Talk:Druid/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Should Menai Massacre be a redirect to here?

I'm not convinced that people looking for information on what happened to the Druids on Anglesey would use Menai Massacre as a search term, what do others think? Dougweller (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The term is a hapax, used by Richard Williams Morgan (1861). It's eccentric. I don't think we need a full article on a single passage in Tacitus' Annals, either. --dab (𒁳) 13:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Important

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/8036952/Druidry-recognised-as-religion-in-Britain-for-first-time.html

Druids recognised as a relgion in the UK Merlin-UK (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

New stuff goes at the bottom. This is more relevant to Neo-druidism. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

ITN

I'd like to inform that this article has been nominated at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates, for its recent official recognition in the UK. [1] Congrats! :-D --BorgQueen (talk) 23:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

wrong article, you want Neodruidism. --dab (𒁳) 13:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

the "two druids" relief

I finally took the time to research this. For several years now, we have just stated that this is a "1845 illustration". As it turns out, it is in fact an engraving dating from before 1836 which was frequently published during the 1830s to 1850s, and which is directly based on an earlier engraving published in 1719, in Bernard de Montfaucon's Antiquitas explanatione. Montfaucon himself claims that it is a depiction of a bas relief at Autun which was published yet earlier by a certain Auberi, but as this Auberi died when the second volume of his Antiquitez d'Autun was not yet complete, it doesn't really become clear whether the engraving had in fact been published before 1719, or if Montfaucon just got the picture from among Auberi's papers. Montfaucon had not seen the original relief himself, and he cites a contact from Autun assuring him, if I understand correctly, that the image he reproduces is the only one surviving, presumably from Auberi's preliminary prints.

This makes this alleged bas-relief at the same time highly interesting and highly dubious. Interesting because it is such an early record, I assume from around 1700. Highly dubious because nobody, not even Montfaucon, seems to ever have seen the relief directly. It is interesting how the relief is reflected in literature: Authors of the early to mid 19th century just reproduce the image and state that it reproduces a Roman era relief from Autun as a matter of fact. Then, the image seems to disappear from the record, although I find it reproduced in "Bell's Latin Course for the First Year in Three Parts" (1901), apparently just as clip-art for students. I have not found any further reference to it in the 20th century (excepting shoddy publications such as this (2006), which were as likely as not researched on Wikipedia). --dab (𒁳) 10:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Druid survivors and Secret Societies

Any ideas on druidic connections to some secret societies, namely the Freemasons? I've read about this several times, but would need to brush up on my details before posting anything significant. Any ideas on the theories that the group survived as a secret society, influenced secret societies or influenced the early church in any significant way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solificus (talk • contribs) 16:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Answer: See Thomas Paines treatise on the subject.

One Example of which is published here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/origin_free-masonry.html

Which concludes with:

" A false brother might expose the lives of many of them to destruction; and from the remains of the religion of the Druids, thus preserved, arose the institution which, to avoid the name of Druid, took that of Mason, and practiced under this new name the rites and ceremonies of Druids."

And with respect to the Druids influence upon the early church, there actually is a blurring between the early church, and the Druids. Some of the early Christian Saints, were actually Druids, themselves.

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Celtic_Christianity

"Dyfrig taught Saint Illtud (c. 425 to c. 505), the founder of the great school/seminary/abbey of Llan Illtyd Fawr (English, "Llantwit Major") in the west of South Glamorgan. Illtud was considered the most learned person in Britain, expert alike in Maths, Grammar, Philosophy, Rhetoric and Scripture. He was “by descent a Druid and a fore knower of future events”, the writer implying that there was a Druid caste."

(On a side note... Illtud is apparently related to King Arthur, of Knights of the Round Table fame. "For example, in the Life of Saint Illtud, from internal evidence apparently written around 1140, Arthur is said to be a cousin of that churchman. ")

Another quote by a 19th century antiquary, Godfrey Higgins: "In the early history of the Christian church, in Britain and Ireland, we meet with an order of priests called Culdees....They had a very celebrated monastery in the island of Iona, and others in remote situations, and these situations, by accident or design, mostly the former possessions of the Druids....The result of all the enquiries which I have made into the history of the Culdees is, that they were the last remains of the Druids, who had been converted to Christianity, before the Roman church got any footing in Britain. They were Pythagorean Druidical monks, probably Essenes, and this accounts for their easily embracing Christianity: for the Essenes were as nearly Christians as possible." (The Celtic Druids, 1829)

However, it should be noted that Higgins was possessed of some rather radical ideas, in his time. What survives historical inspection is that the early monks of Iona captured in writing what little is known about the Celtic Legends, which were mostly oral traditions. Certainly, by all records, another Saint, Saint Brigid of Ireland was a Druid, or something similar, converted to early Celtic Christianity. Druids, being a skill set bounded caste, rather than simply religion, could follow whatever deity they could see the most light, therewithin.

Unfortunately, while Druids were actually part of the early Church, and Saints, they endured persecution at various points in the churches history. Around 275ad the Papa (Pope) of Rome grew political aspirations of conquering Celtic Scotland, and many edicts specifically aimed at undermining the Celtic Church, were pronounced by the Roman Papa, such as the banning of the "edification of places and things, such as tree's, lakes or streams", a common Celtic/Druidic practice, as well as "Reincarnation". Such politically motivated dogma gave rise to the term "propaganda", coined by the later Roman Catholic Church. The Druids and their ways were "demonized" by the Church propaganda, reoccuring over and again throughout centuries, often preceding the attempted conquest of a Celtic, or Druidic influenced, Territory (Example: Germanic Tribes).

The Roman Church had quite a problem with a complete conversion of much of the Celtic region, thanks to the Druids. The Romanizing influence on the church really didn't take until the time of St. Columba who coined the phrase "Jesus is my Druid", capitalizing on the very popularity of the traditional beliefs. This resistance is owed in part to the Scottish seat of the Celts having remained unconquered by Rome, the dominant culture underlying the spread of "Romanized" Christianity. The Roman Church - Celtic Church conflicts, among others, sat among the motives for the eventual calling of the First Council of Nicaea, presided over by Constantine the Great. Constantine saw Wisdom in attempting to assert Rome as the final word in all matters ecumenical. The Emperor envisioned a future of conquering victoriously under the "Sign of the Cross".

It was Constantines cultural impact that set in motion the factors that mutated the cross of the early Christians, a circle, with an equilateral cross in the middle, to the sword-like elongated cross in more common use today. The Culdees would have interpreted the early Christian cross as the "Divine Circle", (from whence we derive the old latin term Deis (Modern: Dais) or Disc, but also the term Deity, Deus (God), and Deuce (Two).

["For there were Two Discs, One Disc to Rule the Day, and One Disc whereby to Govern the Night.."]),

having history as an early nature based symbol. And the "equilateral cross" as the "Four Directions[Natures] of the Unseen Winds", or in some writings, "Pillars of the Earth", (see Enoch) all very natural symbols. This early form of Cross is also known as the Greek Cross, for the earliest followers of Christian teachings, the Orthodox Greeks, used it as well. The same cross can be found in many cultures, and histories, many predating Christianity, such the the sun cross or Odins cross.

Eventually, thanks to Constantine, the "Equilateral Cross" mutated into the "Chi-Rho" of the Roman Christians (or Labarum), and then distended to better be representative of the sword, that the Rho was somewhat reminiscent thereof. Cultural artifacting of this earlier Cross is exhibited by Celtic Church symbols, including the Celtic Cross of Iona, The Greek Orthodox Church, and many Protestant Church symbols, and their cultural heirs.. as well as the ones in the earliest Catacombs of the Martyrs.

Near the end of the middle ages, the German word for Pentagram, "Drudenfuss", (literally "Druids Foot") was mistranslated by the church propaganda as "Witches Foot", about the time The Pope, Innocent VIII, issued his now famous Bull, "Summis desiderantes," in 1484, claiming "Germany was filled with Witches". This inflamed the fervor of "Witch Hunting" that was to span several centuries, winding down finally, around the time of the Salem Trials. By then, the damage had been done, Druids had become intimately associated with Witches, who had become associated with Evil, when in fact many were counted among the Saints, Monks, and Bishops of the early Church, itself.

Hello, could someone please tell me what was wrong with my very well cited edit on welsh literature?. I'm finding this quite frustrating as it is so very incorrect I am Welsh and living in Wales associated with Druids (still in practice)- which has ALWAYS been a part of Wales although this hasnt been stated. Paganism is my religion and believe you me there are plenty of Druids in Wales, Celebrating the festivals reciting poetry so on. Paganism is something that has be passed down to me through my grandmother (a tea leave reader/witch)- Also there is nothing about Scotland. Druidism isnt simply ONLY an Irish belief ITS CELTIC. \ sort it out please. my well cited edit, was just as strong as the cited text there (if not even more cited)- with extra links and footnotes from where it has been stated in books. with 2 from scholars (1800) paganisn and Druids was something in wales that become covanted (secret covans) in Wales- where no names were shared and the magical practices kept in secret for year and still the only way most pagans and Druids practice in Wales to this day - never stating the names of the people they practice with. Due to the fact that from 1066 onwards and the Norman conquest it was against the law to not be Catholic and punishable by death. Hitting Ireland harder as we full well know they are Catholics now. Though Wales isnt Catholic at all. You will find this similar story in Scotland. This proves that Druidism was very much alive up until 1066. I will be prepared to cite this aswel also.

I have cited this "Earliest mention of Druids comes during the 1st century BC, referring to druidae in Gaul (France) and Britain, who were wise men, observers of natural phenomena and moral philosophers. Similar to the druids were the bards (bardoi) - singers and poets, and diviners (vates), who interpreted sacrifices in order to foretell the future" http://www.museumwales.ac.uk/en/rhagor/article/1937/

Also there is nothing of the mention of "high priestesses" who are the female equivalent, nothing of the mention of welsh ranking, of certain people in power from other covans that influence the writings of lower covans. nothing of the pagan festivals found in Wales where either the high priestess or Druid will lead the ceremony. the ecinox imbulc summer and winter soltice (the festivals) There is nothing of the mention of Welsh pagan and Druid gatherings not ceremonial called "moots"- mostly a social gathering where pagans drink.

WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO GET A HIGH PRIESTESS OR DRUID FROM WALES THAT I KNOW TO HELP YOU WRITE THIS PROPERLY?

Druidism arrived in Britain from the western European Gauls (Celtic) and infiltrated in Britain and Ireland simultaneously simply because Irish and Welsh are 2 separate languages this is not a clear indication of anything. what you have placed is incorrect. Being a part of the Christian church, was an old form of taxation. and something most people did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.109.0.33 (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Welsh literature

please look at the ratings for the page, 11 for heavily biased (1 bar) and 12 for missing most information (1 bar)- I am 100% certain that those were from Welsh people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.101.20.186 (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

"In Wales, the roles and privileges of bards related to laws set down by Hywel Dda in the 10th century AD. During the 18th century, druids came to be seen as the ancestors of the bards, the praise poets, musicians and genealogists, who flourished in Welsh medieval society." http://www.museumwales.ac.uk/en/rhagor/article/1937/ "Earliest mention of Druids comes during the 1st century BC, referring to druidae in Gaul (France) and Britain, who were wise men, observers of natural phenomena and moral philosophers. Similar to the druids were the bards (bardoi) - singers and poets, and diviners (vates), who interpreted sacrifices in order to foretell the future" http://www.museumwales.ac.uk/en/rhagor/article/1937/.

druidism and paganism is a very highly complex religion, that after many many years of being in practice you will rise from rank to rank. Which is widely practiced in Wales still. A great deal of Welsh history books literature, poetry and paintings were burnt in the 1400 AD approx, as an act against the Welsh language. Starting riots and the return of the King Owain Gwylndr (1410-1400) who led a residence against King Henry the 5th England. The surviving manuscripts have been compiled and show druidism all the way through. the neo-druidic heresy.

Druid King, Cadwaladr ap Cadwallon was the inspiration behind the Welsh flag ( Y ddraig goch)- the red dragon, and the common beliefs in mythological creatures- ie Dragons, which can be found ALL throughout welsh literature (quite badly) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.101.20.186 (talk) 00:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Druidism arrived in Britain from the western European Gauls (Celtic) and infiltrated in Britain and Ireland simultaneously simply because Irish and Welsh are 2 separate languages this is not a clear indication of anything. what you have placed is incorrect. Being a part of the Christian church, was an old form of taxation (you payed your taxes through the church). and something most people did., could someone please tell me what was wrong with my very well cited edit on welsh literature?. I'm finding this quite frustrating as it is so very incorrect.I am Welsh and living in Wales associated with Druids (still in practice)- which has ALWAYS been a part of Wales although this hasnt been stated. Paganism is my religion and believe you me there are plenty of Druids in Wales, Celebrating the festivals reciting poetry so on. Paganism is something that has be passed down to me through my grandmother (a tea leave reader/witch)- Also there is nothing about Scotland. Druidism isnt simply ONLY an Irish belief ITS CELTIC. \ sort it out please. my well cited edit, was just as strong as the cited text there (if not even more cited)- with extra links and footnotes from where it has been stated in books. with 2 from scholars (1800)

paganisn and Druids was something in wales that become covanted (secret covans) in Wales- where no names were shared and the magical practices kept in secret for years and still the only way most pagans and Druids practice in Wales to this day - never stating the names of the people they practice with. Due to the fact that from 1066 onwards and the Norman conquest it was against the law to not be Catholic and punishable by death. Hitting Ireland harder as we full well know they are Catholics now. Though Wales isnt Catholic at all (but as everyone knows has a very small population). You will find this similar story in Scotland. This proves that Druidism was very much alive up until 1066. I will be prepared to cite this aswel also.

Also there is nothing of the mention of "high priestesses" who are the female equivalent, nothing of the mention of welsh ranking, of certain people in power from other covans that influence the writings of lower covans. nothing of the pagan festivals found in Wales where either the high priestess or Druid will lead the ceremony. the ecinox imbulc summer and winter soltice (the festivals) There is nothing of the mention of Welsh pagan and Druid gatherings not ceremonial called "moots"- mostly a social gathering where pagans drink.

WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO GET A HIGH PRIESTESS OR DRUID FROM WALES THAT I KNOW TO HELP YOU WRITE THIS PROPERLY?

Also the Gauls spoke a Brythonic language as well as the Welsh. In addition to Christianity. my grandmother who was a witch told very few people (as all pagans and Druids are like) and told people that she was Christian but prayed at home. for reasons she wouldn't even tell me. But very frequently read my tealeaves, passed it onto my mother then me. the system is- old hag- witch- and the beauty. But she preferred witch.

Also national poetry competitions to place the bards is currently ongoing in Wales, (the 10 best poets are named bards). I should know as I dated one and they don't practice human sacrifice anymore I should know as I'm still alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.109.141.62 (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leah27011987 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC) 
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.101.157.36 (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)   
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)  

Please stick to one named account. THere is a lot of confusion here. We have criteria for sources at WP:VERIFY and WP:RS, and all material in the article must be capable of being sourced to a reliable source that specifically discusses Druids. Our own opinions, or using sources that don't discuss Druids, would be what we call original research, see WP:NOR.

The main subject of the article is Iron Age Druidism. There is a subjection on neo-Druidism which should be a summary of Neo-Druidism. Edward Davies (Celtic) is defintely not a reliable source for Iron Age Druidism, although he was very influential in the development of neo-Druidism. He's described as extreme & arcane in The rise of modern mythology, 1680-1860 By Burton Feldman, Robert D. Richardson [2]. Your edits are almost incomprehensible, but I can see a lot of original research thaere about Merlin, Arthur (spelled 'Athur' by you) Geoffrey, etc. "That the Bards, under the name of Christians and the guise of Christian nomenculture." is not a sentence, although I can find it at [3]. Interestingly enough, right after that fragment (which is discussing Davies' views), Skene says "It would probably be difficult to find a stranger specimen of perverted ingenuity and misplaced learning than is contained in the works of Davies and Herbert". So you've copied something from a source that says it's nonsense. Dougweller (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Besides a good deal of unsourced material, some of the citations provided aren't actually citations, but refer to goodreads.com webpages (?!), to other Wikipedia articles that not only violate the self-reference policy but don't back the claims made, or to outside sources that, as Dougweller has already written above, either don't support or outright contradict what is being said. The section is also very poorly written and makes it hard to determine what comes from what sources. Ergative rlt (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I have noticed that 80% of the references are from usually one book Ronald hulton I consider this bad form, you should create an account which is pooled from a multitude of sources rather than simply one. my rushed typing isn't the source of bad information, rather a typing error. I can hardly use my account properly as I am new to this, but I so very strongly disagree with what has been placed in "welsh literature" which only proposes a 2 ended tale of an answer to begin with. If you must be pedantic about what I felt was a stronger more accurate description rather than a two ended solution, of "probably" and "may have been this"- which is all that is there. As educated people yourselves. please write something stronger, as what is there currently is pooled from the SAME book and provides NO REAL explanation for anything.

Welsh literature is missing a VAST amount of information, pure ignorance like this will solve nothing. If you must disagree with everything I have typed ( a solution to the pathetic 2 ended answer)- follow the research yourself. until then you will continually receive bad ratings 11 for heavily biased (one bar) and missing most information (1 bar)- I completely agree with these ratings. leah

Do you object to using Hutton because he's a pagan? He's the major academic writer on the subject today. I think you don't understand how Wikipedia works. Again, we have to use what we call reliable sources discussing Druids. A lot of the stuff written about Druidism doesn't meet our criteria. Dougweller (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

As well as having a History degree, I am also a popularized illustrator/designer for t-shirts and jumpers. you write whatever plagiarism you like and I will be producing a t-shirt that says " they say it will take 1,000 monkey's with a 1,000 typewriters and a 100 years to type the bible. they say it will take a Billion wikkipedia editors, a billion years to type a wealth of incorrect information. the monkey bible would be better" as you wont change it and this is plagiarism, people will find this t-shirt funny, because wikkipedia has a notorious bad name. thankyou for your ignorance, I will start designing the lettering sometime this week.you stick to what your good and I'll stick to what I'm good at — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leah27011987 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Agree with the above assessments. This is so poorly sourced and poorly written as to be totally unsalvageable. Better luck next time.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Leah, I don't want to be rude (although you've been rude), but you simply don't understand how Wikipedia works and don't seem to have bothered to find out. Instead you insult other editors and Wikipedia. You haven't once tried to discuss our objections. If you think that entitles you to judge us and Wikipedia, fine, but it says more about you than about us. Dougweller (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

"Earliest mention of Druids comes during the 1st century BC, referring to druidae in Gaul (France) and Britain, who were wise men, observers of natural phenomena and moral philosophers. Similar to the druids were the bards (bardoi) - singers and poets, and diviners (vates), who interpreted sacrifices in order to foretell the future" just pay attention to it. then read whats there- its contradictory. it states that the welsh (in Britain) were influenced by the Irish terms (?) , also stated as a possibility- the riddle is solved- the answer is above. sorry I'm annoyed that's all- leah mainwaring Also mryddin wllyt was born in carmarthen that is fact, druid does mean "oak-knower" just like you stated, and we kept that stupid branch from his oak tree for years in Carmarthenshire County Museum. your not paying any attention at all. Why I'm frustrated, yes maybe it was written badly (my fault) but yes these things are common known fact, and have been for years. you seem to be missing the point entirely, that's all. http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=merlin%27s+oak&um=1&hl=en&biw=800&bih=507&tbm=isch&tbnid=7fYJE4baNzRUCM:&imgrefurl=http://www.carmarthen.info/oldoak.htm&docid=p-_SfGFwMQQk5M&w=250&h=330&ei=0gxcTvDaBJGu8QOJ9emWDA&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=521&page=1&tbnh=129&tbnw=98&start=0&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&tx=62&ty=53

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=merlin%27s+oak&um=1&hl=en&biw=800&bih=507&tbm=isch&tbnid=E4iz1kCliz5qxM:&imgrefurl=http://www.carmarthentowncouncil.gov.uk/Core/Carmarthen_English/Pages/Guide_to_Carmarthen_1.aspx&docid=NMawakyQos1r8M&w=320&h=483&ei=0gxcTvDaBJGu8QOJ9emWDA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=479&vpy=48&dur=2374&hovh=276&hovw=183&tx=102&ty=145&page=1&tbnh=129&tbnw=94&start=0&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:0

Myrddin Wyllt and Vita Merlini how could you ignore these things?- what I was trying to say

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.96.232.202 (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC) 

I'm guessing that you are claiming that Merlin was a real person rather than someone more or less invented by Geoffrey (who also uses 'Merlin' as an alternative name for Ambrosius). You should read The Druids: a study in Keltic prehistory By Thomas Downing Kendrick who says "Now there is not one word about druidical training nor practice either in the Historia or in the Vita. In the last-named work it is said of Merlin rex erat et votes, he was a king and a prophet; while in the Historia he is simply a prophet, only distinguished by his strange birth and his superior utterances from the other magicians of Vortigern. And these, it should be noted, share the name magi with other wise men living outside the druidic lands, the sooth-sayers of the Trojan settlers in Italy, for example." Dougweller (talk) 06:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The dates are incorrect.you seem to be forgetting the pagan god gaeya (mother nature). The expression goes where I'm from why don't you go and teach a granny how to suck eggs. In other words- your trying to write about Welsh history, Ronald hulton is wrong.Druids derived from Gaul and Britain. And welsh people weren't influenced by the Irish as you should full well know the Britons (welsh) populated England as well meaning at that time it only would have been welsh history. On the note of Merlyn or any other historical figure- what you have typed is purely opinions. Paganism was very much alive in welsh and gaulish cultures (then passed onto) irish . You have typed something which is far too misleading and incorrect. As far as Italy is concerned, the roman empire caused the dark ages (where nothing was written correctly) and only would have been influenced by the celtic beliefs after invading britain and enslaving (massacring the gauls) what your sourcing is a classic case of "the victor writes history"- http://www.museumwales.ac.uk/en/rhagor/article/1937 you need to read this and educate yourself with welsh history on that topic. By the way it doesnt matter what has been written about Myrddin outside of welsh literature regarding his life. oak-knower Druid and the pagan god Gaeaya (mother nature) outside of Wales has turned into something outlandishly ridiculous and far far from its original meaning, far enough, enough crap has been written about myrddin over the years but that doesnt retract from our, mythological historical literature and way of life. plus Vortigern was the first celebrated King of the Britons (Welsh) and reigned from Wales (spoke the old Brythonic)- with his 12 druids you say (?) yet we had none (?). I know "oak-knower' druids- like you would say that to you say live in (hippie communes) to me they live in the woodlands in roundhouses, they're more learned on the topic of welsh history. And aren't ceremonial yet would only marry by ribbon binding- the lifestyle of druids in wales is different- yet they all believe in magic. The concept of oak-knower is simply the freedom and spirit of nature and yourself, inner alignments good and bad energies- tarot card reading. It is what people call "spiritual"- all the hooky coaky nonsense of crystal healing astrology and that sort of stuff comes from wales. age old traditions. there's millions of them from tee-pee vally to callwallon woods from horltsfield woods to olwen woods and networked all across Wales. The men are all oak-knower druids- to you- a man that lives in the woods that believes in magic. luckily for you they wont read what has been typed to be offended- as they usually don't have p.c's- so write what you will.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.96.41.36 (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC) 

I really can't understand you. Please be more specific. What dates are incorrect? Where does Hutton say thre were no Druids in Gaul or Britain? I repeat, Hutton is a pagan, so we are using a pagan source for some of the article. Please don't confuse the issue by using Welsh when you mean Celtic, which is what you seem to be doing. By Welse we mean the people who live in Wales. Where does the article disagree with what is on the museum website (quotes from the article please, copy and paste). And please, stop with the stuff that isn't sourced and comments about oak-knower Druids, this isn't a forum where you can have a general discussion of Druidiam. Dougweller (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

that the earliest mention of Druids came from Britain and Gaul, ie not influenced by Ireland the other way around. there is no denying of the pagan influence in Wales also- Caerfyddin from (myrddin)- and merlins oak. close to tee-pee vally where he lived, a town named after where he was born. a town in between Caerfyddin and swansea called "kidwelly" meaning "the black cat" the road sign for it has a black cat also. Behind glass in Swansea library there are ancient witches spells books covered in dust- in Caerfyddin there are books about merlin (ancient) I can't be bothered the name the rest. But you seem to have typed that that was ALL influenced through ireland, INCORRECT. it is the former option that ronald hulton proposed. our flag itself comes from magical beliefs. You simply cannot just read one sentence in a large book a poo-poo everything. Not all humans are right about things. Ive been to Ireland myself and stayed for a very long time hitch hiking with pagans and druids to do sight seeing- I actually found far less people into that kind of stuff anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.96.41.36 (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You still aren't clear. What exact dates are wrong? The earliest mentions of Druids don't seem influenced by any geographical area. All of Britain and Gaul was pagan at the time of Caesar. So what? It's only when we jump forward quite a few centuries that Hutton is talking about the use of the term in Wales possibly being influenced by the Irish. The earliest writers about Merlin, etc didn't mention Druids. And I did ask you about the museum website but you haven't responded. And you've given no reliable sources at all except the website. Dougweller (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

firstly I couldnt be more clear than what I have said A- the first recordings of druids come from britain and gaul not ireland in the 1st century BC. fact. the latter proposal is incorrect on the basis that "druidae" was written in britain and by the gauls (not in ireland) and that "drwy" in Welsh is our language he is wrong so very wrong. I could put that ireland was influenced by us saying "druidae" which is actually more accurate , the term was borrowed from Ireland- it's wrong. He simply proposes 2 things, he doesn't state anything. I could find a single sentence in a book and place it in such a way that its misleading as well and B- this may or may not be accurate from the 6th century- http://one-evil.org/people/people_06c_david.htm this- and the traditions that were left wasn't borrowed from Ireland. Also there were no druids? you say? although you have put a Welsh king ON the page with the story of 12 Druids. Briton King reigned from Wales spoke the "old welsh" get it right. king geraint- approx year 600AD http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=king+geraint&um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=np&biw=800&bih=507&tbm=isch&tbnid=8FNAroKVLgodYM:&imgrefurl=http://members.fortunecity.com/aurelius222/geraint.html&docid=YjhpDzAgk6upvM&w=235&h=417&ei=LTFdTv75H8a28QPUxNjJAw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=259&vpy=26&dur=60&hovh=299&hovw=168&tx=105&ty=147&page=1&tbnh=108&tbnw=61&start=0&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0 recorded king dispite what it says about king arthur— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.101.128.234 (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

dont disgrace my flag, people or history, beliefs(mythological) anymore . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.96.230.104 (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

To the editor contributing from the IP addresses above - please don't see this article as any kind of attack on your beliefs, flag, people etc. It's no such thing - it's just an encyclopaedia article written to certain standards. One of these is that of reliable sources and published books from reputable publishers fall into this category. I'm afraid sources such as this or the one at http://one-evil.org are not regarded in Wikipedia as reliable. This is the case even if they are 'right' and Hutton is 'wrong'! I'm still not sure what it is in this article you object to, but the best way of resolving it would be to say something like: "Some authors believe X (with cited reference) while others state the Y (with reference) is the case. We have a reference from Hutton - there's no reason to delete it, but if it's wrong and a reliable source contradicts him we can include it. If you can draft a counter-argument drawn from a reliable source, then let's have it in here by all means!

PS: It would help a lot if you edited from an account, then we could communicate with you much better and your contributions could be recognised properly. Best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I already provided sources from historians but that was deleted. I have already done this. this is completely wrong, completely completely completely wrong. like I said I am a clothes designer/illustrator. and popularized as well. this will be my next t-shirt after I have finished the lettering. "they say that 1,000 monkeys with a 1,000 typewriters with a 100 years years could type the bible. They say that a billion wikkipedia editors with a billion computers and a million years will produce a wealth of incorrect information"

people will find this hilarious mainly because wikkipedia has such a bad name. and I can see why now, it is simply plagiarism. one line from a book portrayed in a certain way can produce something that appears a 1,000 times different. you are very ignorant people for not being able to see that ALL of our historical literature is mythological and magical. this IS degrading and disgracing. like I said before. this page has 11 ratings for heavily biased and 12 for missing most information. people already know better than whats there. this is the kind of stuff that gives wikkipedia a bad name and I can completely see why. hence when I produce a t-shirt (that isn't an illustrated design) I 100% make sure that the witty comments will work and sell. obviously I havent tried to edit wikkipedia for that reason, but this t-shirt will sell. thankyou very very much for your time, you have misinformed yourselves with incorrect information and I will soon be making a great deal of money from one design in the pipeline.

you disgrace my flag (being a dragon from magical beliefs) I disgrace you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.96.143.113 (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

As you wish. T-shirt design and encyclopaedia editing are very different pursuits and I wish you luck in your chosen field. I'd be rubbish at designing t-shirts so I'll stick here! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I also have a history degree- and a further more extensive knowledge on welsh/Celtic history, quite obviously. people take the piss out of "where you stick" because your always wrong. At least my t-shirt sell. how dare you say what you've said in this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.109.148.35 (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You are still being rude. I've asked you how the text in the museum site, which you seem to like, disagrees with our article and you haven't answered me yet. Have you read WP:VERIFY, WP:RS and WP:NOR yet? If you haven't, you need to if you are serious about wanting to improve this article, as without an understanding of how we work you are going to remain frustrated. You've been asked to draft what you want in the article here, using sources that meet our criteria (and you now have the links to the guidelines explaining those criteria). Dougweller (talk) 10:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Irish mythology - Welsh mythology - Celtic Christianity - Magic and Religion - the welsh Druids described as seer and Prophets (diviners) the Irish druids described as (diviners) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.103.45.51 (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

not a problem-

please see my attempted input.

Christianity arrived in Britain in the 3rd century, the Christian Empire and its legions departed to defend Italy from visigothic attacks at the beginning of the 4th century, 407ad. . The faith was firmly established by the end of the 6th century with the Gregorian mission . Though information during these two periods are sparse. It has been expressed during that duration the bards and prophets that featured heavily in medieval Welsh literature, that the druids were thier true ancestors. . It is known that the prophet Myrddin Wyllt (c. 540 - c. 584), later became personified as Merlin, and representive of Magic and religion in Britain. The inspiration for the Flag of Wales came from the end of the 6th century, from King Cadwaladr ap Cadwallon (Y Ddraig Goch) the red dragon. Afirming the Belief in mythological gaints. Through the growth of Christianity in Britain.

please check all of the citations- references and I hope you better this article :).

leahxx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.109.39.144 (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Leah, the changes you are making have nothing to do with the topic of this article, and violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Please do not make anymore such changes in the future without discussing first on the article talk page and getting consensus from the other editors. Also, in the future, always log in as user:Leah27011987, and sign your posts. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Content disputes

There has been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing in the last few days with no meaningful discussion on the talk page here. Please, both sides, do discuss your content and objections to it here rather than simply reverting and re-inserting. If all else fails I will fully protect this page for a while, to allow you time to discuss it here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

please check all of the citations for this attempted edit, and try to excuse my early frustration and anger. (I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia).

please check citations-

Christianity arrived in Britain in the 3rd century, the Christian Empire and its legions departed to defend Italy from visigothic attacks at the beginning of the 4th century, 407ad. . The faith was firlmy established by the end of the 6th century with the Gregorian mission . Though information during these two periods is sparse. It has been expressed during that duration the bards and prophets that featured heavily in medieval Welsh literature, that the druids were thier true ancestors. . It is known that the prophet Myrddin Wyllt (c. 540 - c. 584), later became personified as Merlin, and representive of Magic and religion in Britain. The inspiration for the Flag of Wales came from the end of the 6th century, from King Cadwaladr ap Cadwallon (Y Ddraig Goch) the red dragon. Afirming the Belief in mythological gaints. Through the growth of Christianty in Britain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by leah27011987 (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Leah, the changes you are making have nothing to do with the topic of this article, and violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Please do not make anymore such changes in the future without discussing first on the article talk page and getting consensus from the other editors. Also, in the future, always log in as user:Leah27011987, and sign your posts. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

you obviously havent taken the time to read it or check the citations- it suits what has been said above it under welsh literature. and yes it is relevant. thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.101.41.168 (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• • As for " the druids were thier true ancestors" neither source says that. Anne Ross says they were the successors of the Druids (ie not Druids), the museum site says "During the 18th century, druids came to be seen as the ancestors of the bards" which is relevant to neo-Druidism, not Druidism. Our article on Myrddin Wyllt doesn't suggest he was a Druid, Cadwaladr wasn't a Druid, you don't seem to have any references discussing the Celtic Church in relationship to Druidism, etc. Please do not post here about anything not directly connected to the article as it will be removed. Dougweller (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

the point is- Welsh literature

Whilst druids featured prominently in many medieval Irish sources, they were far rarer in their Welsh counterparts. Unlike the Irish texts, the Welsh term commonly seen as referring to the druids, dryw, was used to refer purely to prophets and not to sorcerers or pagan priests. Historian Ronald Hutton noted that there were two explanations for the use of the term in Wales: the first was that it was a survival from the pre-Christian era, when dryw had been ancient priests, whilst the second was that the Welsh had borrowed the term from the Irish, as had the English (who used the terms dry and drycraeft to refer to magicians and magic respectively, most probably influenced by the Irish terms.)[60]

suggests two ultimatums.

my input suggests-

Christianity arrived in Britain in the 3rd century, the Christian Empire and its legions departed to defend Italy from visigothic attacks at the beginning of the 4th century, 407ad. . The faith was firlmy established by the end of the 6th century with the Gregorian mission . Though information during these two periods is sparse.

"whilst the second was that the Welsh had borrowed the term from the Irish, as had the English (who used the terms dry and drycraeft to refer to magicians and magic respectively, most probably influenced by the Irish terms.)[60]"

is a strong opinion, which I strongly disagree with. More research needs to me made. The Red Book of Hergest contained enough magic to interest Tolkien, who named the Red Book of Westmarch after our book, a collection of lord of the rings, written by hobbits. The point being is that's a lot of magic to be "claimed" as Irish. So I disagree having read my books as well. Welsh literature is riddled with tales of magic, Arthurian legend, king Arthur, Merlin, sword Excalibur, dragon slaying so on can only predominately be found in Welsh literature. It is a very very very bold thing to say that ALL OF THAT came from Ireland. Please look at the dates again and realize that a pro ceremonial pagan created this opinion. It— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leah27011987 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

None of this has anything at all to do with the topic of this article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Leah, the material you are trying to insert is simply not about Druids, which is why it's being reverted. If it belongs anywhere, it's in another article. I'm very sympathetic to pagan movements and to Welsh culture but this is not a place for "more research to be made". As an encyclopaedia we can only cite the reliable sources others have written, we can't draft our own research or the fruits of our own knowledge. Whether YOU (or any of us) agree or disagree with the statement is neither here nor there. If you can find a reliable source to contradict it, please insert the citation and write a piece of encyclopaedic prose which flows from it. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the source you are interested in is certainly a reliable one, but it's really talking about 18th century developments and not Hywel Dda directly. I've put it into the main article as you'll see - what do you and others think? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It's an improvement, but I don't see why Hywel Dda in particular matters to a discussion of Romantic-era interpretations of druidism.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't see it but yes Hywel dda placed down the laws for the bards in the 10th century (who were deemed to be the successors of the druids)

it suits this part of the article-

Possible late survival of Insular druidism The best evidence of a druidic tradition in the British Isles is the independent cognate of the Celtic *druwid- in Insular Celtic: The Old Irish druídecht survives in the meaning of "magic", and the Welsh dryw in the meaning of "seer".

While the druids as a priestly caste were extinct with the Christianization of Wales, complete by the 7th century at the latest, the offices of bard and of "seer" (Welsh: dryw) persisted in medieval Wales into the 13th century."

-I believe that as during the time of 407ad to the end of the 6th century information in Britain regarding Christianity being sparse- this calls for more reading. which I will do and wont bother you for a while until I've sussed it out. comment added by Leah27011987 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

yes I've found it, lovely.

References

November 2011

"They recognised the authority of a single leader, who would rule till their death". Grammatically, "their" is tied to "They", so the author appears to be claiming that the ruler would rule until the Druid class were all dead (though the singular "death" creates some grammatical ambiguity). But I don't think that is what he really meant. Try replacing "their" with "his". If one wishes to allow for the possibility that the leader could be female, substitute "her or his".

Alan1000 (talk) 11:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)alan1000

"Bog bodies, said to show ritual sacrifice..." I think the article could emphasise more clearly that everything written about 'sacrifice' is hypothesis and speculation, not just 'pure', but occasionally bordering upon 'wild'. The Druids probably practised human sacrifice at some stage (as, indeed, did the Romans); but it would be indefensible to judge them by the accounts of the ancient Roman commentators who, to a greater or lesser degree, were propagandists. Would you write an account of the Palestinian Intifada, based solely upon American or Israeli sources? Julius Caesar was naturally determined to paint the blackest picture he could, to justify his policy of summarily executing every Druid priest on sight, with the aim of the total extermination of the class. He knew exactly what needed to be done to destroy social cohesion in Gaul and Britain.

There is not one shred - not one single piece - of hard, objective evidence to show that the 'threefold' executions of the Bog Bodies (though undoubtedly formal in nature) were carried out for religious-sacrificial purposes. You could just as well say that they were the standard judical penalty for (say) incest, or patricide, with no particular religious connotation. And nobody could adduce a single piece of evidence to prove you wrong.

Alan1000 (talk) 12:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Alan Masterman

I agree, and it's odd that it is cited to Hutton -- see [4] for instance. I've got the book it's cited to but am busy today, maybe tomorrow I'll have time if no one else does. Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

BCE

Just verifying because I've seen this start fights elsewhere: The earliest version of this article to use any dating system used the common era dating system. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Druid and Dryad

I noticed "Druid" shares an etymological connection with "Dryad". Are there any other noted connections between the two? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.147.172.70 (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably not. They share the PIE root *deru, Oak, but Druid includes the *weid, seer. The Dryad connection is more readily explained by the Greeks and Romans seeing other cultures in their emic views instead of an etic view. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

In Our Time

The BBC radio programme In Our Time just had a show on Druids yesterday. You can listen/download it here: [5]. It featured professors Barry Cunliffe, Miranda Aldhouse-Green, and Justin Champion. Maybe some editors might be interested in listening to it.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

A light touch of satire--Archdruid of Canterbury Visits Orthodox Patriarch

Perhaps a touch of satire from Archdruid of Canterbury Visits Orthodox Patriarch might be included?

CJSHayward (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Druids in popular culture

Although this is not historically relevant, is there an interest in adding a short subsection that can overview the depiction of druids in popular culture, such as in fantasy-themed RPGs like D&D and Diablo (series)? ozhu量 (talk·contribs) 23:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Druid religion

I have just met a person who practices the druid religion. I was surprises to see that there was little information on the modern day religious practices and beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.30.24 (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

See the section"Romanticism and modern revivals" and associated articles. Dougweller (talk) 06:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Druidesses

Several editors have been adding assertions that the ancient Druids included both men and women. Do we have any ancient testimony to support that point? Thomas Amory's Memoirs of several Ladies of Great Britain (1755) is not exactly a reliable source: 18th century authors were notorious for inventing Celtic history out of whole cloth. I find no mention of female Druids in Caesar's account; are there any good sources? Otherwise, this claim should be removed. -- Elphion (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

A little googling digs up a couple of references to female druids in Roman texts - however, they're all in the Historia Augusta, which is late (late 3rd-early 4th century) and notoriously untrustworthy in a lot of ways. (Loads of websites list the Historia Augusta, Flavius Vopiscus and Aelius Lampridus as separate sources, when in fact they're all the Historia Augusta.) All the other evidence presented is from medieval Irish tradition, when the word druí had come to mean little more than "wizard". And I'd agree, an 18th century sentence (with no context and evidently lifted from a dictionary citation) claiming Caesar did something that doesn't match any ancient source is obviously worthless as a source for Iron Age practices. The ancient sources simply don't give us enough to be able to say whether or not there were female druids, so the article shouldn't definitely say there were in its first sentence. I'll remove it. --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

ageed Johnbod (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I also agree. Thomas Amory is not a reliable source for this and as for the OED, the existence of the English word "druidess" only shows that people have thought there were female druids, not that there actually were. So far as I can tell, there are no contemporary sources connecting any woman with the term "druid". There are sources for male druids, and sources describing women as priestesses and such, but nothing for female druids specifically. As Nicknack says, female druids appear commonly in medieval Irish literature and other later material, but this is long after the period druids existed in Celtic societies. As such there's no real evidence for them; the possibility should be discussed in the article body, but it certainly shouldn't be included without caveat in the introductory sentence.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Druids Conclusion Update

I sadly just read your conclusion section of the article on Druids. I appreciate that you quoted properly Stuart Piggott, Barry Cunliffe and Miranda Alhouse-Green, but I wish you would have at least included Peter Berresford Ellis in part of your summary, as he offers a well researched alternative to your conclusion. His view that the use of human sacrifice by the Druids was based more on anti-Druid Roman prejudice than on actual documented truth is compelling. Most of the Roman sources relate to Poseidonios (whether he is given as source or not) including Julius Caesar, and the fact that the Romans never forgave the Celts for sacking Rome in the 300's BCE. While to say that there was not any human sacrifice may be overstressing the point, I feel it is fairer to state that the use of human sacrifice was probably only used sparingly and during times of great national stress (i.e. the Roman invasion of Britain) if it was used at all.

Charles Kilker99.100.130.90 (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The Romans were notorious for making up honorific stories about enemies. The same baby-eating human sacrifice stories were invented about the Carthaginians after Hannibal's exploits. The Tudors were notorious for it, too.220.244.247.91 (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the "honorific" evidence is not the only evidence. (I don't think that word means what you think it means!) That Iron Age Celts performed ritual executions is well-attested, by the bog bodies if by nothing else. Just what they mean, and whether the Druids were involved, is now really impossible to say. Modern opinions (as above or as mentioned in the article) that Druids could only have resorted to sacrifice on rare occasions sound like so much special pleading -- propaganda like the Roman accounts, but in the other direction. Solid evidence either way is lacking. The truth is we simply don't know, and are never likely to know. -- Elphion (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Ellis an Unreliable Source

Regarding the unreliable source? tag just before source 33 under Sacrifice, the sentence reading " Peter Berresford Ellis, a Celtic nationalist who authored The Druids (1994), believed them to be the equivalents of the Indian Brahmin caste, and considered accusations of human sacrifice to remain unproven,[unreliable source?][33] ...":

The issue seems to be that some readers consider Ellis to be an unreliable historian because he writes for wider audiences and doesn't cite his sources as often as more academic historians would. But in this particular case, the sentence isn't talking about any factual claim he made (e.g. "The druids practiced this."). All it's saying is that he himself, in his book, made a comparison to the Indian Brahmin caste and he himself didn't consider the claims of human sacrifice to be reliable. So this isn't a case of someone needing to go look in the book and then find the source he used, like it would be if we were talking about a factual claim, rather than his own opinions.

Based on this, I don't think it makes sense to keep the unreliable source? tag there. I think we should either remove the tag, or remove that part of the sentence that states his opinions, but continuing to have the tag there for no reason doesn't make sense to me. Aduff01 (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Or better still find a more acceptable source. A broad comparison with the Brahmins as a hereditary group of priests is not an especially speculative claim or opinion I would have thought, though evidence is lacking. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Find a better source, let's not use Ellis. Dougweller (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

A more acceptable source that just happens to have made the same speculation as him? That doesn't sound likely to me. That's why I'm suggesting just removing that sentence altogether as one of the options. Aduff01 (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, let's just remove it. If someone comes along with a decent source then maybe it can be replaced then. Dougweller (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Made the change, since I didn't receive any other feedback. If anyone has a problem, feel free to roll the page back and we can discuss it some more. Aduff01 (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is a reliable source. If you think about it, the Celts and their Druid upper class were spread all over much of Europe over a long period of time. As far as we know, no writings were made or survived from the Druids, themselves. They didn't have the internet or phones or library exchanges, etc. If their cultural and religious lore was passed on verbally, then it certainly varied with time and geography. The few mentions we do have of them are from a time of crisis as they were being displaced. They were under tremendous stress and probably not on their best behavior at that time. If Julius Caesar did witness a sacrifice, was it put on for his benefit? Was it merely capital punishment in a different form than the Romans used and therefore misinterpreted? Who knows? It probably will never be possible to really know anything about them, but that won't stop some people from continuing the Greco-Roman tradition of making things up. FatBear1 (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Move page to "Druid (As Discussed by Ronald Hutton)"?

Hey folks—why is Ronald Hutton mentioned in this page no less than 12 times? Exactly why is he given so much prominence here? Is this because he has produced some popular audience books that are easily to get ahold of or what? Seriously, this article reads like a promotional piece regarding Hutton and portrays him as far more of an authority than he is on the topic—he is no specialist in Celtic studies. In fact, Hutton is a particularly poor source when it comes to Germanic studies and he doesn't seem to be much better when it comes to Celtic studies. Perhaps his opinion should appear where it's relevant and besides that of other scholars, but right now the prominence of Hutton on this article is outright ridiculous.

Until this has been sorted out, I've placed a neutrality tag on the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I concur that Hutton is not a solid source for anything Celtic. I changed one of the cites to him to indicate it's only his opinion, and I would be fine on him being either cut out completely, or only used for his writings on the Neo-druid groups. If he's included as a source at all, we need to indicate it's only his conclusion, and not imply that it's fact or scholarly consensus. It should also be noted, for those who are unaware, that Hutton is involved as an adherent/participant in the neopagan groups he writes about. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I support removing him completely. I think we need to stick to specialists here. For what it's worth and exterior to his involvement in Neopagan circles (a substantial amount of respected scholars in Germanic studies are Heathens now, for example), he seems to be a poor source when it comes to Neopaganism as well. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I've found his writings on Neopagan groups... inconsistent. Agreed, might as well cut him completely. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the Hutton material—let me know if you find any other articles in a similar state and I'll be happy to assist. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you've thrown out the baby with the bathwater, some of the stuff you deleted is more or less accurate[later addition, I was only thinking of the following bit, where sources disagree with each other due I think to ambiguity in the original Diodorus text]. Diodorus wrote "only by their friends but also by their enemies; many times, for instance, when two armies approach each other in battle with swords drawn and spears thrust forward, these men step forth between them and cause them to cease, as though having cast a spell over certain kinds of wild beasts."[6] Note that another source attributes this to Strabo, saying Diodorus was speaking of bards,[7] but it looks to me as though it's tricky to be sure who Diodorus was talking about (read the first link).

Then there's " They left no written accounts of themselves, and the only evidence are a few descriptions left by Greek, Roman, and various scattered authors and artists, as well as stories created by later medieval Irish writers". Are you arguing that the statement is wrong, and if not why did you remove it? It seems pretty vital for the lead. And John T. Koch is surely a reliable source for the bit about written accounts and some other material.[8] Miranda Aldhouse-Green's The World of the Druids looks at archaeological evidence but I don't have the book. Are there any images of Druids?

This review of another book[9] seems to endorse one of Hutton's books, Blood and Mistletoe although saying that Aldhouse-Green disagrees. Marnie Hughes-Warrington who specialises in historiography uses Hutton on that subject.[10] Hutton's book on The Pagan Religions of the British Isles seems frequently cited.[11] Oh hell, did you even noticed the Blood and Mistletoe is published by Yale University Press? Doesn't that make the book reliably published? I'm undoing the mass revert. You even removed material cited (badly) to T.D. Kendrick. Hutton also published in Antiquity.[12]Doug Weller talk 15:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

"More or less accurate" doesn't cut it. Hutton is, as you yourself imply, very often a demonstrably poor source—you can go through his works and produce a small novel listing error after error, regardless who has published his latest pop culture book—and he's all over this article as if it were written by his biggest fan. It's ridiculous and unacceptable. There are mountain ranges of secondary sources outside of Hutton for some of the common observations cited to him, including figures such as those you mention in your response. I suggest keeping the material cited to Celtic studies specialists. Hutton's works in this area cannot be relied upon for even fundamental observations (this doubly extends into his forays into Germanic studies), the reliance upon his rebuttals in the article is honestly like nothing I've seen on Wikipedia in the last half decade, and we definitely shouldn't be promoting him and his works as if he is some sort of authority in this field.

For the record, no "revert" here has been done so far outside of yourself regarding all of this Hutton material, but I'm going to have to revert the version that you've restored. We can certainly work together, but making this article into what is basically a monument to Hutton again needs be contested for as long as its attempted. In my opinion, and it seems in the opinion of the other user involved, we need a Hutton-free article well-cited to Celtic studies specialists. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

For the record, you made a old edit, I reverted, and instead of discussion per WP:BRD you reverted me. "More or less"only referred to the Druids and armies bit as other reliable sources disafpgree. And you have twice deleted material without either adding a fact tag or a new source. This looks like an anti pHutton crusade at the expense of the article. Doug Weller talk 07:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I also want to add that I see no evidence that Hutton is considered unreliable by the academic community. If there is, it needs to be stated in this debate.--SabreBD (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion continues below. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

NPOV tag has no rationale

It needs to be removed unless specific arguments are made here clearly related to our NPOV policy. Hopefully the editor will either start a section on that or remove it. Dislike of a source isn't enough, and I've already given it a tag relating to sources. Doug Weller talk 21:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, the article depends on Hutton, and refers to him at just about every turn. His opinions are pushed to the front, and he's not a specialist. That's enough of a reason for an NPOV tag and a source tag. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, what part of NPOV does it violate? Specificlly? Doug Weller talk 06:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I would say over dependence upon Hutton's views over others. At every other turn it's a pivot to the opinions of Hutton, a non-specialist who has a very particular approach to this material, generally 'debunking' things he feels aren't reliable—whatever they may be. Putting an individual at the core of an article like this is of course not a neutral approach, but it is a symptom of the Hutton-centricism that this article currently displays. So take your pick. Let's just look at he first line of the policy alone, for example: "which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Right now we have Hutton and a handful of other references orbiting around him. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Using Hutton as a source

First, I agree that he's been overused and that we need more sources.

But removing every bit of text sourced to him, and even text sourced to someone else, is not a sensible way to handle the issue of whether and how we use Hutton. WP:BRD should have been followed, and even if an editor decided not to, after my discussion above other means to deal with the issue should have been followed, not just a massive deletion - unless of course it was certain that all the text deleted was wrong, etc.

So let's take this by stages. I've replaced most of the deleted material. I've added a tag at the top of the article querying the reliability of the sources. I've removed some of the material sourced to Hutton. I've added a couple of fact tags.

Blood and Mistletoe is definitely not a "pop culture" book - which academics have suggested it is? Hutton does say he wrote The Druids, for the popular market, but this was published by an academic press. I'm saving this now as I have to go out, more in an hour. Doug Weller talk 13:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I've already pointed out above that his books are used by other writers, and people can check those sources themselves. I doubt that any book on history or archaeology is perfect, but as was asked by another editor, where is the evidence that his peers consider him unreliable? He has had 3 books published by Oxford University Press and as I've said Blood and Mistletoe was published by Yale University Press. His book Pagan Britain was also published by Yale in 2013 and re-issued last year. He is not simply a "pop culture" writer. Please don't do a bulk remove of him again, and of course there is no consensus for it.

As for noting his religion, I can understand the rationale but the idea of noting people's religion is something that can be misused.

Doug Weller talk 15:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

23 Instances of "Hutton" in Article Body—WTF

You state that "I agree that [Hutton has] been overused and that we need more sources", yet rather than simply remove Hutton and replace the material with other scholars, you've revert-warred a version of the article that now mentions him by names six times in the article body and contains a total of 23 instances of "Hutton" (!)—I'm therefore assuming you didn't type that with a straight face? The version you're pushing is largely built on Hutton's works and falls back on Hutton at just about every turn with some variation of 'However, Hutton says...'.

As for his reliability and judging by your comments, I can only assume that you either don't have a background in Celtic studies and/or you haven't bothered to crack open one of Hutton's works in this area. This isn't an instance of 'a few problems' but in some of his works they're on just about every page, making it impossible for non-specialists to tell where the facts end and his opinion begins. And indeed, Hutton's books are usually aimed at general audiences—they're often transparently pop culture works—and, yes, academic presses can, have, and now and again do publish some pretty problematic stuff, especially when they're aimed at popular audiences.

What we need here are specialists in Celtic studies. Meanwhile, as the article has essentially been written on the basis of general audience works written by a highly problematic non-specialist, I've tagged the article for a rewrite. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to reduce the dependence on Hutton more, but not to just strip it all out. I did, after all, make a start. It had 32 mentions of Hutton, it now has 20 after I removed some, not 23 (according to Chrome at least). In other words, it's been cut down by a third. So far as his reliability, as an editor I'm required to go by our guidelines and policies, not my personal opinions. Do go to WP:RSN if you have a case built on evidence for Hutton's exclusion.

I haven't had time to find more new sources (although I did find Koch), but that can be a joint effort.

So how about doing something other than a mass removal of text - and of Hutton. It's obviously good to have multiple sources, even for the same text at times. Is there any text that you think actually doesn't belong in the article at all? I presume there must be as you've called for it "to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards." I think that's actually a bit of a heavy-handed tag and goes much futher than your mass deletion. It's meant for articles in far worse shape than this and it's meant to be more of a sledgehammer, tearing an article apart entirely. Is that really what you plan to do? The best way is to work on it piecemeal together. Doug Weller talk 21:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

That there were last I checked 23 instances of "Hutton" in the article body after reducing the instances by "a third" just says it all. Yeesh.

I'll sit down with superior sources—as in texts written by Celtic studies scholars—but in the mean time, the article in fact does look like it needs to be totally reassessed, and in fact would do well with a top-down rewrite, as the current state of the article is pretty bad even beyond the dependence on Hutton. A rewrite with clear, objective statements, necessary sections such "archaeological record", and first-rate sourcing composed to WP:GA standards would do wonders, actually. I've regularly rewritten trouble articles from scratch. I'll start working on a draft as time permits (I've got other obligations elsewhere at the moment), but I'll post about it here and invite you all to assist, of course.

Meanwhile, I understand that Hutton's books are the most widely available material for this topic for a lot of editors, but that doesn't mean that what we need is, well, this. As editors, we frequently must use critical thought, and that means finding the best, most specialized sources for the topic, as well as presenting material in as an objective manner as possible. Right now, the problems with this article are numerous, particularly since the backbone of the article is itself a problem. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Please start a draft on a subpage of this talk page, so we can all work on it. That's a fairly normal way of doing this I think.. Suggest some new sources. GA status would definitely something to aim for. Are you suggesting a different structure? For everyone, criteria are at Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Doug Weller talk 21:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

That sounds good. I'll make one soon (unless someone else wants to jump in). :bloodofox: (talk) 09:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hutton and the archaeological literature

Just to note that Miranda Aldhouse-Green's review (which I have) of Blood and Magic states: "In the first chapter, Hutton reviews the source material--the ancient literature of Graeco-Roman authors that first propelled a group of elite politico-religious leaders into the imaginations of their peers. He rightly points out that no archaeological evidence points unequivocally to the existence of Druids, and since they were operating within a Gallo-British context of the later centuries BC that was almost entirely non-literate, assumes that absence is to be expected." Should we use some of this instead of Hutton? I've removed the duplicate use of Hutton's quote on this, leaving the one in the lead, although I see it doesn't have his name. Doug Weller talk 12:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Ancient Druid Order & John Toland

Although I can find otherwise reliable sources that say John Toland founded this (as the order itself claims), I believe that Hutton is correct. "John Toland, the Druids, and the Politics of Celtic Scholarship" by J. A. I. Champion in "Irish Historical Studies" Vol. 32, No. 127 (May, 2001), pp. 321-342 which I have doesn't claim this, nor so far as I can see does A Political Biography of John Toland.[13] The Rise of Modern Mythology, 1680-1860, an Indiana University Press publication, says Toland attacked them (as do other less reliable sources).[14] Doug Weller talk 13:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Earliest record

A review of Ann Ross's book Druids[15] in Antiquity says "The earliest mention of Druids in antiquity seems to occur in a lost Peripatetic 3rd-oentury BD essay called the 'Magikos'. Not long after. Sotion of Alexandria classified them with Chaldean mystics. Persian Magi. Greek Pythagoreans and Indian 'Gymnosophistai*. all given to enigmatic philosophical and theological inodes of expression. So Diogenes Laertius tells us in his variably useful biographical history of the philosophers. Much later, in the 3rd century AD. emperors-in-waiting. Alexander Severus. Diocletian and Amelian are reported to have received obscurely hinting prophecies from female Druids. Perhaps we should suspect propaganda."

John Koch's book Celtic Culture says "According to Diogenes Laertius (Jl. earlier jnd century ad?), Aristotle referred to the druids as follows: Some say that the study of philosophy first developed among the barbarians. For the Persians had their Magi, the Babylonians or Assyrians their Chaldeans, the Indians their Gymnosophists, while the Celts and Galatae had those called Druids and Semnotheoi, according to Aristotle in the Mtgiais and Sotion in the 2jrd book of his Successions.", adding "It is not certain whether this remark has been correctly attributed to Aristotle, but since Alexandrian Greek authors make similar reports this literary tradition must at least go back some centuries before Diogenes Laertius."[16]

So we can use these sources instead of Hutton. Doug Weller talk 13:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Severus Alexander and Diocletian are significant emperors. But who the heck is this "Amelian"? Dimadick (talk) 06:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

A scanner error I missed. Aurelian. Doug Weller talk 06:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Classical sources and Posidonius

I've removed Hutton's comment on classical sources and realised that Posidonius is not mentioned in the article, although he is the likely source for Strabo, Diodorus Siculus and even Caesar. His article comments on this but is unsourced. One source, Judaism of the Second Temple Period: Sages and Literature by David Flusser[17] gives a bit of detail concerning similar wording.

Barry Cunliffe's little book says "The scholar J. J. Tierney, who some 50 years ago attempted to reconstruct the Celtic ethnography of Posidonius, argued that much of what was said of the Celts by Strabo, Diodorus Siculus, Athenaeus, and Caesar was derived directly from the lost Histories. This is certainly so of Athenaeus, who explicitly says he is quoting from the twenty-third book of Posidonius' Histories, and there are certain close similarities in the accounts of Diodorus Siculus and Strabo which suggest that they too used this source, though not necessarily exclusively. Caesar poses a different problem. He may have been aware of the Posidonian account, but he is also likely to have gleaned much from personal observations made as he fought his way through Gaul. For this reason, we will deal with his contribution separately later. If we accept that Athenaeus, Strabo, and Diodorus Siculus all relied heavily on Posidonius as a source for the Celts, then what they say must be based largely on a text composed in the first half of the 1st century BC by a scholar who had visited the area and had seen the rapidly changing society for himself. While his philosophical stance may have influenced his presentation, his observations are likely to have been accurately made from real-life situations."[18]

The Iron Age in Lowland Britain By D.W. Harding, Derek William Harding[19] also uses Tierney commenting that Strabo and Diodorus "must be treated with caution, for, as Tierney reminds us, they are themselves capable of confusing what Posidonius reported, even if the latter himself were accurate in the first place. For instance, the ability to reconcile two opposing armies on the verge of combat is attributed by Diodorus to the bards, and by Strabo to the druids. Indeed, it is not easy to distinguish in terms of precise functions and powers between the threefold ranks of druids, bards and seers (votes) who are mentioned by Strabo, Diodorus and Ammianus Marccllinus (Ammianus Marcellinus, 15, IX, 8), all depending directly or indirectly upon Posidonius. It is not the purpose of the present study to compare in detail the texts of these various classical writers, a task which has already been undertaken elsewhere (Tierney, i960, 223) ...There can be little doubt that Caesar exaggerated the importance of the druids, to the extent of attributing to them powers and functions that elsewhere were divided between the three classes. His motive in doing so was presumably to demonstrate the politico-religious threat which they represented to Rome, and to justify their suppression."

I have a copy of J. J. Tierney, “The Celtic Ethnography of Posidonius,” Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy no. 60 (1960) by the way. Doug Weller talk 12:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Ammianus Marcellinus? The 4th-century historian? But his history starts in the late 1st century, what possible knowledge of druids could he have? Dimadick (talk) 06:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Who knows? But he wrote about them. [20] Doug Weller talk 06:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

But the source is probably right, he relied upon earlier authors. And all of this means that Hutton is probably right when he criticises Diodorus and Strabo for not having first hand knowledge. Doug Weller talk 06:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Merge Druidess (Celtic mythology) here

Druidess already redirects here. Despite this, User:Bard Cadarn went ahead and created both the above page and an unneeded disambig, Druidess (disambiguation), and another short, inadequately-sourced article with almost identical content at Gallizenae (as this user was the only editor, I have turned it into a redirect to this article. @Bard Cadarn:, if you can properly source that content, merge it here or into the other article under discussion, don't edit war. I propose merging what little non-duplicated, sourced & usable content is at Druidess (Celtic mythology) into this article (as the same user has already started doing), then deleting that and the unneeded disambig (ETA: As it was a wordy redirect, not an actual disambig, I got bold and deleted it). I also strongly suggest avoiding the outdated, clunky term, "druidess" and instead just say "druid" or, if necessary, "female druid" or its Celtic language equivalents, such as the O.I. bandrúi. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 16:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

CorbieV, I fail to see the issue here. I created the Druidess (Celtic mythology) page because I was blocked from putting the info on the Druid page. Moreover, the Druidess (Celtic mythology) has existed for two years now uncontested. As to the new Gallizenae page, it is just an English translation of Gallisenae. Where is the problem? --Bard Cadarn (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't you think the fact you were blocked from contributing this in the past might have been a hint to work with other editors rather than try to scoot it in elsewhere? Just because no one noticed a bad page in the past isn't a reason for it to stay up once it's found. There's not enough sourced content for a standalone article on either of these, and as you've been putting broken links and personal, amateur websites with no footnotes in as "sources" it looks to me like you're not checking any of the "sources" you're using. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 17:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The Druidess (Celtic mythology) was on the See Also part of the Druid page for eons, CorbieV. It was not exactly hidden. And, again, Gallizenae is just an English translation of what I found on the French Wikipedia. Besides, Druidess (Celtic mythology) uses all approved sources and draws from a plethora of other articles. It contradicts nothing. Again, where is the problem? I can see why one might want to merge Druidess (Celtic mythology) and Gallizenae, though, so would that work? --Bard Cadarn (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Merging it to this article makes sense. Agree. Gallizenae is covered in this article. Doug Weller talk 18:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Which article, Doug Weller? Merge Gallizenae into Druidess (Celtic mythology) or Druid? --Bard Cadarn (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Caesar and the Gallizenae

I've removed the claim about Caesar referring to the Gallizenae. The page of the book cited is from the introductory essay in the 1890 edition: Here's the full book linked at Archive.org, if, like me, you can only see it in snippet view on Google Books. The reference is to page 111, but I can't link directly to it. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Why remove it, Nicknack009? Both George William Joseph Stock's and Emanuel Hoffmann's translation of the De bello Gallico say that Caesar referred to the Gallizenae. Is there evidence that this claim is in fact untrue - and, if so, where? --Bard Cadarn (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I linked the evidence in my previous comment. Did you consult it? The book cited, which I linked, is a translation by Stock of the Latin text as edited by Hoffman - Stock and Hoffman did not produce separate translations. And as I pointed out above, the passage in question is not from Caesar but from Stock's introductory essay, citing Mela and Strabo. Caesar did not write about the Gallizenae. Stock did. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Druidess

If you are going to have a redirect from a previous independent page/article, the title of the merged page should correspond to the merged section reflecting the subject of the original page. "Female Druid" does not fulfill this role, and only works to confuse people looking for the original page, which had been up on wiki for quite some time. As there is a painting by Alexandre Cabanel originally entitled "La Druidesse" from 1868 gracing the section, the word "Druidess" obviously has some historical connotation; and I would think it doubtful that he coined the term. Surely it existed previously? In any case, after one hundred and forty-eight years of use I think it is a legitimate modern word to describe what we are talking about. "Female Druid" sounds silly, and a little sexist/demeaning, despite their somewhat apparent similar roles in society. "There are several Irish words for female druids - such as bandrúi ("woman-druid")" I found nothing on the Táin Bó Cúailnge page citing this word, nor the source indicating that bandrui means "woman-druid". This needs to be cited or explained better. This sentence made no sense so I added the word with: Bodhmall, featured in the Fenian Cycle, is one of Fionn mac Cumhaill's childhood caretakers and Tlachtga, the daughter of the druid Mug Ruith according to Irish tradition is associated with the Hill of Ward, which was the site of prominent festivals in Tlachtga's honour during the Middle Ages." During...not in! If it is happening within a time span during is a more accurate word. The Tuatha Dé Danannare are a people, not a club; therefore this sentence should read: "Biróg, another druidess of the Tuatha De Danann, plays a key role in an Irish folktale where the Fomorian warrior Balor attempts to thwart a prophecy foretelling he would be killed by his own grandson; imprisoning his only daughter Eithne in the tower of Tory Island, away from any contact with men." It is written this way below, so I assume this is just a typo? ALSO: Not sure how you "frustrate" a prophecy...but it sounds hard! I have instead changed this word to "thwart". I think it is more appropriate for what is trying to be conveyed. My main concern with this article, and the original Druidess page, is that it has changed quite a bit in the short amount of time since I first cited it in a paper. I like that some material in the section has been more accurately sited and improved; but I imagine as more material is gathered, the Druidess entry might gain enough information to once again warrant its own page. Not sure who made the decision to merge the similar topics, but I am afraid I don't think it was a good one. Especially as there was no corresponding title in the Druid article to match up with the original page I cited. Had someone tried to look up my citation, they would have been lost! As an additional suggestion...can't remember if this is a possibility, I don't often add or edit on Wiki...but could the Redirect be made to immediately take someone to the actual Druidess section rather than the top of the page? All other edits were simply grammatical in nature, in order to make the piece more easily read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by joseph_setorius (talk • [[Special:Contributions/joseph_setorius]]contribs) 09:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on Druidess/Druid issue right now, but leaving a note here that I also noticed some massive re-editing going-on in some of the topics that you mention here, and leaving this msg. as a reminder that it may be helpful to compare earlier versions of these topics to insure that mistakes have not been made, and that content has not been lost thereTeeVeeed (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I've changed the redirect to point to the specific section -- Cavrdg (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

"Druid" is a gender-neutral term. Like "poet" vs "poetess". We don't need the "-ess" unless nothing else in the text indicates gender (assuming gender is even relevant in the passage). I don't think we should have a separate section for women at all, except perhaps that there is a misconception that all druids were men, and for the moment as the result of the redirect. The cite I put in way back when was to the DIL. There are other cites, added by others, and I haven't checked them all. That's why we're doing cleanup, bit by bit. While "-ess" is in Victorian-era sources and similar sources that tend to other females, and should be used when it's a direct quote, such as the title of the painting, I see no reason to stick with Victorian-era language when we write for the 'pedia. Best, - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 15:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I beg to differ that Druid is gender neutral. If it was, there wouldn't have been a need to come up with different words/terms for them in the original Irish sources; right? If druid is truly "gender neutral" as you posit, then there shouldn't be any reason to use the terms "female-druid" or "woman-druid"; as it should be obvious. But there are some obvious examples in the section that need to state this clarification. If you prefer to use the term "bandrúi" as it contains more historical context than Druidesses...es (ha ha) that we are talking about, this seems appropriate. I am not sure if "Neo-Druidism", Wicca, or the Ancient Order of Druids (according to Wiki founded 1781) use the term Druidess, but would agree that there is no definitive link between ancient Druidism and modern varieties/variations. Nor am I associated with any of these movements. I thought I should state that since many people that seem to have edited this page, or complained about it in the past are associated with one of these "mystic religions" or social orders; and seem to want to use the word "Druidry", a term I have never seen in print before. As far as your comment "except perhaps that there is a misconception that all druids were men"...as we know so little of the ancient Druids, there may have in fact been a time, or regions that did only have male Druids...but I just don't think there is enough information one way or the other; and unfortunately Greek and Roman sources, though informative on some level, are also often unreliable. Though Tacitus and Plutarch are certainly two of the more reliable sources in my opinion. Therefore Corbie V, I am going to replace all instances of "woman-druid" and "female-druid" with the term "bandrúi" as this seems to be the best compromise. It is a toss-up whether I find "Druidry" or "woman-druid" more ridiculous sounding. Hopefully you will agree! I also added Druidess in parenthesis so there was some consistency between older pages/edits and new Corbie. But if this really bothers anyone, feel free to remove it. I just think there ought to be some continuity between the older versions and this one. regardless of the accuracy of the term. Thanks-- joseph_setorius☊ ☼ 16:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think "Druidess" is appropriate as a subheading. Subsections are not separate articles. The article is about druids, the subsection is about those druids who were female, so "Female druids" is the appropriate subheading. "Bandraoithe" is also not appropriate because it it is uninformative to the general reader. It's also not appropriate as the plural of bandruí as it's mixing languages. Druí is Old Irish, and the Old Irish plural is druíd. Draoi, plural draoithe, is modern Irish.

Another quibble: can we be sure the Gallizenae were druids? As far as I can tell the sources just call them priestesses, they don't identify them as druids. Perhaps they should have their own article, with some reference and a link from this article, rather than being subsumed here. Also, they don't come from Breton legend, they come from classical literature. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I've also removed the word bandruí from the Gallizenae subsection. Bandruí is an Old Irish word, so it is incorrect for Gaulish priestesses in classical times, whether or not they were druids. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense. Okay Nicknack009 quit re-editing things as other people put them up. Unless you have some kind of academic degree that gives some some superior knowledge, or site your changes, you are just being a dick by doing this! I don't care if YOU think Druidess is an appropriate title, there was some consensus on this. Your "quibbles" have to have some basis! Did you not even read the reasons Corbie and I changed this? There has to be some continuity.joseph_setorius☊ ☼ 16:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Nicknack, good point that if we're including Gallizenae, whatever they were, as a subsection we shouldn't use the Irish as the section header. Joseph, there is no consensus for "druidess," rather, some stuff that no one had bothered to work on. I say we stick with "female druids". As for "druid" being gender neutral, again, I'm talking about modern English usage, which is what we write in here on en-wiki. When we're quoting sources, be they Irish or Victorian or whatever, we should use whatever term is in that direct quote. For the rest, we're not using Victorian language that appends an "-ess" on every normal profession to indicate how frightfully weird it is that a 'woman would do such a thing (fetch the fainting couch and corset!). Sorry. But seriously... - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

On the flip side...there is the word actress. So would you refer to Michelle Pfeiffer as "The actor Michelle Pfeiffer" ? Just because a term originated in the Victorian era doesn't mean it isn't, or can't be used presently. Undoubtedly there are many words with Victorian origins that are commonly used words today. Furthermore, this term IS used in modern parlance by many different groups. From neo-pagan religions and role-playing supplements, to university essays. The real argument is "Will people understand what this term means?" And the answer is YES! Your stated logic is equally ridiculous, and the entire point of using the heading "Druidess", was to have some continuity with the deleted page that had been up at least two years. In this way people searching for the previous article could easily reference/find the relocated material. Furthermore, it doesn't hurt, obfuscate, or "devalue" the content of the article in any way. I have added this fact to the heading, and really there shouldn't be any reason not to include this, except your ego. Sincerely-- joseph_setorius☊ ☼ 15:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a preference for gender-neutral language has to do with anyone's ego, but I will remind you of the WP:NPA policy, Mr. Joseph setorius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I would also advise you, if you're going to construct a custom signature, with or without taking bits of mine, to make a signature that actually includes your name in it, and to sign your posts on talk pages. FWIW, yes, I do refer to females in the acting profession as "actors." It is the correct term in most cases. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I did...did you change it? I am really confused why including one word in parenthesis bothers you so much. Do you not think it is a good idea to cite the previous page that was up? And if so...why? If you edited a book, or came out with a new edition, wouldn't you want to make some note as to how or where material had been moved or updated. If I really felt the addition of that one word was "deceitful"...for lack of a better term, or misleading; that would be one thing. But all the material moved to this section of the article "Druid", did not exist here even six months ago. It seems prudent to have some kind of continuity to indicate where relocated material was originally found. So what is your objection to this? If it helps people realize "Oh so that is what happened to that page", what is the harm? It is not like I deleted "Female Druid" or attempted to change meaning here; I only added a term that would bring continuity to the changes made over the last...two years (?) I really can't see why you have such a strong objection to that. I looked at your Wiki page, and it is quite impressive. You have obviously spent a lot of time editing and "improving" Wiki. But I have to ask...what background do you have with this subject? I have a minor in Classical (Roman & Greek mainly) studies. If my edit truly hurt the article, I wouldn't put it up. One last thing. I looked at my message page, and you evidently left a message implying/indicating that I had edited or changed your comments on this talk page. I did not do this, nor would I. I have also notice my time stamp among other things keeps changing. Whether this is some unexplained error, or my lack of editing knowledge I am not sure...but I would never alter your comments Corbie. That would also run counter to my whole continuity mantra, and the need to have a clear record as to the changes and validity of Wiki. If they didn't exist, Wiki wouldn't be a very good refence...and I like to think it is. Despite Steven Colbert changing Harding's middle name to "Gangsta". I would assume since that time that Wiki has a lot more dedicated editors keeping tabs on things. I am not just trying to be a jerk here about the Druidess thing. I gave a legitimate reason for my change/concern, and it seems you have chosen to ignore it. It has nothing to do with "gender-neutral" terms. We will just have to disagree about this point. It is that having been previously sited, I wanted some kind of reference to the Druidess page that was deleted. What is your objection to this? Is there harm in doing this? I am not going to re-edit now...because I don't want this to turn into some kind of silly kids in the sandbox argument. But I think adding the word (Druidess) to the section heading does nothing to diminish the article. If this means bringing in another administrator with knowledge of the subject I am all for it. But if you can't give me a legitimate reason why this can't be included...then I think it ought to be put back up. --joseph_setorius☊ ☼ 16:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Huh...I found this on your page Corbie: No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. Just wondering if this applies somehow here. --joseph_setorius☊ ☼ 17:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Magicus of Aristotle

There has been a citation required tag on this for close to five years. I've looked for evidence that the Magicus is inauthentic but haven't found anything so am modifying the text accordingly. Please revert and discuss if there is any objection. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

This article needs some work...

...and I'll play about with it over the next few days. There are problems with balance and POV... it looks like there has been a fair bit of editing by someone with an agenda to discredit modern day people who identify as druids. Whatever your opinion about "neo-druids", this is supposed to be an encyclopedic article about pre-roman celtic druids and any discussion of the modern day groups should be limited to a section on legacy. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 00:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Jim, the "Major editing in progress" template is only appropriate if you're doing an intensive editing session for, say, a few hours and want to avoid an edit conflict. It's not for leaving up for several days in a row. When you're done with an editing session or taking a break for more than a few moments, please remove it. Thanks. As it looks like you haven't edited in a few hours, I'm removing it for now. Also, we have our own words in Celtic languages; let's not bring in all that new age "shamanism" stuff. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Corbie, Yeah... had some home computer issues that are making editing a tad difficult so I was a bit slower than intended. It looks better as you've left it. I'm a little uneasy about the "Celtic cultures" thing for the usual reasons. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 00:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Continuing to make edits... problems I perceive with the article:

1. It's not written in an encyclopedic style, reading more like an undergraduate essay.
2. There is a lot of unnecessary detail in the main body of text that would be better placed in foot notes, making it difficult to read.
3. Out of date references that do not accurately reflect current state of understanding of subject.
4. Romanticism and "Neo-druid" section are too long, given there is a separate article.

Unless anyone raises an objection I'll continue to try to improve matters. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Diodorus

Does anyone know where the unreferenced quote from Diodorus Siculus comes from?

These men predict the future by observing the flight and calls of birds and by the sacrifice of holy animals: all orders of society are in their power... and in very important matters they prepare a human victim, plunging a dagger into his chest; by observing the way his limbs convulse as he falls and the gushing of his blood, they are able to read the future.

I have found the following translation in Bibliotheka Historia, but it doesn't quite follow the above.

These people [Celts] are of a most terrible aspect, and have a most dreadful and loud voice. In their converse they are sparing of their words, and speak many things darkly and figuratively. They are high and hyperbolical in trumpeting out their own praises, but speak slightly and contemptibly of others. They are apt to menace others, self-opiniated, grievously provoking, of sharp wits, and apt to learn.

Among them they have poets that sing melodious songs, whom they call bards, who to their musical instruments like unto harps, chant forth the praises of some, and the dispraises of others.

There are likewise among them philosophers and divines, whom they call Saronidæ [Druids], and are held in great veneration and esteem. Prophets [Ovates] likewise they have, whom they highly honour, who foretell future events by viewing the entrails of the sacrifices, and to these soothsayers all the people generally are very observant.

When they are to consult on some great and weighty matter, they observe a most strange and incredible custom; for they sacrifice a man, striking him with a sword near the diaphragm, crossover his breast, who being thus slain, and falling down, they judge of the event from the manner of his fall, the convulsion of his members, and the flux of blood; and this has gained among them (by long and antient usage) a firm credit and belief.

It is not lawful to otter any sacrifice without a philosopher; for they hold that by these, as men acquainted with the nature of the deity, and familiar in their converse with the gods, they ought to present their thank-offerings, and by these ambassadors to desire such things as are good for them. These Druids and Bards are observed and obeyed, not only in times of peace, but war also, both by friends and enemies.

Many times these philosophers and poets, stepping in between two near at hand, when they are just ready to engage, with their swords drawn, and spears presented one against another, have pacified them, as if some wild beasts had been tamed by enchantments. Time's rage is mastered by wisdom, even amongst the most savage barbarians, and Mars himself reverences the Muses.

Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

DRU-ides

The origin of word DRU-ides most likely comes from Albanian language. DRU in Albanian in general mean Tree or Wood. Going through a Greek source and turn to an epithet this word took the greek particle "ides" which turn it to DRU-IDES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.55.81.58 (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Why do you suspect Greek got the word from Albanian, and not the other way around? Or both from common descent from IE? -- Elphion (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

To find that you should check greek (old and new) dictionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.55.81.58 (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I have. There is no mention of Albanian. The received opinion appears to be that the Mediterranean world borrowed the word (referring specifically to the Druids) from Gaulish (which of course also has the common IE root referring to trees generally and oaks in particular). -- Elphion (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

In the old Greek dictionary there is no mention of Greek as well, as the " greek " word comes from Roman Empire describing part of what is today south of Albania and north of modern Greek. The fact that Albanian language heritated this from the mother language "IE", and no other has it in this form, does make the Albanian language automatically the source. Does the greek workd Ksylo sound to you like IE or like Semitic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.55.81.58 (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the Greek word for Druid comes from Latin, which comes from Gaulish (and does not involve the Greek suffix -ides, but includes a Gaulish root wido-, connoting "to know": the Druids were "knowers of trees"). Greek also inherited the dru- root from IE; it appears in several Greek words. ξυλον (wooden material, board, stick) probably came from a pre-Hellenic language of Greece or Crete, along with many other words for building materials (and words in -nth, like "plinth"). I see no evidence that any of these came specifically from Albanian. -- Elphion (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree, the origin of words, particularly those of ancient times, is often impossible to determine. Similarity to a word or grammatical form is not sufficient evidence to form a definite conclusion on this point. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Tribal variations

I think an important consideration that does not seem to be covered here is that there were many different tribes all over the territory of Western Europe and Britain. There has to have been a great variety and many differences in the practices of the tribes. A druid of a tribe in Southern Germany would very likely had much variation from a Druid in Northern Scotland. For example, there could be human sacrifice in one area and not in another, divination using bird flights in areas of north-western France and divination by casting bones in the coastal region of Italy. Druids could be more philosophical in one tribe and more king-like in a different tribe, they could wear crowns of snake eggs in Wales and necklaces of acorns in Denmark. (I use present day geographic for ease of description.) To further illustrate my point: in present day Nicaragua there are approximately 27 different tribes and tribal languages. In discussion druids of over 1000 years I think it is important to keep in mind that there was a great variety of tribes and practices; not one, united Druidism. Even if, for arguments sake we call it religion, Druidism, like present day christianity, has a multitude of variation.2601:448:C380:57F1:81BD:A5D6:6D6C:6510 (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)