Talk:Creativity (religion)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Beliefs

This section could be easily expanded by citing the websites of the various groups promoting Creativity and the books they distribute. I'd do it myself but I won't have the time for some days. Also, would it be considered bad form to list these beliefs or points in the article? Just a thought. --SCochran4 (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The article Nature's Eternal Religion isn't notable by itself, however, it is notable in relation to Creativity (religion). I suggest we merge the former into the latter. Thoughts? --SCochran4 (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article now redirects to this one. --SCochran4 (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

George Loeb

In a Google search of "George Loeb" the top four results (where I stopped) were related to the Reverend George Loeb mentioned. Also, in their sections on Creativity, both the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center mention Rev. Loeb. I believe the section on him should stay and be further developed. --SCochran4 (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Creativity Movement Logo.png

The image File:Creativity Movement Logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Is Creativity atheistic?

The short answer is yes.

The long answer is no. Atheism is a negative position- a lack of belief in gods. Creativity makes assertive claims about the way the world works- as every religion does; to say that Creativity is atheistic is to say nothing of the assertions and claims the religion makes. Essentially, using the term "atheist" to describe Creativity is to describe what the religion isn't, rather than what it is. It would be like making the point in the Christianity article that Christians don't believe in Odin or Allah. The term "atheist" also carries with it the connotation of disbelief, a definite misrepresentation of Creativity- which, as I said, makes absolute truth claims about the way the world works.

Moreover, from a religious persons point of view, "atheist" may be considered a derogatory term which could skew the article away from a neutral point of view. It is much more appropriate to list or enumerate the beliefs of the church, at which point their lack of a belief in gods and the like will become apparent, and the mention of their atheistic tendencies, redundant.

Enumerating the church's beliefs kills two birds with one stone. Doing so will

  • Give more information about the religion to the reader; and
  • Maintain the neutral tone of the article

I believe that this is the best way to proceed. Thoughts? --Scochran4 (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge from Creativity Movement

I merged the content from the page Creativity Movement to here in various ways. I merged the content under the names of notable Creators, placed information exclusive to the Creativity Movement under it's own heading, and merged content relevant to the Creativity religion into the article as required. Attribution is on Talk:Creativity Movement --Scochran4 (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I don't see the material from the movement article on Patrick O'Sullivan and on "Breakup and factionalism", just to mention two I see missing. Is there a reason those were omitted?   Will Beback  talk  01:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Essentially, anything that was uncited, irrelevant, or not notable I just didn't include in the merge. --Scochran4 (talk) 01:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
The Sullivan material has two citations.   Will Beback  talk  03:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I added it back, but one source is the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council and the other is a tabloid. I don't think those count as reliable sources. --Scochran4 (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps so. I can't find a reference to it in a US-centric newspaper archive which includes some Australian papers. I see the "Breakup and factionalism" material is mostly covered in "Notable organizations", though the history narrative of how there happened to be these groups is missing (it was unsourced in th old version so it's best left out anyway.)   Will Beback  talk  02:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Number of adherents?

Seem relevant. Anyone got any figures? Ethan Mitchell (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I see a few links suggesting "several thousand" or "twenty thousand", but nothing remotely notable. Ethan Mitchell (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Facts that the Government and Media Don't Want You to Know.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Facts that the Government and Media Don't Want You to Know.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 24 October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Multiple issues need resolved

For starters, the "Notable Creators" and "Notable Organizations" sections are not meant to be exhaustive lists of every Creator or every organization promoting Creativity. These sections should include only the most notable. Also, DO NOT use Wikipedia as a platform to advertise your group. I'm seeing a lot of that and I want to give those editors a chance to modify it. If it isn't satisfactorily modified it may be removed altogether.

Second, the use of forums, blogs, etc. as sources is discouraged, especially if they are seen as advertisements or links to other websites. Editors are also going straight to the religion's books for information and while such information can be used to support claims, the use of primary sources is not allowed. Please see WP:SOURCES for the policy on what is a reliable source and what is not.

