Talk:Creativity Movement

message: There's now a separate entry for Ben Klassen - I moved details of his suicide there. Also tidied some grammar. Need an entry for the Creativity Movement (if there's anything to say about it). David Gerard 17:34, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Ben Klassen

message: The organisation's name is now the Creativity Movement. Should the article be moved there and this be made a redirect? - David Gerard 13:35, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
:Done. — No-One Jones (talk) 12:11, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: creativity movement

message: Anybody have any information concerning the number of members/adherents? Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss) 08:26, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Matt Hale had 40,000 practising members of his church, with 2 million supporters who practised it in some form. But, since it is a religion, who can tell the true number...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.155.117.103 (talk) 07:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: number

message: The section titled "Doctrine of the organization" seems to be a random collection of text, rather than a definitive doctrine. There's specific source given for the quotations, and Goggle, amkes it appear as if they had been plucked from here and there.  I see there are "16 Commandments" that we could quote a few of and summarize the rest. I think that makes more sense than this list of anonymous pithy sayings. -Willmcw 03:57, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the article needs the entire thing spelled out as it looks like it is pushing an agenda and might be a copyvio. I think something along the lines of "The Creativity Movement's basic beliefs are spelled out in their offical 16 Commandments" with an external link to the source would more than suffice. Barring objection in the next few days I'll make the change. NeoFreak 08:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctrine of the organization 

message: I've done a lot of research on Creativity. It is White supremacist in the most literal possible sense of the term. 
A lot of it's doctrines are obviously derived from older ideologies, and are shared by other ideologies that aren't necessarily racially oriented at all.
Vegetarianism. Veganism. Raw foodism (rawism).
"Cooked food is unnatural"- definitely NOT unique to them.
Obviously, other ideologies promote atheism and materialism (in the sense of denying anything spiritual, the position that matter is the sum total of existence, not the sitting in a hot tub, eating fish eggs, drinking champagne sense of materialism).
Gringo300 05:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: commentary

message: Do we really need to have the flag on the page be animated/waving? Is their a reason this is so? This page seems to be unique in being granted the privelege to have a animated picture representing the group. Why not just a static flag? Seems like if we were wanting to go to extreme care an static flag would also be best for those with poor eyesight. -CasualEditor 02:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Animated Flag

message: the wcotc doesn't deny the holocaust, in fact, i've seen them criticize hitler and the holocaust for "killing many whites"... also, you cannot group them as a fascist or a neo-nazi group, since they are neither. there is a difference between white supremacism, fascism, and national socialism (nazism). they say on one of their sites (rahowa.net) that they "are not nazis, since they have killed so many whites"... they go on to list examples (Poles, French, Czechs, et cetera).
:Ben Klassen, found of the movement, wrote in his WHITE MAN’S BIBLE:
:*Holocaust Claims a Fantastic Lie. The facts are these: There were only 500,000 Jews in Germany when Hitler came to power. Most of these migrated to the U.S. before 1939. There were never more than 3 million Jews in all the territory that Hitler’s armies occupied during the entire war, so it was of course physically impossible for them to have killed six million. As already stated, there is not a shred of evidence that the Germans ever proposed, sanctioned, or contemplated such a policy of exterminations.
:On that basis it seems reasonable to say that the Creativity Movement denies the Holocaust. -Will Beback 23:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He says the Holocaust is a lie, that's denial. -Will Beback 23:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fascism isn't restricted to Nazis. Anyone who was familiar with the term would know that, and easily recognize that this group falls into that category. 24.126.199.129 10:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  First off, Fascism is its OWN ideology! Read Mussolini's book! Second, calling it "denial" means that you hate that person. I don't believe in the myth of "6 million dead JEWS". That means I don't believe in your myth, not that I am "therefore wrong" simply because you believe in it. By your "logic" anyone who would deny one form of christianity would therefore be a "denial" belief system...!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.155.117.103 (talk) 07:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  doesn't deny holocaust... 

message: In this section, the last paragraph cites no sources, nor can I find any mention of this Adam Hanson fellow other than here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slippered sleep (talk • contribs) 22:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm very "iffy" on most of this article. If you have an issue with any unsoucred material or assertions than go ahead and pull it. It's not you responsibility to fact check other people's inclusions, it is their responsibility. NeoFreak 13:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's all this about police informants? 

message: Excerpt of the source I added:
 Expert: Hatreds rooted in poverty don't thrive here
 
 The Telegram & Gazette Worcester, MA
 9.7.1999
 
 By Kathleen A. Shaw
 
 (...)
 
 Property values in the Bay State are too high, said J. Gordon Melton, a
 professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara, who has done
 extensive research on such groups.
 
 (...)
 
 "It's a real church," Melton said. But members don't believe in God.
 
 "They are atheists," he said. The term "creator" refers to themselves.
 "We are our own creator," is their belief, Melton said, noting that
 Smith was once the group's "Creator of the Month" for his efforts in
 handing out hate literature.
 (...)
Note: J. Gordon Melton is regarded as a cult apologist. Nevertheless, he is often quoted as an "expert", so his opinion is relevant here IMO. --Tilman 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melton 

message: is this really supposed to suggest a connection to Manichaeism, or would dualism be a more appropriate word? —Charles P._(Mirv) 03:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "racial Manichaeanism" 

message: It needs to be stated that the "Creativity Movement" is the name of a social club that follows Creativity, which is a religion, and thus has no single group or church. Creativity is a religion and as such cannot have just one or two groups or churches! The title of the entry on Wiki should be called Creativity or Creativity religion or Ben Klassen's Creativity... Calling it "The Creativity Movement" would be like calling Mormonism "The LDS Church of Smith", or Shintoism "Japanese Dance"!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.155.117.161 (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion, NOT one group! 

message: Matt Hale had over 40,000 dedicated practicing Creators before his arrest. Since there is no single Creativity Church now, and since anyone can be a follower of a religion and not claim they are online, and counting supporters, I would say, having known Matt Hale and Hardy Lloyd well, that there are now some 60,000-80,000 full time practitioners of Creativity, and perhaps 2 million supporters who study the teachings and follow it in some way... But, since it is a religion, who can truly say...?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.155.117.161 (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers... 

message: I removed the "See Also- Neo-Nazi Organizations..." section from the article because there is no relationship between Creativity and Nazis.  The holy books of Creativity make the point clear that Creativity is not a rehash of Nazi philosophy.  I removed the "White Supremacist Organizations" template for the same reason--scochran4 (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You removed the White Supremacist tag because "The holy books of Creativity make the point clear that Creativity is not a rehash of Nazi philosophy."? Since this logically implies that Nazi philosophy is the only White Supremacist philosophy, i must be missing something in your deduction.. ? I re-added the links you removed, as well as all of the foreign language wiki-links which you deleted in your removal free-for-all; at least until there's some kind of consensus. Quaeler (talk) 08:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see.  My cause for removing the references to White supremacy in the article is due to the fact that Creativity is not a White supremacist organization.  A White supremacist organization wishes for the White race to rule over other races.  This is not a goal of Creativity; therefore, labeling the Creativity Movement as a White supremacist organization is inappropriate.  --scochran4 (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not really the only definition for White supremacist... it appears, please correct me if i'm wrong, that they believe not only in separation, but that "White people are the creators of all worthwhile culture and civilization"  which is pretty much the OED example of a belief in supremacy. What am i missing in that assessment? Quaeler (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I've noticed no rebuttal, and yet you (scochran4) keep changing the article verbiage from White supremacist to White separatist; please state a rebuttal or cease making the change. Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 06:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The editing has since ceased to be about White supremacy v. white seperatism and has turned into an all-out edit war between myself and User:Tacosunday, among others.  I'm trying to resolve the issue per [[WP:DR] --scochran4 (talk) 06:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A classic non-answer. (Therefore, stop making the change once the article becomes unlocked). Quaeler (talk) 06:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Granted, I did not directly answer your question.  The point is moot.  I was not editing the article for the specific purpose of removing references to White supremacist organizations.  Rather I was reverting the article due to lack of citation and general falseness.  The reversion of White supremacist to White separatist was included in this.  --scochran4 (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Neo-Nazi Organization

message: The Creator Declaration should have a citation.  --scochran4 (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The Creator Declaration

message: "Thoughtcrime69er" shouldn't be allowed to include external links to white supremacist websites.    --Tacosunday (talk) 02:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On what basis?  The websites of Creativity organizations provide the most comprehensive view on the subject because they are, in fact, the source of the religion.  --scochran4 (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The external links that I provided to the ADL, and SPLC, are completely sufficient for source information. White supremacists are using Wikipedia to spread hate. This blatant abuse of Wikipedia must cease. --Tacosunday (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Using that logic, I could say that the ADL and SPLC are spreading hate against White people for giving Creators a bad image.  You're logic is flawed.  The Creativity Alliance website offers the most comprehensive overview of the Creativity creed.  Not posting the link would be favoring your POV because you think that Creators promote hate and as you know, Wikipedia won't tolerate POV.  This is not a soapbox for you to preach your ideals any more than it is a soapbox for Creators to preach theirs.  This is about facts, not love or hate, and the links included by myself and Thoughtcrime offer the facts.  Ultimately the logic backing up your claims does not hold water.  --scochran4 (talk) 04:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Tacosunday; self-assessment is not reputable, as only secondary and tertiary sources should be used, not primary sources. Is OJ Simpson a reliable source regarding the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson? Rock8591 (talk) 08:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to white supremacy websites 

message: Enough.  Tacosunday, until we all come to consensus, don't edit the article again.  If you have a problem with the article, explain yourself, and we'll do our best to see you through.  Don't turn this into an edit war and try not to throw slurs like "racist" or "white supremacist" again because it's not helping you any.  If you have a problem with the facts, state them.  If not, leave the article alone.  --scochran4 (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Tacosunday, this is a final warning.  Unless you talk about the reasons you keep editing the article, I'll report you for vandalism.  --scochran4 (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: I've protected the page temporarily. Protection is always on the "wrong" version. I encourage users to discuss their edits on this page rather than just reverting.   Will Beback  talk   07:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: They can have the links to their racist websites. They've made Adolf Hitler very proud. It's a very sad day for all Jews and non whites :(  --Tacosunday (talk) 07:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're POV is getting in the way of editing.  I don't care if the links stay or go, so long as the article provides as much information to the reader as possible.  In my opinion, the reader gets more information if the links to the religious sites stay.  --scochran4 (talk) 07:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

text: It doesn't matter what they say.  You're getting totally off the topic of the accuracy of the article.  If you'd like to discuss the article, I'd be more than happy.  If you want to discuss racism, go elsewhere.   Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  WP:NOTSOAPBOX  --scochran4 (talk) 07:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're one of the main perpetrators. I looked at the site link that you posted (www.creativityalliance.com) and it was extremely racist & antsemitic. As a third generation holocaust survivor, I think it's terrible. --Tacosunday (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:   Tacosunday, please do not consider me callous, but the fact that you think "it was extremely racist & antisemitic" or that "as a third generation holocaust survivor, I think it's terrible" does not matter in this context.  Your opinions are highly valued, but they can not be taken into account here.  If everyone's opinions were always taken into account, edit wars would run rampant as they have here.  Your opinions qualify as a point of view wp:pov, specifically, biased writing.  Wikipedia strives to maintain a neutral point of view wp:npov.  I'm sure that many people consider that website to be racist and antisemitic.  I'm also sure that many people consider that website to contain the creed that will save humanity.  Regardless of either point of view, this Wikipedia article must present only the facts.  The link I posted to the Creativity Alliance should be kept because the website supplies concise and accurate information concerning the religion that this article is about.  If you can provide a reason for this article to be removed, please state your reasons, but please be sure to keep them free from your opinions.  Thank you.  --scochran4 (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

text: As has already been said, the links are there to supply the facts. If Wikipedia has a desire to cut some of those links, I have no qualms about that. It's the changes to everything else that I have issues with. Tacosunday appears to be claiming that the links are his or her only worry, yet is making drastic changes to the bulk of the article and refusing to acknowledge that he has done so. This is beyond POV and to me smells of a political or personal agenda.Thoughtcrime69er (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You can POV until you're blue in the face. I smell some white supremacists attempting to get more traffic to their racist websites. Those websites are filling young minds full of hate. Isn't one holocaust enough? --Tacosunday (talk) 08:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a place to discuss personal beliefs one way or the other.  Frankly, these talks haven't contributed to the article in the least.  I propose that a link to the Creativity Alliance be placed in the "External Links" section of the article for educational reasons.  I contend that the website offers valuable information about the religion "Creativity" that would serve to further inform readers.  Are there any objections?  --scochran4 (talk) 08:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I object!!! And I guarantee that all racist links will be removed from this site once the SPLC finds out.
--Tacosunday (talk) 09:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you object?  Please keep your objection free of POV.  --scochran4 (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  White Supremacists win 

message: I propose that Racial Holy War be merged with this article.  --scochran4 (talk) 10:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Creativity is a RELIGION, and thus cannot by simply titled on WIKI as "The Creativity Movement", since this is one group, who isn't run as a church anyway!! There is also no mention of the fact that there are many churches world wide that are Creativity based. And I could care less about one group claiming to be the end all of a religion, because they can't!! Are you going to list Mormonism as "The LDS Movement" next? Perhaps cristianity as "The Catholic Movement"? Maybe judaism as "The israely movement"? Or Islam as "The Arab Movement"?????????????????????  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.155.117.68 (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please discuss this above under "Change the Name!"  --scochran4 (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning "concensus" 

message: The use of this sentance: "the movement is atheistic" is wrong! Creativity is the belief in Creativity as written by Ben Klassen. Atheism is the belief in no spooks. Therefore, atheism and Creativity are different ideologies!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.155.117.103 (talk) 07:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I should add that Atheism is the belief in simply no ghosts, deities, santa claws and such... Creativity shares this one aspect with Atheism, but Atheism has no other Ideology within it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.155.117.250 (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not atheism! 

message: In america, you people seem to always use your emotions to catagorise people, groups and ideologies. Why is this? You throw terms and names around like crazy! Terms like "Fascist" and "Neo-Nazi" to you mean "evil", when their actual deffenition is an ideology. Creativity is a pro White ideology, nothing more! I don't think Creativity is the answer to saving White people from harm, but you can't just call them names either!! WIKI needs to create a "Pro White" catagory and place all these groups there!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.155.117.103 (talk) 07:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The problem of Catagories... 

message: This is on the page, and should be taken off!!
Even though I am a racist, I found this funny!!
LOL
"Today's Creativity movement has seen an increasing amount of tolerance and diversity within its ranks. There are homosexual members now. Many men in the groups live homosexual lifestyles as a cover for their racial agenda. This includes gay sex. Others had gone public with their personal affection for beautiful Jewish women and African American women. Some members have Afros now instead of shaved heads or close cropped hairstyles."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.155.117.82 (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spammers...! 

message: It's inappropriate to simply quote large blocks of source material. I've summarized this information and added a citation.   Will Beback  talk   02:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salubrious Living 

message: Someone needs to create a page just on the religion of Creativity...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Dean Roy (talk • contribs) 23:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creativity Religion page... 

message: Folks here need to act in a more collegial manner. Civility is a requirement. Edit warring is not tolerated. Material on living people must be properly sourced. Editors who continue to be disruptive may be banned from the project. Please comment on the edits, not the editors.   Will Beback  talk   06:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Those so-called sources are from people who simply are attacking Mr. Lloyd because they HATE his views. My interview with Mr. Lloyd, as well as his website, and the interview reported on PKWV radio and the "Pittsburgh Times" clearly state that 99% of what is claimed in those articles are false and slanderous statements!! Also, WIKI should not allow those articles and their claims to be added since they are biased writing. Would WIKI allow me to edit the section on WW2 or Judaism using NAZI SOURCES???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Dean Roy (talk • contribs) 18:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civility 

