Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:29, 4 March 2009

Religion Redirect‑class

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages'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.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Redirect This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages's own policies. Ad hominem attacks don't help your case either. Misplaced Pages 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 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!!

• Redirect-Class Religion pages
• NA-importance Religion pages
• WikiProject Religion articles