Talk:Oxford Group/Archive 1

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)

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. 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)

Oxford Group vs Moral Rearmament
When the group became MRA there was a dramatic shift in emphasis. There is no need to go into this in this article except during the gray area of phase over, maybe from 1938 to the early 40s sometime. Buchman has his own article which has "everything" in it. Moral Rearmament also has it's own article. We are not obliged to place everything from MRA, which became unpopular and in which people today have scant interest, into this article which commands considerable interest, at least from 12-steppers, which there are a million or so worldwide. A lot needs to be moved out of this article which is not germane in any way to the Oxford Group. Student7 (talk)


 * I think this would be a mistake. We should treat the Oxford Group in itself, and not just as some kind of prodrome to 12-step groups.  During the time it was called Moral Rearmament, nobody forgot it was the same group as the Oxford Group trying a new strategy.  In particular, the fact that the Oxford Group had this rather unsavory looking successor is quite relevant.  Tb (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The only question I have is why a different group with a different article is allowed to slop over so seriously into this article? Buchman is the only connection. They are dramatically different groups; thus two articles. This article may be a basis for the MRA article, but the Oxford Group became defunct in 1938. The successor organization became unrecognizable, a real good reason for a separate name change and a separate article, which we have. The boundaries of the article are not being observed, however. Student7 (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that's revisionist. It's not just Buchman that is the only connection!  To say "the Oxford Group became Moral Rearmament" would be accurate; to say "the Oxford Group closed and Buchman started a new group, Moral Rearmament" would be wildly inaccurate.  See the beginning of Moral Rearmament for the reality here.  The Oxford Group continued, without interruption, as MRA; the name change was gradual and was a change in name of the organization, not a change into a new organization. Tb (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm sure Buchman definitely didn't mean to do that. I'm sure he fully intended to have all his former followers enter into his new organization with him. The old organization, however, focused on self-improvement and religion. The new one handed out pamphlets on city streets to convert others to the path of righteousness. Church was irrelevant as was self-improvement. In the new movement, you were assumed perfect by merely belonging. A bit elitish, self-serving, this tends to put the pamphlet-receivers in a position of being annoyed. Think Hari Krishna and airports of yesteryear! BTW, I was in London and got one! I was too naive at the time to realize I was being patronized!  :)


 * But the statistics in the article show what happened to what was then the MRA - 18% still on board? Not really the same group. From MRA's POV, what was past was prologue. From the Oxford Group members POV, the leader had gone off and left them! That is why there are two articles.


 * We recently had a community of Episcopals leave their church which I will call "Holy Smoke." I will leave you to guess the reason which is not germane to our discussion. But anyway, this new congregation clearly not call their new congregation "Holy Smoke." When they write their history, a separate book, they may include stuff from when the congregation was united. When their old church writes their history, they may not even mention those who abandoned them and moved on. They might put in a word about those who were uncharitable and departed. We pray for them. That sort of thing but the history of that departed organization, after they left, definitely will not be included.


 * While the Oxford Group was not tied to a building, this is pretty much what happened, with Buchman taking a tiny part of the group and moving on. This is an integrated story in his biography. But the integrated story doesn't belong anywhere else. Not a whole lot of what went before is now in the MRA article, and with good reason. Just not the same result at all. Two different groups. Two different articles.


 * I will buy this only if you can find some indication that the Oxford Group actually continued past that time. But there isn't any indication of that which I can see in the history. Tb (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay. Just looked it over. What I would propose to move is the last paragraph beginning with the words about MRA being successful and building a place in Michigan. I would also move the section on after Buchman's death. The rest would stay as being appropriate to this article. How does this sound? Student7 (talk) 11:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I object. The Oxford Group either still exists, turned into something else, or closed up. It doesn't still exist.  It never closed up.  (On what date, pray tell, did it?)  So it turned into something else: MRA.  The history of MRA is still relevant to it.  Tb (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Oxford Group is still the name of the legal body in the UK that operated as Moral Re-Armament and, now, Initiatives of Change. It never folded up, as such. However when Buchman launched MRA in 1938 many who were uncomfortable with this new direction left Buchman's work. I think it is most accurate to describe the Oxford Group as a particular phase in Buchman's work. It does, of course, overlap with the entries on MRA and Buchman, but primary focus should be on the period 1929 (when the name was first coined) and 1938 when MRA was launched.Buberfan (talk) 07:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice article
This is starting to read nicely IMO. Could it become an FA article?Student7 (talk) 11:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This article lacks understanding and perspective of what Buchman and the Oxford Group set out to achieve and what it achieved. I think it needs major revision.Buberfan (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Information sourced from Driberg
The Oxford Group was a Christian organization founded by American Christian missionary Dr. Frank Buchman. Buchman was an American Lutheran minister of Swiss descent who in 1908 had a conversion experience in a chapel in Keswick, England and as a result of that experience he would later found a movement called A First Century Christian Fellowship in 1921, that eventually became known as the Oxford Group by 193

The name "Oxford Group" originated in South Africa in 1929, as a result of a railway porter writing the name on the windows of those compartments reserved by a travelling team of Frank Buchman followers. They were from Oxford and in  South Africa to promote the religious movement. The South African press picked up on the name and it stuck.

Examples of guidance being obtained in every day life: the cook for a large Oxford group gathering told reporters that the menu was planned by God, another individual at a group gathering, who despite being a proud Englishmen, was guided by God to completely surrender his national pride, and hoist the Stars and Stripes. [15] At another event a woman noticed a bad smell possibly from the drains, Buchman reacted to her remark pointing out it was negative, it caused the woman to seek guidance, and when it came she realized that she must "never make negative remarks".[16]

Frank Buchman and his friend Moni von Cramon, a German member of Oxford Group, were the invited guests of Heinrich Himmler for the Nazi Party Nuremberg rallies in 1934 and again in 1935. They were known to meet with Himmler at social gatherings where they would discuss religion and politics. Due to his background Buchman was fluent in German. Buchman commented on Himmler being a great lad, and Hitler being quite helpful to the Group[34][35] In August 1936, Frank Buchman was again Himmler's guest at the Berlin Olympic Games[36]

Upon his return to the United States, Buchman gave an interview for the New York World-Telegram in August 26, 1936 stating his view on Hitler and National Socialism, an interview he would come to regret.

{Below is an excerpt Driberg from a newspaper:   these are not Driberg words but his quotes from the  Article written by the newspaper The World telegram}

"I thank Heaven for a man like Adolf Hitler, who built a front line of defense against the anti-Christ of Communism, " he said today in his book-lined office in the annex of Calvary Church, Fourth Ave and 21st St. "My barber in London told me Hitler Nazis do Anti-Semitism? Bad, naturally. I suppose Hitler sees a Karl Marx in every Jew. But think what it would mean to the world if Hitler surrendered to the control of God. Or Mussolini. Or any dictator. Through such a man God could control a nation overnight and solve every last, bewildering problem." The world needs the dictatorship of the living spirit of God. I like to put it this way. God is a perpetual broadcasting station and all you need to do is tune in. What we need is a supernatural network of live wires across the world to every last man, in every last place, in every last situation... "The world won't listen to God but God has a plan for every person, for every nation. Human ingenuity is not enough. That is why the isms are pitted against each other and blood falls."

"... Human problems aren't economic. They're moral and they can't be solved by immoral measures. They could be solved within a God-controlled democracy, or perhaps I should say a theocracy, and they could be solved through a God-controlled Fascist dictatorship." [37

This was a combination of Driberg and Time Magazine} 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. Daphne du Maurier's Come Wind, Come Weather recounted inspirational stories derived from Group experiences during the early years of World War II.

In the post war years Moral Re-Armament (MRA) as it then became called, widened its activities to provide "an ideology for democracy" in the struggle against Communism. The movement underwent a change of image and emphasis from Christian evangelism to that of a political ideology. In 2001, Moral Re-Armament became Initiatives of Change.

