Talk:Halloween/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Discussion about some specific sources

• James Frazer: Outdated, bad research. (?)

--93.232.146.227 (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think much credence is given to Frazer by anyone seriously these days without corroborating support from someone else. Eastcote (talk) 01:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Frazer is good research - in his time -but completely outdated. Insofar the whole "celtic or not" agenda is completely out of sync. Basically most quotes above are about an outdated state of research concerning Samhain and do not treat Halloween at all Bakulan (talk) 08:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

We mifght use Fraiser as an example of outdated research but not much else.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. Good point. As Doring put it, claims of a celtic origin of Halloween in the web and as well in lowbrow and middlebrow science are abundanct. However they all ignore the state of the original sources and neither take care of archeological record. I ask to check wether any of the above mentioned sources is able to falsify this claim. Bakulan (talk) 13:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• [http://www.halloween-im-rheinland.de/pdf/geschaeft.pdf © Landschaftsverband Rheinland, Amt für rheinische Landeskunde Bonn (September 2001) Das Geschäft mit der Gänsehaut Seite 1 Die Vermarktung von Halloween Von Gabriele Dafft (Goose bumps Business, The markeitng of halloween, Halloween as aminly event driven phenomenen)Bakulan (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Das Geschäft mit der Gänsehaut, (The Business of Goosebumps). This article has nothing whatsoever to do with the origins of Halloween, whether pagan or Christian. It is all about modern-day marketing of Halloween in Germany, and as such it is irrelevant to the discussion. Eastcote (talk) 14:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Languages, Source Citations and Discussion Structure

Hey guys... if we are to have reasonable discussion, we have to have it somewhat under control. (1) Please, if using sources from another language besides English, we have to have reliable translations. (2) Sources should be cited sufficiently so that we can all find them and get a first-hand look at them. (3) Please stop sabotaging the structure of the discussion so that we stop getting lost -- section titles are being changed, comments are being inserted where they shouldn't be, and it's all quite a mess. Eastcote (talk) 13:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Where is Halloween celebrated?

The current article is largely void of information on where Halloween is celebrated. The infobox reads "Observed by: Around the world" which could mean Central African Republic, Bhutan, or anywhere else. I'm not advocating a geobiased approach but the holiday is obviously more substantial in some parts of the world than others and this should be reflected in the article. A cursory look at the Halloween around the world article reveals that only 3 or maybe 4 countries widely and currently celebrate a holiday called Halloween on 31 October (i.e., not 2000 years ago, not like Halloween but on a different date, and not only by twentysomethings in urban nightclubs). This information should be noted in the article as well. — AjaxSmack 01:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is written very much from a US perspective. The section called Around the world might just as well be called Not here in the USA. As an older Australian, I had never heard of it as a kid, but Aussie kids now annoy other people at Halloween because they saw it on American TV programs here. They ahve no idea what it's about. And we defintiely DON'T call it a holiday. HiLo48 (talk) 06:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, what's the best way to remedy this? It's mainly an Anglo-Irish-American holiday (though I'm happy it's spreading elsewhere), so it seems fitting that the article is a bit US-centric; maybe we just need to state where it is celebrated clearly in the head? I'll make a change and see what happens. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

'Anglo-' ? I think not, as that refers to England. Try 'Scoto-' or 'Scots'. Ceartas 02:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceartas (talk • contribs)

Edit request - remove United Kingdom mention

{{edit semi-protected}} Please remove the words 'United Kingdom' in the first sentence because under the linked definition of 'holiday', October 31st is not a UK Bank holiday and Halloween has no official recognition as a festival.

cf Official UK Bank Holidays: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/LivingintheUK/DG_073741 Johncomm (talk) 09:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Done -Atmoz (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request [2] - remove United Kingdom mention

{{edit semi-protected}} Article description is incorrect: "Halloween (or Hallowe'en) is an annual holiday observed on October 31, primarily in Canada, Ireland, the United States and the United Kingdom."

It is not the case that Halloween is a Holiday observed in the United Kingdom. The date is recognized as a significant date, and some traditions associated with Halloween are practiced. But it is not an observed Holiday by UK definition; such usage is American in nature. See Holiday definition in Wikipedia to see why the article cannot represent Halloween as an observed Holiday in the UK (and possibly other locations).

Siwatkins (talk) 13:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Done -Atmoz (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Its the ambiguity of the definition of holiday. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and school's are off during Halloween as observance is warranted. Its true as Halloween is historically Irish/Scottish (Gaelic), observance is much less in England where November 5th (Guy Fawkes Night) is more widely celebrated.LisaSandford (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request - add United Kingdom mention

{{edit semi-protected}}

Halloween is also an active holiday in england and wales where many people trick or treat. This should be added to the list of places that celebrate halloween. Ellcom (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not celebrated to the extent of those listed (which editors on this talk page have mentioned) where Guy Fawkes Night is more widely celebrated, hence other places link is sufficient.LisaSandford (talk) 22:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree. With its Gaelic roots Halloween is big in Ireland and Scotland, then later when it arrived in Canada and United States. Those are the primary celebrators today. England on the otherhand its been Guy Fawkes night on the 5th of November that has taken precedence.Tír na nÓg 1982 (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The near opposite of this requested edit was done above. At the time, it had not been previously discussed on the talk page and was not vandalism (the reason for the protection), therefore it was fulfilled. Further, it has garnered the support of several others above. Any more changes of this nature will require a consensus on this talk page. Seeing none, this request is not done. -Atmoz (talk) 23:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Halloween in the United Kingdom

The recent changes appear to imply that Halloween is observed in Scotland, but not the rest of the United Kingdom. Halloween is celebrated in the United Kingdom, but not really as a "holiday". This would incorrectly suggest that the traditions do not exist in the rest of the UK. Also, Halloween is not an official holiday in any of the other countries mentioned. I would suggest changing the world "holiday" in the first sentence with another word, possible "celebration", "festival" or "tradition". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.152.34 (talk) 00:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The key word is "primarily" observed..ie.chiefly. Again, Halloween is historically Irish/Scottish (Gaelic) and is widely celebrated in Ireland and Scotland, observance is much less in England where November 5th (Guy Fawkes Night) historically is. There are two seperate customs within the UK hence it was clarified. It would be misleading to name other nations (in the UK) where Halloween is not chiefly observed as English editors have mentioned on this talk page.LisaSandford (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

←Before the recent change, the lead didn't have information on where it's celebrated, although the Infobox contained "Observed by: Around the world", with a wikilinked subarticle, and before that the wording was "Observed by: Numerous Western countries". This is closer to what the reliably referenced body material actually says.

The most recent Infobox had "Observed by: Ireland, Scotland, Canada, United States, other places", the lead "observed primarily in Ireland, Scotland, Canada and the United States." The chosen selection and weighting was added without reliable sourcing backing it up. I've removed it as it's at best unsourced original research.

A number of Edit requests followed the insertion, which itself changed several times. The first two asked for removal of 'United Kingdom' from the newly added list of nations observing it, arguing the definition of 'holiday' in the "Holiday" article (itself in flux or poor) indicates October 31st is not a UK Bank holiday and asserted Halloween has no official (left undefined) recognition as a festival. This article had never said it was a Bank Holiday.

If October 31st/Halloween being a Public/Bank Holiday was the condition for including a location, then it is a condition Ireland, Canada and the USA fail to meet. None of those respective official governmental sites list it as a Public Holiday either (see Ireland, Canada, United States). Each of those sites as well as the above-linked UK one devote pages to halloween and its celebration/observance.

The third Edit request stated it's also an active holiday in England and Wales and the article should state that. Two replies that there isn't celebrating there in contrast to Ireland and Scotland plus N. America such as to deserve mention, gave no sources to evidence that. That request was rejected with a templated comment the user should seek consensus to propose something. Because the lengthy previous discussions on this had been archived, they weren't seen. To build and improve the article requires quality sources. –Whitehorse1 20:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Putting words of the subsection title into Google returned some detail. Don't suppose it's needed for now, but putting links here so they'll be there in the Talk archives.
Data's from planetretail.net, who're retail analysts; kinda like Gartner I guess, but retail. It puts UK spend at 0.28bnGBP. Altho site incorporates blog format isn't as a whole & is linked from their main page and bbc anyway. [1] [2] [3] –Whitehorse1 16:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Redux

Before the recent edits and accompanying six talkpage sections, of >100 kb, came along, I was thinking of starting a section here titled "Unsalvageable?". All sorts of problems, some foundational, with the article and associated articles exist. It's built with often flimsy sourcing, or none, the few times HQRS are—supposedly—used they're often misrepresented or out of context. Whole swathes violate core content Policies.

The article states things like "and is sometimes regarded as the "Celtic New Year" with the cite to a book by Hutton. Yet if the information in the discussion on this page 4 years ago is accurate, and I've no reason to assume otherwise, the book basically dismisses that notion, which makes the statement a misrepresentation. Working from small gpreviews means you can't know if unavailable pages contradict or recontext what you can see. It's hard to accept though that when the source states there's absolutely no firm evidence of something, using it to cite a statement which in no way gives that impression is appropriate.

Rogers' mentions Pomona briefly dispensing with it, yet the text here reads more like it's a prominent secondary view to the primary view.

The Bettina Arnold one really isn't an appropriate source for a wikipedia article. It's a light piece, loose and general, with jokes, of a spooky supernatural flavor; drawn up to celebrate the opening of the college department's program. The sources comprise 3 or 4 books that include one from an high school level educated author of historical novels and screenplays; another taught english literature. Arnold's an anthopology (archaeology) academic (tangentially her paper on Pseudoarchaeology and Nationalism was interesting); there's no doubt she can write solid material. However it's not a conference paper, peer reviewed essay, etc; it was never meant to be. It was meant to be fun. It should never have been used as a source to draw from or cite to.

The "pseudo-referencing" of elsewhere seems to be here, too. Unsourced or poorly sourced stuff gets broken off to subarticles just to get it out of this one, stuff is transferred back and so on. Content is basically duplicated, and distributed around, like an ouroboros. There are copyvio type close paraphrasing problems, Iikely arising from over reliance on single sources, distributed among multiple articles. Trying to find refs to support large amounts of what's essentially unsourced OR/POV seems backwards.

For Verifiability the enwiki community favors reliable secondary sources, like peer reviewed papers in scholarly journals and university press published works that use primary sources; not tertiary ones, random websites, stuff by journalists, self published works, popular/glossy histories. For a section titled History, we need to use sources written by historians. That means an academic such as a professor in that subject, not someone writing outside their chosen area of expertise. For folklore it's sources of those whose scholarly field is folkloristics, and so forth.

Maybe an FA-approach something like this is worth considering. A toplevel subject is tough to write about. Finding material is no problem; it's knowing what to read.

