Talk:Oxford Group/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

One-sided view

For a more accurate and balance assessment of Frank Buchman, the founder of The Oxford Group, see "Frank Buchman: a life" by Garth Lean (Constable, London). The book was published later in the USA as "on the tail of a Comet". It can be viewed online at: http://www.frankbuchman.info/ (which is fully searchable). This puts the negative views expressed in the main article into context. For example, the Hitler quote, should be compared with what others, such as the great British war-time leader Winston Churchill, were saying about Hitler in the period before World War II when his intentions were far from clear. The Buchman biography, referred to above, makes it clear that the quote was taken out of context. There is no truth in the statement that Buchman focussed wholly on the rich and famous. He devoted a great deal of time and attention to unremarkable people.

I agree the the Hitler praise quote seemed out of context and intended more to defame the Buchman and the Group than to provide genuine encyclopedic information. I removed it and some other non-neutral POV statments and other information that seemed like it was added in a similar spirit. I worry though that finding neutral information on this group is will be difficult. -- Craigtalbert 03:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Scope of this article

Oxford Group discusses the historical Oxford Group. It's importance lies in the fact that a variety of other movements have their origin in the Oxford Group (see also Talk:Moral Re-Armament). This article should eventually provide a reference point for articles about the other movements. Useful content would be a description of Oxford Group's origins, teachings, organisational structure and Buchman's role. --Arne Neem 16:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree and am working in that direction (so please forgive the gazillion incremental edits as contributions are tightened up). In particular, there is no mention of the relationship between the OG and Frank Begbie, author of the Twice Born Men books. The first of these (1908) had a significant influence on the development of the group (based on Begbie's observations of the Salvation Army, and containing the references to James' Varieties of Religious Experience that would later become so important to the Group), the second about lives changed by the group itself. Hipgnostic 14:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Elections 1933

While fixing some links I noticed that in 1933 there was party called "Oxford Group Movement" in Canada. It won a seat in Cowichan-Newcastle at the British Columbia general election, 1933. Does anyone know more about its relationship with the Oxford Group? --Arne Neem 17:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not an AA article

This articls is slowly turning into an AA article. The subject at hand is the Oxford Group and not Alcoholics Anonymous. There should be no more than a paragraph about it's influence on AA. As it is now about 75% of the article is dedicated to AA. We should be discussing Frank Buchman and not Bill Wilson. Mr Christopher 15:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course Oxford Group does not associate with AA. AA is considered to have been a degenerate sub-sect, and not upscale moral majority. You can't get a lot of $ from that kind of association. Buchman wanted to include upscale supporters and propped up those personalities. Oxford Group notoriously helped Great Britian draft dodgers "conscientious objectors?" hide out in the US. Also, Buchman was depicted on the cover of Time with the title "Cultist Buchman". Buchman had cult-like charisma and lived an upscale lifestyle, while preaching frugality. He never married, nor dated and is believed to have been a homosexual.

Tone

This article refers to the Oxford Groups as a "cult" and the author seems to bear hostility to the movement, its members and founder.

If indeed AA has taken on so much of this initial movement to its own this stub of an article is very dissapointing. I would like to see more of its basis and history than a few sprinkled pop-culture tidbits. Any takers? Anthronify 05:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Citations

The page on the Oxford Group asks for citations. I have done quite a lot of research on the subject, and have a zillion citations. Start here: http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-religiousroots.html http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-rroot090.html

Thank you. I think this article needs a lot of work. I noticed that most of the information on those pages is fairly disparaging of the Oxford group. To maintain and neutral point of view on can you recommend you recommend additional sites that are in favor of the Oxford group to help keep the article balanced? -- Craigtalbert 02:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Diametrical Shift in Emphasis to "Moral Rearmament"

It isn't mentioned, but the Oxford Group originally supported changing one person at a time: myself. If I changed myself, then the rest of the world would fall in line. "I am not perfect. I can't expect the world to be until I straighten myself out." Up to this point, the Oxford Group was a growing force.

The group was jolted, I think, by WW II, and dramatically shifted it's emphasis to reforming others. "I am perfect. If you were as perfect as I am, there would be no war (or whatever)." After shifting to this position, they became just another pamphlet-passing reformers group and their influence ebbed.Student7 02:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Oxford Group and Buchman

When discussing the Oxford Group, it is always pertinent to mention Sam Shoemaker, who was the very respectable public face of the Oxford group in New York, and who broke off with Buchman after Buchman's notoriety began to besmircxh his own creation. Let's face it, take out of context or not, Buchman DID make certain amiring statements about Hitler sand his ilk, and WAS in favor of authoritarian government in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.178.244 (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

I think the new 12/15/07 lead paragraph needs to be by itelf in the begining and the remainer broken off into a separately named subsection. Can't quite figure out where the rest of the material would go or I would do it myself. Student7 (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Buchanan soft on fascism?

