Talk:Creativity Alliance/Archive 1

Archive 1

New article

I just created the page. I plan on adding reference links and etc. You can't expect a complete page with all the data, in one single post. --Tacosunday (talk) 09:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I ask that, since the Creativity Alliance is considered a separate entity from the Creativity Movement while both adhere to the religion of Creativity, this article be allowed to stay and a stub written to replace it. Also, I recommend that the article "Creativity (religion)" be started to outline the particulars of the religion Creativity. Perhaps the three article should be merged at some point. --scochran4 (talk) 09:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

They never even gave it a chance. The creativity alliance is a separate group and deserves it's own page, regardless of what I think about it personally. --Tacosunday (talk) 09:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to create the page in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. If you read the deletion rationale, I tagged it as it does nothing but attack the organisation, (calling the leader a racist skinhead isn't exactly a compliment). I'd be more than happy to help you out if you want to expand the article, just be careful to maintain a neutral tone. • \ / (⁂) 10:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that sounds fair. I'll remove the racist skinhead part if I'm allowed to edit the page. --Tacosunday (talk) 10:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing stopping you. Simply click edit, remove the tags and edit away! :) • \ / (⁂) 10:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Concerning Scochran4's recent conflict of interest

He was originally in favor of this page, and now he's marked it as spam. He objects to the religious material that I provided from the same racist website that he links to. Yet, he's made no attempt to rewrite or contribute to this article. This racist fringe group isn't worthy of an article. It needs to be deleted along with their racist website. This proves beyond a reason of doubt, that it's impossible to paint a pretty picture of hate. --Tacosunday (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I am in favor of this page, as I feel it necessary to distinguish between the Creativity religion, the Creativity Movement, and the Creativity Alliance. I do not believe this article is spam. I merely stated that it was written in the format of an advertisement and that this needed to be reconciled to conform to Wikipedia's quality standards. I have not edited the article myself yet because I have not been available to compose a concise, accurate, NPOV entry, but I will happily do so. This has nothing to do with hate. If you can not distance yourself from the issue and take an appropriate neutral stance, I advise you to cease editing this article and focus on others, for the good of the community. Again, thank you for taking the time to work on this article. --scochran4 (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't ask for your advice. Telling me that I should be more neutral, and advising me to move on. That's a laugh. --Tacosunday (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As I've stated numerous times, I'm telling you to be more neutral based on Wikipedia's own policies. Ad hominem attacks don't help your case either. Wikipedia pages are required to have consensus. Basically, this means that we have to put aside our own personal feelings and work together to make this article the best it can be. Consensus usually emerges during the editing process itself, but I don't want to get into another edit war with you. I want to talk about the changes we make before we make them, so that we don't keep reverting each others posts. Please be mature and civil about this. I'm trying to maintain a neutral point of view. The reason I choose to edit these articles is because I know a good deal about them. I do not consider myself a professional, and I hope that others with more knowledge edit this article to make it even more informative. Please recognize that this article is not your own and that you are not the final authority on what gets posted. If there is a dispute and we are the only two arguing, I suggest we follow the rules of <script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Voice_of_All/admin/monobook.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>dispute resolution to solve it. Attacking me personally does not help you, especially when I'm willing to meet you in the middle. The problem here is your unwillingness to communicate. Next time I make a change, instead of reverting it or accusing me, you should ask why I did it. It will make the article much better and avoid another edit war. Also, to keep the conversation organized, please use the : symbol to indent your statements. Thank you. --scochran4 (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ethnocentricism reversion

I was going to place "ethnocentricism" under "See Also", but decided this belongs on the page of the religion, not the organization. --scochran4 (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference challenge

I'm going to challenge the source that Tacosunday attributed to this article on the basis that it is self-serving, biased, and self-published. Please see WP:RS. I propose that it be removed. --scochran4 (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You have my permission to replace the reference link in question. --Tacosunday (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I can agree to that. I'm replacing it with a link to the "Religious Tolerance" article about Creativity on the basis that the website is not written by anyone associated with Creativity and the articles there cite sources. --scochran4 (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Logo change

I uploaded and changed the Creativity Alliance's logo per their request. --scochran4 (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Revisions

I'm changing "antisemitic" to "racist" because the Creativity Alliance follows Creativity and Creativity is not solely antisemitic any more than it is solely anti-black. Racist is an umbrella term encompassing discrimination against all non-white races. I'm changing "White supremacist" to "White separatist" on the basis of a video published by the Creativity Alliance here stating "We are not white supremacists...The Church of the Creator is not a white supremacist organization. We don't want to rule any inferior race." See the video for the full argument. --scochran4 (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Added an extract from the White Man's Bible because it's the shortest and most definitive description of the religious aspects of Creativity. Rewrote and added details about the organisation and its structure. All references that pointed to http://creativityalliance.com had to be removed as they are considered spam by wikipedia. Thoughtcrime69er (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Defamatory material like this will not be tolerated: --Tacosunday (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

---

....rather than the sickly creed of the Jewish religion which promotes the survival and expansion of the worst elements of our race to the detriment of our best elements

---

I counter with the argument that, while defarmatory towards jews, it is an accurate portrayal of the beliefs of the religion and should stay in the interests of accuracy. --scochran4 (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I would have argued that it is part of the explanation of not only the beliefs of Creators, but also an example of anti-semtism which those such as yourself might prefer to expose, per se. But considering that you are offended and there is no real need for it and the remaining quoted material should suffice, I have no qualms about accepting your judgement Tacosunday. Thoughtcrime69er (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Similarity to Judaism

I think it needs to be made clearer that Creativity disassociates with, and in fact opposes, Judaism. The way the article is presented makes it seem like Creativity believes in the religious aspect of Judaism, while practicing antisemitism. The only similarity between Creativity and Judaism is that they are both ethnoreligious. --scochran4 (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

---

1. 1. The the use of the word "the" needs to be kept to a minimum.
2. 2. It makes very little sense to say that you're not an organization, in the section titled "Organization & Structure".
3. 3. The trademark disclaimer, is like you saying that you didn't rob a bank (assuming that you didn't).

...and you wonder why us Jews run everything, duh. --Tacosunday (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Agreed.

2. Where is the conflict?

3. This is worth noting. The original organization owed court fees, etc. due to copyright infringement of said Christian group. The original organization may be confused with the Creativity Alliance.

You were doing great until you said "...and you wonder why us Jews run everything, duh.". Frankly, that was uncalled for. For the sake of neutrality, I'm not going to assert my personal beliefs here be they one way or the other. I do, however, resent the fact that you automatically assume I'm a member of this organization. Keep it civil. --scochran4 (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

An "Organization" would be using organization as a noun. The Anti-Defamation League and the group calling themselves The Creativity Movement are examples of organizations as a noun. They are monolithic in nature and may be dealt with as a singular entity. The Creativity Alliance on the other hand, is not an organization, but as an alliance it does have a minimal organizational structure. In this sense, the staging of a stage play would classify as having organizational structure, but the group participating in the production of the stage play would not be classed as an organization. Would you prefer, "Arrangement and Structure of the Group"?

The other point I wish to make is that the use of The Creativity Movement as the name of a group is only a recent advent. In the terminology of those within the religion since 1973, Creativity movement encompassed all Creators. Using Creativity movement and The Creativity as alternatives of eachother is confusing in general, not to forget that members of the group calling themselves The Creativity Movement have trademarked the name "creativity movement" in Australia, which means misuse even because of misunderstanding may result in legal suit. I do not believe that Wikepedia rules are there to confuse the issue.

Understand that both issues I've raised may be put down to semantics, but both are very important legal definitions - which also brings into account the trademark disclaimer. Thoughtcrime69er (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

The new box doesn't look right. It should be farther down and on the left side. I'd like to see this page organized more like Ecclesiology. --Tacosunday (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Which box are you talking about? The Creativity Alliance box, or the Five Fundamental belief box. Also keep in mind that the Ecclesiology article describes a concept, while this article describes an organization. --scochran4 (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Category

As was probably expected, I am challenging the placement of the Creativity Alliance into the category "cult". In defining "cult", the following has been noted in the article: "In each, the focus tends to be on the specific tactics of conversion, the negative impact on individual members, and the difficulty in leaving once indoctrination has occurred." The Creativity Alliance has no specific tactics of conversion, no negative impact on individual members, and a Creator may leave at any time. In fact, some say that the latter is what separates it from the Creativity Movement in terms of organizational structure. --scochran4 (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Tacosunday's JEWISH spam!

Someone needs to stop that jerk from spamming all the White Power articles, as per WIKI's rules!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.155.117.106 (talk) 05:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You'll never see Jewish spam, or ham. I created this article, and I must say, it's quite fair and balanced. So, your accusation is without merit. Please stop being so emotional. --Tacosunday (talk) 10:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You're the emotional one, GRINGO!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.155.117.235 (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Reversion

Simply reverting the article to what it was last August won't solve the problems the article has. The reason we didn't leave that version the way it was, was because it wasn't good enough. The article and sources should be pored through and whatever information is in the articles should stay and whatever isn't, should go. --scochran4 (talk) 05:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• The article must be constructed using secondary sources only. Primary sources are okay for uncontroversial facts, such as a date of founding, or perhaps the bit about not wanting to supercede a trademarked name. But I would say that mission statements and so forth are frowned upon even for high schools or mainstream orgs such as the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. Abductive (reasoning) 08:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• There are many (possibly as much as 50%) Wikipedia entries that rely on primary sources and are factually wrong. Yet if those articles were to be deleted, there would be an outcry of "racism" by (for example) the proponents of the unique belief system as followed by this or that tribe, or the descendants of those tribes which now encompass entire nations. I suggest the two or more antagonists in this issue try listing and debating other Wikipedia articles and whether they should or should not be deleted. What is it that makes this group so unique that it is forced to comply with standards that others do not? I suspect it is to do with political correctness. Furthermore, secondary sources in matters of political and religious matters are often made of personal and derogatory opinion that if published by a mainstream media source would be the cause of a libel suit. In matters such as these, I believe Wikipedia's so-called demand for secondary sources is detrimental for the advance of knowledge. In this case, it should be left to Wikipedia's excellent public editors viewing the primary source material to make adequate judgement, and any potential secondary material should be viewed as highly suspect considering the antagonistic source it derives from. To repeat: Controversial articles such as this can not be constructed using secondary sources only. -- Signed: The Wikipedia Watchdog
• Wikipedia should be shut down. It's a money making, propaganda farce that has school children and the gullible believing whatever Wikipedia owners want them to believe. Thoughtcrime69er (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision

I cited the fact that Creativity is a legally recognised religion, updated and cited the purpose of the Creativity Alliance, and removed the phrase "white seperatist" as it is implied in the teachings of Ben Klassen, and because the purpose of the Alliance is not white seperatism but the promotion of a religion.

--129.71.117.210 (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The Alliance's (allegedly official) website explicitly states its goals as "to educate and awaken Europeans and people of European descent everywhere" and "to build a Whiter and Brighter World". "White supremacy" is more accurate; I added that instead, and quoted the website's own statements of belief. For the "legally recognized" claim, I moved it to a separate section, and clarified that it is Creativity as a religion, not specifically the Alliance, that was given protection under anti-discrimination laws. It is worth pointing out that the plaintiff in that case was a member of what became known as the "Creativity Movement" (at the time known as the WCC), which the Alliance explicitly dissociates itself from. --Closeapple (talk) 06:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge

Though the Creativity Alliance may not have met the general notability guidlines- and I apply that label accurately since only a single news source has mentioned it and that single source was very biased- the religion that they represent has recieved much exposure through the activities of Matthew F. Hale, Benjamin Nathaniel Smith, and the Creativity Movement, all of whom have been mentioned in numerous secondary sources. I suggest that an article be created about Creativity- the religion, not a particular organization representing or advancing it- and this article (and possibly others associated with Creativity) be merged into it. --scochran4 (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity?

Why is this article included in WikiProject Christianity? These guys have made it abundantly clear that they don't believe in God. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the Christianity template. I don't see any reason why anyone would want to re-add it. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Using the SPLC and ADL as sources

According to WP:RELY a source should not be used if it is "...promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." The Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League both meet these qualifications as both organizations exist to oppose the types of organization this article is about. Information coming from these sources is biased. As such, I'm going to remove the section using it as a source. Feel free to revert the information if the same is said of a reliable source. In the future, please avoid using these websites as sources due to the fact that they are not neutral soures and because they are based on personal opinions. --scochran4 (talk) 08:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Your interpretation is incorrect. The Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League are very careful in their research, and they have a deep and abiding interest in racist organizations. Also, since they can be sued, they are very careful about what they say. Abductive (reasoning) 10:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Formation

There is very little to discuss. The Creativity Alliance was co-founded by the same founder of the Church of the Rahowa (COTR) which militant wing was referred to as the White Crusaders of the Rahowa (WCOTR). The flag and symbol of the organization that were designed were and are different than the White Emblem of Creativity, and members of the group were referred to as "Crusaders" whereas adherents of Creativity are referred to as "Creators." The letter "c" was used in the Crusader emblem whereas the letter "w" is used in the White Emblem of Creativity, and furthermore, the purpose of the White Crusaders of the Rahowa wasn't to focus on the religious aspects of Creativity but yet still ironically promote it.

Colin Campbell changed his name to Cailen Cambeul. The Church of the Rahowa never had more than one other contact besides Colin and a "French Connection" website. The WCOTR was no success, as quoted and stated in an article in a recent issue of the CA magagine "Racial Loyalty," and it closed within two years.

The majority of adherents of Creativity belong to The Creativity Movement, that is the fact as well, and replacing the symbol of a religion as well as the title of an adherent of the religion is enough to make any majority of adherents of a religion angry.

