Talk:Tavistock Institute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Talk:Tavistock Institute/archive1

Contents 1 Close to requesting mediation. 2 Copied conversations with anon 2.1 Section added anonymously 3 Continue discussion? 4 Copy edit

[edit] Close to requesting mediation.

I have removed the section below, which was unsourced. I request that the editor provides detailed references. Do not reintroduce this section without winning consensus on the Talk page. --Duncan 16:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The Institute was founded in 1946, by a core group of key figures at the Tavistock Clinic including Henry Dicks, Leonard Browne, Ronald Hargreaves, John Rawlings Rees, Mary Luff and Wilfred Bion with Tommy Wilson as chairman, funded by a grant of 'untied funds' from the Rockefeller Foundation. Other famous names that joined the group later were Jock Sutherland, John Bowlby and Eric Trist. It is notable that many of these founding members of the Tavistock Institute went on to play major roles in world affairs. Brigadier John Rawlings Rees became psychiatrist to Rudolph Hess, Adolf Hitler's deputy, while still attached to the Tavistock, and went on to certify Hess fit for trial at the Nuremburg trials. He later founded the World Federation of Mental Health, part of the United Nations, and became its first President and Director. Jock Sutherland became director of the new post-war Tavistock Clinic, when it became incorporated into the newly established British National Health Service in 1946. Ronald Hargreaves became deputy director of the World Health Organisation. Tommy Wilson became chairman of the Tavistock Institute.

It should be noted that many of the names given to Tavistock bodies have been used more than once throughout the history of the Tavistock. Thus The "Tavistock Clinic", which was once the common name for the parent body, now refers to part of a National Health Service trust, while the "Tavistock Institute", which once did research in many areas and was funded by many sources, is now a charity. The name "Tavistock Instutute of Medical Psychology", which was the name used for the original parent body, is now used to refer to an organisation that grew out of that parent body but now specialised in couples relationships under the section name of the "Tavistock Centre for Couple Relationships". This is a source of much confusion, though the facts can be ascertained from the historical account of the Tavistock by Eric Trist, one time chairman of the Institute [1].

Many famous psychologists and psychiatrists have passed through the Tavistock Institute over the years, and it is well known as the focal point in Britain for Psychoanalysis and the Psychodynamic theories of Sigmund Freud and his followers. Freud himself lived close by during his period in England. Other names associated with the Tavistock are: Melanie Klein, Carl Gustav Jung, J. A. Hadfield, Beckett, Charles Rycroft and R. D. Laing [2].

Ronald Laing came to the Tavistock Institute in 1956 at the invitation of Jock Sutherland to train on a grant. He left in 1965, and went on to develop his own ideas, particularly with regard to Schizophrenia, which he suggested might be a natural, and understandable, curative process, rather than a disease of the mind. His view of schizophrenia, based largely on the concept of Family nexus, were explained in a series of famous books such as Sanity, Madness and the Family. Laing is often associated with the Antipsychiatry movement.''