Your Objections to the Driberg material as  sourced for the Wiki as  not being neutral is unwarranted. Even a homosexual, such a Driberg  is allowed to take account Buchman and Oxford group members  involvement with Himmler and quote "The New  World telegram". If Benedict Arnold quoted a New York Times article that was critical of George Washington, would it make it any less valid? --MisterAlbert (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Driberg makes his case from very selective use of the facts. He ignores the Gestapo reports against the Oxford group (including one dating from three months after Buchman's 1936 meeting with Himmler which warns that the Oxford Group is "a new and dangerous opponent of National Socialism". Lean reports the circumstances of the newspaper interview. Buchman gave a press conference after returning from Germany. The journalists from "The New York World-telegram" arrived late and was granted a separate interview. (Which begs the question why the other newspapers didn't report this sensational news if these were Buchman's considered views on Hitler?) Garrett Stearly, is reported by Lean as saying "I was present at the interview. I was amazed when the story came out. It was so out of key with the interview. This had started with an account of the Oxford Group's work in Europe. Buchman was asked about Germany. He said that Germany needed a new Christian spirit, yet one had to face the fact that Hitler had been a bulwark against communism there - and you could at least thank heaven for that. It was a throw-way line. No eulogy of Hitler at all." Lean reports that Buchman refused to be drawn into further debate believing that this would just perpetuate the controversy and endanger his friends in Germany.Buberfan (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Frank Buchman
Information sourced from author Chaz Bufe "AA cult or cure" rather than Benedict Arnold should we not be considering Ted Haggard.

"Moral Re-Armament's virulent homophobia and obsession with homo­sexuality seem odd at first glance, but they make sense when one realizes that Frank Buchman was quite probably a "closeted" homosexual, per­petually at war with his own desires. Thus, in all likelihood, his own inner battle (against homosexual inclinations, or "perversion," as he often called it) ultimately became MRA's battle.

Buchman certainly exhibited many signs of being a "closet case": 1) he never married; 2) it was never even hinted in any of the numerous books and magazine articles written about him and his movement that he had sexual relations with women; 3) he was obsessed with sexual "sin," specifically self-"abuse" and "perversion"; 4) from the time he was ordained in his early 20s until he was nearly 50, his primary concern was working with young men; 5) he apparently relished discussing intimate sexual matters with young men; and 6) he was markedly homophobic, which is often a defense mechanism used by "closet cases" to conceal their true desires from both themselves and others.

As well, I've uncovered some slight direct evidence that Buchman was indeed homosexual: shortly after publication of the first edition of this book, the son of a member of Buchman's inner circle told me that among that circle "Buchman's homosexuality was taken for granted."xlii This all makes Buchman's and MRA's obsession with "purity" and "perversion" much easier to understand.

Frank Buchman died in Freudenstadt, Germany on August 6, 1961, and his long-time disciple, Peter Howard, took the reins of Moral Re-Armament. MRA continued much as it had under Buchman for the next few years, but the loss of its guru was a blow from which it never recovered. Howard died suddenly in 1965 without designating a successor, and the organization quickly shriveled. "

--207.194.108.93 (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)a guy sitting in the library

If the "son of a member of Buchman's inner circle" refuses to be named, this is slender evidence indeed, and not worthy of Wikipedia. Another explanation for MRA's homophobia might be that for decades they were constantly attacked by a homosexual Driberg.Buberfan (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that Buchman was 'obsessed with sexual "sin," specifically self-"abuse" and "perversion"'? The fact that he worked primarily with young men is simply explained by the fact that he was working in universities where women were in a very small minority. However, some did work with Buchman from that time. Again, where is the evidence that "he apparently relished discussing intimate sexual matters with young men"? This looks like smear and inuendo.Buberfan (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Your issue appears to be with Dribergs homosexuality. --MisterAlbert (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No, my issue is with Driberg's use of selective facts, distortions and lies. Buberfan (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. My problem with Driberg is manifold. He is inherently untrustworthy. If Buchman needs citing for being pro-Hitler, fine. I asked if someone else could be cited. Is the answer "yes"? If so, please delete Driberg and insert the quote(s) from others whose credentials are less sullied. I think Driberg as a closet Communnist is worse than Buchman as an overt Fascist sympathizer. We should be quoting Buchman on Driberg, not the other way around! Keep it to Time magazine, et al. That will be fine.


