Talk:Children of Artemis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] COA's website censorship and removal of website debate.
I have included this thread since there are numerous stories of people being banned from the COA website without any reason or discussion. Because of this , its important for people to post their experience of the COA website and how they have been treated by the COA admin here. This behaviour by the COA could be interpretated has censorship and control freakery. Also the fact of people losing their membership without any redress to the matter. Very cult like behaviour.To give you an example. I had to register at the COA website to join the forums and had to explain my reason for participating. I told them i had years of experience with the occult and wanted to socialise. No response. This raised my suspicion . So i reapplied using a "fluffy bunny" name and some new ager type stuff. Automatic entry. I ended up getting "removed" from the website because i politely disagreed with a long term forum member. And there was no come back or attempt at reason. Its important that the behaviour and censorship of the COA is recorded. --Redblossom 14:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
13/4/2006 - I've added this article because the CoA is a political talking-point in UK neopagan circles. I am personally against the organisation, but would like someone who is in favour of it to add positives. I have stressed that there are large numbers of people both in favour of and against the company. Benvaughan 11:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Why has there been no elaboration on the fact that the COA are exclusively Gardnerian Wiccans only? Why has this sort of discrimmination gone unchallenged?(Bongo666)
Also why has there been no record/history of Dave Mercer's involvement in the CoA. There has been the suggestion that he was never an actual proper initiated Gardnerian Wiccan. Any background info on this should be on the post has well.(Bongo666)
Also is there any sort of financial information on where all the money collected from the various "Witchfest" festivals goes to? And who gets it? How much do the Mercers take from it. It could be argued that the Mercers are the COA so they can take has much has they want. Also the fact that the paid members dont know where there membership money is going , along with the Witchfest money?(Bongo666)
4/5/2006 - This page appears to have been vandalised (by large-scale deletion) as of 28/4/2006, from an IP address in Croydon. I have restored lost material whilst retaining material detailing positive viewpoints espoused in the article that was posted in place of the original. Benvaughan 11:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
6/5/2006 - This page has been vandalised again (reversion to the blanked alternate article) by the user at 82.43.57.50, despite it being revised to incorporate the opposite point of view espoused in the short replacement article which they posted. I have posted a second warning to their talk page, and I'll add a disputed tag to the article, which I've reinstated. Benvaughan 11:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore - I would really like to discuss the matter here, as opposed to engaging in an edit-war. I think we can construct a really good NPOV article by discussing our edits. The criticisms mentioned in the article are completely factual, widespread talking points in the pagan community - there may be counterarguments that I'm not aware of - if so, then please could they be added to the article. Simply deleting the reference to these criticisms is an act of vandalism, and doesn't help to add to the public body of knowledge on this important subject. Benvaughan 11:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
6/5/2006 - Another deletion from 82.43.57.50, regarding "Whitestone". I'm willing to let this one go, due to the nature of the statement. If someone has a print reference for the CoA relationship with Whitestone, please add it. Benvaughan 11:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
6/5/2006 - People from a series of different IP addresses appear to be trying to blank out this page. Please join in discussion here rather than removing content. Benvaughan 11:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I have added some more facts this morning, to avoid misleading people please check your facts before posting them on Wikipedia as you appear to basing your posts entirely on unsubstantiated and incorrect rumours. What do you get your information, I would be interested. Unfortunately my entry had been deleted almost instantly.
- In regard to Whitestone you are confusing CoA with another organisation that existed briefly in the mid 90's called WSG. This group was publicised by the PF magazine and had no direct links to CoA, if it's existence needs to be noted it should really be on the PF page.
- Both examples of discrimanation quited that were fought by CoA resulted in increased freedom for unrelated witches, pagans. In one case as a result even tarot readers and new age traders gained the right to attend after more than a decade ban.
- Your comment about late accounts applies to almost all small companies both profit and non-profit. If the comment is added regarding CoA in fairness it should be added to the page of all others with late accounts.
- If you want to add links please add relevant ones or post them on their own page.
7/5/2006 - You've reverted the page again, however. With regards to your four points:
1) My sources suggest that WSG became COA. But I'm leaving this one, until we have further documentation on the subject. Fair enough.
2) Can we reach a common ground on this? Do you have examples where the CoA has fought for the rights of a pagan individual? This would be preferable, and read better.
3) I disagree that this applies to all companies. You're saying that most companies tax returns are four months in arrears? I'll remove this one for now.
4) The links are relevant - Mad Witches was set up by people angry with CoA, hence it is relevant. PF is mentioned in the article as being damaged by CoA, hence again relevant. Also as a point of comparison. I must stress that I'm not affiliated with PN, PF, Pebble, Mad Witches, or any other organisation that is currently competing with CoA, my point of view here is not prejudiced.
Again, I'm going to have to revert the page to the one prior to your mass-deletion (this is referred to as "vandalism" on Wikipedia - please also don't remove the disputed accuracy tag or the expand tag), but I'll make changes associated with your comments. Do you agree that the main points of criticism are current and often levelled at CoA? Thanks Benvaughan 11:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
No I disagree Madwitches is not relevant post it on another page
Hi - Please can you sign your posts so we know who's making them? Cheers Benvaughan 12:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, could you explain *why* you believe that it is not relevant? As far as I am aware they exist because of the CoA. Benvaughan 12:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank-you for making some corrections, however there are more. I am busy and so I hope by now you will realise that my original changes were to correct inaccurate information. Once again what is your source, because it seems highly flawed? Your sources are wrong, WSG was a later organisation, my point about their promotion by the PF is correct, check back copies of Pagan Dawn. I assume if you can confirm this you will post the critism on the PF page? You can also verify CoA's earlier establishment by checking the adverts in back issues of Prediction.
I noticed that we are editing this page at the same time, if any of your comments here disappear it is not deliberate.
Your critisms appear to originate from the organisations you claim not to be involved with, especially Pagan Network, is that your source?
Hi - This information comes from a vast number of different people involved with paganism across the country. The criticisms I'm listing are completely accurate representations of large numbers of people in the UK.
As regards WSG and PF, feel free to add the comment to the PF entry, I don't know of anything to the contrary. I'm pleased to see we have got some dialogue going here. Further to that, this article witht the criticism is still leaning too far towards the negative side, it would be great if you could add some more positive material (rather than delete the negative) to balance it out and get a NPOV. Regards "claim" - I can categorically state that I have not ever been a member of any of the organisations listed, apart from having a user account on PN. I'm a very infrequent visitor, mind you.Benvaughan 12:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi OK I accept your source is diverse, part of the problem is that CoA rarely defends itself publicly, hence the only rumours originate from rival organisations. CoA introduced the PF to the venue in Croydon in 1997, hence they were actually there first and welcomed and helped the PF. The CoA older events were far smaller but gradually grew until the old name "Witchcraft Talks" was changed to Witchfest in 2002. You can confirm that my statement about the Fairfield introduction is accurate by contacting the PF. Further the PF do not appear to think that running an event at the same venue is a problem, they planned to do the same thing in the venue used by the Halloween Festival in 2005. I will edit the part about the venue see what you think. Thanks
Cheers - Re. The critique, you could add elements of necessity to counter the criticisms, for instance: In order to promote Witchcraft and gain acceptance, it make be necessary to market it in a more mainstream fashion... etc. Thanks. Benvaughan 12:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Ben, The coven finding service was free to members of CoA, and was ceased in 2003. There are several Wiccans who found groups as a result. The service was ended as there are not sufficient covens accepting trainees, and vast numbers looking, making it an impossible and thankless task. To attempt to address this lack of opportunity CoA has run Wicca Intro courses twice a year, and now funds some Open Rituals.
Right, this is looking more balanced now. I have added a critique to the PF's entry, again a pretty widespread one. They'll need to detail their activities more thoroughly on there to balance it out. Perhaps by openly discussing the problems and benefits of various organisations on here, we'll sort out some of the inter-organisational fighting. Or at least remove some of the clouds from the issues. Benvaughan 13:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ben, Next point. CoA is just as much a community organisation as the PF, or any of the numerous Druid groups. True it does not hold elections, but neither do any of the other organisations, except the PF and they haven't held an election for many years. CoA is staffed in exactly the same way as the PF, all volunteers with one office worker. The magazine is entirely produced by volunteers who take great pride in the publication and attempt to improve it with every issue, much the ssame as other mags in this area. The events are also staffed entirely by volunteers. The CoA web site is a thriving community, with thousands of members, for some it is a lifeline, especially those who cannot meet others physically for health reasons. CoA has no more competed with the PF than have Druid Network, BDO, the APT, or any other more specialised spiritual organisation. Cheers Dave
Hi Ben,
Thank-you I appreciate your dedication to the truth. I agree with you that there is too much mud slinging going on in the community, something that CoA deliberately keeps clear of unless directly attacked. What do you think of the entry now now? I left the teenage criticism as I have heard that one too. Not true so I have tried to balance it. The average age of CoA members is in fact in their early 30's, the majority are aged 20-40, but also includes teens, and pensioners. Maybe I should put that comment in the article.
Hi Ben, can I ask a favour, I am not sure how to embedd an image here. To balance the magazine criticism could you post the latest cover? It is at http://www.witchcraft.org/shop/cover12x.jpg Thanks -Dave
Hi Ben, do you think the disputed flag could be removed now? I will leave it there until I hear from you
Hi - Sorry for the delay. My only concern is that we get corroboration on the information surrounding the PF and CoA conferences. I reckon we should leave the expand tag on, I'll remove the disputed tag for now. Benvaughan 14:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, you have to upload images in order to show them on the site. Check out the help files, the images have to be a particular size, I think. Can't remember very well. Benvaughan 14:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Right - I do have a couple of points that I think need raising on the page - firstly, I don't think removing the criticism of accountability is valid, I'd like to reintroduce it, but with a refutation. The point is, that like the financial stuff, this is a commonly heard complaint. So actually addressing it would be a more profitable way forward. Secondly, I've heard a lot of people complain that they are unable to advertise their groups on the CoA forum, or that they've had their accounts removed from the CoA forum because they're members of other organisations - what about this? I've moved the discussion of the magazine to a more NPOV, removing absolute statements that come to unproved conclusions about its effect. Benvaughan 14:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ben, New person here. I am very confused. You say you do not like the CoA and you are not actively a part of any of the other organisations. So how can you possibly write an article as an expert? I thought Wikipedia existed to present factual information and not unsubstantiated opinion. I think you should be actively proving your facts rather than asking CoA to prove they are untrue. Having said that I do think you have tried to be fair, but why did you write this? If you have sources, you should be asking them for proof. As a member of PN would you dare put up the allegations in their forums. I think that would be very hurtful. Having been with CoA for over 5 years, I think I can offer an *expert* opinion to any rumours and allegations but I think your article would be far more credible if you chose to reference facts only. Cheers, Lea
Hi Lea -
Just one quick point: I'm a member of the PN forums, not of the org itself.
Do you mean these criticisms? Would I put them up in the PN forums? These criticisms have appeared all over the net and in real life, and not coming from any one source.Benvaughan 16:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ben,
I can answer these rumours too, although I must admit to sympathy with Lea's view of trial by rumour.
Advertising: CoA advertise more other groups than any other comparable group, there are almost 1,000 links to other sites in the links pages [1]. The only condition to these links is that the other site adds a reciprocal link, links are approved by an editor to check the reciprocal link, prevent spam, duplicates, or links considered unethical. In addition to this there is a large advertising forum intended to announce organisations and relevant traders. To prevent aggresive advertising by a minority of traders each organisation is only allowed a single advert, this gives everyone an equal chance and means that the forum does not fill with spam. Advertisers are not permitted to bump the topic. Advertisers that break these rules may have their adverts removed. Adverts are archived after a few years. CoA have also provided free adverts for some organisations in the magazine, including the Museum of Witchcraft. In contrast CoA receives little if any positive advertising from the UK based pagan organisations. Therefore to claim CoA does not allow advertising is both unfair and untrue.