Third, the recent influx of pictures on this article is unnecessary. Although it does serve to make the article attractive (almost like an advertisement) editors should only add pictures if they are both educational and necessary.

I'll be keeping an eye on this article. Feel free to improve it yourself (WP:BOLD) just make sure you're following the rules. If it's not done in a few days I'm going to ask an administrator to protect the article so we can focus on a rewrite without risk of intermediate, unconstructive edits.

--Scochran4 (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

First and foremost, at this time, there are the two main groups "The Creativity Movement" and "The Creativity Alliance" listed, along with "The White Voice," the "Blue Water Primary Group" as well as "Northland Creativity." Now, if there is to be any modifications whatsoever, Northland Creativity could be taken out and Steve Edwards of the White Voice can be said to be the Minister of it. The White Voice has to stay however, as that is part of New York Creativity.
Secondly, if we are referring to the www.Creator-Library.tk forum, such simply has to remain as it takes one to specific parts of the holy books of Creativity. Now, if we are talking about the Blue Water blog, that in itself is not a blog but rather is site-converted and it holds more doctrinal information that certain other sites. So therefore and thus, that also stays as well.
Whats good for the White Race is the highest virtue and what is bad for the White Race is the ultimate sin.
BuntingShane (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
BuntingShane, it's clear that you are close to the subject of the article. This may create a conflict of interest. Please make sure that your writing is neutral and verifiable.
Wikipedia is a tertiary source. This means that the only information included in Wikipedia articles is information that a secondary source (for example, a book author) has published using information from a primary source (for example, an interview or, in our case, a religious text). Publishing information from primary or secondary sources is discouraged. You may want to check out Wikipedia's core content policies to see what to include and what to avoid.
As it relates to this article, these policies mean that you can't include information that hasn't been published elsewhere by a reliable source, even if you know it's true. For example, you can't include the information about the radio program "The White Voice" unless it has made the news. Then, if it has made the news, you can only include the information from the news source. If you have any questions let us know.
--Scochran4 (talk) 22:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent removal of content

User 210.56.91.39 recently removed a lot of content from the page, most of which was unverifiable, however I noticed some images were removed and perhaps some content that needed to stay, so I reverted it. 210.56.91.39, please discuss here what you would like to remove and why so that we don't remove information that would be better left in the article. Thank you. --Scochran4 12:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scochran4 (talk • contribs)

Extensive Rewrite

I've completed an extensive rewrite of this article here. Also, I've created a list of all of the changes I made here. Please review those pages and leave your thoughts here. Thanks. --Scochran4 (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Controversy and Labels

There is undoubtedly a lot of controversy about Creativity. As such, there should be a sub-section that lists all the main criticisms of Creativity, and any responses to be found on the part of representatives of the religion... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.55.73 (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. Wikipedia discourages breaking out criticism and controversy into a separate section, and recommends that all criticism be discussed inline with the facts being criticized. See WP:CRITICISM.
You should also see WP:LEAD, which specifies that the lead should summarize the article. A major categorization of the religion from a reliable source belongs in the lead as well as in the article, otherwise the lead won't adequately summarize the article and certainly inclusion is such a category needs to be explained upfront to the reader as to who precisely has so categorized the subject. Yworo (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

"Improper use of religious texts"

"This article improperly uses one or more religious texts as primary sources without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them."

The simple fact is that Creativity is a fairly new religious movement. As such, there has been little if any actual criticism of the texts outside that of Klassen's use of the word "nigger" and labeling the religion White Supremacist and Neo-Nazi and what not which is why the religious texts need to be linked to where criticism of such fails to exist.

For instance, one won't know that Creativity rejects space exploration by reading an SPLC article. The key is to understand on Wikipedia. The key is knowledge. Either something is true or it is false. Where secondary sources are not to be found, then links to the texts suffice, especially even when those "critical second sources" are not even accurate in light of the facts. There are two articles online for instance that teach that Creativity is "Christian Identity" and Creators believe in Yahweh and other stuff along those lines.. Such is simply false. More could be said but it doesn't have to be as of yet.