I belive the section above is mistaken. For example, Laing was on the staff of the Clinic, and not on the staff of the Institute. I understand that it is hard that there are two Tavistock Institutes: one of human relations and the other of psychiatry. However, we must distinguish between them. The place to differentiate between them is in the italicised header. Is there is not enough space, I suggest a disintermidation section at Tavistock movement or Group relations. --Duncan 16:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be wrong to diferentiate them in the header as they are not truly separate bodies and never have been. There are a complicated lines of continuity of personel throughout, such that the names applied at any time are of less significance than the continuity of the work. Ithink you are wrong about Laing and the clinic. He went to the Tavistock Institute to train in Psychoanalysis at the invitation of Jock Sutherland who was director of the Institute. He went into analysis with Charles Rycroft. See [1]. The section above makes no mention of 'work'. It says correctly that he went to train, and such training was not at the clinic, and the people involved were not at the clinic. He may have worked also in the clinic. This reference says that he worked as registrar at the clinic [2]. However, in another reference you will find the sentence 'as a research fellow working within the Tavistock Institute' [3]. He did research with Esterton at the 'Tavistock', but research has always been an activity of the Institute, though it may have involved the patients at the clinic. Since the clinic, post 1948, was NHS funded, it makes no sense that he trained or did research there as I am not aware of the research being NHS funded. --86.135.178.1 09:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I am reverting, as a huge section of well-researched material has been removed, though it contained numerous authoritative citations. I have now added more citations, all of first class quality - one two from the official WFMH site, one from the Nuremberg trial transcripts on a Yale University site. The main citation from Trist confirms almost everything, and is from the man who became Chairman of the Tavistock Institute after Wilson! You can't get better than that! --86.135.178.1 10:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I would actually like to move the material into sections now - 'history', 'Tavistock names', 'the core group', 'current activities', 'famous people associated with', 'conspiracy theories', as it's getting a bit dense. The intro could then be more of an overview. No point though unless you will agree that the material is valid .

I am refering this page into the mediation process. The anonymous editor above refuses to attempt to win consesus on the Talk page. In an added complication, these are views which are similar to those argued by the Larouche movement, whose supporters are enjoined from editing this page. Reverting this page without discussing content is not a content dispute, but a refusal to recognise good faith and to follow Wikipedia ettiquette. As such, this reversion constitutes vandalism. I am issuing this anonymous editor with a warning for vandalism. I am offline for the next week, and ask other editors to review this page closely. --Duncan 22:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have left a warning on the Talk page associated with the anonymous users's IP address. I would appreciate other editors' comments, on this page or on that one.--Duncan 22:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I've briefly semi-protected this page until we can establish whether we're dealing with another LaRouche attack. If it's a legitimate content dispute, I'll unprotect. To the anon, please note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the sources used, the edits don't seem to reflect a correct use of them; i.e. the anon is being very selective in what he uses. However, I think this may be a case of poor or POV editing, rather than LaRouche influenced. I'm therefore going to unprotect. To the anon: please don't keep adding this material. If you want to write a proper history, go ahead, but you're twisting the material to give a vague impression of impropriety, which is not appropriate, and not (so far as I can tell) reflected in the texts you're using. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could proceed by adding a paragraph at a time, with proper cites, and then discussing the additional material?--Cberlet 02:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the objectors to this material should be more specific about what they are objecting to, item by item. Many of the simple claims made here (eg Rees was first director of WIMH/ Rees was involved in Nuremberg trial of Hess) seem to be supported beyond dispute by the official sites linked to in the citations. Is this not agreed? If the issue is an impression of impropriety, then surely we should just edit to improve, not take out key facts? --86.135.182.255 11:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, it is an utter waste of time to try to have a conversation with a number of shifting numerical entities from a variety of shifting URLs. If you are one person, please pick a User Name and use it consistently, I don't care if it is User:Zarusthra's Vomit. Just pick a name. Otherwise none of use here have any clue whether or not we are having a discussion with one person or an army of wandering drive-by editors. If this is not done, I will petition to have this page locked from any further anonymous edits. This is the same note I posted on John Rawlings Rees regarding the same set of shifting URLs. --Cberlet 14:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there Cberlet,

We had a major revert and then reediting today at Tavistock Institute. I wonder if we should be looking back to the Enforcement request re: supporters of Lyndon LaRouche. I think we are now in a revert war with supporters of the LaRouche view. I am on holiday for the next week, but would appreciate it if you could stop by the page. Some of the material being introduced could be correct, however without precise references it is hard to validate. It certainly is the case that much of what is said is clearly mistaken, and needs to go through the Talk page first. --Duncan 23:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think conspiring to protect a page from all new edits is in line with Wikipedia policy Cberlet? There has been not a single proper, reasoned objection to any of the entries. Locking pages when people are trying to reason things out doesn't seem a good idea to me. I think you would do better to put in some work and read the citations, then tackle the issues one by one as the above editor suggested. --86.135.182.255 18:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism! I've seen vandalism and it is a problem. Vandalism this is not. It's just consorship with refusal to discuss. --86.135.182.255 23:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