People banned for membership of other organisations, again untrue. You must see the general anti-CoA stance of PN and Casparian himself still has a valid account.
Accountability I have already answered, CoA is a religious organisation and has no political posts, therefore no elections in exactly the same way as the Druid organisations. I would expect CoA to change this position if it became a political organisation, however currently that is not the case.
The Children of Artemis page now has double the content of the PF one even though CoA is half the age, and includes some criticism which does not appear on that page. Therefore I think that the expand sign should be removed.
Hi - I'm removing the expand sign. I've changed some of the language to bring it to a more neutral point of view. I've also reinstated the part that questions accountability, but introduced a possible reason for the calls for accountability. Likewise, the community services offered by the PF should be mentioned, as you're in effective competition with them, and as large community organisations, the success of one will affect the availability of these sorts of services.
The accountability/politics angle is interesting: The PF are ostensibly political: They campaign for rights and claim to represent their members. Would I be right in concluding that this is the distinction between the PF and CoA - The CoA does not claim to represent its members?
All membership organisations including CoA seek to further their members interests, however CoA is not a political pressure group and I would agree it would need some form of democratic process if that were to change. D
I've taken the statement above (democracy) as official, as to the best of my reckoning the comment was made by someone in an official capacity, please remove it from the main article if it's inaccurate.
In answer to the question about how I can claim "expert" opinion, I think having no organisational bias to my opinions is a pretty good start. I'm no expert, but I've spoken to vast numbers of people on both sides of the debate: Stall-holders, witches, newcomers, and people who have a vested interest. As I said at the top of the talk page: I'm not in favour of the CoA: I think the public image it presents tends towards cheapening and commoditising witchcraft and paganism. But everyone's got a different viewpoint, hence my desire for this page to be expanded (not deleted! :) ).
For the sake of public knowledge and "consumer rights" (or something like that), it's extremely healthy to list criticisms on here and then address them as you are doing, correcting misunderstandings where necessary. In actual fact it might shut up some of your less justified critics, and certainly give you somewhere to point people when they trot out the same old arguments.
Re: Use of Wikipedia: Similarly to any religious organisation, CoA has a lot of critics. Wikipedia has proved itself capable of providing a ground on which the truth will out: The creative process on Wikipedia is such that a very balanced picture of an organisation or religion will emerge after some wrangling.Benvaughan 16:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Ben, I think you should quote your sources and I will address them one by one. You have categorically stated that you wrote this because you are against CoA. I have offered 5 years of background to you, yet not a question. This is not an impartial article. If you were truly impartial, you would be covering all of the organisations with the same veracity. There is nothing being said about CoA that hasn't been said about every other organisation you have mentioned. Out of respect for CoA's ethics, I will not go into detail as it would be hurtful and damaging. And the worst part is, people who claim to represent *all pagans* and collect funds as non profit are blatantly misleading the public about the CoA. If these other groups focused and put in the grueling work that CoA has, we would not be having this discussion. They would succeed or fail based on their own merits and stop blaming others. Have you even been a member? Been to any events? Willing to quote the sources? I believe I have every right to edit this article, but I await your response. I will attempt to work this out but I suspect it will never be. You are only acting upon opinion. One of the most important facts is that the CoA will not allow an attack on any Pagan organisation. All remarks that damage the reputation of any other organisation, are immediately removed. This is not a popular stance, but it is an ethical one. CoA has also offered assistance to all of the major organisations when needed. Assistance to members of the Pagan community is offered quietly and without fanfare. I was the recipient of support from the CoA and it has never been mentioned, publicised or tauted as an achievement. I am not alone. Back up your facts and perhaps there will be agreement. CoA has had over 30,000 registered members. Exactly how many people have you talked to? By the way, I don't own velvet or a pentacle. Cheers, Lea
Hi Lea - Of course you have every right to edit this article, it's an open site, as long as you don't remove large amounts of content. CoA does receive specific criticism. I've been to two Witchfest events as a matter of fact, and know a load of members. On the whole I enjoyed the Witchfest events just as much as the PF ones. You've misquoted me, though. I started this article because CoA is a talking point (much more so than other organisations), but I've laid my cards out and asked for a response from pro-CoA people. And I got it, which is excellent! If I made a full list of my sources it would run to hundreds or thousands of names, and start a slanging match.