Revisions May 2012

First and foremost, the Wikipedia article lists Creativity as "ethnocentric". Creativity cannot be listed as such in essence because it is racist and ethnocentrism does not equate with racist as being fundamentally the same. Creativity is calls itself a "white racial religion" and that alone says more than it being some "non-theistic, ethnocentric religion" in essence.

Secondly, Creativity has a strict naturalist philosophy. Creators believe that there is no supernatural realm but only the natural world that we are living in. Creators believe that races are natural enemies and that there are "laws of nature".

Third, the SPLC and their classification of the Creativity religion as "Neo-Nazi" is already noted in the article once and doesn't necessarily belong in the main paragraph. It is listed in the place where it belongs, that of the "Racial Socialism" section where a connection can positively be made.

Forthly, Klassen tried bringing over as many people that he could over to Creativity. The article lists that he tried pulling in Neo-Nazis, and that is absolutely true, however, not only them but Klansment and Skinheads and he maintained contact with lots of different individuals and his letters are compiled in the Klassen Letters Volumes One and Two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.90.143.2 (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


I don't know about the other objections, but using 'ethnocentric' as a euphemism for 'racist' really is a problem. Racist people are usually (perhaps even necessarily) ethnocentric but not all ethnocentric persons or organizations are racist. 'Racist' is a much more specific term and, while I would usually hesitate to apply it because of its (just and well earned) negative connotations it is nonetheless the correct objective and neutral term in this case. Neutrality in articles means not reporting one side's position on an issue to the exclusion of another's. Neither 'Creators' nor any other informed person holds the position that 'Creativity' is not racist. Thus I am altering the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.210.61 (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

External Links

Is it OK to link to their web site in external links The Creativity Movement Website Information about the Creativity Movement. Carmelmount (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Anomolous date system

Creationists have their own date system (AC) which is their choice. However, Wikipedia has an established date system (CE) which is used by a much larger group of English speaking people, and there is no reason this article should use a different one based on their distorted view of reality. Djapa Owen 22:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs)

Agree. Yworo (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Just A Note

The article says "The adherents of this religion are individually known as Creators and as a group are known historically as the Church of the Creator, although this name was lost in a trademark infringement case against the World Church of the Creator.", but if you click the link for World Church of the Creator it redirects you back to the Creativity article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.71.48.56 (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The circular link has been removed. Djapa Owen (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Image

File:Brian Kozel.gif
Brian Kozel

,

which i found at the commons, appears to be an image of Brian Kozel. shall this be added to the article?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

This image is highly biassed (martyred hero?) and really should not be included at all. Djapa Owen (talk) 04:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal?

The tone of the entire article seems biased in favour of Creativity; I suggest taking a more objective, neutral approach.

I think a 'criticisms' or 'controversy' section would be useful in making this a less biased article. 71.198.210.61 (talk) 22:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I also suggest replacing 'religion' (and variants of) with 'cult', as that would be a more fitting description for this system of beliefs, as well as carrying more appropriate connotations. 176.255.78.46 (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You're worried about bias, but then encourage using the term "cult" instead of "religion" because you dislike it. Who's biased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.183.123 (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I propose the neutral term "new religious movement". The definition- a religious community or spiritual group of modern origins, which has a peripheral place within its nation's dominant religious culture- is appropriate and it doesn't carry the negative connotations that "cult" carries. -Seth Cochran (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Given the movement's condemnation of spirituality and the spiritual aspects of humanity as a subset of its condemnation of non-white people I don't think 'religion' is an useful term is describing these people, even though they incorporate many of the trappings of Protestantism in the US. Perhaps "new racial policlub" or "new racially conservative political organization" would be more appropriate?71.198.210.61 (talk) 22:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

