Merged comment[edit]

Needs citation of sources. Badbilltucker 01:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Druidry, not Druidism[edit]

Druidry is the preferred term among the Neo-Druid Community. An analysis of the links provided at the bottom of the page:

American •ADF – Ár nDraíocht Féin: A Druid Fellowship – “Ár nDraíocht Féin: A Druid Fellowship (ADF) is an international fellowship devoted to creating a public tradition of Neopagan Druidry.” •ADO – Avalon Druid Order –“Druidry for a New Age” •DGOFC – Druid Gorsedd of the First Circle –“ We welcome people of all paths, whether they choose to follow Druidry as their sole path, or seek to infuse their chosen path with the spirit of Druidry.” •The Henge of Keltria –“ Keltrian Druidism is a spiritual path dedicated to revering the Nature Spirits, honoring the Ancestors, and worshipping the Deities of our ancient Irish ancestors.” •RDNA – Reformed Druids of North America – “The mother grove of American Druidry” •Reformed Druids of North America – Uses both, but from reading through it they seemed to be using Druidism more. •Reformed Druid Grove Locations –Dead Link, just a list of locations anyways •A Reformed Druid Anthology –Uses Druidism more •AODA – Ancient Order of Druids in America –Has a whole paragraph devoted to why Druidry is better than Druidism •The Archdruid Report -Druidry •Ord Draiochta na Uisnech – Irish Tradition –Dead Link •Isaac Bonewits's website -Expired •RDG – Reformed Druids of Gaia -Druidism •Order of the Mithril Star – Druidism, connected to above British •OBOD – The Order of Bards, Ovates and Druids –Druidry, in the URL of their site •AOD – The Ancient Order of Druids -Druidism •Philip Carr-Gomm's website –Uses both •Druidcast – a druid podcast -Druidry •TDN – The Druid Network –“ Informing, Inspiring and Facilitating Druidry as a Religion” •BDO – The British Druid Order –“ Rekindling the sacred fires of Druidry as a living, breathing, Earth-honouring and deeply life-affirming spirituality for the 21st century.” •Council Of British Druid Orders – (CoBDO) -Druidry •Caer Clud –Broken link Canadian •Celtic Faith of Greater Ireland (French) –In French, doesn’t matter for the English wiki •Canadian Druid Confederation – Broken Link Irish •The Irish College of Druids “The ancient stream of Irish Druidry continues to flow strongly in our modern world.” •Irish Druid Network Directory –Uses Both •Hibernian Order of Druids –Broken Link Galician •IDG - Pan-Galician Druidic Fellowship (Portuguese) –Again, this is the English wiki

So, in case you did not want to read all of that, of the links provided that worked, 12 used Druidry, 5 used Druidism, and 3 used both, a majority for Druidry. Furthermore, that includes repeats and non-organizational links like personal websites. Counting only the main website for organizations, we have a 10 to 4 ratio in favor of Druidry. Should we not use the term that most Neo-Druid Organizations and websites deemed significant to link to on Wikipedia use? Thunderstone99 (talk) 03:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Druidism' is the older term, well-established before 'Druidry' was invented. I have no problem mentioning the term 'Druidry' (it would be irresponsible not to), but 'Druidism' should have top billing. Your survey is not very scientific; the RDNA site, e.g., may use 'Druidry' somewhere, but all the core documents use 'Druidism'. -- Elphion (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Thunderstone99, and have moved the page. Pass a Method talk 14:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted it because looking at various sources on Google Scholar and Google Books, and the term hits (taking into account WP:GNUM), it looks like Druidism is used much more often than Druidry, which appears to be a rather seldomly used term by comparison. - SudoGhost 15:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia usually words religious groups by how its adherents define themselves. We have had havelf a dozen requests from Druid members to renme this page in its archives. I'm dissapointed with the revert. Pass a Method talk 15:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to open a WP:RM, but I don't think that because a few sources can been given that says some adherants call themselves such doesn't it means that makes it the article's the WP:COMMONNAME for the subject. It's probably true that Wikipedia usually titles articles by what adherents call themselves, but that would only be because those self-descriptors are usually in line with what the majority of reliable sources use as well; if they differ then the policy takes precedence. - SudoGhost 15:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh and other Nationalism vs Fraternal Orders vs Neo-Paganism[edit]

This article seems to conflate a history of druidism that came from Welsh and British nationalism with Fraternal Orders so common in the 19th Century (in response to the powerful networks of Freemasonry) and Neo-Paganism. While there may be slight overlap in time and membership of these different movements, they are not fundamentally the same. In particular the Fraternal Orders of Druids that developed in the 19th Century had very little to do with neo-paganism until perhaps the late 20th Century when the organisations were made up of a diminished and predominantly aging population. To be blunt, this article seems written from the POV of neo-druidism, with a writing backwards of history to include the earlier movements. I strongly urge that if it is an article on neo-pagan Druidism then it should focus on those religious movements, with the other aspects in new articles, or that it should adopt a neutral tone until the section of modern spiritual druidismBrunswicknic (talk) 14:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, but the date can be more precise. Neo-paganism did not become associated with Druidism in America until about 1974, when it was pushed enthusiastically in Reformed Druidism (RDNA) by Isaac Bonewits (to the dismay of many older members). In prior years (roughly from 1969) Bonewits had experimented with Neo-paganism at the Berkeley Grove of RDNA. I can't speak to the situation in Britain. -- Elphion (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Elphion, you remind me that the Fraternal order of Druids were big in Melbourne, and perhaps other cities in Australia, but faded away by the end of the 20th Centry with as far as I know no connections with neo-druidic paganism. In Swanston Street Melbourne, there is the fantastic Druid House, 19th Century, about 5-6 storeys with a 2-3m figure of a druid standing looking down upon the passer-bysBrunswicknic (talk) 11:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename[edit]

Neo-Druidism → Neo-Druidry I withdraw the request per below input.Pass a Method talk 22:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several proposals in the archieves to rename this article "Neo-Druidry", including by members of the Druid faith. It is the most common usage of how Druid organisations describe themselves. The most common objection to this proposal is that Google returns more hits with "NeoDruidism" but this rationale is flawed because these hit counts appears to be a result from either a google bomb or spam and subsequent anchoring by news sites. I have even seen off-wiki threads of Druids being displeased because this is a suffix which is misleading to their doctrines. Wikipedia is supposed to use a title which is the most common usage among adherents.

Per thunderstone99 above, in links on this article, 12 used Druidry, 5 used Druidism, and 3 used both.

Pass a Method talk 15:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per WP:RM: "Note: Nominators should usually not add a separate support !vote, as the nomination itself qualifies as a !vote" - SudoGhost 16:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By archive i meant the above threads as well as the archives. That makes two. Pass a Method talk 18:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neo Druids & Sweatlodges[edit]

This article proclaims that neo-druids are using sweatlodges solely on being inspired by indigenous practices of Native Americans, when in fact the Celts in past had traditionally used sweatlodges already and the Neo-Druids are merely continuing the practice. Albeit often using the Native American methods of construction and use as it is less resource and work intensive. I have edited this into the article before and it has been changed back. If in doubt of my references used before, then I suggest looking at this direct quote from the Wiki article on Sweat Lodge, ""Vapour baths were in use among the Celtic tribes, and the sweat-house was in general use in Ireland down to the 18th, and even survived into the 19th century. It was of beehive shape and was covered with clay. It was especially resorted to as a cure for rheumatism."[1] These structures were built of stone, and square or corbelled "beehive" versions are often found, mostly in the Irish and Gaelic-speaking areas of Ireland and Scotland, though most seem of relatively recent date. The method of construction, heating the structure, and usage was different from the North American examples, and they seem to have been regarded as therapeutic in function, like the sauna, and perhaps typically used by one person at a time, given their small size.[2]"

If I can't make this edit myself do to it being changed back, then could someone else do it with this knowledge provided?

70.48.166.162 (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several issues. First, the article already mentions "indigenous cultures and religions from across the globe", not just Native Americans (though the inspiration certainly came originally from Native American culture). Second, the Celtic practices are not documented as Druidic practices. Third, "continuing" is hardly appropriate, since there is no continuity of tradition (and indeed scant knowledge of the details of the original practice). It's well known that things like saunas exist in other cultures, but the primary influence on Neo-druidism came from imitation of Native American sweatlodges. What's missing in your argument is a reliable source documenting influence on New-druidism from old Celtic practice. -- Elphion (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"What's missing in your argument is a reliable source documenting influence on New-druidism from old Celtic practice."
Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Reconstructionist_Paganism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Reconstructionist_Paganism#Celtic_Reconstructionism_and_Neo-druidism
67.68.138.218 (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not specific to this issue, and not particularly reliable sources. -- Elphion (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed although I can't be sure what I was supposed to be looking at, but nothing I saw sufficed. I did see some problems in that article. Dougweller (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example of Teach Allais being used by Neo-Druids http://www.druidschool.com/site/1030100/page/3152056 67.68.138.218 (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


"...the Celtic practices are not documented as Druidic practices." Neo-Druidic practices are based upon Celtic practices, there is no division in Neo-Druidism between what is Celtic or Druidic. The ancient Druids called them Teach Allais. They are found all over Ireland:
http://www.irishmegaliths.org.uk/sweathouses.htm
They were said to be used for all manner of purposes, some for health and others for journeying.67.68.138.218 (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please read our sourcing policies and guidelines at WP:RS and WP:HISTRS. The source you provided isn't reliable by our standards by a wide mile. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find it intersting that you impugn the source here. The fact of the matter is ther is a preponderance of archeological evidence that supports the use of the 'sweathouse' or lodge in Ireland and well as in Scotland. Furthermore, there is a dearth of evidence supporting the fact that these were not merely 'theraputic' but were used in worship. https://archive.org/stream/ulsterjournalar05unkngoog/ulsterjournalar05unkngoog_djvu.txt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtopher1 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"SWEAT, SWEAT-HOUSE". Encyclopædia of religion and ethics 12. T. & T. Clark. 1922. p. 128.
"Sweat House, Co. Wicklow", by L. Price in The Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, Vol. 82, No. 2 (1952), pp. 180-181, Published by: Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, JSTOR
Folk-liv, Volume 2. Kungl. Gustav Adolfs akademien (Uppsala, Sweden), Royal Gustav Adolf Academy, 1938. Indiana University
Dickson, J. M. 1995. A History of the Island of Rathlin by Mrs. Grange, Rathlin 1851. Coleraine
http://www.munsterarchaeology.ie/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=43
67.68.138.218 (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What little we know of sweathouse traditions in the Gaelic areas bears more resemblance to Nordic sauna rituals than the Native American sweatlodge ceremonies. The neo-druid groups linked in the article seem to be clearly appropriating from Native Americans, not attempting to accurately reconstruct the Gaelic tradition. - CorbieV☊ 21:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC) Additionally, the blue plastic tarps in this misappropriated mess of an airtight structure are a good way to kill people. - CorbieV☊ 22:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reformed Druids of North America[edit]

In the section "Afterlife" the Reformed Druids of North America are used to show that some Neo-Druids do not believe in reincarnation. I am familiar with the Reformed Druids of North America as being a satirical organization having very little to do with actual Druidry, so I believe that a different example, if once exists, should be used to show that some Druids do not believe in reincarnation. I possess no knowledge of such a group, so am incapable of making the proper contributions myself. I encourage those more knowledgeable about the topic to make the proper edits, or perhaps to provide reasons why the Reformed Druids of North America should be kept as an example. 67.5.25.53 (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RDNA certainly began as a "satirical organization", but it developed a deep spiritual side as well. Saying that it has "little to do with actual Druidry" shows that you are entertaining a preconceived notion about what Druidism is, or should be. RDNA remains a good example of Neo-Druidism -- in my opinion, one of greater substance that most of the other groups that go by that name. -- Elphion (talk) 01:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Celtic Mythology Contributions[edit]

Hello. I have been searching for the scholarship on the word Wirdjos. I noticed that a chart which appeared on an earlier edit of this page circa 2005 included Wirdjos as a name of Viridios. Does anyone know where that chart came from or what sources were used to construct it? It seems to have been removed from Wikipedia quite awhile ago, but still appears elsewhere, albeit without further sourcing. Thank you for any help you can offer. Wirdjos (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Druidism vs. Neo-Druidism[edit]

Since there is no such thing as a Classical Druidism (rather Druids were simply a social role within a wider Celtic paganism) should this article not be simply called Druidism without the neo-? The idea of Druidism is a romantic 18th century one, initiated properly by Iolo Morganwg and co, which these modern groups continue to articulate. Claíomh Solais (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Neo-Druidism" is widely used to describe modern spiritual practices influenced by ideas often attributed to the ancient Druids or to Celts in general. Dropping the "Neo-" risks unnecessary confusion. -- Elphion (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would contend that it is not used commonly (see above). The most common usage specifically for modern day druid practice appears to be "druidry". Not "druidism", not "neo-druidism" and not "neo-druidry".
It is very easy to find older material on Google Books that refers to "neo-druidism" or books that have been compiled from Wikipedia articles, but I would argue that "Druidry" is more applicable to WP:COMMONNAME Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious[edit]

As of May 2021, the "Pagan Druidry in Europe" section of this article happily declares that, because "the Celtic Druid Temple (Ireland) [..] are legally registered [as a charity] in their respective countries, hence Druidry being an officially recognised religion in those territories".

In Ireland, being a registered charity is not the same as being a recognised religion. It just isn't.

The Charities Regulator in Ireland, for example, may be an official "registrar of charities", but that does not make it an official "recogniser of religions". (In Ireland at least, receiving a registration as a charity is not the same as receiving recognition as a religion. And to claim it does is silly. If the operator of an Irish donkey sanctuary registers it as a charity [so she can legally fundraise for that charity], does that bestow additional religious recognition on the operator? Or the donkeys? Hint: No. It doesn't.)

It may be that Druidry has received recognition as a religion in some of the (other) listed territories, but the claims in relation to Ireland are dubious at best. And (at a glance) the claims relative to some of the charity/tax registrations in other countries also seem to be a stretch.

I have removed Ireland from the list. As it is quite clear that the charity registrar's entry should not (and cannot) be read as religious recognition. (As that is not that body's function.) Ideally someone else might qualify and clarify (without the apparent OR currently at play) whether and where Druidry is actually "officially recognised religion in those territories". To my read the claim is based on apparent WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. (In that the text comes to "a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"). Ideally there would be more explicit sources, like that seen for the similar claim made in respect of the status afforded to The Druid Network in England and Wales (towards the end of the article). Guliolopez (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's been almost 2 weeks since my note above. And I haven't heard any other thoughts. And so I've removed the apparent synth. (Those sources support the assertion that those organisations are registered charities. None directly support the suggestion that "hence that also means recognition as a religion".) Registration of a charity is not equivalent to recognition of a religion. Nor does the latter automatically follow from the former. Guliolopez (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear/wrong sentence or time travel?[edit]

"Gorsedd, one of the 18th century traditions that were founded by Morganwg, became part of the 12th century Eisteddfod festival.[17]"

Either the sentence is ambigious as it refers to fabricated sources (by Morganwg) which imply that a specific tradition (Gorsedd) has been a historic part of the Eisteddfod festival ... or I forgot to read the applied timetravel article.

Does my reading comprehension need a little polishing or should this sentences be rewritten? 2003:6:3337:2625:F452:9FF6:50B5:9D1A (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten it to match the source. It's the Welsh national festival. Doug Weller talk 16:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but still not that clear. The initial sentence of this para needs removing because it's a criticism of Morganwg's work, rather than a definition of Druidry. Words like "fabricated" are not neutral POV. It's sufficient to attribute authorship of the ceremonies to Morganwg here. Tim flatus (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Academic criticism of the work of Iolo Morganwg, Edward Davies, Sir John Rhŷs, Robert Graves et al. should be moved to a separate section at the end of the article. Tim flatus (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious definitions[edit]

"the Cornish Gorsedd for example has publicly disassociated any links to Paganism." I'm not sure this really reflects a balanced POV. While this is certainly the opinion of Amy Hale, it would be useful to either clarify the position of Gorsedh Kernow or remove this assertion. <OR> Gorsedh Kernow includes several neo-Pagans amongst its members, including at least one former Grand Bard. They do not tend to discuss spirituality </OR>. I think it would be more relevant to include published statements from Welsh Archdruids to illustrate this point. Guidance on the correct approach for Wikipedia would be appreciated. Tim flatus (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look at it, the whole paragraph is awkward. Philip Carr-Gomm's distinction is relevant within the context of OBOD. This paragraph doesn't tell us how the Welsh, Cornish and Breton Gorseddau self-identify. I think attitudes towards Paganism have changed over the last 23 years. It would be truer to say they distance themselves from any Bardic / Druidic organisation not created under the auspices of Gorsedd Ynys Prydein. Marion Bowman's distinction here isn't helpful. I feel this needs reducing to a more factual account and the British context made clear. Ireland and the rest of the world may feel differently and most of this is a matter of opinion that doesn't add to anyone's understanding of Druidry. Tim flatus (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://gorsedhkernow.org.uk/2020/archivedsite/english/history.htm
Gorsedh Kernow, is an organisation dedicated to the preservation of Cornwall's unique Celtic spirit, through literature, language, music and the arts, and the recognition of all forms of important service to Cornwall and its people.
[...] it has no connection whatsoever with Druidism nor with any pagan practice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorsedd_Cymru
Gorsedd Cymru [...] is a society of Welsh-language poets, writers, musicians and others who have contributed to the Welsh language and to public life in Wales.
I'm arguing a fine distinction here, but I feel it would be better to reference Gorsedh Kernow's form of words than Hale's interpretation. Tim flatus (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestor veneration[edit]

We should be careful when making assertions about Druidic beliefs such as "The Druidic concept of ancestry". Druidry has no scripture, so these sorts of statements need to be contextualised. This concept of "ancestors of the land" is common to many neo-Pagan groups, but is not specific to Druidry. Tim flatus (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arts and poetry[edit]

I want to rewrite the entire storytelling paragraph. Andy Letcher is well respected as a Bard, but his comments referenced here do not reflect a sufficiently broad understanding of Druidry. I intend to remove the following completely:

'Bards utilise archaic words such as "t'was", "thence", and "deeds", while speaking in a grandiose manner of intonation. The general purpose of bardism, according to scholar of religion and bard Andy Letcher, is to create an "ambience" of "a catchall ahistorical past; a Celtic, medieval, Tolkienesque, once-upon-a-time enchanted world".'

It is not a useful description. I also feel that discussion of musical instruments is somewhat irrelevant as this all applies to a particular style of historical reconstruction, which tells us nothing of the role and skill set expected of a Bard. Tim flatus (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That done, I now see problems with the whole section. I will restructure it to explain the role of Bards within Druidry. Tim flatus (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Categories