 * This will come as a shock I suppose, but the only people spared from Fascist sympathies before 1939 were the Jewish people and Communists. After 1939, is another matter entirely.Student7 (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

--Fred Woofy (talk) 05:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal Prejudices are not enough to discredit a source
Driberg stays he is a reliable source, A personal prejudice against communism or a personal prejudice against his homosexuality is not enough to descredit him as a reliable source. So far neither have you have come up with any information as per the book that would discredit him. Neither of you have commented on the source material, only your personal prejudices. Hence I will put this forth to other wiki editors. It is based soley on your own perceptions of communism and homosexuality. In fact that the MRA was a gay bashing organization doesn't prohit a homosexual from commenting on it. --Fred Woofy (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way if you had your research you would have noted Driberg was booted from the Commnunist Party on the belief he was working for MI5. Also to remove further smears, he was not a KGB agent. I would advise reading Peter Wrights "Spycatcher". What Driberg did pass on was tidbits of little consequence.


 * That Driberg was a KGB spy is beyond doubt, as referenced in the Mitrokhin archives and also Chapman Pincher's book "Their trade is treachery". He was working for MI5 and the KGB at the same time, to the knowledge of both, each side believing that he was working as a double agent for them. Pincher writes that enquiries after Driberg's death "convinced MI5 that he had been controlled primarily by the KGB since the end of the war."  Driberg is also cited as a KGB agent in the Dictionary of Espionage by Christopher Dobson and Ronald Payne (Harrap, 1985) and The Man Who Was M by Anthony Masters (Blackwell 1984)Buberfan (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion of Dribergs spying should be directed to the Tom Driberg discussion page. As far as I can tell he was never brought up on charges of spying. The discussion here is his reporting on the MRA. So far you have offered no real evidence that he shouldn't be a source .--Fred Woofy (talk) 05:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

My concern here is peoples personal prejudices are interfering with good wiki.

--Fred Woofy (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not remove Driberg, I added another reference, I  double referenced. Two separate sources, both with the same inforamtion. The second reference backs up Driberg's account on Buchman's nazi sypmpathies and can be found in Time Magazine 1936 "God Controlled Dictatorship"  http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,847819,00.html

This should remove any disputes regarding Dribergs neutrality.

--Fred Woofy (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * IMO, this partially addresses the problem. As far a being "biased" against Driberg, we've tried to answer those issues.


 * You say that it would be okay to use Arnold's supposed comments against Washington. But if we could find the same statements from (say) Ben Franklin, wouldn't that make more sense? It's always best to use a source that is either unbiased or even pro-source. So if Franklin. a presumend Washington ally, were to say something negative, it is more credible, you see?


 * To use comments from someone who hates someone else is unnecessary and counter-productive. It looks to the reader as though the editors are straining (pov) to make a point. When it comes from a trusted source, this doesn't happen.


 * This has nothing to do with Driberg's sexual orientation but everything to do with the way he lived out his life. I don't know why he was saying what he is quoted as saying! Least of all, because it is true! With a trustworthy source I don't have that problem. I don't have to think "what is he (or the editor) up to?" Using biased sources is not helpful to an article. The proscription against using pov/unreliable sources is as much to protect the work the editor has done as well as to protect the reader! Student7 (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is about prejudice, what do you mean by "how he lived his life". In your own words you stated, earlier, that his support of communism{ he was a socialist} was enough to discredit him as a source. What did he do, he was flamboyant, he was a homosexual, he was a homosexual who because of his sexual acitivities was   blackmailed by the KGB, and given the era he lived in, wasn't homosexulaity a crime in England? His political views were socialist, he was a bona fide reporter, worked  for news agencies, he was an MP in the British Parliament. He had many sides to his character. Your commments show that you have inserted your own moral standards upon someone else life. and your further comments still reflect your own personal prejudices in regards to his political beliefs and his homosexuality. If this was Einstein, would we be throwing out his research on the theory of relativity, discrediting him as a source? According to your reasoning we would.