What do reliable sources call it? Dougweller (talk) 09:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Intro Improvements Suggestion

Thanks for the recent edits to the intro. Instead of edit warring, let's discuss changes before we make them. A recent edit changed the phrase "common religion" to "common racist cultural and political organization." While the adjective "racist" is accurate, I've not heard Creativity described as a cultural and political organization. What I've read calls it a religion. I'm in favor of merging the two (a common racist religion) or adding both in the intro (a common racist cultural and political organization or religion.) -Scochran4 (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Creativity (religion). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Re-write 2016

I removed a fair amount of duplication, and tried to improve readability. Needs many more in-line citations. Deaddebate (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Great deal of copy editing to still do. NPOV issues, duplication, jargon, excessive quoting without block quotes, excessive quoting instead of summarizing. Deaddebate (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Changed article quality to C. Volume of content is good, tone and NPV has improved, the main problem is the lack of comprehensive citation. But I feel it is now better than Start quality. Deaddebate (talk) 14:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Edits to page as of 3:53, December 10, 2016

Discussion as to why reversion of text is made.4.59.76.254 (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

What is your question? Rockypedia (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

There were a number of edits made. What specific edits are wrong or "non-constructive"? And why does all edits have to be reverted if there is just a few alleged mis-edits? Why does reverted feel that edits don't belong?107.77.164.95 (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

None of your edits cited sources or offered valid reasons for removal of info. Also, you've blown through WP:3RR at this point. Please take the time to read that page and WP:CYCLE to understand how editing is done on Wikipedia. I also must reiterate that registering an account would help you, as your IP address is changing with your edits and it's difficult to converse. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Most of the edits were in fact links to other Wikipedia articles of subject.

Far more information was added than taken.

And information added was constructive and resourceful.107.77.164.33 (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Why were "good-Faith" edits reverted?107.77.164.48 (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Emergence triangle

Source link - says white triangle symbolizes emergence of a "whiter and brighter world" under Creativity. One - Eduardo persists in reversion of fact-based statement. White triangle - not mean a whiter and brighter world, symbolizes the emergence of such pointing <--- to Creativity being the means of establishing such. I- not member of Creativity religion. Need of reversion, why?107.77.244.51 (talk) 04:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Your only edits appear to be to article, this religion's founder Ben Klassen, and adding this religion prominently to Religious humanism. The linked article says "Their flag consists of the church symbol on a red background. The blood-red color symbolizes their "struggle for the survival, expansion and advancement of the White Race." There is a white triangle at the right side of the flag which symbolizes the emergence of a "Whiter and Brighter World.""[1], as anyone can see. Edward321 (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Precisely. Triangle at right side <---- symbolizes *emergence* of said "whiter and brighter world", not: triangle on the right represents *a* "whiter and brighter world." Reversion, why?208.123.206.46 (talk) 04:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Creativity (religion). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Rewrite

This article should be rewriten , without mentioning Creativity movement and Creativity Alliance which are not true creativity but violent crime cults.They have nothing in common with original Klassen Church.83.131.189.170 (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Articles summarize professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources.
We are not a propaganda service for any group.
Ian.thomson (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Only sources cited on this page are websites of "creativity movement" and "creativity alliance" , their propaganda and not facts. Article should be about Klassen era creativity , not about bunch of criminals using this name to cover their activities as religion.As you maybe know not , Klassen was respected member of society , yes with some strange views , he was not skinhead or some freak of kind .He was not promoting killings as like today "creativity movement" (Their member Allen Goff "accidentaly" shot one man of mexican ethnicity , while "alliance" member Gibbs tried to mass poison people with sarin or how it is called). Please remove their links as many people came to contact with them via wikipedia article.93.143.6.107 (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

