Talk:Neo-Druidism/Archive 1

Stonehenge?

Stonehenge mentions neo-druidism, but neo-druidism doesn't mention Stonehenge. Dbenbenn 14:29, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I just added a photo. It's supposedly of the "Druidic Brotherhood". I didn't put that in the caption, though, because this particular organization isn't mentioned in the article. Dbenbenn 14:49, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Odd...

I think it a tad fishy that the article begins "Neo-druidism is an attempt to reconstruct the ancient religion", etc. I wonder what other religion articles might begin this way – is Christianity an attempt at being the Church? Is Islam an attempt to submit oneself to God? Will try to think of more NPOV alternatives. QuartierLatin1968 19:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't waste your time, unless you can find others who find troublesome this language that has been in place thru 49 edits over 3.5 years. You seem to be missing two objective differences between this and your hypothetical horror stories:

• It's not PoV but a fact that Neo-druidism lacks the historical continuity to do anything but attempt to reconstruct. In fact, its adherants are not being dissed; they are being given the credit they deserve for verifiably not making the usual unverifiable and implausible PoV claims of centuries of faithfulness to the Truth that holds the universe together.
• There is also no comparability whatsoever between success or failure at reconstruction on one hand (a matter of conformity with historical events, albeit unknown onces), and on the other to "submit[ing] oneself to God" or to "being the Church" with "the" and a capital C, both of which are about things whose very definitions are inherantly meaningless unless PoV assumptions are granted; distinguishing between doing, and attempting those things is not encyclopedic not bcz of NPoV, but bcz the distinction between them is unworthy of discussion beyond saying that success at them is part of the dogma.

--Jerzy (t) 21:02, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

Okay, I'll concede you the substance of both those points – I guess what bothered me was rather that we were saying Neo-druidism is an attempt to do X, rather than Neo-druidism is something that attempts to do X. The formula Religion = Attempt is what seems screwy to me; I don't at all object to the idea that religions do attempt to do things. Perhaps what would most mollify me would be language to the effect that "Neo-druidism is a religious tendency within Neo-paganism, that attempts to reconstruct...". However, I won't press the issue if I'm the only one who finds the current phrasing odd.

No one is saying that Religion = Attempt. Perhaps it could be better rephrased to say "Neo-druidism a religion which attempts to reconstruct the ancient religion". It's still a religion, even if it falls short to whatever extent of reconstructing the ancient religion.--RLent 21:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

(By the bye, there are actually Druid groups around today who claim quite adamantly that the original authentic Druidic tradition never died, it just went into occultation, or was syncretized with Christianity through the Culdees and the Welsh Bards down through Iolo Morgannwg and the various neo-Druid movements we know today. Not my opinion, but there definitely are those who hold it.) QuartierLatin1968 03:07, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

(Further to this "by the by", I would strongly argue that these druid movements in Britain that stem directly from the revival two hundred years ago are Meso-Druids, not Neo-Druids. The biggest difference between them is that neo-druids are pagan, and meso-druids include Christians.) AVR 28 August 2005 09.51 (sorry if I've done this wrong, it's my first time, feel free to delete this, but I needed to put this point across)

A very late addition to the above; but for the record, not all Neo-Druids are pagan. Elphion (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Not all are pagan? News to me. ALL Druids are pagan. If they are not pagan, then what are they. Christians are not druids they are Christians. Considering that Paganism is a blanket term for non judeo-christian beliefs, that rules out christians, practicing jews and muslims. To be a christian to have to accept god, accept christ and the concept of heaven and hell. Things alien to druidism. A person that believes in 'god', but doesn't follow any of the fundemental beliefs (like heaven & jesus) isn't christian. A christian that doesn't believe in heaven, but accepts reincarnation isn't a christian. So by selection of beliefs only Pagans remain. Persoanlly all the Neo-Druids I have met are strict pagan; the only 'god' worshipers being from the US and tbh, just christians in a robe, and not a Druid.