A reference that probably shouldn't otherwise be used seems to credibly suggest that Buchanan made a statement that seemed to support Nazism at a crucial time forever dooming MRA. See MRA. If true, this should probably be put into the article with a decent reference. Student7 (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yet another unsupported rumor!

I had heard that the name change to MRA was not entirely voluntary. That Oxford University authorities (attorneys?) had contacted the Oxford Group and asked them to stop using their name. Student7 (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Time is not POV

The information is drawn from reliable sources, it outlines the history of the group, the groups controversial aspects, it expansion, its involvement into war time, The groups views on Nazi Socialism and it remains. it draws upon comments from critics of the group, that is not POV, the Time Magazine articles are historical references written at the time the group was active, and shows the controversy and issues surrounding the group and its practices. YOU DO NOT VANDALIZE and ENTIRE WEB PAGE under POV , it is ridiculous and childish. --MisterAlbert (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There is an article Moral Rearmament that covers the group after it's name change. MRA information should not be in this article. Student7 (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually it hard to differiatate the two names , He applied to incorporate the name Oxford in 1939 even though he had chosen to rename the group Moral Re-Armament 1938 . I added this to the section on the name. The two names are interchangable and interwined for the periods of 1938...to 1940's. Shoemaker didn't pull out of the group until 1941, 5 years after Buchmans speach on the support of Hitler and four years after the name change to Moral Re-armament and a shift in its purpose. Later the group became involved in Labour disputes in Britian.

It appears in the 1960s Moral Re-Armament took hold but then it had already started to drift into the Iniatives of Change by 1965. --207.232.97.13 (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Fred


I can appreciate that there is a transition problem in nomenclature. MRA, pushing a "one-world" agenda, was handing out leaflets and putting on plays in London by the summer of 1956. Can't vouch for other dates nor provide a reference for this one. Student7 (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


Much of this article meets with wiki critieria. You don't get to vandalize the entire article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! Whoa! This happened before (above). I am not reverting anything! That is someone else! You may need to start a new topic when you complain! It ain't me. Please review history! Student7 (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The Hypocrisy of The Reverts

I have problems with Craigs so called high wiki standards .. First the Page he keeps reverting back to is full of typos, spelling errors , words entered twice, and grammar which I have corrected on my new and improved version.

When Craig reverts this is what turns up.


by the way when craig reverts this is what turns up!! So much for standards!!!

"Moral Re-Armament== + - + - - Prior to World War II, the Group changed its name to Moral Re-Armament (MRA) and believed that divine guidance would prevent war from breaking out.[citation needed] Daphne du Maurier's Come Wind, Come Weather recounted inspirational stories derived from Group experiences during the early years of WWII. - In 1965, Up with People was founded by members, and with the support, of Moral Re-Armament. In 2001, Moral Re-Armament became Initiatives of Change. "


I have since edited it.


A Time Magazine article from the early time period has been used as a reference , and has remained on this page for months. I went to Time and found some other pieces that expanded knowledge of this group. They are they are accounts from the time period in which they were written and they follow the progress of this Group between the 1930-1947.


3. The Piece on Nazi Socialism was taken both from Tom Driberg's book and Garth Lean's Book on Buchman. This was an important piece, it reflected on the group and its purpose at that time and it's views on Nazi Socialism and it certainly meets wiki criteria , why does it get deleted in a vanadlistic revert of this page???


--207.232.97.13 (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Fred

The reasons for the reverts of so much material doesn't seem well explained. Perhaps you need to call for a third party review. Failing that, ask for mediation. BTW nobody in their right mind wants mediation. Try to come to some agreement.
I would like to ask the reverter to indicate why is so wrong with Time magazine. I didn't read is that closely but what they were saying didn't seem that controversial to me.
As for ...97.13, dragging out a bunch of twenty or thirty edits kind of drives people following you in a watchlist nuts. It may reach a point that no one cares how well you have said something, they just want to retaliate! (Sorry). You might sign on with a pseudonym. While not required, it would give us a little more confidence in you. Vandals are almost invariably IP addresses. Student7 (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Next time i will work off another page and then add info... Save on the edits.. good of you to point out...finished page so far so good....took out errors, spelling, grammar, typo.... moved info around to fit in better with existing catergories...gives a more complete picture of the group and its impact in the time period it was taking place in...--Freddydog (talk) 05:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The reasons for addition of .13/MisterAlbert/Freddydog's material isn't "well explained." Yes, following the edits is a nightmare. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I see the problem. Freddydog/.13, you need to fill out the edit summary. Better long than short. That is what the rest of use to justify why the change is being made. Additional material? Changing wrong material. Better explanation? Footnote? Otherwise, an editor trying to follow what you are doing may not comprehend why the new material is being inserted. Is there something wrong with the old material? We're trying to be a team here. Okay to have new ideas but us old editors need to be persuaded. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)