My best bet is you have not read his biography, you have not read his book on Moral Re-armament, in fact your comments haven't addressed his work. You have commented on how he lived his life. A Moral judgement on your part, made in my opinion with extreme prejudice. --MisterAlbert (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC) --MisterAlbert (talk)


 * Is treason "personal?" I thought treason was a bit more general than that. Okay, they never arrested him, but the silence on his activities with the soviets is deafening. The testimony of various other people (other than me and a few other editors) is persuasive.


 * I don't see why anyone would want to use a debatable reference when perfectly good ones are available from sources that aren't biased and whose judgement is well regarded.


 * BTW, promiscuity isn't yet that well regarded, while we are on the subject. That alone wouldn't discredit him. But he has enough other minuses that aren't well regarded either. I mean, why bother? Why are you trying to resurrect/exhalt this guy? Is there something in it for you? I never heard of him before you used his name and someone else demurred. I really have no "dog in this fight" except a decent article. But to use the article as a vehicle for resurrecting someone who richly deserves scorn if not obscurity and use him as a model scholarly reference seems not only unnecessary but futile. Student7 (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No one is exhalting the Man, however, the fact you have never heard of him leads me to wonder what you are basing your personal opinions on? Why do you believe the man deserves scorn? Have you read his autobiography? No you haven't. Have you read the source material in question? No you haven't. I have only one goal, a decent article, a decent article that is not going to be influenced by one editors opinion on homosexuals and other editors opinion on a  writers political beliefs.

Who better to critic Buchman or the Oxford group than a homosexual and a homosexual who believed in Socialism. The MRA under Peter Howard went on a campaign against homosexuals, and given that Buchman was anti socialist to the point that he would support Hitler, ignore the plight of the Jews, in the Oxford Groups personal campaign against communism. He at one time belonged to the Oxford group, so there is insight, plus there is research on his part. The wiki allows both sides of the story. The purpose of the wiki is to provided balance, not to go on a witch hunt. For those reasons he is a reliable source. Bhe way if you had taken the time to read the source material, you will find Time Magazine not only validates and but expands on much of what Driberg has written in his book. Driberg's Book is not a source of controversy, Driberg wrote a number of books. You have made the man's lifestyle a source of controversy. Your dislike of his life style is the issue not the source of the source material he wrote. Your judgmental attitude on his lifestyle is simply POV on your part. So far no one has been able to discredit his Book. Only the man's lifestyle!!!! --Fred Woofy (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to take it as a given that Buchman was pro-Nazi. Have you read Lean's biography?  It is extremely well researched and the evidence points convincingly the other way - that he was aware of the dangers that Hitler presented and was trying hard and risking his reputation on trying to change things.  Certainly he is open to the charge of naivety, (and this is exactly what Bonhoeffer accused him of) but that is a different thing from being pro-Nazi. Another well researched article which supports this viewpoint is by Edward Luttwak, "Franco-German Reconciliation: The Overlooked Role of the Moral Re-Armament Movement", in Religion, the Missing Dimension of Statecraft, Douglas Johnston and Cynthia Sampson (editors), Oxford University Press 1994. Luttwak makes the point that it was Buchman's contact with anti-Nazi Germans who were part of the Oxford group that enabled Buchman to work effectively for Franco-German reconciliation, and for which he was highly decorated by both the French and German governments. One of them was Adam von Trott, an Oxford group member who was executed by Hitler, and whose widow played an important role in the French-German reconciliation. Driberg ignores all facts that don't fit into his thesis, including the Gestapo reports about the Oxford Group. No serious politician at the time took the "Buchman is a Nazi sympathizer" line seriously.  When Driberg made a long speech in the House of Commons to the effect in the 1940s he was derided as "having introduced tittle tattle not worthy of a girl's boarding school".  Unfortunately this Wikipedia article reproduces the main features of the Driberg argument with the same absence of any facts which support an alternative perspective.  So I suggest that for the sake of balance you look at Lean's book for a start.Buberfan (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

By the Way the World Socialist Web Site has a great piece on the Oxfords groups pro Hitler stance. You can google, An exchange on Frank Buchman and the Nazis , it was published this July 8. 2008''' --Fred Woofy (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This just reproduces the same old Driberg story. Nothing new at all here.Buberfan (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess what you are saying is that we are stuck with Driberg if we want a comment on Buchman's pro-fascist sympathies. There is no one else who noticed and commmented on that?

In answer to the above: The World Socialist Web site uses information sourece from Garth Lean, who was devoted follower of Buchman, to make its   points regarding Buchmans involvement with the Nazis. Lean tried to tone it down in terms of how Buchman phrased his response, however, Buchmans philosphy is the same regardless of how it is worded. --MisterAlbert (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've already said this but pro-fascism prior to 1939 was fairly common. Closet sympathizers from there on were probably not uncommon (no longer common though), though a man expressing sympathy during the war would have risked being "roughed up" at the least, arrested and imprisoned at worst.
 * Having watched all those WWII movies, someone who wasn't alive then might get a different opinion. Student7 (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Oxford Group/MRA attitude towards Homosexuality I found an interesting piece using the their own material. fascinating stuff, could easily be added to the MRA portion of the Wiki:

"There are many who wear suede shoes who are not homosexual, but in Europe and America the majority of homosexuals do. They favor green as a color in clothes and decorations. Men are given to an excessive display and use of the handkerchief. They tend to let the hair grow long, use scent and are frequently affected in speech, mincing in gait and feminine in mannerisms. They are often very gifted in the arts. They tend to exhibitionism. They can be cruel and vindictive, for sadism usually has a homosexual root. They are often given to moods. ...There is an unnecessary touching of hands, arms and shoulders. In the homosexual the elbow grip is a well-known sign." Remaking Men, Paul Campbell, M.D. and Peter Howard, 1954, pages 60-62. --MisterAlbert (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Also Garth Lean as a source??? Garth Lean has been a source for this page and other pages, but do take note: oh interesting it was Garth Lean, who converted Peter Howard to the Oxford group.

Peter Howard mentions in Innocent Men (1941) that Garth Lean was instrumental in his conversion, and Geoffrey Williamson reported in his book Inside Buchmanism (1955) that twenty-four years later, Garth Lean had become a member of  the Council of Management of Moral Re-Armament.

I would be leary of a sanitized version coming from Garth Lean, also note in newspaper accounts the Oxford group was known to inflate and exaggerate its importance and influence. It apparantley was a common practice. I will research more into these matters in the coming weeks. --MisterAlbert (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Use of Tom Driberg material
In terms of overall perspective and content, this article relies heavily on Tom Driberg's book The Mystery of Moral Re-Armament. Driberg was a notoriously unreliable source who made a personal crusade of attacking Buchman's work at every opportunity. His motives for this are easily identifiable. 1. He was a promiscuous homosexual, picked up by the police several times for soliciting young men in public toilets (See his autobiography, published posthumously, Ruling Passions). As such he was at variance with the Oxford Group's emphasis on absolute moral values. 2. He was a KGB agent at a time when Buchman's success in converting communists had led the KGB to officially target MRA as an enemy of communism. (See Chapman Pincher: Their Trade is Treachery). 3. Driberg's brother, Jim, an alcoholic had been helped by Buchman personally to stay free from alcohol for some time, and had publicly associated with the Oxford Group (against Tom Driberg's strongly expressed wishes) before breaking off the connection with Buchman and subsequently lapsing back into addiction. 4. Driberg had been an occult follower of Aleister Crowley who had pledged himself to the "Great Work" in the presence of the Beast 666.

