Talk:Up with People

Bankruptcy

Should their bankruptcy be mentioned? Selling their headquarters building in Broomfield? Nospamtodd 00:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It is significant to their history - getting bankrupt and shutting down in 2001, restarting as WorldSmart in 2004, taking a break in early 2006 and relaunching in mid 2006 as Up With People. However, I'm not sure how this would fit into the "quoting your sources" thing as all this information comes firsthand (I travelled with them as WorldSmart in 2005) and while there are sources for the current incarnation, there's hardly anything that references the connection between UWP and WorldSmart.

Any advice on that? Tiara 11:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Up with People never filed bankruptcy. The board acted with deligence and care when it decided to shut down operations in 2000 in order to avoid bankruptcy, sell various assets including the headquarters, and re-organize the programme in the following years. "GlobeSmart" was its new name under new leadership for a while; yet the current programme - re-named Up with People - is a return to the concept that Up with People had prior to 2000, yet organised differently (shorter tours, longer stays in each city, less production cost).

A. Grige (member/staff 1984 - 1995) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.242.175.206 (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur will Allan Grige. Up with People never filed for bankruptcy. Nor did it lose any copyrights or music rights. I worked for Up with People from 1985 until 2001. The Board of Directors was very careful not to put Up with People into bankruptcy as it could have caused all of its intellectual property to become public domain. The WorldSmart program was a temporary solution. It did not work financially. Under the current leadership, (Allan Thiry, President as of February 13, 2009), Up with People is making a return to it post Moral Re-Armament days (the traditional Up with People) program. - Michael Howard, Director of Operations for Up with People- 1995 to 2001.

Alocam (talk) 07:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of lyrics

Normally I would delete the lyrics of the "Up with People" theme song on the grounds of copyvio and wikipolicy, however the statement about them not being allowed for commercial use is a bit confusing. Are the lyrics, therefore, public domain? If so this should be noted. Otherwise they might not be allowed to stay since usually only PD lyrics can be used on Wikipedia. 23skidoo 20:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Much about this group is somewhat confusing. It evolved from a deeply spiritual movement into a peppy light frothy show, it has several names, and the entry looks contrived. It is unsure whether the lyrics are in the pd. Best to remove them in theses circumstances, as I have done, until clarification is given. GRANBRO 22:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

159.134.146.106 18:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)°== Whence Came Sing Out America! ?? ==

If I am not mistaken, Up With People! morphed into Sing Out America! at some point, or perhaps the latter was an offshoot of the former. At any rate, that needs to be researched and included, methinks. The "peppy light frothy show" mentioned above was inherent in these shows from the beginning. I attended one of the early shows in 1965 and it was certainly "peppy"! -- Glacierman 05:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I was a member of a local Sing Out in Florissant, MO back in the early 70's. At that time the Sing Outs were the local organizations and Up With People was the global organization that you strove to become a part of. I would love to be able to locate anyone from Sing Out Florissant if there is a web site that has any of that info. ````

I was a member of a local Sing Out in Dublin, Ireland back in the Mid 70's and I would love to be able to obtain a cd of Up with People as a momento as I thought the music and lyrics were fab and gave me a great start to music appreciation. - Jackie

I was a member of Sing Out Dearborn (MI/USA) - from 1981 until the group disbanded in the late 1990s. Was also a member of People International from 1983 until the early 90's as well - Kept alot of historical stuff on them (which is why I wanted to post the reference here) Applied (and was accepted) into UWP around 1989 - but ended up not joining due to other obligations... - Jeff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwiertalla (talk • contribs) 14:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Greetings:

I remember seeing the SING OUT '66 show at a coliseum in Raleigh, North Carolina, and I loved that show.

One of the songs they did, which really impressed me, was WHICH WAY, AMERICA?

It was allegedly based on a final letter to his wife from a United States soldier in Viet Nam, just before he was killed.

The chorus went something like this:

"Which way, America? Which way, America, is going to go? This is my country and I want to know, which way America is going to go?"

