Talk:Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust/Archive 1

Conspiracy theories

John Rawlings Rees was a doctor of the original staff of the Tavistock Clinic, became deputy-director in 1926, and full-director in 1933. Became a consulting psychiatrist to the British Army in 1938. Medical doctor for Rudolf Hess since 1941. Founding president of the World Federation for Mental Health since 1948, which acts as a consultant to the United Nations. Died in 1969. According to an e-mail reply to enquiries of the present Tavistock and Portman Trust

Dr J R Rees [John Rawlings Rees] took over as Medical Director after ten years, in 1933. He later played an important role as director of military psychiatry in the Second World War and many new ideas of group psychotherapy and institutional understanding came from the work of army psychiatrists, which were influential in the Clinic after the War. He was never given a knighthood. From another e-mail reply from the trust. See [1]

This is part of a crackpot conspiracy theory. The cite is to a whacko personal website. It all tracks back to Lyndon LaRouche. Please stop trying to insert this conspiracist material into Wikipedia.--Cberlet 01:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What! I referred to information given by the Tavistock Trust, and written by Rees. I also refer to a biography of Kurt Lewis which confirms links with Tavistock and Rees. The involvement of Rees with Hess is well documented in the diaries he left from 1941 to 1945 and the Nuremeburg trial. You are obsessed with LaRouche, who I have never mentioned or quoted. Once again I ask that you only modify what I wrote as required by rules, do not wipe out my work. You should not remove a statement backed by the citation of a book by a reputable publisher written by a student of Kurt Lewis long ago - that can by no stretch of the imagination be attributed to a LaRouche conspiracy. --86.144.101.232 08:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It does see to me that the article you linked to refered to Rees as part of the Tavistock Institute of Medical Psychology, which is a different organisation. Can you provide any references [page numbe4rs, ISBNs, quotes?] --Duncan 11:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The official site of the Tavistock and Portman trust says that the Tavistock Clinic was founded in 1920. Much confusion has been caused to many people over the years by the various name changes. According to the official site, the 'clinic' carried out both clinical and consultancy work until 1948 'when 'it' became part of the new national health service.' In fact, I deduce that the new 'clinic' is a different entity from the original one, in that it only carries forward the clinical side, leaving behind the other activities under the name institute. So Rees might today be assumed to have been with the 'institute' doing research and consultancy, but of course there was no 'institute' when Rees began, as it all came under the heading of clinic. If you are suggesting that there might have been a different Rees, then this is of course very unlikely, since the man we are talking about is undoubtedly John Rawlings Rees, which seems a unique name. If you are suggesting that he did not work at the Tavistock Clinic, then this is not true, as the official site says that he did. There have been many other titles, such as Tavistock Institute of Human Relations (now simply Tavistock Institute according to the official site), and the Tavistock centre for couple relationships (formerly Tavistock Marrital Studies Institute (founded 1948 as the Tavistock Family Discussions Bureau), but they are undoubtably just divisional names given at various times to different activities under the same Tavistock organisation (originally Tavistock Clinic). I think confusion arises because when articles refer to the 'parent body' now they often refer the the 'Institute', and the clinic is just the NHS side of Tavistock activities. Originally it was the other way round, as there was only the 'clinic', out of which came the 'institute'. It's all the same Tavistock fundamentally, but strictly Rees was with the clinic. An official job description for Director, 'The Tavistock Institute of Medical Psychology', talks of the 'Tavistock tradition', and goes on to say that the 'centre for couple realationships' is an operating unit of the 'Institute for medical psychology' [2]. It may be that the article simply muddled the names, using the most relevant present day one. --86.135.218.31 01:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No the article has not muddled the names: these different organisations with the word Tavistock in their titles are fully independent of each other. The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations (which is still that charity's formal name) is not part of the Clinic. The The Tavistock Institute of Medical Psychology is also a separate organisation. I can also confirm that French's Mustard and France are not connected. --Duncan 12:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Radovan Karadzic

I think the Independent has accepted at face value a claim by the LaRouche organisation. Would he really have travelled to Britain so frequently to study at the Tavi? --Duncan (talk) 08:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

I have removed the claim after getting the reply below from the Tavi. --Duncan (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this. We are in discussion with the Independent about this gross inaccuracy. Please would you remove the reference.

Eleanor Morgan
PA to Chair and Chief Executive

The Tavistock and Portman
NHS Foundation Trust
Tavistock Centre

Location

I presume the Tavistock(s) is/are located in London, so will add this to intro para Hugo999 (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Multiple issues tag

I have removed the multiple issues tags, which were added in June 2014, for POV, advert and tone. Since comments were not added to the talk page to illustrate these supposed problems, they cannot be either agreed to exist nor can we agree ways to resolve them. --Duncan (talk) 11:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

LaRouche

LaRouche is best known for creating his own worldwide intelligence network. He and his associates routinely gain access to presidents and prime ministers. Governments and corporations will naturally generate propaganda around LaRouche in order to discredit portions of his intelligence information. Wikipedia gatekeepers who are truly interested in factual and truthful information will reach beyond propaganda-driven manufactured consensus around conspiracy theories, and focus on the facts before presuming information is of poor quality. Moderators need to be experts in propaganda and how it works before becoming qualified enough to identify poor quality information. Otherwise, moderators are at the mercy of propaganda. Norman Bailer, the former National Security Council senior director of international economic affairs, once described LaRouche's organization as "one of the best private intelligence services in the world." 24.56.241.180 (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Citations and verification

More citations are still needed for the notables and 'new' paragraphs. Thanks for your help. --Po Kadzieli (talk) 12:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Approaching a Century.

Having moved the text along, the subject deserves much further expansion as it nears 100 years from its foundation and the wonderful contributions made to it by the people of Scotland in particular. It has attracted other co-workers from all over the world. So please spare some time to adequately reflect this unique British and international institution. --Po Kadzieli (talk) 11:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070415140306/http://www.psychoanalysis.org.uk/obit.htm to http://www.psychoanalysis.org.uk/obit.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

No criticism?

There's been criticism of this institution, yet there is no "Criticism" or "Controversy" section. Why? I'm not familiar with this subject, but I came here from an internal link where (according to a source) a student accused it of "brainwashing" people. Regardless if that is a fair assessment, it is criticism. Furthermore, while I never heard about this place until today, it seems to be a well-known institution of stature, and it seems to me like all well-known institutions have a "Criticism", "Controversy", and/or "Accusations of * " section. But this one doesn't! The article needs more perspectives. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  20:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)