http://matthewslater.blogspot.com/2008/01/christian-druid.html christian druid? it seems he doesn't understand the concept of a druid. It is not all about hugging trees and wearing robes. Its the worship of nature in every aspect. A devout Darwinist, by all logic, has a much stronger connection to Druidry than a lax christian. Sorry for the rant, but I do feel strongly about christians trying to hijack Pagan religions after spending so many centuries stamping us out. [DarkMithras] 6-1-2010

Other European Druid Organizations. The Order of Clochsliaph has coverted to Christianity. As a result they are no longer pagan, and they haven't any druids. This happened about a month ago, so it should be changed. It can be read on the website of Order of Clochsliaph. Sry for my bad english, I'm still learning. Hope I was able to help Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.1.62.186 (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Paganism is not "a blanket term for non judeo-christian beliefs." That would imply that every Hindu, Buddhist, etc. is a pagan, a statement that I'm pretty sure wouldn't fly with people who practice those religions. Spock of Vulcan (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This sounds a bit like Humpty Dumpty ("When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean"). Most dictionaries give as the primary meaning for pagan "a believer in a polytheistic religion"; but a common derived meaning is "a believer in a faith other than Judaism, Christianity, or Islam". (See for example The Random House Dictionary.) There's no point getting hung up over the term, since it does have different meanings. Likewise, the comment above that ALL Druids are pagans, and that no Christian can be a Druid, simply defies historical fact. True, the ancient Druids were certainly pagan. But most neo-Druids until the 20th century were also Christian, and even today there are practicing Christians and Jews who also self-identify as Druid and belong to Druid groups. There is no fixed definition of Druidism; it varies from group to group and from person to person. Druid by itself need not imply polytheistic (or even theistic). Among many Druids it connotes more properly "freedom of belief". -- Elphion (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Theonyms

Is the large table needed in the article when it is duplicated at Proto-Celtic theonyms? It is also duped at Celtic polytheism. The theonym page is an orphan adrift in the harsh wiki world and should be united with this article or... Well you know the rest, it is a tragic fate for any article, I will delete the table and make a link to the orphan if nobody objects. MeltBanana 14:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Duplication baaaad. Do you feel comfortable splitting the table into its own article, so we can link the three (at least) that use it? Nae'blis 16:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Splitting out RDNA

Reformed Druids of North America probably deserves its own page, rather than redirecting back to this one. It would probably make both the RDNA stuff and this page much less cluttered. Straif 18:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Capitalisation etc.

I've cleaned up some of the capitalisation inconsistencies, settling on "druid" as it is indeed defined uncapitalised in the dictionary (Chambers, 1988). —Ashley Y 20:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for comments at another article

• Ben_McBrady If anyone could comment, it would be appreciated. -THB 03:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Loyal Arthurian Warband and other groups

Does anyone else think that The Loyal Arthurian Warband are worth mentioning? Also, why does the External Links section only refer to two groups? Surely there should be a broader cross-section of modern Druidry? Note that I have also added a few more links to 'See also'. I believe that the new links are all relevant to the subject (though the list is growing, I hope that it is not too long). abdullahazzam

Speaking fo the links you added--I deleted them in error, and do apologize. I have restored the page to your edit. Justin Eiler 14:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Justin. :) /|\ This section may require a little expansion here and there, which I hope you will permit - and check!

I was also going to raise another issue: there is rather a lot of mention of the ADF and RDNA. These are not the only modern Druid Orders. I hope that there is not bias/partialism appearing here (though I certainly accept that these groups be discussed in depth, I just think that maybe there should be more?). abdullahazzam 15:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being so understanding--that will teach me to edit before my second cup of coffee. :) Justin Eiler 14:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The restoration does not appear to have worked. I hope you will permit me to add a few links to some of the sites of other Druid groups. :) abdullahazzam

External links sections can easily spiral out of control. I agree there are more than just ADF and OBOD, but what will our criterion be for inclusion/exclusion? Otherwise we run the risk of being targeted as a link farm. -- nae'blis 17:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Link farming is a problem. Having said that, many of the articles I have seen have copious amounts of references, footnotes, external links and suchlike - I have seen one case that had something like 234 footnotes on it. But for an article this size, I don't think that's justifiable.