Does anybody remember that song?

Where can I find a copy of the lyrics?

I wonder if that show was filmed and recorded for posterity?

I'd love to purchase a copy on CD or DVD.

I did an Internet search, but found nothing, not even at the UP WITH PEOPLE official web site.

Thank you.

John Robert Mallernee, Armed Forces Retirement Home, Washington, D.C. 20011-8400 Writesong (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I was a member of the Sing Out St. Louis-South County back in the early 70's prior to me going to Vietnam. You can find the words to the song Which way America @musicnotes.com

Music copyrights and availability

Up with People is still in operation and maintains all its copyrights on its music. Sheet music with lyrics can be purchased at: Media:http://www.musicnotes.com/. CD's and other media from 40 plus years CAN be purchased from Up with People directly on their website: Media:http://www.upwithpeople.org/index.php Click on "Get Involved", then choose "Shop the Up with People Store". Virtually everything they ever recorded is for sale. The prices are low.

Alocam (talk) 07:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Japan Tour

"... to Tokyo and by train past Hiroshima to Kobe ..."

The geography is wrong. Coming from Tokyo by train, one arrives at Kobe well before Hiroshima, which is some hours further on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.10.35.10 (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Home page for Up With People

http://www.upwithpeople.org/ Unfortunately I have not been able to search songs for lyrics. One would be relevant to a class project. It was out near the time of their beginings - "Give the children back their childhood", ends in a very relevant "and they just may, forget someday, to carry on our wars". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.196.97.35 (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Documentary film: Smile 'Til It Hurts: The Up with People Story

I have added information about the documentary film. I see that an anonymous user had deleted the substance of my entry. I have restored the edit and added more information which gives better context. Does anyone really have concerns or was it vandalism or what? The film does make a strong statement though well-documented. I have entered that statement in the context of the film and not my own opinion; solely opinion of the filmmakers. That film may be getting an Oscar nomination from what I hear but that will not go into the article unless and until it happens.--Dstern1 (talk) 02:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It was certainly not vandalism

I do not know who removed it. Check the edit history. However, you have got to be kidding! Where in the world did you get information that Up with People was a religious organization or a cult? Please cite your references! 18,000 plus people participated in Up with People; from over 60 countries; from every religion (or none at all). Arranged marriages? That's a new one! I worked at Up with People from 1985 until 2001 and I can certainly vouch for the credibility of the program. Why would General Motors, The University of Arizona, The National Football League, Toyota Motor Corporation, Wells Fargo Bank, Key Bank, NBC; The Readers Digest; just to name a few of the MAJOR sponsors of Up with People be involved if it was a religious cult? Again, please cite your references and I will be happy to help you with it. The producer of the documentary was just in Tucson Arizona during the last week of July 2009 attending the Up with People International Alumni Reunion. No mention of what you were talking about was made by anyone. The period the documentary covers is the period BEFORE Up with People split with Moral Re-Armament and become an independent not-for-profit 501 c(3) organization under US Tax code. Up with People continues to be accredited with several US Universities. This type of mis-information must be removed. -Michael Howard, Great Falls, MT

Alocam (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The film and its website are the cited references. The film primarily covers the period AFTER the split from MRA though the period prior to the split is also included. Nothing stated is my own opinion. Nothing stated is my interpretation. Everything stated is from the film and cited as such. Also confirmed by the website for the film which is also cited.--Dstern1 (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

To quote the director:

"In the process, I’ve learned about the funding, political agenda, stringent standards, arranged marriages, sexual politics, and broken families of these “true believers” who set out to change the world."