message: Creativity is close to Third Position, but I would say that the religious teachings of Creativity don't fall into Third Position. Creativity does have an anglo feel to it, plus it does not allow for debate, unlike Fascism. The 13 Holy Books cannot be argued against nor re-written! Where as Fascism encourages debate. Also, Third Position has a multi-racial following, whereas Creativity is only for Whites!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Dean Roy (talk • contribs) 18:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning Fascism and Creativity 

message: The section that currently reads
:In August 2004, Reverend Hardy Lloyd, friend and colleague of Reverend Hale, killed a former associate in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who was attempting to murder him and his wife  The act was ruled a case of self-defense by a jury on November 3, 2006. Based in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, Lloyd founded his own Church of Creativity in 2003, and was elected as Pontifex Maximus. In 2007, Lloyd left Creativity and started the "New Dawn", a multi-racial Fascist think-tank. Lloyd now spends his time promoting Fascism throughout the United States and Mexico.
should be reverted to the previous version, with a few changes
:In August 2004, Reverend Hardy Lloyd, friend and colleague of Reverend Hale, killed his current or former girlfriend in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. WTAE-TV Channel 4 News, PA Self-Defense Claimed In Squirrel Hill Girlfriend-ShootingPittsburgh Tribune Family of slain woman says goodbyeSPLC Former racist leader charged in woman's murderSPLC Acquitted of Murder, a Killer Boasts of His DeedADL White Supremacist Arrested in Pittsburgh ShootingSPLC Acquitted of Murder, Neo-Nazi Killer Taunts Victim’s Family The act was ruled a case of self-defense by a jury on November 3, 2006. Based in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, Lloyd founded his own Church of Creativity in 2003, and was elected as Pontifex Maximus. In 2007, Lloyd left Creativity and started the "New Dawn", a multi-racial Fascist think-tank. Lloyd now spends his time promoting Fascism throughout the United States and Mexico. 
My modifications to the text are as follows: correcting a url in a reference that seems to have had another article copied over it, and clarifying his relationship with the woman he killed. The text is now in line with the reliable sources. There doesn't seem to be any objection to the last sentence, though I'm not sure this latest 'New Dawn' group has seen any media attention. Nevard (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks like a good change.   Will Beback  talk   01:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Oh, and my friend has just told me that Hardy Lloyd is now networking with La Raza and the Zapatanistas (spelling might be off)...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.155.117.57 (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe that Hardy A) Doesn't, for now, place others on their for safety, except Isaac, but Isaac is known around Pittsburgh as Hardy's friend... And B) Hardy tries to make his site about his ideas mostly. His wife does write on there, and we can see her head in some of the pics... But for safety reasons he only puts his, and Isaacs, photos on there...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.155.117.131 (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I suggested that they (the Mexican fascists) conceal their identities by wearing ski masks. I don't want anyone getting deported. --Tacosunday (talk) 03:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re. Section on Lloyd 

message: I've decided to be bold and try and improve the part about it being 'atheistic' in the opening.  The old version, to me, gave the impression this movement stemmed from atheism, or that atheism was at the heart of it, which, going by the rest of the article, isn't actually correct.  What I've attempted to do was echo what the rest of the article seems to say - that white supremacy is the central core of this movement, and atheism is only one requirement amongst many needed to be a part of this movement. The link under external links actually gives a better source about this being a commandment, but, going by previous discussion, some would be upset about links to white supremacist websites being used as citations in the main body of the article (which, personally, I can understand - it potentially gives such people the oxygen of web traffic). 92.1.155.88 (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Atheistic' 

message: KarlKraft seems to be making a large number of changes to the article. Many of them are clear WP:NPOV violations, others seem to completely change the meaning of the text. All with few references and no discussion. In addition, at least one of the files added, Brian Kozel.gif, seems to be taken directly from another website and claimed as his own work. Since he seems to deprecate the source site, I assume it's not his. I'm going to wholesale revert his changes (again), and invite him to discuss the controversial changes individually. Glaucus (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'd further note that some of the material was not in the cited sources.   Will Beback  talk   00:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:KarlKraft|KarlKraft]]'s changes 

