Talk:John Rawlings Rees

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

Contents

[edit] Material from unreliable sources

Material cited to conspiracy websites and personal websites should not be falsely cited as coming from a reputable institution or source.--Cberlet 01:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This is to a LaRouche Network conspiracy theory article:

by Jeffrey Steinberg
Printed in the Executive Intelligence Review, May 5, 2000.
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/steinb.htm

Nothing on Wikipedia can be cited to this page

This website is loaded with whacko conspiracy theories:

http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/AppendixA.htm

Nothing on it can be verified. Nothing on Wikipedia can be cited to this page.

This website is loaded with whacko conspiracy theories:

http://www.cinemaniastigma.com/pages/6/index.htm

Nothing on it can be verified. Nothing on Wikipedia can be cited to this page. [1]

Please stop this, the insertions violate numerous Wikipedia policies.--Cberlet 02:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. ^ Link did not work on 6th April 2007. If this continues so, someone remove this link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.195.122 (talk) 22:14, April 6, 2007 (UTC)
Will you please clarify your objections to each assertion in this piece individually. You cannot remove so much in one go simply because you think it 'crackpot'.
Lets start with the two quotations, which have the best references you could wish for and purport to be 'from the horses mouth'. What are you saying? That these references are made up? Or that they do not confirm the allegations? --86.135.218.31 02:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Material removed and now under condideration here:

A controversial figure in the history of the original Tavistock Clinic, Rees has been accused by various commentators of setting up a world-wide network to undermine the values of Western civilisation [1] [2]. According to information from the current Tavistock and NHS Trust John Rawlings Rees was a doctor of the original staff of the Tavistock Clinic, became deputy-director in 1926, and full-director in 1933. He became a consulting psychiatrist to the British Army in 1938, medical doctor for Rudolf Hess since 1941 and founding president of the World Federation for Mental Health since 1948, which acts as a consultant to the United Nations. He 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 died in 1969. The following quotes from Rees appear to confirm some of the allegations against him.

"We can therefore justifiably stress our particular point of view with regard to the proper development of the human psyche, even though our knowledge be incomplete. We must aim to make it permeate every educational activity in our national life…. We have made a useful attack upon a number of professions. The two easiest of them naturally are the teaching profession and the Church: the two most difficult are law and medicine." "Public life, politics and industry should all of them be within our sphere of influence…. If we are to infiltrate the professional and social activities of other people I think we must imitate the Totalitarians and organize some kind of fifth column activity! If better ideas on mental health are to progress and spread we, as the salesmen, must lose our identity… Let us all, therefore, very secretly be ‘fifth columnists.’"

Dr. John Rawlings Rees, "Strategic Planning for Mental Health", Mental Health, June 18, 1940 [3].

Rees has been linked to the Frankfurt school of Cultural Marxism via Kurt Lewin. According to a biography of Kurt Lewin written by Alfred J Marrow, "Kurt Lewin was the key link in the Frankfurt School/Tavistock migration to America." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.218.31 (talk) 02:32, July 12, 2006 (UTC)

This is POV, original research, and plagiarised text based on right-wing conspiracy theories:
I doubt that Marrow linked Lewin to "the Frankfurt school of Cultural Marxism" or the "Frankfurt School/Tavistock migration." These phrases are plagiarised from an article, "What is 'Sensitivity Training?'" by Dr. Gerald L. Atkinson [4], which itself is based in part on Eakman, B.K., "Cloning of the American Mind: Eradicating Morality Through Education," pp. 193, Huntington House, 1998; which is a conspiracy theory book published by an ultra-conservative publishing house that prints many conspiracy theory tracts. In fact, almost everything being plopped onto this page is from the Atkinson article.
For example, this appears to be a proper sentence and cite:
  • "According to a biography of Kurt Lewin written by Alfred J Marrow, "Kurt Lewin was the key link in the Tavistock migration to America."
It appears to be a quote from the Marrow book, but it is not, it is plagiarised from the Atkinson article:
  • "Kurt Lewin was a primary figure in the wartime research that was later translated into the techniques used today in 'sensitivity training.' The only comprehensive biography on Lewin available anywhere was written by Alfred Jay Marrow [5]. This book describes Kurt Lewin as the key link in the Frankfurt School/Tavistock migration to America." (Atkinson)
So the actual sentence is both plagiarised and falsely attributed to Marrow, when it was Atkinson who is the actual author.--Cberlet 02:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand how you know that. Are you saying there was no biography written by Marrow, that it was just made up? --86.135.83.129 12:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry you do not understand what plagiarism is. Please educate yourself before editing any further on Wikipedia.--Cberlet 14:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Please stop the insults and answer my straight and simple question above. All the information I have added to this page now is contained in the one document cited, both in the text and at the bottom, by Trist. Trist was director of the Tavistock Institute and a member of the group that founded the institute out of the original 'clinic'. This is 'straight from the horses mouth', no need to look at any of the stuff you accuse me of 'plagiarising'. I'm giving you material from original sources. The Trist material is reproduced on the Web. Please read it and educate yourself before linking me with your conspiracy nonsense. If you think that article is not for real, then say so. If you think the book by Marrow is not for real, then say so (and I'll prove you wrong). Otherwise, please stop censoring on the stupid grounds that you happen to have read some stuff you happen to think is untrue, by some people you like to call 'right wing conspiracy theorists', even though you can't be bothered to do the research to see whether any of what they say just happens to be true. I'm doing the work. Let me get on and give a proper account of what is known for sure. --86.135.122.251 19:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I have put a considerable amount of work into providing citations where requested. You will find all of these to be original sources/official sites. I hope this satisfies you that the facts given are correct and provable. If not, please be specific about why you do not agree. --86.137.158.155 21:31, 27 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 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.--Cberlet 04:01, 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 00:18, 31 July 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)
The issue is holding an editor or editors accountable for a range of actions that include plagiarism, misidentification of sources, use of unreliable conspiracy sources, and aggressive and combative editing. Are you willing to state that you are one editor making edits as:
86.135.123.2
86.135.178.1
86.135.179.98
86.135.218.31
86.135.222.0
86.135.71.85
86.137.158.155
86.138.29.186
86.142.171.131
86.144.101.232
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 stime, 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)
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 00:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
There really is more material that can be added to this page, as long as folks will sign their comments. What is the problem?--Cberlet 20:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not the same person as the one above, but have no interest in creating an account for the few bits of info I am researching. I have no interest in whether Cberlet is truthful or not, but would request that if there are any links disputed, may they all appear on the talk page, labelled as disputed, so that the user might decide what is accurate and valid and what is not, regardless of disputes. And Cberlet, answer the original questions, even if the guy won't tell you who he is. Refute him and its done, fail to do so, and any user with a brain wonders about your motive. --71.163.195.122 22:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Shaping of Psychiatry by War

I just started reading this book today, and I recommend that anyone who wishes to know about Rees should read this. Look out for little comments and hints. From what I have read, I can say that he was toying with his psychological profiling idea as something for more than just the army, but he does not indicate that it is anything more. It would be interesting to see if he develops this somewhere, because he provides good evidence that it works for the army. He seems to have something against 'dullards' though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.163.195.122 (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] With crackpot material deleted, page is now NPOV

So I removed the dispute tag.--Cberlet 12:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)