http://www.smiletilithurts.com/directors_statement.html

--Dstern1 (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Contrary to a recent edit, the film covers Up With People throughout it's history, including its suspension of operations in 2000 and includes its successful periods, including the 1980s. Again, I recognize the controversial nature of the film's content; but that is the content. It is really counter-productive to deny the content. I know that many will disagree with the film's contentions. It may be valuable to cite a reference refuting the content; but please stop altering the content. Oddly, other than in this forum, I have seen nothing refuting the film's contentions. Many of the administrators of Up With People were interviewed for the film and participated in the production; though not officially recognized by the organization.--Dstern1 (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just stumbled across the page, and I'm not certain that this film is notable enough to be used as a criticism of the subject. The notability seems all from a small paragraph in Village Voice, and the IRS case doesn't seem to deal with the actual film content. I'll wait for other discussion before deleting, I'd just like to see what everyone else has to say. Dayewalker (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone is a fan

Per this article.[1] - Wikidemon (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The threat was early recognized

Moral Rearmament: Its Appeal and Threat -- Emotion-based Sing-Out Offers Simple Answers By JAMES K. GLASSMAN, COPYRIGHT 1967 BY HARVARD CRIMSON INC.(SECOND OF TWO ARTICLES) Published: Tuesday, March 28, 1967 http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1967/3/28/moral-rearmament-its-appeal-and-threat/ AvocadosTheorem (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that a separate "Criticism" section of the article may be called for to address points raised above and elsewhere on this talk page. A single article from the Crimson hardly makes for an assessment of sources broad enough to support the generalizations made in the original sentence in which it was cited. Hipgnostic (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There was a lengthy article in the New Yorker in the late 60's. I'll hunt for it at the library soon. AvocadosTheorem (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Still on "to do" list. AvocadosTheorem (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Money Raising

I remember being interested in joining Up With People many years back and the only way you were allowed to was by raising a certain amount of money. It was a lot, like $20,000 or something. Where did that money all of that money go? Why is no mention of stuff like this, good or bad, on the page? Really nothing controversial is listed on this page at all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.114.81 (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Student participants in the program paid a tuition, similar to other educational instituions (which Up With People is considered) or student/leadership training programs, such as "Semester at Sea." The tuition was never as high as $20,000. The tuition covered approximately one-third of the costs of the program. Other revenues were from sales of tickets to performances, sponsors fees, merchandise sales (T-shirts, albums, CD,s DVDs, posters, etc.). For the tuition, the participants travelled, on average 30,000 miles per year, to some 70 -100 cities acroos the world. Some costs of the program were covered by gifts-in-kind, such as staying with host families instead of hotels. Students would learn from their hosts as well as from numerous person of note, celebrity or position. For example, in 1979, the tuition was $4500. Five tours took place that year, with casts going to 12 countries in Europe, as well as to Canada, Bermuda, Venezuela, Panama and Costa Rica. Various casts met with dignitaries such as the Pope, Preidents, Prime Ministers, Kings and Queens, famous persons such as Jesse Owens, the athlete; Eugene Cernan, the astronaut; Tom Sullivan, the blind singer-songwriter; CEOs from General Motors, Kodak, Scott Paper Company, Boeing, and many other corporations. Students also interact with media organizations, and local sponsors ranging from service organizations to schools and arts councils, to local and regional banks and other institutions. Many students who travelled with the program also received scholarships ranging from $500 to full tuition waivers. From a cost-benefit/value standpoint, the experience gained compared to the cost. (I travelled with the program in 1979-80. worked for the company from 1988 to 1992, and have had 6 other family members travel from 1980, to the most recent in 2009.)

Overwhelming bias

The entire two first sections after the lead, and the lead itself, all totally unsourced, are clearly a whitewash written by a member or former member. They notably avoid any mention of controversy, any mention of the heavily "spiritual" (religious), pro-West and conservative nature of the songs' messages, etc. An obvious approach to take would be to merge the critical material in the film section, hopefully bolstered with other non-promotional material, into the historical sections, then actually find independent sources for and tone down the promotional nature of the extant material in those sections. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 06:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Almost 6 years later, we have an equal but opposite problem, and this now reads as a hatchet job. The critical material should be put into a section for that, including the bit about Glenn Close calling them a "cult", which still remains unsourced. The present text only represents the critical viewpoint about the organization.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Continents

