Talk:Halloween/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Roots

Its earliest roots are found in the Druidic holiday of death which took place each year on October 31 and was held in honour of Samhain, Lord of the Dead.

But according to that entry, Samhain was the name of a season, not a supernatural being. The notion of "Samhain" as some sort of dark god is widely debunked as being part of various urban legends (see, for example, http://altreligion.about.com/library/weekly/aa101502a.htm and http://www.religioustolerance.org/hallo_sa.htm).

Though he did seem to have existed as a very minor character in Celtic mythology, he was definitely not a "Lord" or "God" of the dead. Edited.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.155.99.248 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 2003 October 31 (UTC)

Pomona Day

I've removed the reference to 'Pomona Day' which is ersatz: 'After the Romans colonised much of Britain, elements of the Roman festival known as Pomona Day were also introduced. Pomona Day was held on November 1, and is named for Pomona, a Roman Goddess of fruits and gardens.' Pomona was an ancient Italic goddess of fruit trees honored in the ancient town of Ardea but largely ignored by Romans and not known to be introduced into Celtic areas. Unless I'm mistaken. Reinstate her if a connection with Halloween can be made (bobbing for apples?)User:Wetman

Died out in Britain

The article seems to have returned to the mistaken belief that Hallowe'en died out, (faded), in Britain and has only been reintroduced recently along American lines. It may have died out in some parts but certainly never in Scotland. Guising and turnip lanterns (not trick-or-treating and pumpkin lanterns) have been part of my life for the last forty years. Likewise I doubt that no one but the Irish introduced it to North America. I can't see Scots moving to the New World and saying to themselves "Nae mair o that nonsense". The festival has always been too much fun for children for that to happen. -- Derek Ross

Spelling

"Hallowe'en" is the better spelling of the word. If no-one objects, I will move it to Hallowe'en and make Halloween a redirect. -- User:Kwekubo

The naming convention in the English Wikipedia is to use the normal English spelling. That's Haloween. If you think that some people will be able to find this article more easily using a title of "Hallowe'en" you could consider adding that as a redirect to this article. Jamesday 18:35, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary has the only spelling as being Hallow-e'en, from the shortened form of All-Hallow-Even. This spelling at the moment does not forward to the 'Halloween' article.

--Shastrix 15:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Before moving to Canada, I have only seen the spelling “Hallowe’en”. This might as well still be the dominant spelling in some other parts of the world.—Gniw (Wing) 19:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I have created the redirect page for "Hallow-e'en" --Shastrix 00:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The correct spelling in English is Hallowe'en. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 21:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely, no question. The apostrophe is there for a reason and I believe in good punctuation.

Blurred by Dogface

This entry is gaining in accuracy and depth. I have re-edited passages that were blurred by 'Dogface,' viz:

Although modern Halloween is a secular holiday, it is claimed to have from the pagan Celtic season of Samhain, which has been claimed was Christianized as the feast of All Saints, although more recent research casts severe doubt upon this, especially since the autumnal date for All Saints in the West began in Germany and not any "Celtic" country. Likewise, the celebration of All Saints actually began in Antioch, rather far from any "Celtic" land. ('More recent research' is a smokescreen.)

(I substituted) Although modern Halloween is a secular holiday, cultural historians recognize its connections with the pagan Celtic season of Samhain. Like other feasts in the Christian year, the earlier observations were Christianized as the feast of All Saints. Roman Catholics object. They localize the revised autumnal date for All Saints in Germany, and identify the celebration of All Saints with feasts of groups of martyrs, in disant centers such as Antioch.

For many Christians, this was the most evil time of the year. Suppressed by 'Dogface.' Is this information actually incorrect? What other season is preceived as evil? I have not reinstated the sentence, however.

'Dogface' also suppressed the history of Catholic observation of All Saint's Day, largely drawn from the Catholic Encyclopedia, which was full of inconvenient but accurate factual detail. Dogface also made some useful corrections. Wetman 20:02, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Text dump from User:Dogface

Revisions (italicized) from User:Dogface, May 16, 2004: "All Soul's Day was accepted and Christianized by Odilo (died 1048) in the Cluniac monasteries, and its observance spread through the Celtic north before it was introduced into Italy. This claim is utter rubbish, of course, since All Saint's Day was celebrated throughout Christianity centuries before, very often in the spring."

Suppressed text: "It should also be noted that Christians often denigrate suggestions of any mythic or pre-Christian content in Christian observances." (a reference to the very practice exhibited here by Dogface, thus demonstrated as true)

Suppressed text: "Although modern Halloween is a secular holiday, cultural historians recognize its connections with the pagan Celtic season of Samhain. Like other feasts in the Christian year, the earlier observations were Christianized as the feast of All Saints. Roman Catholics object. They localize the revised autumnal date for All Saints in Germany, and identify the celebration of All Saints with feasts of groups of martyrs, in disant centers such as Antioch." (This text Dogface replaced by several paragraphs of the following text dump of unknown provenience, denigrating unidentified writing of Frazer and of Rhys)

"At the end of the nineteenth century , two distinguished academ- ics, one at Oxford and the other at Cambridge, made enduring con- tributions to the popular conception of Samhain. The former was the philologist Sir John Rhys, who suggested that it had been the 'Celtic' New Year.... Rhys's theory was further popularized by the Cambridge scholar, Sir James Frazer. At times the latter did admit that the evidence for it was inconclusive, but at others he threw this caution overboard and employed it to support an idea of his own: that Samhain had been the pagan Celtic feast of the dead. He reached this belief by the simple process of arguing back from a fact, that 1 and 2 November had been dedicated to that purpose by the medieval Christian Church, from which it could be surmised that this was been a Christianization of a pre- existing festival. He admitted, by implication, that there was in fact no actual record of such a festival, but inferred the former existence of one from a number of different propositions: that the Church had taken over other pagan holy days, that 'many' cul- tures have annual ceremonies to honour their dead, 'commonly' at the opening of the year, and that (of course) 1 November had been the Celtic New Year. He pointed out that although the feast of All Saints or All Hallows had been formally instituted across most of north-west Europe by the emperor Louis the Pius in 835, on the prompting of Pope Gregory IV, it had already existed, on its later date of 1 November, in England at the time of Bede. He suggested that the pope and emperor had, therefore, merely ratified an existing religious practice based upon that of the ancient Celts.

"The story is, in fact, more complicated. By the mid-fourth century Christians in the Mediterranean world were keeping a feast in honour of all those who had been martyred under the pagan emperors; it is mentioned in the _Carmina Nisibena_ of St Ephraem, who died in about 373, as being held on 13 May. During the fifth century divergent practices sprang up, the Syrian chur- ches holding the festival in Easter Week, and those of the Greek world preferring the Sunday after Pentecost. That of Rome, how- ever, preferred to keep the May date, and Pope Boniface IV formally endorsed it in the year 609. By 800 churches in England and Germany, which were in touch with each other, were celebrat- ing a festival dedicated to all saints upon 1 November instead. The oldest text of Bede's Martyrology, from the eighth century, does not include it, but the recensions at the end of the century do. Charlemagne's favourite churchman Alcuin was keeping it by then, as were also his friend Arno, bishop of Salzburg, and a church in Bavaria. Pope Gregory, therefore, was endorsing and adopting a practice which had begun in northern Europe. It had not, however, started in Ireland, where the _Felire_ of Oengus and the _Martyrology of Tallaght_ prove that the early medieval churches celebrated the feast of All Saints upon 20 April. This makes nonsense of Frazer's notion that the November date was chosen because of 'Celtic' influence: rather, both 'Celtic' Europe and Rome followed a Germanic idea...." Dogface 15:29, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

---

What are we to do? Dogface is filling an interesting entry with an aggressive and pugnacious point-of-view. There is no sensible way to improve edits such as:

However, this still cannot explain away the celebration of the festival of All Saints as a mere "Christianization" of a pagan festival, since the holiday was celebrated in the spring previous to this deate by Eastern Christians who were not subject to the Pope and who did not celebrate Latin festivals.

This is not discussion. This is not an informed contribution to Halloween. I propose we delete Dogface's entries and ask him to begin again. Look at this user's contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Dogface Can we expect anything? Wetman 23:32, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

That statment is extremly typical narrow-minded, anti-Christian bigotry. Since I'm a Christian, you assert that I am inherently untrustworthy. Prove that Ireland controlled the entirety of Christianity. Consult the Martyrologies I cited and explain away how Ireland celebrated All Saints' in APRIL and NOT November.Dogface 14:53, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

I can't quite tell who posted this comment on user Dogface's edit, perhaps it was user Wetman, but regarding this:

Suppressed text: "It should also be noted that Christians often denigrate suggestions of any mythic or pre-Christian content in Christian observances." (a reference to the very practice exhibited here by Dogface, thus demonstrated as true)

I thought I would cordially mention a relevant term: Heortology (from the Catholic Encyclopedia) refers to the science of sacred festivals. Catholic theologians do indeed study the contents and evolution of festivals. 207.192.130.197 22:53, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Whether Halloween is "liminal" or not

It is a liminal or threshold occasion, when the distinctions between the daylight world of reason and the spectral nightworld are blurred. I removed this because it didn't make sense to me - I don't know what is meant by "the distinctions between the daylight world of reason and the spectral nightworld"; and Halloween blurs nothing; it's only a holiday. Maybe the sentence is trying to say that things seem more surreal or more supernatural on Halloween? Brian Kendig

I can't help you with the connotations of "liminal" and the Celtic view of the Otherworld. Danny Ruck and Carl Staples give good comprehension of "liminal" and so does Joseph Campbell. But I make it a rule never to revert material I don't understand. Is it important to you that Halloween be without any deep meaning: "it's only a holiday" as you say? Anyway, try Googling some combinations like "liminal myth".Wetman 22:48, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I often edit material I don't understand - I edit boldly. I'm passing no judgment on the holiday in question; it's just that I felt this particular sentence was too vague and contributed nothing to the article. For example: I don't consider daytime particularly full of "reason" or nighttime particularly "spectral", and I don't know what "distinctions" between them are being "blurred." You seem to have a better understanding of how liminal applies to Halloween - would you edit the article and go into a bit more detail about the relationship? (Oh, and if you follow up to these comments, please follow up on Talk:Halloween - we may as well make these notes available to everyone!) - Brian Kendig

--I moved this here following this suggestion. Can anyone express the liminal quality of Halloween in a sufficiently pedestrian manner to satisfy this aggressively pugnacious troglodite, who often edits material he doesn't understand? Or so he claims. Wetman 01:50, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Probably not, but I'd be happy to see the sentence restored. And if you like, I'll donate to a fund to buy him a second-hand thesaurus. -- Jmabel 02:25, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Umm, hello? I'm right here... and I know the definition of the word "liminal." When I say I edit things I don't understand, I don't mean "duh, i can't figure this out, I think I'll change it" - I mean, "I can't discern what this has to do with the topic or what the person who wrote this sentence meant by it, so I'm going to make the article clearer." I still hold that the sentence in question makes no sense. In what sense is Halloween a "threshold occasion," in what way is daytime a "world of reason" and nighttime "spectral," what are the "distinctions" between these two, and in what way are they "blurred"? If there was a point to be made by the sentence in question, it's getting lost in the flowery prose. - Brian Kendig 04:18, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In a lot of European popular cultural traditions, there were (are?) notions that there are certain times of the year when the spirit world is particularly likely to intrude into the mundane world. See, for example Catalan mythology about witches. Halloween is certainly one of those occasions. -- Jmabel 18:16, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Excellent; thank you. I'll work that into the article. - Brian Kendig 18:35, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A straw man removed

I have removed "The Christian establishment allegedly co-opted the Samhain season (or so it is claimed, although this presumes a truly absurd amount of power and influence on the part of Ireland over the entirety of the Church at this time)" No one is making this claim, a straw man which obscures the interesting histories of Samhain, Halloween and All Saints Day, which are being carefully disentangled in the entry, as far as they relate direcvtly to Halloween. Two similar intrusive notes have been left untouched in the entry. Wetman 02:51, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Alleged Christianizing of the Celtic Samhain"

The more I look at this article, the more a mess it seems. The entire section "Alleged Christianizing of the Celtic Samhain" seems to have very little to do with Halloween, and much more to do with defending some opinion of the Catholic Church. It contains "Notes", such as the one talking about the Martyrology of Tallacht and the Felire of Oengus which were already mentioned above, and then a section down below titled "Christianizing the Lemuria" again duplicates information from this section. I think most of this needs to be removed from this article and worked into Samhain or other places instead. - Brian Kendig 19:01, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The History of this entry confirms your observation. Clearer connections remain at All Saints Day. This entry still bears the scars of a struggle with a Romanist spokesman. Wetman 19:22, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've removed the confusing and convoluted and poorly-edited mess which seemed to be turning this article into a religious tirade. If someone wants to add a good explanation of how Christianity co-opted Samhain into Halloween, by all means please add it. - Brian Kendig 20:28, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In case anyone wants to access this material, possibly to mine it, here's the last version before Brian cut it. I think we should work out some way to handle some of this material. I tend to believe that, like many holidays in the Christian world, Halloween gets coopts earlier pagan holidays; the question, it seems to me, is how and where to discuss that, with special emphasis on who put forward these theories, how accepted or controversial they are among scholars, what is the documentation for them, etc. This may belong here, it may belong in a separate article, but it belongs somewhere in Wikipedia, and with more citations and fewer polemics than it had here (which last is why I am not reverting Brian). -- Jmabel 21:15, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia readers may follow User:Brian Kendig's progressive suppression of information at this entry by clicking on "history" at the top of the entry page. This spokesman provides each of his edits with a justification whose motives the reader must assess for himself. Attempts to confuse the issue are largely the result of comparable subversion from User:Dogface. I too refuse to revert these offensive edits. This kind of disgraceful behavior corrupts us all. 23:16, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wetman, I don't follow - are you saying I've "suppressed information," and that I'm guilty of "subversion"? I really don't understand how you can say that; I have no personal stake whatsoever in the history of Halloween, and all I want is for the story to be told. I believe the material I removed was telling a different story altogether which had nothing to do with Halloween, and whatever story it was trying to tell, it wasn't even doing a particularly good job. (Looking over that material again, it seems to have been focused on All Saints Day being the Christianization of Pagan rituals. That information belongs in All Saints Day - and, in fact, is already there.) - Brian Kendig 23:39, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This user has suppressed the following linked reference: "See also the Christianization of pagan culture." I have restored it. I have rarely seen more ruthless behavior at Wikipedia. Wetman 14:42, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I did not "suppress", or even remove, that link. I simply moved it to the "Religious viewpoints" section where it fits better. It's nonsense to put "See also the Christianization of pagan culture" in the very first paragraph which gives a general overview of what Halloween is; that's like the article on the United States starting out "The US is a federal republic in North America. See also Persecution of Native Americans." - Brian Kendig 15:23, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think that's quite right. Actually, I didn't see it away down there. Wetman 15:26, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you'd like to fit the link into the article better, go right ahead. Or if you'd like to edit the article to add a discussion of the Christian influences on Pagan holidays which eventually became Halloween, please do! All that material I removed, I removed it because it was way off-topic - I read it and kept asking myself, "What does any of this have to do with Halloween, and why is it in this article?" I believe there's a way to put relevant information about this into the article in a way that's on-topic. Since you seem to feel strongly about it, I encourage you to try. Just, please don't refer to edits by your fellow Wikipedians as "ruthless" or "suppression" or "subversion" or "offensive" - that kind of language really doesn't help matters. - Brian Kendig 15:43, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

More on alleged Christianizing of Samhain

Ronald Hutton's book The Wheel of the Year suggests ways to improve the article, I think. Hutton makes the points that:

1. Nobody really knows what Samhain celebrated, other than the beginning of winter. It is not known from the original sources that Samhain involved the dead.
2. The dead make their appearance with the Roman Catholic of All Saints and All Souls. There is no grounds to believe that these days mark the Christianizing of a Celtic custom, other than allusion to a general habit of converting pagan festivals to Christian use. They began far from Celtic territory.
3. All Saints and All Souls became major Christian folk festivals in western Europe, in both Celtic and non-Celtic areas. In the British Isles, their religious aspects were sternly suppressed at the Reformation, largely because All Saints and All Souls made extensive use of the disapproved doctrine of Purgatory.
4. The folk cultural aspects survived, especially in Ireland, along with a vague association of the dead. In England, many of the folk customs transferred to Guy Fawkes' Day. The contemporary Hallowe'en was invented by Irish immigrants to the USA, where they found the pumpkin was far more accomodating than turnips to make jack-o-lantern's from. Smerdis of Tlön 19:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Spidie comes back from the future

How can we say, "In 2004, an estimate[d] 2.15 million children in the United States dressed up as Spider-Man, the year's most popular costume," when Halloween 2004 hasn't yet even occurred? -- Jmabel|Talk 19:46, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

I found the original reference and corrected the article (along with a link to the reference) - it's a projected figure. - Brian Kendig 22:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Halloween in the Philippines

Halloween in the Philippines is like that in the U.S. with a few major differences. Two differences a) food takes the place of candy and b) everyone, not just kids, go door-to-door sharing food. That's as much as my mother told me. Adraeus 11:30, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)