<----------Pick a name. Any name. Let's discuss edits. But this anonymous multi-URL stuff has to stop. Edit in good faith. Edit with a single identity. And we move forward.--Cberlet 00:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copied conversations with anon

Anon, I can't know whether you'll receive my reply to your note, as you have no fixed talk page, so I'm copying it here:

Hi 86, the problem with editing as an anon is that you're using different IP addresses, and as such it isn't easy for anyone to keep track of your edits. For example, I don't even know whether you'll receive this response. If you log in and use one account only, it will improve communication, and you'll find that, over time, people will come to trust your edits more.

As for the content issue, I don't know what the exact issues are. I saw only that you're adding a lot of material, some of it unsourced, some of it sourced but with a highly selective use of the source material, and when it's removed, you keep reverting. A request was therefore made for page protection. Please take the opportunity to discuss your edits on the talk pages of the three articles, and make your case there. In the meantime, it would also help if you would review our content policies: WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. I sense that original research is a particular problem with your edits, so please review WP:NOR very carefully. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Copied from User_talk:SlimVirgin:

You have slocked this page without, I fear, taking the trouble to examine it properly. I assure you I am not the person accused. Nor do I have any interest in LaRouche. Nor am I the only person making anonymous edits.

Why must two dominant editors, who appear not to be specialists in the Tavistock or its field of work, control all edits on the basis that they think they are a LaRouche conspiracy attack? It's outrageous censorship. I am no vandal, but a diligent researcher and expert, using many original sources. What I write is not POV, but is thoroughly cited to most reputable sources. Above all though, I have asked for debate about the CONTENT and been repeatedly blanked and accused. It matters not who I am. I am entitled to remain anonymous and still request proper debate. I have been extremely polite. Take a good look, and unlock please. --86.135.182.255 23:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." From the Vandalism page.

"Bullying or Stubbornness Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them on an article's talk page, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is a matter of regret — you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. However, it is not vandalism."

Please withdraw the accusation of vandalism and appologise.

Thanks for the reply. Firstly, I am me, and I have indeed received your response. Accusations of different IP addresses etc are unwarranted. I am an experienced editor of long standing, but on these two topics I chose to operate from a different address and stay anonymous on the basis of experience. Think about it. If I were logged in, you would now have tarred me with the accusation of vandalism. As a professional and enthusiastic Wikipedia editor I do not want to risk such unwarranted labelling from others who I consider to be just a nuisance. As far as I can see both editors who, by their own admission, are monitoring these sites, claim no expertise on the subject matter. They do make it clear that they are 'policing' Wikipedia against anything that THEY decide is an attack by LaRouch supporters. This is an insult to us dedicated editors. You for your part, have been irresponsible in acting at the request of someone who has 'gone on holiday', on two pages you have no recent involvement in. You do not appear to have anything concrete to say about the content of the two sites you have locked. This is irresponsible behaviour for an admin, which I will not forget. Yes I'm adding lots of material - so, that's what I do. These pages are not even mature pages, they were just stubs until I came along. My last edit was to properly section them - a big improvement - with a clearer introduction. I deny original research, being fully familiar with Wikipedia rules and what that means. You on the other hand do not seem to be familiar with the meaning of vandalism, as I pointed out in the quotes. As for taking the time to discuss - words fail me! I have contributed more to the discussion pages than anyone, and had nothing in reply that related to the content - just bullying. You say 'I don't know what the exact issues are'. Well I think you should if you are going to be used by others in this way, don't you? You treat me like a beginner. I assure you, I am not.

