735, which could have put Lafontaine in prison for at least a year (the last prosecution under the Act, which was repealed in 1951, was in 1944).

Also, the personally-threatening-to-Lafontaine accusation -- made by an apparently "trustworthy" source (i.e., the demagogue M'Neile) to a group of docile, credulous believers -- was not just "hot air".

Given the widespread knowledge among the "simple folk" that the Bible taught "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18) ["maleficos non patieris vivere"] there were a number of occasions in the late 1700s and early 1800s in England where mobs of village vigilantes killed individuals thought to be witches. And, even as late as 1867, a resident of Long Compton, Ann Tennant, was murdered by an unrepentant, superstitious, local vigilante, James Heywood, who firmly believed that Tennant was a witch and that she had bewitched him (see, Middleton, Jacob, "Twilight of the Witches", Fortean Times, No.359, (November 2017), pp.38-43.]

And, again, in relation to the threat of legal action against Lafontaine -- regardless of his own views or religious affiliation (or non-affiliation) -- it is significant that, under U.K. law, as recently as 1921, John William Gott was found guilty of "blasphemy", and was sentenced to imprisonment and hard labour.Lindsay658 (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Charcot
I have isolated a large lump of poorly written, poorly referenced, un-linked, and full of unjustified assertions, etc. within the margins of "< ! --" and "-- >", see Manual_of_Style, that seems to have been inserted by a user who not only seems actively unwilling to write, reference, and format text according to Wikipedia conventions, but who also seems to mistake an article page for the "Talk page" -- and is using the article page to prosecute arguments about article content that correctly belong on the "Talk page".

I strongly suggest that the jumbled material currently enclosed within the margins of "< ! --" and "-- >" remain isolated in this way until a reconsidered version, thoroughly reformatted and rewritten, with all of the individuals it mentions clearly identified (and linked), and with the details of all reference works cited given in full, is presented; and, further, that all of the argumentation be coherently placed upon the "Talk page". 2001:8003:2A29:E400:94AF:AAC9:E205:3109 (talk) 09:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)