Talk:Moral Re-Armament

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] What Should This Article Be Named?

The original name was the Oxford Group. Then Moral Re-Armament spun off (sorta). Then Up With People (which does NOT redirect to this article) and finally Initiatives of Change. With each new name the organization became less prominent and thus less significant. The most influential time in their history was when they were known as the Oxford Group and that was the name they had when their influence helped inspire Alcoholics Anonymous. In view of this I think this article should be titled The Oxford Group and not redirect to Moral Re-Armament. Then the history of each new name/group could be covered in this article.

It seems awkward to me to have the Oxford Group redirect to the second (of four) names the organization has been known as and the fact that the major significance of this organization happened when it was known as the Oxford Group is important as well.

I am suggesting we rename this article to the Oxford Group or we kill the Oxford Group redirect to this Moral Re-Armament article. I think thre Oxford Group is worthy of its own article.

Any opinions? Mr Christopher 21:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe a better idea is to remove the Oxford Group redirect and create an independent article. Anyone have an opinion? Mr Christopher 05:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd also prefer an independent article Oxford Group, mostly because of its important role in the history of AA. The Oxford Group later spawned a surprisingly large number of other groups like the de:Marburger Kreis in Germany. Articles about any of these groups would refer to an Oxford Group article. This would reduce overlap between articles. --Arne Neem 13:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I am proposing we rename this article the Oxford Group. Any objections or opinions? I'll wait a while for comments before I proceed Mr Christopher 13:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer your original idea: replace the redirect Oxford Group with meaningful text. --Arne Neem 16:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think a separate article on the Oxford Group would be the best. Both articles need to be expanded though. - DNewhall

I agree we need to have two separate articles. Wiki (which means quick in Hawaii) Pedia (a well-rounded education). Wikipedia gives a quick, descriptive, well-balanced view. Which is setting the Standard of knowledge. In this case, I think that the Moral Rearmament movement needs to have two particular information for such a delicate subject.

Furthermore, Alan Watts in 1968 specifically complimented the title "The Moral-Rearmament Movement for being 'very significant'. (source: Alan Watts - Album: The World as just so, Track 8).--Yozef 04:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I just went along and changed Oxford Group from a redirect to a stub. There are still some loose ends to fix, though. --Arne Neem 16:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! Mr Christopher 17:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Working on some of the loose ends, I noticed that the article separation works well. While the Oxford Group considered itself a Christian movement, MRA and Initiatives of Change seem to be less confessional. Having separate articles makes it easier to describe each groups characteristics. --Arne Neem 16:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buchmanism

Does anybody know, if "Buchmanism" refers to the Oxford Group or MRA? What exactly is "Buchmanism"? --Arne Neem 16:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Technically it refers to Frank Buchman (who founded both), or his teachings and ideas. Mr Christopher 17:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. :-) I'll change the redirect on Buchmanism accordingly. --Arne Neem 18:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs beefing up

This article is, not to put too fine a point on it, pathetic. While I wouldn't necessarly expect it to reach the comprehensive depths of this article, I could hope for something greater than what is here. I don't have the time for it, or I would be more than happy to dive in, as I was involved in the movement (briefly) in 1965-1966, and so I shall have to leave it to someone else to do. -- Glacierman 06:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)