Featured articles are supposed to represent our best content, so I wonder if we can look to them for examples. The FA criteria include 'well-researched'. In discussions those active in writing at that level clarify that this means a careful selection of modern high quality reliable sources, representative major works; determining what's important to read, rather than by random search on the internet or picking individual papers listed in bibliographies, which for non experts amounts to a crap-shoot. The Talk archives certainly have... recurring themes. A lot of editors have put a lot of effort into this page over past years, people like Rannpháirtí anaithnid, Eastcote, Walloon, Kathryn NicDhàna and Sarah777, among many others. I respect them for the work put in, particularly around Octobertime, making this into something presentable for the annual half a million plus Halloween visitors. Over 8.5 thousand revisions in, given the nuance and complexity of the topic, maybe a carefully-selected sources led approach is the way to go? –Whitehorse1 20:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

1. The point of my comment appears to have been missed completely. The first reply of “use this”, is an example.
   There was a reason for wikilinks and words such as: careful selection, modern, high quality rs, representative major, determining what's important, not random. The second reply had some interesting questions, but the same applies.
2. It's becoming clear that a great deal of differences exist between the English and German language Wikipedias. The en-Wikipedia favors secondary not tertiary sources like general encyclopedias, among other things. Bringing arguments from other websites or other language WPs to articles' Talk pages is unhelpful. I recommend de-wiki editors resolve any dispute through de-wiki's own dispute resolution procedures. For developing the de-wiki article I suggest not using this one as a model, since it's in a poor state.
3. The word compromise is being thrown around. Without knowing what the the breadth of current experts consider the state of the knowledge base to be, the notion that either of two things is "correct" or something between those two things is best will not provide article quality. It's that which the eventual article should reflect. If anybody holds particular viewpoints be it nationalist, ideological, or anything else, then that's fine: You just need to leave them at the door. If the eventual article disagrees with what a person holds dear, that's hard. Life, is hard. They're welcome to write a letter to their newspaper about the state of contemporary scholarship. We're here not to give Free Hugs (at at least I'm not), but to write a quality article.
4. Driveby comments on individual editors serve no benefit. If I wanted to see people shouting “S/he's a witch!” I'd watch Monty Python and the Holy Grail. It'd be far more enjoyable and have about as much chance of improving the article.
5. I'm not sure what impression some seem to've got from my comment. I'd expect the work to take about a year. Not a rushed 48hrs. –Whitehorse1 18:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, sources should be current scholarship, from reputable scholars in the fields of folklore, history, etc. The "compromise" I am looking for is an article that discusses the various interpretations available, and not an article that states emphatically this or that is "The One True Faith". With ancient history, and even moreso with pre-history and folkore, there are very few or no definitive primary sources that say categorically "this is the way it was." It doesn't matter if we're talking about Halloween or about how people conducted international trade -- historians, folklorists, and scientists make inferences from and interpret the available primary sources, and reach educated conclusions. I'm not going to second-guess them. Let us state what the educated among us have to say on the matter and let the chips fall where they may. I agree it will take a long, long time to "fix" this article. There are misattributions, fanciful thinking, and uncritical acceptance of discredited scholarship. But again, there is no "One True Faith". Now, having said all that...I had a root canal this afternoon, and I need another beer. Eastcote (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree to some degree with some of what you're saying. :P To achieve a good result the manner and form of our research matters.

Inevitably, haphazard research prevents us being able to discuss or explore the interpretations effectively, as well as determine what interpretations to present, how, and what is appropriate weight with which to present them. Building it by way of any source material not ruled out by the reliable sources guideline, perhaps authored by somebody academic or by a reputable publishing house, that happens to tie into what's being talked about, can just mean replacing bad with bad.

Modern subject-expert sources are preferred, because they're trained on broad aspects which influenced older studies (like nineteenth-century evolutionism/ethnocentrism), subject trends over time, and able to keep abreast of ongoing research so, they can interpret materials--primary or secondary--in light of all of those. New studies can validate older studies, legacy ones can remain looked to as definitive; they can be expanded upon, as well as discredited.

Yes, it'll take a long time and it's probable sections will ultimately need rewriting post-research anyway. In the meantime... perhaps reduce the History section to barebones, so it simply states as to origins/influences there're views among scholarship, historical and present, including x,y,z - without going into their veracity. –Whitehorse1 16:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Good start. I would as well prefer to use Hörandner and Zeitschrift für Volksunde instead of Bettin arnolds. Bakulan (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, so whats next? Eastcote made a good start, collecting some good scientific sources. Bakulan also suggested worthy material supporting his view. Maybe one could also go through the "references" section, and sort out, whats usable/quotable from there, and what not. In Arnolds case, we have this "light piece", ok - but I cannot imagine, that the co-director of the center of celtic studies would expose herself with a piece like this, if she did not think it was correct information she presented there, no matter how "light" the context was. Arnolds has four sources at the end of the text - what about them? They seem to support what she says. And at what point would we say, that material is outdated? 19th century stuff? First half of the 20th century? 50ies, 60ies, 70ies? The topic seems to have been not too fashionable later for serious research, only dismissing all traditions seems to have been fashionable (for good reasons, maybe, but its obviously as fashionable today to dismiss traditions, as it was fashionable in the 19th century to see "ancient" traditions everywhere, and that makes me suspicious). And how do we avoid original research? If, theoretically, we had a peer-reviewed paper by Arnolds expressing the same views as expressed in the "light piece", contradicting Hörandner - what should we do then? If one center of celtic studies contradicts another? Bakulans answer up to now was "choose Hörandner", and thats what annoys me. Do we have to conclude here, who was/is right and who not? I do not think so. --93.232.146.227 (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The answer is to differentiate between different schools and times, and to provide a sort of time frame. If Arnold had brought any real paper, ok,but the speech is just telling shes aware of and able to tell the continuity spin. Bakulan (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I also would like to know who wrote the article about Halloween for the Encyclopedia Britannica [4], and how this person(s) did come to their conclusions, or what sources they used (and please, Bakulan, do not just answer "Frazer" now, like you did in the german article). --93.232.146.227 (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, now we're getting into something huge if overhaul of the whole article is in mind. I totally agree it needs overhauling, sources are used free-and-easy, and it needs rescuing from Wicca-fluff and too much trivia. But can we go piece-by-piece? I like Bakuman's idea to discuss the history of the scholarship of Halloween (the schools and times) -- but we will still run into the problem we presently have when we get to modern-day interpretations of that history. With the "history of Halloween scholarship" approach, perhaps we restrict the lead to "Halloween IS such and such", and give a modern definition, mentioning nothing about what Halloween WAS or how it originated, and keep all that material for the section on the history of "Halloween scholarship". Eastcote (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I found two nice statements and a book from Dr. Alois Döriing, a Volkskunde specialist in Bonn: a) Halloween is an example of "new folklore", comparable to the CSD, and b) no celtian roots nor pagan background with explicit points against US-Continuists like Santino and Moore. WDR Interview and Landesverband Publication Döring is confronting various continuity dreams with facts either in a TV interview, a scientific paperand a book (Rheinische Bräuche durch das Jahr. Alois Döring. Eine Veröffentlichung des Landschaftsverbandes Rheinland/Amt für rheinische Landeskunde Bonn. Greven, Cologne 2006. 440 Seiten mit 230 Abbildungen. ISBN 3-7743-0377-0). Bakulan (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Bakulan, I think you already have made your point-of-view known. I am firmly against re-writing the article using only sources that support the point of view of Volkskunde specialists. We are attempting to reach a compromise position that reflects the various different points of view in a balanced way. So, please, contribute to that compromise. Eastcote (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No consensus. Try to make a difference between my standpoint and the one of acknoledged scholars working actually with significant research projects on e.g. actual halloween. Thats what Volkskunde and the quoted scholars are about. Bakulan (talk) 06:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