If you actually look at the References section, you'll see that the overwhelming majority of the sources cited are independent, third-party sources (such as newspapers), with a few references to Klassen's writings. I'll look for any further citations to Creativity websites that aren't discussed in independent sources and remove them. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is more about violent sect of creativity promoted by convicted criminal Hale and his minions.Most of Klassen era Creators do not recognise them and their "movement" and "alliance" as Creativity.One can become member of those organisations only by commiting some crime as revealed in case of those Gibbs moron sorry for use of such speech but know not how to say it polite.Most of today Creators are not member of any organisation , but practice their religion in their privacy."movement" and "alliance" are web spammers misusing internet to recruit extremist.78.0.162.198 (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

This article is about whatever gets coverage in professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

This article is non-objective and show Creativity religion as consisted only of maniacs like Hale , Logsdon , Campbell , Gibbs , Goff , ... but there is more than 10 000 Creators in world of whom less than one thousand belongs to either "Creativity Movement" or "Creativity alliance" and of them only small fraction are criminals , and you present these two small sects as synonimes for Creativity . 83.131.177.242 (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

This article neutrally summarizes what professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources says about the topic. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
And besides, if Creativity isn't supposed to be represented by its fringes, why are white people supposed to be credited with only the achievements of a few visionaries, and non-white people are supposed to be blamed for the acts of a few criminals? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Questions about Accuracy

After an IP contributed a source which stated that the organization was nonviolent, I decided to check the article's claims about a war and violence and such else. Turns out that none of them are verified. Unless someone can provide evidence that the organization did indeed promote a "holy race war", I'll need to remove all such statements from this article. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: I'm not sure what you mean by evidence, but here are some sources. You shouldn't just delete, you should try to source. Please look at them and tell me which you don't find acceptable and why.[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Thanks. By the way, I see no source saying that Creativity is nonviolent. Doug Weller talk 17:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Thanks for checking this, and I apologize for jumping off the deep end. I'm particularly sensitive to things like this and panicked when I noticed that many of those details had {{citation needed}} or {{failed verification}} tags on them. The source I referred to is [7]. It claims the Chruch opposed violence of efficacy grounds. My first reaction to seeing it was to be dubious of it, but then I decided that it was better than those instances of no sourcing. I assume you know more about this topic then I do, given the fact that you were watching this page, so I'll leave you to reconcile them. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Creativity is humanistic

Creativity is a humanistic religion that doesn't believe in the supernatural and is bent on white supremacy with an essentially scientific pantheist theology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.226.17 (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for discussing the topic, this is a page for discussing how to improve the article. If you want to propose any changes to the page, please include reliable sources, also. Grayfell (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding some text in the article

There is text saying: The worldview of Creativity is based on the veneration of the white race and the supposed safeguarding of its survival, including waging "racial holy war" on Jews, black people and non-white people of mixed race. That of course is not cited. An addition was added to change the text to: The worldview of Creativity is based on the "survival, expansion and advancement of the White race", based on the "external laws of nature, the experience of history, on logic and common sense" and members of the movement believe in a "racial holy war" between the "white and non-White races" (including Jews, black people and non-white people of mixed race). That of course is cited. It is not a question of who is being quoted. It is a reliable source and outlines the basics of the movement. There are other problems with the reverted text. While there are no actual "mixed races", the term "supposedly" is not exactly neutral as it indicates that the writer doubts the truthfulness of the statement. The reliable source uses quotation marks to deal with the topic of neutrality. How the text stands, it actually endorses certain racist propaganda, namely that of "mixed races" instead of saying the movement believe in a racial holy war between "white and non-White races". Note, the article doesn't even put "mixed race" in quotations. Nor is the statements backed up with verifiable sources.64.134.170.9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The lede summarizes the body, and if content is cited in the body than it is not strictly required in the lede.
It is not a matter of if you can figure out who you are quoting, is is matter of the article fully explaining, through attribution, who is being quoted.
This is not the place to discuss your theories on whether or not multiracial people exist. Do not revert again until consensus has been reached here, on this talk page. Grayfell (talk) 07:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Questions and assessment for improvements