My main concern from the beginning has been to edit out lurid conspiracy theories--whether or not anyone thinks they come from LaRouche. On the John Rawlings Rees page, I pointed out misattibution of material and plagiarism. Some of the cites I have removed from the three pages now semi protected were from unreliable conspiracy-mongering pages. Holding editors accountable for such conduct, and discussing their errors, is central to making Wikipedia a more reliable source of information.--Cberlet 14:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are reasonably happy to leave content of the current pages, as you seem to be, then I feel I have achieved a good deal. You've made me work hard to find better cites, and I do think they are much better. The tendency of the 'lurid' writers to copy each other's material, possibly with embellishment, is not to be denied, but where the 'lurid' theories are so abundant I think it is essential to admit they are there, and then try to find better sources to help the reader judge what truth lies beneath them. I have no desire to bring back most of the poorer references, though I did list some to demonstrate the nature of the controversial claims. I think this is fair. It is not our job to seem to hush up such claims, even if they appear outrageous. --86.135.87.143 20:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not our job to shovel garbage in the form of crackpot conspiracy theories into an encyclopedia. Careful editing is hardly censorship. Incidently, how hard is it to pick a user name or pseudonymn? Please show some courtesy.--Cberlet 01:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do you need a to deal with identities? Facts are facts, and it matters not whether they come from one person or many. Anonimity protects against labelling and prejudiced censoring across multiple pages, which you have demonstrated. When two editors agree to watch a set of pages in each other's absence, and keep an eye out for x is that not just a little bit of a conspiracy? It's common on Wikipedia, and in my opinion Wikipedia's main weakness. If you were just watching for real vandalism, then I would have no problem with that, but you tried to label me (LaRouche) and that's not 'good faith'. All my editing is in good faith. I don't set out to annoy, and I don't suggest people assume disgusting names, and I never break the 3-revert rule. --86.135.87.143 20:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, you never answered my question regarding the Marrow biography. I have it in front of me, do you? Can we move forward on that? --86.135.87.143 20:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no further discussion until all editors pick consistent user names or pseudonymns. On this or the other two pages.--Cberlet 02:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That isn't in line with Wikipedia policy. No rule has been broken, no vandalism has taken place. Even the template says, "such users (unregistered) may discuss changes". Wikipedia makes no provision for one person to say there will be no further discussion. You have now revealed your true colours - as a CENSOR. --86.135.177.144 09:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to be having the same debate with an anonymous editor or editors on multiple pages. Please continue this discussion at the Talk:John_Rawlings_Rees page.--Cberlet 13:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section added anonymously

...... If so, we can assume you have shown general incompetence as an editor as well as a confrontational style that has been disruptive. Then we can move forward one paragraph at a time, checking sources.

This is not called "censorship" it is called editing. --Cberlet 13:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I edit, you 'hold to account'. I deal with facts, you look for conspiracies. I engage in discussion about content and sources, you refuse to. I remain polite and neutral, you label and accuse other editors. I act in good faith. You do not. --86.135.180.9 21:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• The above section was was added anonymously by User:86.135.180.9.

[edit] Continue discussion?

<---------Signing comments is a standard requirement:

Help:Talk page#Basic rules for all talk pages, Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages, Wikipedia:Username. --Cberlet 00:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Still willing to discuss edits over at the Talk:John_Rawlings_Rees page.--Cberlet 20:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Adding unsubstantiated conspiracy theories to this page is not acceptable and viiolates Wiki guidelines.--Cberlet 14:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Still willing to discuss edits over at the Talk:John_Rawlings_Rees page.--Cberlet 14:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copy edit

I've done a copy edit and removed the conspiracy theories. The sources in that section are not regarded as reliable under Wikipedia's policies. One of the sources used believes the world is ruled by giant lizards. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I had tried to moderate them a little. --Duncan 21:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for your input too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Duncan, I felt that the outcome of your edits was to dress up material cited to disreputable sources, and that it made matters worse. I regret just stomping on them. SlimVirgin did what I should have done. Apologies to both of you.--Cberlet 18:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)