Maybe a few Irish Orders and some French and Canadian Orders would balance it out a bit further. We can look at the size of the list once it's done. abdullahazzam

Druid Orders and subsections

I have decided to split the External Links section into different subsections to represent each country. I think this will make things much easier to understand as it will now be possible to scan the links and see which group or bit of info comes from which place. The subsections can include information as well as the Orders themselves. New sections need to be added for Canada and France, as well as more for Ireland and further sections for Scotland and of course Wales. I will attempt to work on this over the coming days. abdullahazzam

With reference to the External Links section, why was the link to my article, "Varieties of 'Druidic' Experience" (http://groups.msn.com/CromansGrove/varieties.msnw) removed? I suppose it does not fit into the links as they have been re-labelled, but it's still of value in making the distinctions between various "Druid" groups plain and helping to explain the often bewildering assortment of these groups and how they can differ so significantly from one another. Croman mac Nessa 11:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The Mother Grove of the Reformed Druids of North America

Has anyone read this section? It reads like a joke. Seriously, this is the most confused, oblique writing i've ever seen, and i have no idea what it's trying to say.

"Carleton College's requirement that each student participate regularly in religious services was the most focused of the factors occasioning the promulgation of "the Reform"."

Really? what's "the Reform"? Plus, I love the phrase, "the most focused of the factors occasioning the promulgation of..." *Sigh* - if anyone has time who knows the subject matter, it would be nice to see this written better. Torgo (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Differences between historical and Neo-druidism

In my opinion, this section could do with a rewrite, but I'm not well-informed enough to do it completely. In many of the sentences there is confusion about whether the subject is a historical or modern-day druid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.195.19.49 (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes and Questions about factual balance

I editing the first few sections of this page today with an eye toward improving the style (which had some serious problems), and its inclusiveness. The whole article, down to the use of "Neo-druidism" as a term betrays its bias in favor of the views of Isaac Bonewits, who is only one among many modern Druids. I do not myself employ his taxonomy of meso-pagan and neo-pagan and find them more misleading than useful. It seems to me there is no good reason to not simply call modern Druids "modern Druids" as Druidry or Druidism are movements that began in the Early Modern period of European and American history (roughly in the 17th century).

Self-identification as Druids hardly can be said to seriously appear before the late nineteenth century. There are many subtle inaccuracies in this article as written which I am trying to correct. They are opinions promulgated by Mr. Bonewits and his organization ADF. The article is highly unbalanced in the direction of the small American lineage that sprang from the RDNA, the "Carleton Druids" who did not even begin with a serious spiritual movement. This makes the whole movement look rather ridiculous. Stating baldly that Iolo Morganwg was a "forger" and dismissing 18th and 19th century beliefs about history without due examination also slants the article. The writings of nearly everyone in the 18th and 19th centuries (and maybe even up until the 1980's) can easily be dismissed as "inaccurate." They held different assumptions, worked from different facts, and held a very different attitude towards scholarly writing than scholars since the 1980's. In another hundred years, our current scholarly interpretations of the past will probably also be considered inaccurate.

So, I would like to see more serious scholarly objectivity in this article (as elsewhere in Wikipedia), that aims to interpret the facts straight, rather than slanted, and presents the ideas of the past (such as those of the Barddas of Iolo) as historical artifacts to be studied within their historical context, not as "innacurate" notions to be ignored and dismissed for whatever political reasons the writer has for such an attitude. If this article is only based on academic sources, it will still be slanted against modern Druids. Notable and respected academics such as Stuart Piggott write with an obvious agenda to discredit and dismiss modern Druids and the modern spiritual movement. Mr. Bonewits, who is not an academic, writes also with a particular agenda, which seems to be to promote his own life history and accomplishments and dismiss those of the very large number of modern Druids in Britain and the rest of Europe, and indeed across the world. This article should not aim to promote reconstructionism, American Neo-Paganism, or any particular "brand" of Druidry, but to give the reader balanced information about all of these branches of the movement.