I just read this article. It left a few questions for eventual research for sources confirming/disproving (and considered irrelevant if no RS can be found discussing it):

  1. I see elements of a cult, but no mention of this.
  2. Although pantheistic, if believing in a superior race that is the end of creation, is there also related creationist belief like in the great chain of being or similar? Or does it inherit the Odinist/Heathenry ratial/Aryanist paganism from Neo-völkisch movements? Thulean Aryan from Atlantis origin myth?
  3. There is no mention of pseudoscientific racism arguments.
  4. In relation to violence: is official doctrine contradicting an internal doctrine (oral or internal texts) known to differ? From the current reading, the founder's text advocated violence if ultimately necessary but the official position would be against violence, with violence acts considered of the "lone wolf" type.
  5. Any possible personality cult with the founder? Absence in the holidays may suggest the negative.
  6. Did any author address the curious dichotomy between traditional Abrahamic conservative moral positions and anti-Christian+naturalistic-pantheism+supernatural-rejection or of afterlife judgement? Possibly related would be when courts struggled to determine if it was indeed religious...
  7. At some points the narrative becomes conspiracy theory (i.e. "The White Man's Bible says the Zionist Occupational Government will prevent Creativity from being promoted legally"). Is mainstream society, are people of color, all considered Zionist here?

These are "seeds" to look for sources about and/or clarify the article text where relevant, there is no need to reply without citing sources. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 11:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The Creativity Movement under Matthew F. Hale might've had elements of a "cult of personality" surrounding Hale but as a religion / philosophy / ideology it doesn't appear to be "cultic" although it is hierarchical. It is no more cultic than the Roman Catholic or LDS church. The LDS church has a "prophet" whose words are considered more or less divine whereas the Pope in Roman Catholicism is considered the "vicar of Christ" on Earth.

Creativity is a White Atheistic Racialist religion that could also be considered Scientific Pantheist depending on scholarly perspective. Creativity shares a commonality with atheism in that they do not believe in "spooks in the sky", a "pie in the sky when you die" or "fry when you die" (Gods, angels, heaven, hell or a supernatural). But unlike atheism, they affirm the notion of race as having a biological basis and in certain respects make a deity out of "Nature" and he certainly could be called Scientific Pantheist as well as atheistic. The Satanic Bible for example talks about "God" being a force in the cosmos though the Church of Satan as led by High Priest Gilmore calls LaVeyan Satanists "skeptical atheists". So it depends in part on perspective. Ben Klassen linked his ideology up with "Nontheistic religion". But they do not address origin or adhere to the "Aryanist" esoteric doctrines you are referring to. Matthew Hale said that Creativity doesn't teach against the theory of the White race having been formed by Nordic extraterrestrials from space -- rather, Creativity doesn't adress the topic. And Klassen taught that "Nature" was "eternal".

Creativity appears to have been set up so as to approve of violence for self-defense but not as an instigation. Creativity adheres to the notion that the White race is under attack and that for a race to survive, the race needs exclusive territory. Creativity hence affirms Europe for Europeans and believes in using "legal" methods to repatriate non-whites to Africa and Asia and believes in exclusive lands for the sole habitation of white people. The end goal is a "white planet" but Creativity is content with Arabs having deserts and other "unhospitable" lands being occupied by other races. Violence is justified within the framework of self-defense according to the platform designed by Klassen. Matt Hale has spoken out against "lone wolf" actions but has nonetheless not countered men personally who have carried then out.

Courts have been divided on the subject of if Creativity is a "religion". Satanic Temple was recognized and they have less doctrine than Creativity and atheism itself constitutes a religion under the First Amendment along with forms of Humanism. Baha'i seeks to "unify humanity under a common cause and faith" whereas Creativity seeks to do similar with white people including the usage of an international auxiliary language.