message: Creativity (religion) has recently been recreated as a separate article. I propose that it be merged into this one, as they seem to cover substantially the same topic; while they may technically be separate groups, they're all part of the same broader movement, and are short enough to be combined without making too lengthy an article.  Robofish (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Creativity is separate from any organization that promotes it.  My opinion is don't merge.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scochran4 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Do the different groups really merit separate articles under WP:NOTABLE? Glaucus (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if the articles about the organizations were merged into Creativity (religion), which I believe would be the most fitting arrangment, they could quickly outgrow that space and have to be seperated again.  However, I'm willing to discuss merging the organizations into the Creativity (religion) article.  --SCochran4 (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: I changed the description of the logo based on foundational text as opposed to a 10-minute video that one need not watch when text is readily available. Also the source for the video comes from a group that is opposed to TCM's existence and the capitalization of the words in the qoute don't reflect the religion's teachings, especially in regards to the "white race" which should be referred to as the "White Race" as mentioned in the Klassen Letter's volume one.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shane Bunting (talk • contribs) 01:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The source of the quote is verbal, not written. Wikipedia is not here to promote "the religion's teachings". Glaucus (talk) 03:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of Logo Changes 

message: The text that is provided by thoughtcrime69er is biased. The placement of James Logsdon as a convict near the very top isn't appropriate either. Therefore and thus I undid the edit of the current leader of the CA going by the name "thoughtcrime69er," as not only is information falsely presented, but there is a certain level of improperness in regards to his edits.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.42.90 (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undid Edits 

message: [] This section contains information that is questionable in regards to money that TCM group supposedly owes. If I am correct, the charges and cases were brought against Rev. Matt Hale and it would be he who owes the money. Same can be argued for the Missoula case in which TCM books were desecrated, the books belonged to Matt Hale. The WCOTC was not incorporated to the best of my knowledge at the time and/or registered with the IRS, and Matt Hale is clearly the one that the stuff was brought against.
The Creativity Movement group claims to not owe any money. 98.250.42.90 (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Present Day" Section 

message: # Added a template requesting additional citations within that section.
# Flagged "eight separate groups" as information needing a citation.  
# Removed a large amount of information concerning the "Church of the Rahowa" after checking the source and finding that, while the news was about the organization, none of the information in the Wikipedia article was provided in the news article.
# Flagged the paragraph beginning "Creators have seemingly settled into two...factions" as possible original research.
# Removed unverifiable information concerning "Ecclisia Creatoris"
This needs to be reverted I believe, as the Ecclesia Creatoris encompasses all of the main outreach to Creators in prison, and there are a lot of persons in prison that converted to the religion. The statement by Doug Weller that EC is not significant is hardly a fact. And as to your statement Cochran, the information is verifiable on the website, or my it's leader Rev. Lonnie Sartor.98.250.42.90 (talk) 11:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Breakup and factionalism

message: :Most of the names in the Legal Issues section are already covered in the article Creativity (religion).  Though most of the cases occurred during the existence of the World Church of the Creator, perhaps one or the other, preferably Creativity (religion) as it is the most inclusive, could provide the most extensive detail concerning the names mentioned and the corresponding section in the other article could link to it while providing a brief summary.
--SCochran4 (talk) 06:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: This website as well as any other website can quite possibly get Matt Hale's mail privileges revoked. The same has happened with Gary Yarbrough of The Order, with him getting extended prison time due to some of his writings being hosted on a few various pro-White sites. Now, the TCM site is different, as it doesn't actually host any of his writings. I ask that the link to the CA site be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.42.90 (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a touchy issue because although both sites provide information about the religion, we don't want to advertise for any particular group.  Let's get some other input before we make a decision.  --SCochran4 (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hale website 

message: Most of the content on the page was notable within the context of Creativity.  A lot of the information was uncited or not notable.  I merged the content of this article with Creativity (religion).  Please make further edits there.  --Scochran4 (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect