Talk:Moral Re-Armament

message: Does anybody know, if "Buchmanism" refers to the Oxford Group or MRA? What exactly is "Buchmanism"? --Arne Neem 16:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically it refers to Frank Buchman (who founded both), or his teachings and ideas. Mr Christopher 17:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Makes sense to me. :-) I'll change the redirect on Buchmanism accordingly. --Arne Neem 18:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buchmanism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Needs beefing up 

message: My sense in reading through this article is that it has been modified/edited to present the subject in a positive light, and presents issues through the viewpoint of the subject itself.  As an example of the first, in the discussion of the subject's positive statements about the Nazis, the article presents the contents of a Time magazine article only to contradict the point made in the article with counter-evidence.  Later, the article uses the loaded term "lifestyle" to refer to an individual's sexual orientation - a technically inaccurate term meant to demean certain people, apparently in keeping with the ideology of the article's subject.  There are numerous other, admittedly subtle, examples of these themes.  As a whole, it reads as having been "cleaned up" by someone sympathetic with the subject with an eye to "public relations."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomdarch (talk • contribs) 17:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oxted, you can't remove the Harvard Crimson reference without explanation. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1967/3/28/moral-rearmament-its-appeal-and-threat/ Emotion-based Sing-Out Offers Simple Answers AvocadosTheorem (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this article biased? 

message: At present the article mainly presents the movement in its own light.   It would be possible to improve the article by adding in external opinions of the organisation (positive and negative).  Such additions would need to be sourced (see WP:RS) and reported in a neutral way WP:NPOV.Martinlc (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is incomplete without mention of the fact that in the post-war years it was one of the leading anti-communist organisations in the West.  Pelarmian (talk) 12:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Agree with Martinlc. I'm tempted to hit this with the "advert" tag. Nwebster84 (talk) 06:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I found this article due to an interview with Glenn Close, that reminded me of MRA.  I had known of MRA decades ago as an anti-Communist, doctrinaire, cultish movement.  I was amazed to see how blandly favorable the article is, except for a few lines of "Criticism".  It reads like a publicity release from MRA or its descendant.  It needs complete rewriting.  I don't know who could do it, though.  Zaslav (talk) 10:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of MRA 

message: Substituted at 00:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion