Talk:Creativity Movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
FascismQuestion.png The Fascism taskforce wants to know if the person or group described in this article can be reasonably described as fascist. The Fascism taskforce defines an entity which came to power as "fascist" if it fulfills all the following criteria:
  1. exalting the nation (and, in some cases, the race, culture, or religion) above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme.
  2. using violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition.
  3. engaging in severe economic and social regimentation.
  4. implementing totalitarian systems.
The person or group may or may not declare themselves to be fascist, national socialist, falangist, etc.
Please comment on this entity's status here or leave commentary on the project's talk page. Thank you.
WikiProject Religion / New religious movements (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
C-Class article C  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This redirect is supported by New religious movements work group (marked as High-importance).


I noticed this religion classified under the umbrella of WikiProject Terrorism. This is ridiculous. If this is the case, Christianity should be placed in the same project for what it did during the crusades. See my point? (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC) -- Yes, but for the analogy to work , Jesus, the Pope, the Queen, and so on all must have been running about murdering people and committing terrorist acts. Creativity is a terrorist organisation more in the vein of a low-rent Al Quaida, rather than a true religion with a diversity of tactics and the like Duckmonster (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

They committed no terrorist actions. Therefore, the label of fascist or terrorist does not apply here. The labels are used incorrectly and are not accurate. (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Fascism is its own ideology, apart of Third Position. Creativity is Like Third Position, but does not share Mussolini's thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Ultimately, Creativity does not meet the definition of Fascism as set forth by the project: The state apparatus is not supreme, loyalty is based on what is good for the race regardless of what the leader says, there is no use of violence or forced censorship, and there is no totalitarian system of government presented. Regardless of some similarities to fascism (racism, use of propaganda), the qualifications for inclusion in the WikiProject are not met. --scochran4 (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Fascism is an ideology. Fascism is anti censorship. Fascism allows more freedom than Creativity does.
Please support your claims. Fascism is an umbrella term that identifies characteristics of other idealogies, or may be followed as an ideology unto itself. --scochran4 (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Fascism falls under Third Position. Fascism is the belief system created by Benito Mussolini, as written in his two books and the "Doctrine of Fascism". You americans need to stop using your emotions when catagorizing things...! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ben Klassen[edit]

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)


They blatantly accept the terms "racist" and "anti-semetic" to define themselves here "Because the first prerequisite to our attaining victory is to be completely honest about what we are and what we are not. We are racists because we believe in Race. We are anti-Semites because we oppose the Jews."-- (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It is dedicated to the "survival, expansion, and advancement of the White Race exclusively". White supremacy what else can it be ? Ericd

Ah, but the best way to fight hate is witn information. See the little changes I've made so far -- which, as far as I know, consist solely of the truth. -- Modemac

"We completely reject the Judeo-democratic-Marxist values of today and supplant them with new and basic values, of which race is the foundation." Maybe Nazi ? Ericd

I like the red and black flag. Ericd

They are neo-Nazis which argue that Hitler should have united with the English and Americans against the mud races. They obviously are, and admit to being, white racist supremacists. Vera Cruz

I notice that there is no mention of the fact that the "Church" has been sued for misuse of the name Church of the Creater, which belongs to a mainstream religious organization. Nor to the fact that Hale was recently arrested for plotting to murder the judge in the trademark infringement suit. -- Zoe

Any additional information on the above would be greatly appreciated!
The Los Angeles Times had a story on this last week (week of 1-5-03) with inflamatory remarks by Hale, but I don't remember enough of the story to quote, and don't have a copy of the paper. Sorry. --Two Halves

Hale has also lost his license to practice law. Vera Cruz

He never got his license. Though he passed the bar, the state that he was in refused to grant him his law license because of their dislike of his "morality". -- Zoe


Do we have to have this lengthy manifesto of the World Church of the Creator ? It would be better to rephrase it - "the World Church of the Creator followers claim...", "the World Church of the Creator followers deny..." etc. The listing of their propaganda amounts simply to hatespeech.
Kpjas 17:35 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I put in a disclaimer, in response to the above comment. If you feel that the disclaimer is unnecessary, feel free to edit it or remove it. --Modemac 19:28 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Free speech should be allowed - when you start to determine what is okay and what is not, then you no longer have free speech. As Ben Smith once said "Hate speech = Free speech". --eigthlegion

Exactly. We have presented the other side of the story. Fight fire with fire they say. The neutral version is we are an organization that has been persecuted relentlessly for offering an alternative. Therefore, we relentlessly promote it.--Bro.Snow

creativity movement[edit]

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)

different COTC[edit]

Just a note, the first external link 'Church of the Creator' is to a very different religious organization, some kind of hippy Christian fringe group who espouse 'Uniting the Family of Mankind' combined with some Native American ideas. Definitely not the bunch of racists referred to in the main article.

whoops! Fixed - David Gerard 12:02, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)


Anybody have any information concerning the number of members/adherents? [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 08:26, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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 (talk) 07:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That is a factual statement. There were members in the thousands in Hale's church. Klassen's church had about 3,000 actual members before his death, and lots more supporters, and Hale more than tripled that. The worldwide pro-White movement alone has 6 million supporters and those who partake in White Racial Loyalty and such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarlKraft (talkcontribs) 04:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Doctrine of the organization[edit]

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)

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)


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)

Animated Flag[edit]

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)

Actually Creators don't even know what it is!! The W is supposed to stand for the word "White" as in White Race, evry specific you think considering some WHite nations such as France and Russia would not use W, and they claim that their ultimate goal is to implement the Latin Language for all White people to end this ethno-centricity. The word for White in Latin does not start with a W..................WCOTC are illiterate idiots who can't even be consistent with their own doctrines.

doesn't deny holocaust...[edit]

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 ( 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)

You seem to forget that he doesn't deny it, but say that it happened to a lesser extent. There is a difference there.

Also, as I've said before, the WCOTC is NOT a neo-nazi movement, yet I am still baffled by how we seem to have this under the "fascist" category...

He says the Holocaust is a lie, that's denial. -Will Beback 23:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
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. 10:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
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 (talk) 07:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

What's all this about police informants?[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 22:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

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)


Excerpt of the source I added:

Expert: Hatreds rooted in poverty don't thrive here

The Telegram & Gazette Worcester, MA

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)

My first instinct was to completely remove the recent edits in the first paragraph regarding Melton as a fairly obvious case of a violation of NPOV and simply a form of ad hominem attack against Melton himself because of its rather "odd" placement near the beginning of the article and the editors initial choice of wording. However, as "Tilman" points out above, Melton is regarded as an expert in the field of religion, so perhaps indeed his opinion does hold weight. Other editors, may regard even my reworded version as somewhat irrelevant to the main subject of the article considering the context and do away with it entirely, a position which I would have some difficulty disagreeing with. Deconstructhis 20:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"racial Manichaeanism"[edit]

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)

Religion, NOT one group![edit]

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 (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


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 (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi Organization[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
A classic non-answer. (Therefore, stop making the change once the article becomes unlocked). Quaeler (talk) 06:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
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)

The Creator Declaration[edit]

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

Change the Name![edit]

The title should be called "Creativity" or "Creativity Religion", and NOT "The creativity movement"! The "creativity movement" is a gang of Hale worshippers who do not run their club as a church. There are also 5-6 other Creativity churches and groups within the US alone. To tag the title as "TCM" would be like calling Mormonism "LDS Church of Mormon" or something!

I agree that the page does need renamed, preferably to something like "Creativity (religion)" or the like. I don't know all the technical details and such, so I'm not going to move it myself, but someone with the know-how to correctly move the page should do so, unless there are any objections. Also, please sign future posts. Thanks. -scochran4 (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Is this motion supported by consensus? --scochran4 (talk) 06:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The title should be Creativity Religion! No one group or church can claim to be the only believers of a religion! Otherwise we should start calling all Mormons "LDSers" and Mohamudians "Arabists"...! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


The Creativity Movement is not the official representative of Creativity and is presented as such in this context. I agree that the article should be renamed "Creativity" or this article be strictly about the Creativity Movement and not the religion. Either way, they should be separated.
It needs to be changed to Creativity Religion, and the basic beliefs need to be talked about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
This change seems to have support. However, the wording in the article will need to change as well (as it refers to the current title Creativity Movement) and I don't feel confident to do this. It would be helpful if you could maybe produce a copy in Creativity Movement/sandbox with the appropriate wording. Deactivating request for now. Martinmsgj 09:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The title must be changed to "Creativity Religion"! As to the content, it needs to focuse on the ideology of the faith, and not on the infighting between two groups who follow this faith...! It should focus on the Salubrious Living concept, on the 16 Commandments, on the Racial-Socialism aspect, and on why Creativity is more of a Third Position and European philosophy, rather than an "American Hate Group" with ties "mainly in the United States"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
You can't call a religion by the name of JUST ONE GROUP that claims to follow it!! And in fact, the TCM isn't actually a Creativity group! They follow a cult of personality in Matt Hale, which goes against Klassen's writings! They also reject other Whites who follow Creativity, which also goes against Klassen's writings! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Linking to white supremacy websites[edit]

"Thoughtcrime69er" shouldn't be allowed to include external links to white supremacist websites. --Tacosunday (talk) 02:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)


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)

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)

RE: Linking to white supremacy websites[edit]

The "TCM" is NOT the only Creativity group or church out there!! Would you claim that Mormons or Catholics or JEWS should be the "one true source" on the religion of Creativity???

That's true, however the last of the three "groups" that proclaim Creativity as their religion have no problem working with TCM. Also, the idea of one church is central to Creativity ideology and only TCM can trace itself back to Klassen. Mormons, Catholics and Jews are not atheistic in nature and don't profess a religion called Creativity now do they? And seeing that the greatest representation of Creativity is through the church itself, you have no valid argument.


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)

White Supremacists win[edit]

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)

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)

We'll see what the Southern Poverty Law Center has to say about this injustice. --Tacosunday (talk) 07:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

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)
You're one of the main perpetrators. I looked at the site link that you posted ( 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)
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)

Alright, I see your point. But how can you explain all of these websites?!! --Tacosunday (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)

Why do you object? Please keep your objection free of POV. --scochran4 (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


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

Concerning "concensus"[edit]

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 (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss this above under "Change the Name!" --scochran4 (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Not atheism![edit]

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 (talk) 07:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

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 (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem of Catagories...[edit]

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 (talk) 07:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


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 (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Salubrious Living[edit]

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)

Hardy Lloyd[edit]

4.155.*.*, said: The court documents clearly state that an FBI informent tried to murder Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd.

Where is this alleged document? --Tacosunday (talk) 08:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

For $50 US dollars I can get you a copy from the Pittsburgh Court House...!
Hey, TocaJEWsunday, you hate Creativity, Mr. Lloyd hates Creativity... What's your beef with him? I can set up a meeting with him, if you are not too afraid...??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Make that $100 for shipping the transcript... Also, the "Pittsburgh Times" ran the article, as well as my interview with Mr. Lloyd, as well as the PKWV radio station in West Virginia! If you send me money I can send you transcripts, or you can e-mail Mr. Lloyd and ask him, or you can ask me to arrange a meetings between you two.........? The "Pittsburgh Trib" also ran the article, but later pulled it after the Cleveland ADL complained about "unfair reporting"...! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't afford it. Speak to (yourself) Hardy Lloyd, and ask him if he can post a copy of the document online, so everyone can see it. --Tacosunday (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I am no Mr. Lloyd... But I can set up an interview, if you are not too scared, young man. Mr. Lloyd is selling all court documents, including certain photos of someone dead and items from a certain scene...
Why can't you "afford" the money? You are full of BS, tacohead! -- (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Josh Roy
Tacosunday is slandering a man who will sue WIKI!
Let the record show that Tacosunday is spamming the article with illegal slander that will result in a lawsuit against WIKI!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Dean Roy (talkcontribs) 20:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Mr. Lloyd killed someone who was trying to murder him and his wife, FACT! Mr. Lloyd was already married, FACT! Mr. Lloyd had never dated Lori, FACT! Mr. Lloyd at the time ran a Creativity Church which Lori had joined wanting to post fliers and other racial activities, FACT! At the trial it came out that she had been keeping files on Mr. Lloyd and all of the members of his Church which she turned over to the FBI, FACT! The papers, hating White Racists, kept some of these FACTS out of their newspapers, FACT! And lied about other items, FACT! Such as Hardy "losing his job of six months at Giant Eagle"... Mr. Lloyd was not working for Giant Eagle, FACT! Also, that Hardy was "dating Lori"... Mr. Lloyd was already married to his wife, Lisa Lloyd, who can be heard in some of his net-broadcasts off of his website under "Wolf Radio", FACT! The papers claimed they were not married, but a civil document proves that they had been married since before the shooting, FACT! FACT, the stuff proving Hardy's claims are mostly court documents which I cannot post here, and which are not posted anywhere online, unlike the lies posted off of the slanderous newspaper websites, FACT!! FACT, all of the “sources” for “Tacosunday” are anti and biased sources, FACT! Since they have lied, and are biased, they cannot be used as sources, FACT! Mr. Lloyd will file a suit is slander is continued!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Dean Roy (talkcontribs) 19:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If you can provide verification of these "facts", then by all means add them. Otherwise, it's a moot point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hardy Lloyd wasnt with Creativity when he shot "his girlfriend" as the WCOTC dissolved in 2003 and thus his mention should be taken off of this wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarlKraft (talkcontribs) 04:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

In one post, you claim Lloyd was a Creativity fanatic, and in another you claim that Lloyd "wasn't with Creativity" at the precise moment he shot that woman. A woman claimed to be an FBI infiltrator of Creativity. I think the connection to Creativity is more than strong enough to merit inclusion. Glaucus (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hardy Lloyd, no matter what he is with, is and always has been a fanatic. He himself has said that. He wasn't with the Creativity Movement, when such incident happened, as he broke off from them before he shot the federal informant, thus meaning that he really shouldn't be included in this specific article but perhaps in the Creativity (religion) article. (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing posts from talk page[edit]

Let the record show, that 4.155.*.*, has modified my talk page posts, and is now using a sock-puppet called Josh Dean Roy. --Tacosunday (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Let the record show, that the content above was removed from the "Hardy Lloyd" section of this page, by the same individual in question. --Tacosunday (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

My name IS Josh Dean Roy, and you can look me up on! I am a writer and have worked with the Libertarian Party of Pittsburgh's members for some time now. I have also interviewed Mr. Lloyd, and that interview was published in the "Pittsburgh Times"! The court record clearly states that Mr. Lloyd was already married, that the person killed was an informant, and that she was trying to murder his wife and himself! This was also published by the "Pittsburgh Trib" and on the radio station PKWV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Dean Roy (talkcontribs) 21:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
:: Also, since the ADL has slandered Mr. Lloyd, why is that used as a "source" since it is obviously biased!! By your "logic" Adolf Hitler's views on JEWS should also be valid sources!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Dean Roy (talkcontribs) 21:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
If this is about a dispute over whther the murdered woman was a girlfriend or an informant then we can include both views, assuming reliable sources are available for each.   Will Beback  talk  21:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I've stated five sources, and this "taco" is using articles that are made of lies and slander...! I've read the court transcript, but how am I to "post it" since I do not have permission from Mr. Lloyd? I can send a copy for $100 US dollars. Also, the one "Trib" article that cleared Mr. Lloyd was taken down from their website after the ADL complained! How am I to use these sources? And "taco" shouldn't be allowed to use his, since they have bias against Mr. AND Mrs. Lloyd!! Should I set up an interview with Mr. Lloyd and you??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Dean Roy (talkcontribs) 21:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, since almost ALL of his "sources" were written before the jury acquitted him, they are posting false statements of this so-called "girlfriend", plus the few after-articles are from biased sources... So, why are they allowed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Dean Roy (talkcontribs) 21:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You signed a previous post "Josh Roy," using the same IP address (4.155.*.*). Anyone with half a brain can see what's going on. Being an autistic child in a man's [?] body is no excuse. --Tacosunday (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
See, slander...! My name is Josh DEAN Roy, dumb ass!! Oh, so it said Josh Roy and now Josh Dean Roy, so therefore I am insane and retarded??? Are WIKI's mods watching this fruitcake? Does WIKI want me to call Mr. Lloyd? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Dean Roy (talkcontribs) 21:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Please everyone STOP the personal attacks now and keep this on topic. Mfield (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and two of your articles prove my side of the issue!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Dean Roy (talkcontribs) 21:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • All records indicate that Lori Hann, was in a relationship with Hardy Lloyd at the time of the shooting. The accusation that she was a government informant is completely false, defamatory, and irrelevant. It's an insult to Lori Hann, and her family. This individual that I'm referring to, has made rap songs in mockery of her death, and has the audacity to sell her autopsy photos that were submitted as evidence in that criminal trial. --Tacosunday (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • No where on his website is he selling "autopsy photos", nor is there any "rap song", as if a racist would rap... Once again, the slander against this man from you, "taco"! Also, Mr. Lloyd was already married to his wife at the time of the shooting, and NO "evidence" exists that they were dating! Mr. Lloyd told me in an interview that Lori had joined the Creativity Movement and helped him promote racism, which was reported on the local TV. It then came out in trial that she was working for the FBI as an informant. I have a copy of the court records!!
Source: "Killer Without Conscience" -Southern Poverty Law Center

He [Hardy Lloyd] also has a taste for the macabre. Last December, a month after starting up his latest group, Lloyd began posting song lyrics to his website in which he taunts Hann's family and gloats about getting away with murder. One of his songs, a take on rapper Ice-T's controversial 1992 single, "Cop Killer," is titled "Bitch Killer."

  • BITCH Killer, better her than me
  • BITCH Killer, fuck Hann's family
  • BITCH Killer, I know Lori's family's grievin'
  • BITCH Killer, but tonight I got even.

In his version of Johnny Cash's legendary "Folsom Prison Blues," Lloyd adds, "I shot that bitch in Squirrel Hill, just to watch her die."

Hann's family has declined to discuss the case with reporters.

Lloyd claimed in one of his E-mails to the Report that he suspected Hann was a secret agent. "She was an employ [sic] of the Pentagon, and was keeping files on people, and then sending them to an FBI agent!!" he wrote. "Also, she confessed to being a spy. … What I did was morally and ideologically right and just!! I killed a government agent of an evil and tyrannical order!"

That has a better ring to it, after all, than, "I gunned down a frightened, unarmed woman."

David Holthouse, SPLC

--Tacosunday (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I've been looking over these so-called "sources" of yours and they ALL seem to be from people who simply hate White Racialists...! I have a source quote for you from Mr. Lloyd: "My website does not have any 'rap song's' nor "autopsy' fotos. This Taco guy seems insane." - Mr. Taco, should I use all NAZI sources for my rebuttals...? --User:Josh Dean Roy —Preceding undated comment added 23:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC).
Source: "Taco Sundays" -Jewish Defense Front "Tacosunday, a poster on Wikipidia, was arrested for making death threats towards Jewish women on Friday."

Jewish Defense Front

      • See...! Anyone can claim anything online! But I was at the trial! I interviewed Mr. Lloyd! I have a copy of the trial transcripts!!!!
Almost all of the "info" in those articles attacking Mr. Lloyd are false! Maybe I should edit the article on Judaism with Nazi sources...?

Creativity Religion page...[edit]

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


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)

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 (talkcontribs) 18:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Concerning Fascism and Creativity[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 18:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Also, your idea of what Fascism is is totally wrong. Fascism is an actual Ideology, and not simply a tyrannical state! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Dean Roy (talkcontribs) 19:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Re. Section on Lloyd[edit]

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 [1][2] The act was ruled a case of self-defense by a jury on November 3, 2006.[3] 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. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] The act was ruled a case of self-defense by a jury on November 3, 2006.[12] 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. [citation needed]

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)

That looks like a good change.   Will Beback  talk  01:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Mr. Lloyd had never dated Lori Hann, and infact was already married to his current wife, Lisa Lloyd. Lori Hann had joined the "Church of Creativity" to A) promote racism, B) to spy on area racists for the FBI. These are facts that are in the trial transcripts.
    • A note from Mr. Lloyd: "I think it's funny that my enemies, both JEWS and Nazis alike, keep this myth alive that I 'dated' Lori, even though I was already married. However, I have sued successfully a local reporter who refused to recant, and I have no bones about suing Wikipedia, either! Once again, all anyone needs to do is call me, DUH... I'll answer your questions. However, for you to lie openly about me, regardless of what you think of me, is wrong, and goes against Wikipedia’s rules. Those 'sources' are all from antis. What if Hitler was quoted by a JEW in a newspaper...? Would that be allowed since it was a newspaper or media source???"

Why is the part on Hardy Lloyd full of bullshit? Lloyd and Hann were already married to OTHER PEOPLE before the shooting. Also, from the ADL's website and the SPLC's website, the COC was an actual group that elected Lloyd to be their PM. Lloyd did not simply call himself PM. Also, there seems to be no mention that Hardy is now involved with Mexicans...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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 (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that Mr. Hardy is working with brown Mexicans, and thus cannot be called a Neo-Nazi. The problem here is that the brown Mexicans he hangs out with also believe in Nazism/Fascism... So, does that count as a Neo-Nazi, or something else? Maybe Fascist? Someone from reading the part on him might assume he is a Creator and still a member of the White Power Movement, which in the United States does not look kindly on members networking with brown muds! He was a high ranking member and a close friend of Matt Hales, but now he seems to be a part of a different movement. A movement based soly on revolution of a Third Position way... It should be made note of, otherwise it looks like he is still a Creator, or even a Neo-Nazi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Will he post a picture on his website showing his Mexican comrades, wearing ski masks and displaying fascist hand signs? --Tacosunday (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
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 (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
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)

I don't understand why being married precludes dating other people... DaAnHo (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well because it's a sin obviously in the Creativity religion, and Hardy was a fanatic. There is no doubt about it. And also, monogamy is taught. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarlKraft (talkcontribs) 13:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


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). (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Links invalid and other proposed changes to text[edit]

The links that are given in regards to the Patrick O'Sullivan incident are invalid as links because firstly they are second-hand articles which is similar to quoting an article from a blog, and secondly, it is ran by the Creativity Alliance, a group hostile to The Creativity Movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarlKraft (talkcontribs) 00:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I propose a few changes to some of the text in the TCM article. Firstly, I believe that the "present day" should include more than a supposed trademark suit which TCM claims is non-existent.

Secondly, Hardy Lloyd has stated numerously on his blog and website that the female that he killed wasnt his girlfriend as he was with Lisa Donato at the time. It also needs to be mentioned that the female that he killed in self-defense was an informant for the Federal government that was infiltraiting his group at the time.

Thirdly, I think that too much description is made in regards to Patrick O'Sullivan's incident that landed him up as convicted. Also, another note must be made that the articles that are used as a reference are hosted by a CA site which is hostile to TCM and I find malice contained within.I propose a few changes to some of the text in the TCM article.

Firstly, TCM may "believe" that the trademark suit didn't exist, but it's well documented, especially in connection with the subsequent double murder of the presiding judge's husband and mother. The whole article needs some serious clean-up, but note that the "present day" you are referring to is under "legal issues". So unless there are more "present day" legal issues, it's more-or-less right. But terribly written, agreed.
Secondly, Hardy Lloyd can state whatever he wants, but his own defense attorney stated they had a relationship. Do you have a reputable source that she was an informant or an infiltrator?
Thirdly, the Patrick O'Sullivan incident is poorly documented. There seems to be a lack of news articles available on it. I'm inclined to agree that it should be pulled unless reputable sources can be found. Glaucus (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
On further inspection, there seem to be multiple copies of the same couple of articles running around, but I can't find the original from the newspaper site. I'm not sure what wikipedia's policy is in this case. Glaucus (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

We all know, and so does TCM know that the trademark suit existed, however they are making the claim that the fines are non-existent as they have been "taken care of" or something along those lines according to an episode of In Klassen We Trust, their radio show.

I see what you mean about the "present day" section as well, that it is listed under the legal issues section. I think that a sort of current status section should be added elsewhere perhaps, as there is indeed a status, but the article is more of a historical article regarding the WCOTC and how TCM was formed, but it doesnt list how and what the current organization is doing.

I dont think it matters what Hardy's defense was, as he admitted that it was fake. What matters is what he said after double jeopardy was not in play which is more revealing than when he could be prosecuted and things said during that time.

Please see [Talk Pages] for how to indent. It really helps keep the thread of the conversation. Also, please refrain from repeating the edits while we are discussing them. Please see wp:deadline. There wasn't consensus to remove the section about Patrick O'Sullivan, nor was the lead to the legal issues section discussed.
Unfortunately, the radio show doesn't count as a reputable, independent source on this. Can you find a reliable third-party source?
If you want to expand the article in that way, go ahead. But please adhere to wp:npov and see WP:CYCLE.
Hardy's not a reliable third-party source on this. If, as you say, he lied about their relationship, then he is especially unreliable. The third-part sources are consistent in their description of the relationship. We have to go by what the sources say. Glaucus (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

KarlKraft's changes[edit]

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)

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)


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)

The Creativity religion is not separate groups, however there are separate groups that embrace Creativity and not vice versa. The Creativity Alliance is not even affiliated with The Creativity Movement, and has less than 15 actual members whereas TCM has hundreds. Also, there will be conflict as well because the CA claims to be the true Creativity church, which it isn't as TCM is the same organization of the WCOTC just with a different name and will less members due to Matt Hale being imprisoned. I believe that the religion article should remain, but focus more on the beliefs of the religion instead of the history of the Reverends and such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarlKraft (talkcontribs) 04:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Creativity is separate from any organization that promotes it. My opinion is don't merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scochran4 (talkcontribs) 23:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Do the different groups really merit separate articles under WP:NOTABLE? Glaucus (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
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)

Description of Logo Changes[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 01:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

Undid Edits[edit]

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 (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

"Present Day" Section[edit]

[[1]] 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. (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Explanation of rewrite[edit]


  1. Removed image of Creativity flag. The flag is not exclusively associated with the Creativity Movement nor is it their logo as was claimed. At best it is associated with Creativity (religion) and is found on that page.
  2. Created infobox and uploaded the logo that the Creativity Movement has trademarked.
  3. Removed "merge" template. Consensus was not reached in an appropriate amount of time. If anyone still has an opinion of the merge, please discuss it above and replace the template.
  4. Rewrote lead to conform to WP:LEAD. This included adding an infobox with the correct logo rather than the image of the flag, making the definitions more concise, adding reasons for notability, and removing unsourced information or information that is already covered in another topic.


  1. Added a template asking others to add sourced information because although the information is true, it is unsourced. If the information was purely opinion, I deleted it.
  2. Changed some formatting for consistency. I.e., italicized names, removed redlinks, etc.
  3. Made the section more concise

Legal Issues[edit]

  1. Removed unsourced information concerning Brian Kozel.
  2. Flagged "" as a possible primary source.
  3. Divided into subcategories by name.
  4. Added merge template, suggesting merging all names into their corresponding sections on the page Creativity (religion). Discuss below.
  5. Removed seemingly extraneous information about Klassen's successor.
  6. Removed non-notable trademark information.

Present day[edit]

Flagged the website of the TE-TA-MA Truth Foundation as a questionable source.

Salubrious Living[edit]

Removed section. Salubrious Living is not exclusive to the Creativity Movement, nor is it relevant to the Creativity Movement as an organization. Rather, Salubrious Living is practiced by all Creators. This article is concerned with the organization, not the religious beliefs of all Creators, so I deemed it extraneous. Salubrious Living is covered in the article Creativity (religion)

Breakup and factionalism[edit]

  1. Added a template requesting additional citations within that section.
  2. Flagged "eight separate groups" as information needing a citation.
  3. 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.
  4. Flagged the paragraph beginning "Creators have seemingly settled into two...factions" as possible original research.
  5. 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. (talk) 11:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

See Also[edit]

Removed generic links to "white supremacy" and "white separatism" and provided more specific links to names and organizations directly connected to the Creativity Movement.


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)

Hale website[edit]

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 (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

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)


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)

  1. ^ "About Hardy Lloyd". Post-Gazette. 2004-08-08. Retrieved 2007-08-17.
  2. ^ "Squirrel Hill man claims self-defense in fatal shooting". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. 2006-11-02. Retrieved 2007-08-17.
  3. ^ "The Blotter". Southern Poverty Law Center. 2006-11-03. Retrieved 2007-08-17.
  4. ^ "About Hardy Lloyd". Post-Gazette. 2004-08-08. Retrieved 2007-08-17.
  5. ^ "Squirrel Hill man claims self-defense in fatal shooting". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. 2006-11-02. Retrieved 2007-08-17.
  6. ^ WTAE-TV Channel 4 News, PA Self-Defense Claimed In Squirrel Hill Girlfriend-Shooting
  7. ^ Pittsburgh Tribune Family of slain woman says goodbye
  8. ^ SPLC Former racist leader charged in woman's murder
  9. ^ SPLC Acquitted of Murder, a Killer Boasts of His Deed
  10. ^ ADL White Supremacist Arrested in Pittsburgh Shooting
  11. ^ SPLC Acquitted of Murder, Neo-Nazi Killer Taunts Victim’s Family
  12. ^ "The Blotter". Southern Poverty Law Center. 2006-11-03. Retrieved 2007-08-17.