Creativity didn't actually use the term "Zionist Occupational Government" but rather "Jewish Occupational Government". Their teaching is the establishment will not allow a religion for the preservation for the White race and he certainly if assassination is carried out against ministers in Creativity, they will assassinate Jewish rabbis. If the establishment would prevent Creativity from operating as a religion like any other, they would "take the law into their own hands".172.58.43.57 (talk) 05:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

First paragraph

Before this edit (by me) this was the first sentence:

Creativity (formerly known as The Church of the Creator and the World Church of the Creator) is a pantheistic white separatist, white supremacist, white nationalist, antisemitic, anti-Christian religion which has been classified as a neo-Nazi hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League.

This was too awkward, so I changed it to this:

Creativity (formerly known as The Church of the Creator and the World Church of the Creator) is a pantheistic, white supremacist religion. The movement rejects Christianity and espouses white nationalism and anti-Semitism. Creativity has been classified as a neo-Nazi hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League.

I removed the link to Anti-Christian sentiment, which redirected to Criticism of Christianity. This link doesn't seem relevant enough to preserve. I have also removed the bit about "white separatism", as this redirects to a subsection of white supremacy, making it redundant.

Not everything details belongs in the first sentence, or the lede at all. The article should reflect defining traits per reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for simplifying it. It is better the way you edited it to.172.58.43.57 (talk) 05:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Grayfell:, sometime after this discussion quiesced and before the 30 September 2021 state of the article (to which the reverts outlined below restored the article), the link to Anti-Christian sentiment was restored to the lead paragraph. At the time you wrote, it was a redirect, but it's now a one-paragraph stub. I still don't think it's relevant enough to preserve, so I've removed it again, and reworded slightly, but wanted to give you a heads-up so you could re-check the lead paragraph. Mathglot (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Good catch. Since that newer article, such as it is, is mainly about ancient Rome, I don't think it is relevant to this topic. If anything, it's less relevant than Criticism of Christianity. Grayfell (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Pantheism and America's Secret Jihad

There are currently two inline citations for describing Creativity as pantheistic, the PublicEye.org website and a book entitled America's Secret Jihad: The Hidden History of Religious Terrorism in the United States -- the latter ref is missing a proper cite template and no page number(s) are provided. Laval (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Recent unsourced IP changes undone

I've gone through recent contributions by various anonymous IPs (174.253.192.232, 174.253.193.54, 174.214.1.46, 66.187.28.2 ) and in a series of edits I have reverted it back to revision 1046903656 of 28 September 2021 by User:M.Bitton. (I followed up with welcome/unsourced messsages on their talk pages.) Thanks also to users @Beyond My Ken, Grayfell, and Doug Weller: who have been active here combatting vandalism in the past: if it has dropped off your watchlist, please add it back on and watch for unsourced IP activity. Not sure if we need to ask for semi-protection yet; let's see how this works out. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Based on prior familiarity, two of the three IPs are experienced and have been making these kinds of edits for years. Previous attempts to explain the many problems with these edits, haven't made a difference. I'm not sure about the third IP and I don't know if this is all a single editor, but I think it's possible. This IP's disruptive behavior has previously spilled-out to White ethnostate, Wotansvolk, and David Lane (white supremacist), as well. Grayfell (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
@Grayfell: wasn't aware of that history, thanks; I've added those three to my watchlist. Mathglot (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
@Mathglot: it's on my watchlist, which is too big for me to review it often enough! Doug Weller talk 13:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Changing the title

The name of this article should be changed from Creativity (religion) to Creativity (cult) or Creativity (Neo-fascist movement). The name of the article lends a degree of legitimacy to this white supremacist, neo-fascist movement as an actual religion in the name of a sense of "neutrality" since this site is for the purpose of being an encyclopedia. The problem with this is that it essentially waters down the realities about this disgusting movement which are outlined within the article. The article describes this cult as a neo-fascist movement, the title should reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:3A39:51D1:9C40:19E6:19C4:2605 (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Creativity_(religion)/Archive_1&oldid=1146771234"