I will attemtp to revise the later parts of the article if time permits. The section on American Druidism seems to be taken from Mr. Bonewits's latest book, in which the minutiae of the history of the Reformed Druids of North America occupies a large part of the book. Whether it is important enough to warrant so much space in this article is debatable.

-- Alferian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alferian (talk • contribs) 19:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"religion"

It says this is a "religion" in the intro yet it seems to be more of a subcultural reenactment (or an attempt at) at the very most a philosophical concept, rather than an actual religion. This seems to have been raised before above, I'll put a fact tag on it. - Yorkshirian (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What sort of citation would satisfy you? Elphion (talk) 02:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Proof that it's not merely secular folk culturalists who are otherwise atheist or agnostic. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"Proof"?? I repeat: what sort of citation would satisfy you? Elphion (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I just skimmed through some of Hutton's books, and can't find anything that suggests it's actually a religion - some Druids seem to be 'generally' Pagan, others worship the Mother Goddess, others try to find different astral planes. Looks like it may be more of a role than a specific religion, but I'm happy to be corrected. If it's a religion, we should be able to cite what they believe in. Dougweller (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It's part of a role-playing game, like Dungeons and Dragons as Dougweller said, or simply reenactments as Yorkshirian said. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] A lot of what passes for Druidism may fall under the rubric of role-playing or recreation, but anyone who thinks that's the whole story hasn't talked to a real Druid. The best independent discussion of modern-day Druidism I've seen in print is in Margot Adler's Drawing Down the Moon, which I do not have currently to hand. And some religions do not prescribe belief systems for their adherents; they are non-doctrinal. You won't be able to "cite what they believe in". (The best-known Western example of this is probably modern Unitarianism.) Elphion (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean role-playing, I meant what I said - role, like priest, bard, etc. 'Priest' is not a religion. Dougweller (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you mean "title", then. Someone with a role is at least doing something. Elphion (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Not title, role. As for beliefs, see the links here [1]. Dougweller (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Call it "role" if you like. If someone sets himself up as a Druid priest just so he can call himself a "priest" (I'd call that a title), yes, that's not much of a religion. But most Druids I know (a tiny fraction of the total) are engaged in something significantly more spiritual than that. The Druid Network you link to above represents the viewpoint primarily of one branch, but the couple of articles there that I skimmed seem fairly representative. It should be clear from those that Druidism is not "a religion" but a whole spectrum of spiritual attitudes. The intro paragraph of the WP article says more or less the same thing. Elphion (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The distinction must be made between ancient religion conducted by the druids and the present state of what some call druids. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The intro already says there is no connection between the two. Elphion (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

By this definition, Christianity and Islam are not religions either as they are more 'attitudes' that any proper conduct. How many Christians actually keep their women dressed in sackcloth (like god said) during their 'period'. So by all logic, considering no one truly follows the scriptures, those 'religions' are more guidelines than any real faith. They are mere attitudes.

They also have some guy wearing role-playing gear - these people call themslves 'priests'. What do they do? They sit around all day doing nothing, now and then chat for a bit to the public - thats it really. Certainly not a religion by my standards. So can someone please, please expain what a 'religion' is?

"Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or a set of beliefs concerning the origin and purpose of the universe" - that is what Wikipedia claims. So maybe people should look and think outside the box once in a while. Druids fall into this category. There is no question DarkMithras

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.246.254 (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

External links

With 28 links, this has become a webfarm. Wikipedia is not a directory and that is also not the purpose of this section. WP:EL clearly says " Long lists of links are not acceptable". Most of these links fail WP:ELNO. Why do we need any of the country based links? We have (if it hasn't vanished forever) the Druid Network which links to national organisations, right? Dougweller (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree about webfarm. Trimming it will require some care (and more familiarity with the various branches than I have). The Druid Network is only one part of Druidism -- there is no umbrella for the whole movement. (E.g., The Druid Network's North America link covers no organizations I'm familiar with.) Elphion (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Dougweller removed all the country links, leaving just the "general" links. I've reverted that, as I think it leaves too biased a view. I have, however, removed the link to Andy Worthington's website, as it appears to have nothing to do with Druidism. Elphion (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines are pretty clear that we shouldn't have so many links. At the moment the external links section is a directory of organisations. Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm not disagreeing. I am saying your method of thinning them out leaves the article unbalanced (since the "General" links are not very general -- I have in fact redistributed them among the national links for the time being). In some cases the links can be migrated to articles about the various organizations; many of the American links, for example, could go on Reformed Druids of North America. The link to the private RDNA site probably should be retained, as that site does a good job of covering various descendant organizations. (Upshot: we need a bit more consensus before proceeding.) Elphion (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do we have links to individual organisations here? Links to general sites on the topic yes, but Wikipedia isn't a directory of organisations, and shouldn't be used as such. Canterbury Tail talk 18:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

First, arguably none of these links goes to a "general site on the topic", there being none to my knowledge. They are all maintained by various organizations with their own take on the landscape. Second, most of the WP articles on organized religions have links to a variety of denominational sites; what different standard applies here? Elphion (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The 'standard' is the guideline at WP:EL - unfortunately a lot of articles seem to be edited by people who have never read our guidelines on external links. Dougweller (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:EL does not discourage linking to organizations. Quite the contrary: links to "Official" websites of the subject of an article are encouraged, and that covers most of the links here (and it accounts for the denominational links I mentioned above). WP:ELYES also promotes links to neutral discussion with more information than we can host on WP, and the link to the privately-maintained RDNA site falls squarely under that rubric. The OBOD and RDNA links could probably be consolidated (and both have their own articles, so some links could be moved there). Arguably the Bonewits link could go, since it's already included on Isaac Bonewits. But that still leaves a lot of links, all reasonable according to WP:ELYES -- official sites of the subject at hand, and several (by no means all) with interesting content.

The thrust of WP:EL is not to prevent links to such sites, but to limit the geographical space they occupy at the end of the article. The EL item that says "long lists of links are not acceptable" suggests linking to a "directory" of such links. I don't know in detail what that means; it suggests Open Directory or temporary pages as possibilities, but I have no experience along those lines.

Elphion (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion at WP:EL is to use {{dmoz}} as in

• {{dmoz|Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Pagan/Celtic/Druidism|Neo-druidism}}

Any links not at dmoz can be recommended for inclusion there. Johnuniq (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There are far too many links in this article. I think that the DMOZ suggestion is a good one. It has the advantage of fairness, since nobody can claim that we've picked our "favorites".

I don't know what the process is to get missing websites listed (the DMOZ link will tell you more), but on the Wikipedia end, it's very simple: you delete everything in that section and replace it with the single bullet item that Johnuniq gave above. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well! That was an education. I'm heartily in favor of leaving the DMOZ stuff at DMOZ. However, about half of the WP links don't appear at DMOZ; do we just cut them loose, or make a good-faith effort to get them listed there? Elphion (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors have no obligation to add anything to DMOZ. There's no rule prohibiting it, either, so you can do whatever pleases you best. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Renaming this page

hello all. I have recently been working quite heavily on improving the Wicca article, fully referencign it, and hope to soon be bale to turn my attentions to this article too. However, firstly this article definately needs to be renamed to Druidry (Neopaganism) or something similar, for Neo-druidry is quite an obscure term that seems to be used in very little literature ont he subejct. I suggest that we move the page to such a new title. Any objections? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC))

• Oppose rename. The terms "Neo-druid" and "Neo-druidism" are used all over WP. Neo-druidism is substantially different from historical druidism, and to change the name would further muddy the waters. Also, many find the term "druidry" a bit absurd. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Druidry" is a ridiculous word. Sarah777 (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Neo-druidism might be used all over Wikipedia, but that is easily changed, and the term is not commonly found in actual books on Druidry/Neo-druidry. In fact I cant actually think of a single author who uses Neo-druidism -surely it is Wikipedia's role to follow the common usage in literature, not make use of its own words. And I have no idea why "Druidry" is a "ridiculous" word... it is a commonly used term when describing the religion/philosophy.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC))

• Oppose rename. "Many find the term 'druidry' a bit absurd." Yup. And pretentious. 'Druidism' is the older, more established term, used by most of the groups highlighted in the article. 'Neo-Druidism' makes clear that it's not Ancient Druidism we're talking about. Elphion (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Then shouldn't this article reflect "Neo-Druidry" with a capital "D" instead of a lower case one? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC))

No. No one else wants to call it "Neo-druidry". Or "Neo-Druidry". - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Then what about "Neo-Druidism" ? By capitalising the D we would be fitting in closer with the covnentions of the Neopagan community themselves.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

• Oppose, not on the grounds that it is a "absurd" or "pretentious" word/term, which is really not a very good reason to oppose something, in my humble opinion. However, I oppose the rename because "Druidry" is seldom used. Albeit "Neo-Druidism" is about as rarely used, practicing "Neo-Druids" very, very rarely call themselves "Neo-Druids", instead simply "Druid". A more accurate title would be Druidism (Neopagan), but since the overall consensus leans toward the status quo it is better than nothing. As a Druidic Priest the academic reference to our religion is hardly of concern to us in this aspect. GusterBear (talk) 06:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Meh, The long and short of it (regardless of personal opinions about it being 'absurd') is that Druidry is the term more used in Britain and Druidism is used more in the states. Either one works and most druids (or neo-druids are wikipedia irritatingly calls us) find the terms interchangeable. Though I would point out that sites such as OBOD and The Druid Network use 'Druidry' much much more.Funderburg (talk) 01:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, looks like this idea has been thoroughly sunken. I'm still not thoroughly convinced, but i'll accept the concensus! (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC))

Recent Changes

Hello all! As you have probably seen, I have made several referenced additions to this page recently. The reason for this; this page needs desperate improvement! As it stands, it is heavily flawed, with far too much emphasise on different Druidic groups, that is all entirely unreferenced. Please help improve if you can. I suggest using the (far better) Wicca page for guidance.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC))

Festival Names

Hello! I've changed the name in table at the Festivals section from "Sabbat" to "Festival" since the first is an Wiccan name not generally used in Druidism. Besides that, I propose the same kind of change concerning the use of Yuletide, Ostara and Litha. I suppose instead of the Wiccan names we should use just the common names, or, maybe we could include also the Welsh names used by some groups i.e. Alban Arthan for the Winter Solstice, Alban Eilir for the Spring Equinox, Alban Hefin for the Summer Solstice and Alban Elfed for the Autumm Equinox. But I can't think in any explanation for mantaining the germanic names used by Wicca. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MandosFeantur (talk • contribs) 17:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

'Recognition' of Neo-Druidry in UK

The UK media is currently full of claims that Druidry has been 'officially recognised' in the United Kingdom. I'm surprised this doesn't seem to have been written up yet. If anyone's considering it, can they please bear in mind that Britain has no list of 'official religions', and the story is being misreported. What's actually happened is that The Druid Network has been granted charitable status meaning, amongst other things, that it can accept donations. This does not equate to an official recognition of Druidry as a religion, because the British government does not determine what is and is not a religion in law. The Charity Commission operates a specific definition of 'religion' whilst testing to see if an organisation can qualify for charitable status, and this is the test that The Druid Network passed, nothing more and nothing less.

I would offer cites for all this, but I can't cite the non-existence of something very easily, hence I've added nothing to the article itself. I offer it for accuracy's sake if anyone decides to update the article to reflect the news. Thanks. - Ekat.M (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)