Talk:Tavistock Institute/Archive 1

message: Herschel, I noticed you had wikified the Tavistock entry on the Death of Jeremiah Duggan page, which made me take a look here.
Could you name and provide a link for the Tavistock-affiliated website you mention in paragraph three so that the quote is attributed?
:Although that was Weed's quote, I googled a portion of it and found the source readily enough. --Herschelkrustofsky 22:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Weed's second external link provides a veritable galaxy of such charges, although I think it should be replaced with individual links rather than a google search, so that we can separate the wheat from the chaff. --Herschelkrustofsky 22:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't know why that is. You have added a footnote to the same website (Tavistock & Portman NHS Trust) later in the article. At any rate, I restored the quote,and the footnote link is working fine now. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:21, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

message: The clinic and the institute have been separate for over half a century. Unless there are objections, I suggest untangling them.  --Duncan 16:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent.  Big improvement.   - Crosbiesmith 17:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. All this stuff on mind control, above, is wild. What is that about? I mean, 12 worshipful academics... how do people get the idea that they are engaged in clinical research into mind control... sixty years after the Institute separated from the Clinic? Wild. --Duncan 18:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This unsigned comment is mistaken. Nothning that happens there is secret: almost all the contract work is for the public sector, and this is open record. Their journal is open and public, and so their their masters' degree. Neither the head of the insttitute nor all the staff are psychologists. The institute does not have labs; it has two open plan offices. It's not a clinic or a hospital. If the Fortune 500 really followed its instructions, wouldn't be it larger, much larger? --Duncan 18:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you have any references for these claims? I think you are confusing what the LaRouche people way about the Tavistock Clinic for facts about the Institute, a separate organisation. The shell shock research was led by the Tavistock Clinic, not the Institute which was founded decades later. The Institute is not a psychological centre: only two of its staff are psychologists, and neither of those are in the executive team. The institute does no work "with leaders of huge global corporations"; most of its work is with small public sector organisations. PS Please sign your comments with four tilda (~) signs. --Duncan 10:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Take a look at Tavistock Clinic. It exists, and is part of the National Health Service. It treats rich and poor. The Tavistock Institute is a separate organisation. Many of the claims about both organisations are mistaken, however many also ignore the fact that these are two organisation who only share the word Tavistock. Find some sources, and then follow the claims to the facts.  --Duncan 09:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for cleaning this up, Duncan. It's one of a series of articles that were affected some time ago by Larouche movement editing of Wikipedia. The editors were dealt with eventually, but I had forgotten to come back and fix up this article, and also didn't know anything about the subject matter. Your edits are a vast improvement. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clinic is not the Institute 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
thread_title: Copied conversations with anon

message: ...... 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Section added anonymously

message: <---------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)
replies: text: Still willing to discuss edits over at the Talk:John_Rawlings_Rees page.--Cberlet 20:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding unsubstantiated conspiracy theories to this page is not acceptable and viiolates Wiki guidelines.--Cberlet 14:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still willing to discuss edits over at the Talk:John_Rawlings_Rees page.--Cberlet 14:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Continue discussion?

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for that. I had tried to moderate them a little. --Duncan 21:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. Thanks for your input too. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Copy edit