   In an edit that can be charitably described as tendentious, a colleague summarized "there are 7 continents not 5", since going "Beyond four continents" has always been a PoV-fraught matter. (Our "Continent" article is incomplete in not accounting for my teacher's version of 5 continents, in which, best i can recall, Australia is too small to be more than an "island-continent", and a continent whose natives are all penguins, whose vegetation is all algae, and whose economy produces no food or fuel but only scientific research, is too silly to be counted in most contexts. (Oh, and to write a war novel set there, you would assume mining rubidium-96 (a) because of as yet undiscovered properties it has, and (b) despite the fact that it does not naturally exist and if a pure metric ton of it were produced, all but about one atom of it would have decayed into other elements in 18.7 seconds -- with 96.7% chance of any remaining atoms decaying within the next second).
   More to the point, any fool can understand that

to different communities in at least 3 out of the 5 continents in the world

is trying to communicate that everyone performs on at least 3 continents (probably their own and at least 2 others?) -- but not trying to communicate that there are ever performances beyond the same 5 (not perfectly specified) continents.
   The (former) sentence in question sucks (like much of the rest of the neglected article), but that edit made it worse by inviting the inference that each of Australia, Antarctica, and not just one but both of the Americas, have had performances; clearly no one mentioning at least 3 of 5 would intend that conclusion to be drawn! I'm discarding the new revision's wording, and tagging with {{Vague}}.
--Jerzy•t 04:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

   Hmmm. I did more thinking in preparing the tag, and then more research. The edit i was complaining about is a couple days old, and the language it was complaining about was two days older (and added by a one-time IP editor).

1. If each cast (semester-long tour) hits 3 continents, that's interesting (whatever continents they count), and deserves verification.
2. If they've been to Antarctica, that's interesting, and deserves verification.
3. If they've never been to Antarctica, there's no point in making it clear.
4. If they've never been to South America (i assume they go frequently to N Amer), and it's verifiable, it may be of interest.
5. If they've never been anywhere in Oceania other than Australia and/or New Zealand, it may be of interest.
6. No one cares whether they count 5 or 7 continents -- unless that has the effect of avoiding attention to what might be construed as an intention not to go to S.Am., and/or to Anzac, and/or to anywhere in Oceania except Anzac and/or Hawaii.

   I'm keeping "three continents", with vague and fact tags, and dropping reference to the total # of continents.
--Jerzy•t 05:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

what has happened to this article?

Where are the sections?

Where are the references?

I had added a section on a documentary film. I felt that it was appropriate with this article and not its own article; now it is deleted.

Was someone on a path of destruction?Dstern1 (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

fix

I made some fixes to restore. Still needs much improvement.Dstern1 (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Moral Rearmament

Resolved

I don't quite understand why there is no mention of Moral Rearmament in this article. You really can't separate UPW from MRA. From what I understand, Sing Out was the music program of MRA, they performed at their conventions and meetings. The program proved to be so popular that it was spun out on its own and renamed UPW when Belk took it over. Sing Out was sort of the squeeky clean mouthpiece of the MRA, as it moved away from the religious to a more patriotic movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nospamtodd (talk • contribs) 21:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

MRA and SO are covered now.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Just came across this page, and there is no mention of Moral Rearmament anymore. This issue should be re-opened.

COI Template

I placed a COI Template. At least the very beginning of the entry is lifted word for word from upwithpeople.org. This needs to be rewritten with WP:secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.80.111.142 (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

What happened to this article?

This article used to have an entire section detailing criticisms of this group and even included information about a documentary from a former member of the group that criticized the group's practices. Now all of that has been scrubbed and this article reads like a PR puff piece. Disappointing. 98.220.122.106 (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I actually started editing Wikipedia because I felt like this article was biased and that it had clearly been written by someone with a connection to the organization. Looks like they deleted all of my edits. Oh well. CharliApplesauce (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)