Many of Driberg's charges against MRA were answered effectively by Julian Thornton-Duesbery, Master of St Peters' College, Oxford, in The open secret of MRA. Over the next weeks I hope to restore some balance to this article. Buberfan (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2008 (U

Tom Driberg 's sexual orientation may have been an issue for the Oxford group, but is not an issue as a reliable source for this article. Your own POV regarding Driberg's sexuality appears to be influencing your opinion that he is a reliable source. Bill Wilson was a womanizer, who constantly boasted of his exploits to other Oxford members and was constantly "checked" by group members. AA material has been sourced for this article. Should we dispute that. Rowland Hazard and Ebby Thacher were saved from alcoholism by the Oxford group, however they both eventually returned to drinking. Wilson eventually broke from the Oxford group. Should we delete AA information regarding Oxford.

Oh by the Way Garth Lean has been sourced as well, he was a dedicated follower of Buchman and a member of Oxford. Are you not concerned about his biases???

Another point,, does the fact that AA's founders Wilson and Dr. Bob engaged in occult practices of conducting seances, or that Wilson kept a Spook Room in his home and made claims he talked to the dead invalidate the use  of AA literature such  Alcoholics Anonymous 1984, Pass It" as a   source ?????? --Fred Woofy (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC) --Fred Woofy (talk) 01:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not saying that we discount Driberg as a source, but I think there has been too much uncritical acceptance of the Driberg critique. My own POV is not that Driberg's homosexuality made him an unreliable source, but that fact that he was, in Churchill's words, the "kind of person who gives sodomy a bad name" - an extreme sexual libertarian, in private, whose values were a million miles away from the Oxford Group's.Buberfan (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Definitely a strange man. The trouble with using him, it seems to me, is that we don't know which personna he was using when he made that speech. Labour party commenting on pre-war Hitler proclivities? Church of England commenting on a religious distraction? Closet homosexual trying to repudiate a homophobe? I think that what he said may need to be here. Having it said by Driberg seems, well, disquieting. Can't we find someone more reputable?Student7 (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Kind of like quoting Benedict Arnold on the character of George Washington. It may need to be said, but hard to trust that source! Student7 (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the quote from Driberg in the "past members comment" section. Driberg was never a member of the Oxford Group. I don't know where this comes from. He doesn't claim it himself, though he does say in his book that he attended an Oxford Group "house party" in an Oxford women's college in 1928. Even that is suspect, because Thornton-Duesbery points out that there were no "house parties" in Oxford in 1928 or 1929.Buberfan (talk) 00:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracy about Peter Howard removed
I have removed the reference to Peter Howard's involvement with Mosley's British Union of Fascists as being inaccurate. Howards involvement with Moseley was in 1931 before Mosley moved towards fascism. He was persuaded to become National Secretary of the Youth Movement of Mosley's New Party at at time when Moseley's politics were more Fabian socialist and when Mosley was against Fascism. Mosley described British Fascists of that time as 'black-shirteed buffoons, making a cheap imitation of Italian ice cream sellers'. Buberfan (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Improved Himmler, Nazi Party Section
Improved the article to meet wiki standards...did leave some info blockquoted...paraphrased material so as not to violate copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.97.13 (talk) 05:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Queen Marie
The quote from her is amusing but says a bit more about her than Buchman/Oxford IMO. If you read her bio, she is hardly in a position to comment on anybody! Student7 (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Amendments to article
I have amended the article on the Oxford Group in some instances where the statement is simply untrue.

Buchman never argued that “through 'change' induced in Hitler there could come a 'God-controlled fascist dictatorship’.” The very idea of a ‘God-controlled fascist dictatorship’ was to him, as to any Christian, a contradiction in terms. So the allegation made in 1953 by the Church of England Social and Industrial Council is meaningless. These points were raised in the two-day debate of the Council's report in the Church Assembly, which decided not to adopt their report.

Despite Tom Driberg’s accusation, Buchman never claimed that there had been ‘no more labor difficulties or strikes on the London docks since Moral Re-Armament started its campaign among the dock workers.’ Driberg was implacably hostile to Buchman and MRA, and his book cannot be regarded as an authority on either.

All this has been extensively demonstrated in 'The Open Secret of MRA' (Blandford 1964), a book written by Julian Thornton-Duesbery, Master of St Peter's College, Oxford, in response to Driberg's book. It would be possible to quote extensively from this book in refutation of these two matters, but the point of this article is to give readers a clear overview of the Oxford Group, not to bore the reader with numerous attacks and responses.

The Catholic Church did warn its members against involvement with MRA in 1957. But the article cannot leave that statement as if it was the current attitude of the Catholic Church. As Garth Lean explains in his biography of Buchman, that warning was in large part due to a misunderstanding of how MRA worked. Yet throughout those years, and ever since, many prominent Catholics have attended MRA assemblies and written warmly about it. Among these were Chancellor Adenauer of Germany and Prime Minister Robert Schuman of France. Cardinal Koenig, Archbishop of Vienna, who attended many such assemblies, wrote in 1993 that ‘Buchman was a turning point in the history of the modern world through his ideas.’

The accusation that Buchman lived lavishly has no truth, as any reader of the many books about him can ascertain. How could he have held the loyalty of such an array of ordinary workers had he done so?

I have left all of Reinhold Neibuhr's criticisms. But to introduce as 'religiously vapid' an article about a movement which led tens of thousands of people to return to their churches is ridiculous. As is to call a movement 'socially vicious' which led to recovery for countless sufferers from alcohol. The accusations are therefore in their appropriate place.

Neither Buchman nor the Oxford Group were faultless, and the article contains numerous cricitisms of both. A balanced article needs this. But there is no point in carrying criticisms which have been shown to be based on falsehoods. Oxted (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Further amendment: A writer has added further paragraphs, some of which improve the information on the Oxford Group. Howeved, some others, particularly those from hostile newspaper reports, need a response and this has been added. And some are factually incorrect. For instance, a statement by a newspaper that President Truman had never met Buchman. In fact they met several times, and at the final reception of the San Francisco conference which created the United Nations, President Truman warmly welcomed Buchman. There is no point in maintaining untrue statements on the page, so I have removed them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxted (talk • contribs) 14:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Jung
The first paragraph of this section is plagiarized from the online article on Jung, "Stellar Fire," where the quote appears. The other two paragraphs are the quote itself. There are already too many quotes in this article, and more insightful things can be said about Jung's opinion of the OG. I don't think it belongs here, especially in view of the fact that none of it is original.Rose bartram (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Bob
The co-founder of AA, Dr. Bob's last name was Silkworth not Smith.


 * No, this is not true. You're confusing Dr. Bob Smith, co-founder of AA with Bill Wilson, and Dr. William Silkworth, an early friend of AA and adviser to Bill W. He contributed a lot to AA but was not a founder. Bob Smith and Bill Wilson were the two who met in Akron on Mother's Day 1935, considered the beginning of AA.  ~ InkQuill  03:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced rampant quotation from OG's own materials are copyright violations and blatant bias
A surprisingly large amount of this article's text, both in blocks and in sentences and parts of sentences, consists of direct quotations of Oxford Group materials, but is not in quotation marks or blockquote markup, is not sourced, is not even vaguely attributed, but simply presented as if it were encyclopedia article prose stating facts. This is a gross violation of WP:Neutral point of view policy, Wikipedia is not a soapbox policy and WP:Conflict of interest guidelines, as well as being a violation of WP:Copyright violations and WP:Non-free content criteria policies and WP:Plagiarism guidelines, and is otherwise problematic for a number of reasons I needn't go into further. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 05:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Another bias issue
As discussed at Talk:Frank Buchman, all this reliance on Buchman's own "biographer, Garth Lean, a supporter of Buchman and promoter of the group" is a very bad sign for neutrality and balance. Authorized biographies are never particularly honest or complete, but are works of public relations and spin control. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 08:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)