Can you remove some of those covers? It's getting crowded; two is enough to show the range of material you publish. Re: 30,000 - is that members as regarded in law by the LLC classification, or on your website? Now, tell me about this witchdating thing, is it CoA run? Benvaughan 09:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Lea - Sorry, I didn't notice you offering the background - this is excellent - please add as much as you can to the history section of the article.Benvaughan 09:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Not been around much so not sure what has been going on here, I do not agree that this article should be a talking point around unsubstantiated rumours. CoA have never had a member complain about transparency, and with around 5,000 members the statement is just not true so I am removing it.
The statement that CoA competes agressively in the pagan marketplace is also just plain wrong. There are no adverts of any kind placed by CoA in pagan publications, or websites. CoA only advertises to it's own membership through it's websites and magazine or commercial advertising outside the traditional pagan market. Therefore the crossover is minimal and CoA's effect on the PF is actually smaller than PN or independent pagan events held in London, both of which do advertise in the pagan press and effectively compete. Unless you can come up with concrete examples this applies to other organisations far more than CoA, so I am removing it.
I have edited the magazine criticism to create better balance, one critical blog entry is should not be the first paragraph. The readership is not teenage, another rumour that is just not true.
The crushed velvet point is just as applicable to all pagan organisations, the only difference is that CoA has a magazine capable of reproducing colour photos, most do not and rely on black and white artwork. Try attending almost any non-CoA event and see how long it is before you spot someone in crushed velvet. This does NOT apply to outside and summer events, CoA's summer camp the Artemis Gathering has no-one in velvet, it is too hot and not practical.
Ben - Just a quick question, you stated at the beginning of this discussion you are against CoA, hence hardly a neutral observer. You still only seem to bring negative rumours to the discussion. As so many of your rumours have proved untrue are you still against CoA? As an organisation CoA rarely speaks up for itself against outside critics, that does not mean the rumours are true. Maybe you should start wiki entries on those who try to cause these mythical problems by spreading untrue rumours. In the name of truth I think naming your sources for each rumour, especially those that are blatantly untrue and possibly malicious, would be a good thing. I do not think "a common criticism" is good enough, more accurate is "a view of many on ???? web site". Would it be possible for you to edit your opening statement, to read organisation, rather than company, the implication is misleading.
The comparison to new-age is misleading, there is no profit-motive for CoA and the pricing is almost an order of magnitude cheaper, hence removed.
Changed the religious opposition statement to be more accurate, the prime reason for the protests was the open use of the word "Witch" as stated in the new entry. Christian protests were universal at the start of any of the Witchfests, but have become increasingly rare as time has passed.
Becky (Madwitch Admin) just to say that Madwitches was not set up by anyone mad with CoA (that is a libel bugt if it makes people feel better to beleive that then that is Ok by me) it was set up after I was banned for trying to offer advice on new government guidelines regarding chatrooms. We actually have admins from CoA on Madwitches for some reason they don't use the same names as they use on CoA not sure why as they are verty welcome we have nothing to hide.
LeaFlynn This phrase about where money goes from Witchfest should not be placed under religious opposition and has been removed. Also, The Children of Artemis is accountable and responsible. Unless you are willing to question the accounts of every similar organisation, it is not fair to imply that they have done anything improper.
12/08/06 LeaFlynn This article is not for the airing of *disputes* which are not factual. The person editing this article should join the discussion and provide relevent and factual information. It is a well known fact that those individuals who are the loudest critics of CoA have *personal* interest in attempting to discredit the organisation. Kindly identify yourself and have the manners to engage in civil discussion. This is to be an informational site and not a place for the same old dialouge that disrupts the pagan community because of their own financial interest. For instance, members of CoA are hearing impaired and are also members of sign pagan. They can state that they allegations here are a matter of interpretation and not discrimination. When this back stabbing jealousy stops, perhaps there will be some headway. You will not see this from CoA, only their critics, who in my opinion should simply get their own house in order. Flooding Wikipedia with rumour and inuendo is damaging to all users.
The statement "However, this would suggest that the leaders of the organisation claim a religious mandate, which many of the membership may not be aware of when they join." is speculation. In common with all alternative religious organisations CoA obviously has a religious aspect, but that is not a mandate as has already been pointed out above. So statement removed as misleading and inaccurate as the organisations leaders have never claimed such a "mandate"
CoA has not had any commercial success and has not made any significant profit during any year of it's existance so the following is untrue and misleading, hence removed. "CoA's undeniable commercial success has made witchcraft into a commodity, this has not gone well with some who feel that Witchcraft is a personal faith not a trendy accessory for others to profit from."
All the changes I made and justified above have been reverted without any comment in here. If the person doing this does not back up their "opinion" they are enforcing on this entry it will be considered vandalism of this entry
Correct criticism, as the word commercial is not accurate if CoA is not financially profitable.
The statement more recently in relation to the covers is inaccurate, the old cover depicted is Fiona Horne who may look very good, but is no teenager.
The statement is opinion and cannot be attributed to this organisation, there is no commodity market in Witchcraft, and that that exists owes more to popular fiction, TV and Hollywood
"and has made witchcraft into a commodity, this has not gone well with some who feel that Witchcraft is a personal faith not a trendy accessory for others to profit from"
Please verify that there is a commodity market in Witchcraft directly attributable to Children of Artemis before reverting or re=adding this claim.
whoever is adding these "allegations" seems more interested in attacking the organisation than posting a good wiki entry
~The Unsigned entry above is assumed to be attributable to "Truthscribe"~
There is no published evidence that the limited liability company Children of Artemis Limited is behind the activities of CoA.
There is no published evidence that David and Kate Mercer who have granted a free and exclusive license to Children of Artemis Limited to use the mark.
Either we leave the "alleged" in or we remove the unverifiable statements.
Brucedenney 12:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
06/09/06 LeaFlynn I have removed the paragraph on environmental concerns as inaccurate. Information placed on this site must be verifiable fact. The content is being blatantly vandalized. If you can provide valid comments, that are verifiable, please do. I will request mediation to stop this.
24/09/06 Phil
I added a section under "Criticisms" entitled "Disability Issues" a couple of months ago. I just checked back and discovered that this section was deleted by LeaFlynn a few days later.
I have restored that section. LeaFlynn, please do not vandalise content.
---LeaFlynn comment 08-01-07 Excuse me Phil. but I have vandalized nothing. Your information is incorrect. You report this as third party information. My information differs. Can you provide factual information? I am willing to mediate this issue with an impartial party. You have neglected to mention pertinent facts and accused CoA of violating the law. This is unacceptable. The simple fact is everyone in the venue had to be ticketed. CoA has admin staff who are hearing impaired and willing to act as translator. Your statement is biased. When you include all facts the statement will be left. Until then, make it correct or don't post it. I am fully within my rights to edit this content.
The links to some reference materials are dead, specifically those currently listed as references 2 (CARE petition) & 3 (something regarding spooky dress). I couldn't see anything to replace them with, although admittedly I didn't spend that long searching. Cheesewire 18:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