William Jackley used the pseudonym Reverend Doctor Thomas Darwin, B.S. Ph.D. when founding the Creativity Alliance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarlKraft (talk • contribs) 07:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Doesn't sound very interesting. Please provide secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 08:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It not sounding interesting is really a personal opinion and that's why the matter is being discussed out, and we can't have people acting out of impulses because they just don't find something "interesting" enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarlKraft (talk • contribs) 11:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The version you've been adding is not suitably referenced and look as if it is based on your personal knowledge rather than verifiable facts. If the formation has been written about in newspapers or books then it can be included, but if it hasn't then it probably doesn't belong in the article. SmartSE (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL The version KarlKraft and friends have been adding is not only unreferenced but is complete boulderdust. At least the alliance creators don't waste everyone's time adding their propaganda everywhere. 219.90.139.171 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC).

http://creativityalliance.com/newsletter/RacialLoyalty104-2010-12.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarlKraft (talk • contribs) 18:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source. Please read the policies to get a better idea of what wikipedia requires. Truth is not the requirement: verifiability is. It can be frustrating, but unfortunately there are many things that can not be included in wikipedia because, while they are true, they are simply not verifiable by reliable sources. Glaucus (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Any organization, especially those close to the issue, can say anything they want in newsletters and the like. While what they say may be true, it should be published by a source with no vested interest in the information before it is included on Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't used to publish truthful information. It's to concisely republish verified information.--SCochran4 (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

And Karl Kraft who also uses others names is a member of The Creativity Movement. What he writes is standard Creativity Movement propaganda which is 90% wrong with 10% truth to make it palatable. Delete this and the Creativity Movement page and make a single page dedicated to the religion or you will continue to have Creativity Movement members use this and their own page for their personal propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.56.88.211 (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Received the following message this morning: Please discuss the issue on the talkpage. This wholesale section blanking without comment is both disruptive and unhelpful. Glaucus (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The posting of deliberately misleading, false and unverifiable information - either by first party or the preferred Wikipedia secondary sources should not be permitted on what purports to be a non-biased electronic encyclopaedia. I admit that some of what KarlKraft and his many aliases claim to be fact is truthful, but there is a very small portion of truth contained within the text so the writer can make some personal gain and impress his prison gang friends of The Creativity Movement. Call it his rights of initiation if you will. How do I know all of this? Because as SCochran4 kindly revealed, I am a member of the Creativity Alliance. In fact, I am Reverend Cailen Cambeul (previously Colin Campbell), currently the Pontifex Maximus of the Creativity Alliance. If you need to verify that, email me at pm@creativityalliance.com.

Now, I could write in intricate detail the origins of the Creativity Alliance, but I wont as it will be a waste of my time and yours as it would not meet wiki guidelines for posting. The most I will give is a general outline of the Alliance's origins: The Creativity Alliance's origins begin with the White Crusaders of the RaHoWa, which was one of the many offshoots of Matt Hale's World Church of the Creator. It was not a splinter group from The Creativity Movement which itself was an offshoot from Hale's World Church of the Creator and was based on a small group inside Hale's Church known as the Skinheads of the Racial Holy War - check your internet archive sites, you can verify it there. The White Crusaders ran from 2003 until 2006. I closed it myself because although it was equal in every way to The Creativity Movement, I considered it to be a failure - and by the same standard, I consider The Creativity Movement to be a failure. Creativity is a religion, not some gang for criminal thugs just looking to join the toughest gang, so the White Crusaders had to close down or continue to bring Creativity into disrepute as The Creativity Movement continues to do to this day. In 2007, former White Crusaders members convinced me to design and build a purely library or archive website (I am employed in the IT industry) which was to be called the Creativity Alliance. It was not meant to be a church or organisation, it was just a library of information regarding Creativity. We were immediately attacked by The Creativity Movement who perceived us as rivals, which brought attention to other people who were interested in joining a new church dedicated to the religion of Creativity and having nothing to do with The Creativity Movement. And so the core membership of the White Crusaders reformed under a new name, with both new and older Creators. The irony is that if The Creativity Movement had taken our advice, used our library website for themselves and left us alone, there would only be a library website today. They can only blame themselves for the birth of an actual Creativity Alliance encompassing many Churches of Creativity throughout the world.

There's your information, but according to wiki policies it's unverifiable and so unusable, but that's not my problem. However, if you lot decide you want to utilise it, then that's fine with me. If however you reject it outright and continue to use KarlKraft's deliberately misleading Creativity Movement misinformation without correcting it, I will be forced to regard this Creativity Alliance article, any other entries on Wikipedia regarding Creativity as a religion - which includes most of the Creativity Movement article - as the deliberate use of false and misleading information, which could be construed as defamation and possible breach of copyright. Thoughtcrime69er (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep it Neutral (NPOV)

A contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. Being familiar with the feud between the Creativity Alliance and the Creativity Movement it's likely that KarlKraft is a member of the latter, and ThoughtCrime69er is a member of the former. As such, I'd like to remind everyone to cite sources for content you add, and discuss content that you intend to remove. --SCochran4 (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Why must edits be made in regards to text that describes the formation of the Creativity Alliance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.42.90 (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)