At the moment, the etymology is not in line whith continuity hypothesis, as well Samhain is outlined as a given fact. In reality, the very existance and role of a Samhain feast are not based on the state of science, which raises more doubts. Insofar a NPOV version has to involve less Samhain, more doubts and should put the etymology in front. As well the various doubts about continuity are not mentioned at all which is not sustainable. Sentences like "The ancient Celts believed that the border between this world and the Otherworld became thin on Samhain" or the allegations of bonfires, divinationa and cattle slaughter as being part of the feast are plain reconstructive fantasy without any base in the archeologcal record.

• as a suggestion Bakulan (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

That is what this discussion is about -- getting the article balanced and based on ALL current scholarship. NEUTRAL point of view does not equal YOUR point of view. Please do not edit the article with your point of view while this discussion is in progress. We will get to bonfires, divination and cattle slaughter all in good time. Please be patient. Eastcote (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

If I would have used my point of view, Rogers would receive nothing more than a footnote. My suggestion includes various points of view. I added an NPOV tag on the Samhain entry FYI. BR Bakulan (talk) 05:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

MPOV. –Whitehorse1 16:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• WP:TINDTooltip There is no deadline –Whitehorse1 16:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

East Side Story

Bakulan has endorsed BBC material (when it suited his POV) and then disagreed when the same BBC source was used (that didn't suit his POV)..Cherry picking; "the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position". KiwiJeff (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thats a personal attack ithout any relevance to this paragraph.I ask to erase it. Bakulan (talk) 08:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

To quote Eastcote; "Bakuman, if the BBC is "wrong about basic facts", why were you using them to support your position?". You endorsed BBC source when it suited your POV, then opposed when Slatersteven quoted it and didn't suit your POV. Cherry picking. Its relevant because you have no problem using a source that meets your POV, but not if it doesn't. There is no balance. You have also removed user contributions without any justification. From the discussion length it appears this has gone on too long. KiwiJeff (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

One BBC link was insofar interesting as it quoted referenes given here not in the way as other WP authors interpreted them. Döring and others riduculizes the abundance of sources about an alleged celtic continuity with nowadays halloween based on ther outdated 19th century research. Döring and others discuss the Frazer and other, e.g. Santino in extenso.

• Quote (Döring Samhain – Halloween – Allerheiligen) Bei den schriftlichen Überlieferungen handelt es sich um ein Konglomerat von Literaturen aus weit auseinanderliegenden Epochen, die kritisch zu beurteilen sind. Die Überlieferungszeugnisse fangen an mit den Berichten antiker Schriftsteller, die oft durch das Abschreiben gelehrter Studien mit allen möglichen Irrtümern behaftet sind. Sie werden fortgeführt über die mittelalterlichen Literaturen christlicher Autoren, welche keineswegs vorurteilsfreie Beobachter sind, sondern vorgefundene Gewohnheiten im Dienste der Missionierung und der kirchlichen Propaganda brandmarken; ferner über die Aufzeichnungen aus dem 18. und 19. Jahrhundert, die erstmals gesicherte Belege von irischen Halloween-Feuern und -Feiern bieten. Schließlich reichen sie hin bis zu der unübersichtlichen Flut wissenschaftlicher, pseudowissenschaftlicher und spekulativer angloamerikanischer und hiesiger Literatur unserer Tage, welche in mythologischen Kontinuitätsideologien befangen sind. Die lückenhaften religionsgeschichtlichen Überlieferungen, die auf die Neuzeit begrenzte historische Dimension der Halloween-Kultausprägung, vor allem auch die Halloween-Metaphorik auf die ich hier nicht näher eingehen kann – legen nahe, dass wir umdenken müssen: Halloween geht nicht auf das heidnische Samhain zurück, sondern steht in Bezug zum christlichen Totengedenkfest Allerheiligen/ Allerseelen. Wir sollten uns von den heidnischen Kelten als Urhebern der heutigen Halloween-Brauchgestaltung verabschieden (There is a flood of scientific, paseudoscientific and speculative angloamerican sources which are confined in continuity ideology... However the lack of contionuous records, the fact that Halloween rites are historically confinded to modern times and the background of Halloween Metaphorics clealry shows we have to think over:Halloween is not based on Samhain but based on the christian Allsaints. We should say goodbye to the pagan celts as authors of current Halloween.)Bakulan (talk) 09:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Too bad my proposal for a structured collection of sources was destroyed here within hours. I wonder, why. May I just correct the last sentence of your translation: We should say goodbye to celts as authors of the current Halloween customs. --93.232.179.105 (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If you come up with sources that take the reccent research about samhain into account and do discuss the continuity aspect, we could move further. Detailed translation now in bold. Bakulan (talk) 09:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If you quote sources you ae not supposed to alter them, what is the translations of Brauchgestaltung, the last word in the quote if not custom? If it is the IP's translation is accurate and yours is not.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"Brauch" = custom, "Gestaltung" = design, shaping, creation, so "Brauchgestaltung" would be the creation, design or shaping of customs. I'm out of here till next week, good luck. --93.232.179.105 (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Where is the above quote from?Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Google's handy dandy translator makes that senctence to be: "We should abandon the pagan Celts as the originators of the modern Halloween custom design." This source essentially dismisses ALL primary sources as influenced by religious, political or cultural bias, and says we can learn nothing from them about the "modern limited historical dimension...especially the Halloween imagery". I don't think any of us have an argument with that. No one here is saying the modern Halloween with trick or treating, candy, costumes, and the Great Pumpkin" was designed by the Celts. They would probably not recognize today's Halloween, and no one seriously thinks they would. Eastcote (talk) 13:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure? Various american authors and Fraser claim an ongoing continuity, e.g. bonfires and treats and tricks being a celtic heritage, as well the relationship to the afterlife being ancient celtic and most important, Samhain being the inspiration for All Saints. This is disputed in modern research but upkept in various lowbrow papers. Döring and others claim that Halloween started christian but was reinterpreted around the 19th century as having celtic roots. Insofar Allsaints was the inspiration for what is nowadays being regarded as celtic or pagan elements in halloween. Ok? Bakulan (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

By "no one here" I mean those of us on this talk page, and by "seriously" I mean serious scholars. I don't think those of us you are arguing with on this talk page are advocating the use of "lowbrow" sources, whatever those are. We get your point. It doesn't have to be made after every source citation. Please keep this page orderly. Eastcote (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, why then on earth is all this continuity crap still in the article? Bakulan (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Becasue RS have said that either A. many halloween traditions have pagan roots and or B. That the early chrsitans adopted Samahn as All saints day. That does not mean that all halloween traditions (any more then the easter bunny) have pagan roots. As has been said before it appearts your sources (the quote above (you have still not said where its from) virtualy says this) are talking about halloween as it is celebrated today in German speaking countries.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we all agree that some trimming/snipping of the article is in order. The discussion here (I think) is to determine the extent and direction of that snipping and trimming. Eastcote (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with that assesment, I also would say the the articel does need more about Halloweens chrisitan origons as well. But we hav eto present both sides in a neutral way (that is to say we do not imply one side is correct).Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I have repeatedly shown that Hörandner and others cover Halloween in a genereic way AND discuss the english speaking continuity, dismiss the latter as oldfashioned and outdated and provide proofs based on actual research with given celtic artefacts and collections. My RS insofar doubt the "R" in the continuity camp, which mosly is US american with no access to any original celtic remnant at all. The continuity camp do not provide anything new after Fraser. Thats a quality difference which can not be neutralized or ignored. 14:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakulan (talk • contribs)

And multiple sources that are RS have been produced writen by accademics that claim such an origioon or continuation of tradition. If you do not bleive that these are RS take it to RSN. Moreover Americans do have access to a caltic element, they are called Irish decendants (besides which how many odf the sources are American? Frasier, Scottish (they were Celts) Hutton, British Robert T. Lambdin, American Jack Santino, American Frank Delaney, Irish (also Celts) So of those I can trace over half are in fact natives of Celtic lands). In fact we have as many persons of Celtic desent advancing the theory of celtic continuation as German Language sources that have been quoted opposing it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not talking about ethnicity at all. I am requesting scholars that actually study celtic history respectively the alleged continuity. Moser in Hallein is actually director of a celtic collection of high regard, Hörnandnder and Döring discuss real sources. Fraziers book dates from 1922, Santino believes in trick or treat being of ancient celtic origin. Please. Bakulan (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

So are you sugesting that all of these scholers just made stuff up without sudying the subject? Besdies you are the one making a point about the material about a celtic continiuation being mainly American (its not), with not only access to but actualy living with Celtic remnents. They have access to 100 of yerars of folk customs and arceology in celtic lands.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, what Doering and others assume is that go in the bib and look up frazier and copy and paste old outdated stuff. Bakulan (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

What are you saying? If I am correct no one is saying we do not mention the disagreement (and I do wish you would stop ignoring other sources we have around half a dozen later 20th early 21st C sources for a Celtic influence), If I read what you are saying correctly. Nor are we saying we should use Fraser uncritically, we are saying we should use the other sources that supports a Celtic continuation .Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

We have crap which tells "there is no doubt that". There is no 21 RS source that tells us about a Samhain-Halloween-AllSaints connection being found via Higher criticism of historical primary sources. Those who use the appropriate methods dismiss any continuity and find reconstruction in the celtic revival. Bakulan (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read the compromise text again. IN fact we are bending over backwards to accommodate you. You have provided about 3 sources backing a non-Celtic origin of Halloween, we have provided over half a dozen, twice as many. But the compromise text gives it equal status. This could if we wished to be intransigent represent undue weight, giving a minority view point the same weight as the majority WP:UNDUE.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope your misusing undue Weight. Mine are presenting modern research and dealing with continuity crap as crap. Yours is based on actual 19th research which is cited withiout reflection. My sorcues state that. Bakulan (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Bakulan, please focus on one thing at a time. Right now your argument is grasping at too many aspects of this subject, like some sort of deranged octopus on amphetamines. Let's keep it focused at this stage on the ORIGIN/ROOT of Halloween, and leave trick-or-treating and modern marketing for a later stage of the discussion. Eastcote (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool comparision. :) Origin is "All Saints Eve", very easy. Bakulan (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That is YOUR POV and you are acknowledging sources that only back YOUR POV. You are POV-pushing. I can't say it more plainly. Eastcote (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope, thats just linguistics.Bakulan (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Linguistics? That makes no sense at all. Eastcote (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Etymology? All saints eve = Halloween. Nothing bout Samhain...Bakulan (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Actualy in Galic Samhain is the word for Halloween and the month of november. So Ethnologicly there is a direct link.Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I don;t think that compromise is posible and we may need out side help. I susgest an RFCSlatersteven (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No. That will provide no benefit whatsoever. –Whitehorse1 17:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I have now satrted an RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You should revert and nominate subpages if any for speedy deletion. –Whitehorse1 17:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind did it myself, cf. my comments above. –Whitehorse1 19:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Why was the RFC remopved?Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

[5]  –Whitehorse1 16:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why you would find the procedure addtn as not practical or why wsc has any thing to do wiht it, also we now have a more direct ecvidacen that a user may in fact be falsifying sources, that surley needs ooutside comment on.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It's stretching credulity to its limits to say we need to generate more comment on this. There are now EIGHTEEN toplevel sections on this matter. The page has ballooned to over 300kB. A drive to increase that by further 'out side' comments won't negate the need for effective research.

As well as singlehandedly proposing formal dispute resolution procedure be initiated, you've taken it up on individual contributors' talkpages, brought it up on a noticeboard, mused about discussing on another one, plus raised it on still a third noticeboard. I'm not sure what you think happens at RfCs--all but the most straightforward are lucky if they get one comment. As the wikilinked RefDesk thread shows, which praised the article, mistook one of Germany's top public universities as a private one, plus proposed sources of student newspapers, History.com or selfpub sites, a passing view isn't a substitute for in depth development. There's no way the participants should be vilified; they're trying to help people, it'd be unreasonable to expect them to conduct a survey of the topic's literature, and on the surface the article seems to have a lot of references that look reliable. But as we now know, it violates all three core content policies.
As for being "not sure why wsc has anything to do with it" you know full well you used the term wider scholastic consensus in the push for an RfC as shown in the diff. And, as has been pointed out above, when we've no idea what the nuances of the "wsc" are, it's surely (?) presumptuous to speak of what it says. –Whitehorse1 18:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

What I think happens at RFC's is that it will bring in new and uninvolved users to overview a dispute that had no only entrenched but now seems to be based an a blantan mis-use (if not actual dishonest use) of sources. A participant shuld be villified if they alter sources, poresent OR as quotes from sources and mis-represents what sources say (when tey actualy say the exact opposite (or do you consider this acceptabel practice?). As for the wider Scolastic consensus, well one sources Vs at least half a dozen does tend to indicate that there is a scholatic consensus (and by the way if I had been wrong on this additional users imput might have pointed that out, the more edds the more people looking). As to the size of the deabate, that is no reason to not have a RFC and may indicate that in fact it needs some overview to end it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I see now you've moved to this. Implying strawman style I claimed you removed it (when I did _no_ such thing) with, diffs arranged into the opposite order edits were made in (which was I withdrew it from the talkpage giving careful explanation in the edit summary as well as notifying the action on the page, afterwards making the auto-added-by-bot link cleanup edit to avoid misdirection). –Whitehorse1 19:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I've noted your comment above and will reply to it later today. –Whitehorse1 19:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I am asking if it is permisable to say an RFC has been withdrawn when deleted by a user other then then one who initiated it. As far as I have seen it is usualy used when an initiator decides to end a request.Slatersteven (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Steven, please try to understand that we're dealing with a poorly sourced, misattributing, article. Rather than being entrenched, although it might seem that way, I'm still confident it's nothing we can't help with some High Quality Sources.
2. As for your allegations against the other user, you should be aware (e.g. from WP:NPA) serious allegations require serious evidence. Going from another editor saying they couldn't access one of two sources, that were given in a comment to support a view, and used a machine translation of the other, with another respondent for the most part saying it did seem to support it, seems a bit hasty.
3. I think the parenthetical was a rhetorical question so.
4. For collegial collaboration to be possible, when others take the time to comment and respond, we should make reasonable efforts to read the comments. That is, listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Continuing to post repeatedly and expanding the discussion to ever increasing forums, as if they weren't read, works against that.
   Accuracy and quality is a result of an article being well researched, not based on a random selection of materials. Despite this not really having happened, you cite 'wider scholastic consensus'. It takes time. Some topics have little written about them, so they're easier. The best sources doesn't mean journalists, whatever comes up in google that looks a bit academic or is non-selfpublished, perhaps only part visible. We don't necessarily need to insist on peer reviews heralding Foosource "the most important study of Foo in a generation", either. I'm just saying there's little value in endless debating on sources that may not be that good anyway or comparing results of one brief search with another.
5. You've branched this discussion alone onto at least 3 other places. You're the most frequent commenter to this talkpage in its history by a significant margin; article edits are fewer than half that, and most of those are reverts. Fair enough about the Undos, this is a high traffic page. Basically things like the above, declaring compromise seems impossible, talking of wsc then asking what has wsc to do with anything, doesn't help. Nobody suggested RFC bars long discussions. As to the size of the page, placing the identical comment 5 times on the page in a single edit may be a factor, as might replies like this. ;) –Whitehorse1 23:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

As tbhis is drfting way off topic I sugest we close this thred down now.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I've no interest in re-repeating or responding to things you raise only for you to ask their relation to the topic. Developing a high quality decent article is exactly what needs to be concentrated on. Lets focus on that, thanks. –Whitehorse1 19:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Some control has to be gained over this discussion. It is all over the place, growing new tenticles at ever turn. I'm not sure RFC is the right way to go about it, though. We have 8 to 10 editors adding comments as it is, possibly more but they are hard to count. Adding more might make it even harder to control. I think we have to nail down what the current debate is about before we can control it. For me, it is the origin of Halloween itself, and not about the origin of modern Halloween customs. For some others it seems to be about the customs involved. Let's state categorically what this debate is about, and keep the input to that till we are through with that piece, and then let us proceed on to the next piece. Eastcote (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Eastcote... this is about the the origin of Halloween itself, not of contemporary practices i.e.going guising at Halloween where kids go from door to door in disguise. Instead its about the root/origin of the festival. The only problem i do have is the contributions here are messy, my own included,.. and having views from editors who have some indepth grasp of the subject would be best served (if that is what Slatersteven was aiming for) as opposed to simply just adding more editors who don't. Its not so much fresh input, rather its fresh quality input.KiwiJeff (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Why one of my requests for ooutside imopout was for more German language speakers to try verify what the sources say. Yes that is why I posted it on the religion page and not, say, on the sociology pages. To get some better imppoutSlatersteven (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The problom is that we are running around in circles arguing about teh saem things over and over again. I really think that some fresh input is needed. Hoever if the majority think that the RFC is a waste of time i'll withdraw it. But its been, what? a week now with no end in sight. We don't even seem to know that we are arguing about now.Slatersteven (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

That's why we need to define the argument, stick to the point, and be done with it. So far I haven't seen any sources that, upon further review, categorically reject the Celtic origin. Supposedly Maier does, but I don't speak German, and I haven't been able to get a translation. If the majority of scholars say Samhain was the root of Halloween, with massive Christian addition, then let's write that out in a paragraph and get this over with. If Maier is the lone voice crying in the wilderness, does that make his argument an "alternative", or "fringe"? I'm asking. If his analysis is a legitimate alternative, let's write it up as such. If it's fringe, let's write it up that way, or leave it out altogether. But I don;t know what he really says if I can't see it. Eastcote (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thats why we need outside imput. For a start we need more German language users to check the sources. For my part I am moving from Maier being alternative to fringe (but am still halfway).But thats what those boards are for, to ask other users and get a wider perspective.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

19th century, and earlier, sources

Yesterday, I unexpectedly had some time left on a stormy evening, so while the wind howled outside, I did a Google Book search on our topic. What puzzled me, was this magic 1830 date Bakulan introduced. As you may have noticed, searches for "Halloween" or "Samhain" return mostly the modern, fluffy and unusable stuff (though it also returns [6] this or this [7], which I wasnt able to look at.) So what I did then, was a search for Hallow E'en, Hallowmas and Hallow Even. The results are quite interesting: There is lots of stuff from the 19th century: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] or [13]. And many more, some pre-1830, go look for yourself.

There are often references to a poem from a certain "Robert Burns about H., dating [14] from 1777: [15]. Another poem: [16].

This book mentions a earlier text, concerning supernatural events on H. eves some hundred years ago [17].

This one just quotes the "spells of Halloween, learned in our childhood" [18]. This one connects Burns poem with "strange customs not altogether explored even to this day [19].

Here, an elder book of a certain "Sir Richard" is quoted about Halloween [20]. And this one [21] I found especially interesting. I quote: After the lapse of 250 years, the ancient custom is preserved as if it were of yesterday. The superstitions of May-eve and Hallow-e'en are still practised, and not one of the ceremonies in Burns' poem is neglected, even by those to whom the poem is utterly unknown..

Here we have a farmers encyclopedia [22] talking about H., and here we have a "rural" encyclopedia [23], whose author seems unhappy about Halloween: The eve of the festival, or the 31st day of October, usually called All-Halloweven, or abbreviatedly Hallowe'en, has long been regarded by the rural population of Great Britain as one of the greatest epochs of the year, and observed with many rejoicings as a sort of general harvest home, and with not a few curious, superstitious, heathenish, and most censurable rites as a season for prying into futurity. Some of the observances in England amount to little more than cheerful merry-making; but most of those in Scotland are an outrage upon common sense, upon good morals, and upon the Christian religion..

Finally the "Penny Cyclopedia" [24] has some new details about Halloween: Bonfires accordingly appear to have been lighted; which custom still is, or lately was, preserved in many parts of Wales. Ireland, the Western Islands, and Scotland. See, in Sir John Sinclair's Statistical Account of Scotland, the accounts of the parishes of Callander, Logierait, Kirkmichael, Aberdeen, &c.; and in Hone's Every Day Book, vol. ii., p. 1259, a letter from a correspondent describing the fires which are kindled by the children on Halloweve in the midst of the White Cart River, on which the town of Paisley stands. In the latter work, vol. i., p. 1421, &c, and also in Brands Observations on Popular Antiquities, there referred to, the reader will find many curious details respecting the antiem popular observances on the eve of All-Hallows in Wales, the North of England, Ireland, and elsewhere. After the introduction of Christianity the ringing of bells seems to have been added to the lighting of bonfires. This noisv ceremony commenced on the vigil of the feast of All-Hallows, and was continued throughout all that day and the next. It was prohibited as superstitious both by Henry VIII. and by Elizabeth; but is said not to be yet altogether abolished.... --93.232.139.212 (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned this up the page about bard of Scotland Burn's HALLOWEEN (1785) and some observances. You have used quite a lot of links there.KiwiJeff (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I think its agreed that a lot of people belive the link, I think its also true that the link was made earlier then the 19thC, and certainbly the 20thC (for example the first use of Sahmhain to describe the begining of winter is in the 10thC). Are you sure of the quote from Brands, ,I can't find it?Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I just c&p-ted the quotes from the Google Books "text only" versions... --93.232.139.212 (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

G. Books also has this "Observations on Popular Antiquities" online, as quoted in the Penny Cyclopedia quote above: [25] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.232.167.30 (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Or is it this one? [26]? It's confusing, there seem to be two books called "Observances on...", one by John Brand, one by Geeraert Brand. Serach [27] --93.232.167.30 (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need any more for now.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Gallic for November is Samhain

In Gallic countries All soles day is called Sahainn [[28]][[29]] Or there is the claim that Samhainn in fact means Halloween , and that AnTsamhain is the galic name for November [[30]][[31]]. Thats one peice of clear connection.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

As said, the neoceltic interpretation of Samhain was inspired by early Christian All souls and the name Samhoin is +- "Summersend" in the Coligny Calendar. No Proof for your intention. Bakulan (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

So are you saying that Samahain is not the Gallic word for Halloween. Can you speak Gallic? More sources [[32]][[33]] (a Callic language site look at the date, are you sugesting that Gallic speakers don't know thier own language?). also any online translation program will give you Samhaini as the translation for either novemver or all hallows tide. Couod you also preovide the quote from your sources wehre they deny that the Gallic word for November or all hallows eve is Samhain?Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Please I think you mean GaElic. "Gallic" means French! -MacRusgail (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Pagan halloween debate

A dispute has arisen over sources for the pagan or christen origins of Halloween. Essentially it’s that some German language sources published a few years ago (claiming no pagan links) trump the wider scholastic consensus about the pagan origins of the festival (well at the moment the ratio of sources is 6 to 1). This has now reached a stage where compromise seems impossible (essential the users supporting no pagan influence are refusing any compromise that does not make it clear that the sources that claim a pagan roots are wrong)Slatersteven (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

"Some german sources + some years ago", sorry, you seem to be unable to utter a sentence without POV pushing again. Just try to avoid gooosestepping when it comes to „Don’t mention the continuity!" Some examples that youre either plainly lying or just not able to decipher timestamps Stefan Moser or ask Alois Döring (all of 2010) Bakulan (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Die Religionen der Kelten 2001 (nearly 10 years ago) Halloween in der Steiermark und anderswo (2005) I thought we were only using scholarly based sources, not sources from newspapers? The Döring interview does not say that Halloween is not pagan, it does not even (as far as I can see) say that any of the traditions are not pagan and its speaking only about Halloween as celebrated today in Germany. As such it is not a source for what you claim (unless you can provide a quote I may have missed). You mosser sources is new so how can I have mis-red it before I even saw it?Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

PLease try to accept that Austria is not longer part of Großdeutschland. Hörnandner is definitly not German, neither Moser. Second they talk about the phenomenom of Halloween in continetal Europe and -en detail and with a suitable knowledge - its origins in other part ofthe world, e.g. USA and Ireland. This is not confined to Germany again. They even are able to decipher foreign language sources. Bakulan (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how the newer sources can trump the more numerous existing sources. The Celts lived in Germany in ancient times as well. It is well documented the the Catholic church co-opted many pagan holidays and ceremonies. Why not allow fot the chance the both of them are right. Both the Germans and the Scots developed the same holiday and wound up with similar traditions. I am not proposing original research or synth, but perhaps they both could be represented as the traditional view and recently purported theory. Either way, it should be made clear that the origins are not entirely clear. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I can bring various lists denying continuity in folklore research and ruling out coopting of any pagan holidays and ceremonies by the christian church. I deny the majority aspect if it comes to actual research. E.g. Hörandners books is actually result of an research project with contribtions fromvarious faculties. (No Kiddding). German speaking Halloween has developed in the last 20 years and is now +- acknowledged as local lore, e.g. by people like Döring, Döring is btw. an govenrmental official tasked to take care about folklore in the Rhineland regional authority. What role the scots play in halloween is not clear to me. Bakulan (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, especially after all the discussion that has transpired here in the last week. You've been making various assertions about the nature and origin of Halloween, but here you say you are not clear on the "role the Scots play in Halloween"? An understanding of the formation of the idea of Halloween in Scotland is necessary to understand what it became in the USA. "Halloween" is itself a Scots word. From Scotland and Ireland it was transported to America where it turned into what it is today. I disagree with Elmmapleoakpine that "both the Germans and the Scots developed the same holiday and wound up with similar traditions", though. The advent of Halloween in Germany/Austria and in Scotland was very different. When the 20th century thing-that-is-Halloween arrived in Scotland from America, it was coming "home" so to speak, back to the place it started. When it arrived in Germany/Austria, it was a foreign invasion. I think Horandner writes primarily about the aspects of that invasion of German-speaking countries. Eastcote (talk) 10:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I also find it odd that having said his sources talk about the whole Celtic world and have been an indepth study of the Halloween tradition to ignore the country who greatest poet it could be argued (writing in the 18thC) created the modern image of Halloween. The country that has the first mention of halloween. Its like saying my source are the best on the history of the USA, and who is that Washington bloke?Slatersteven (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

An austrian like Hörandner describing Germany only, Shakespeare creating the modern image of hallowwen? Erratic. Slatersteven, would you be so kind to stop smoking and try to come up with sources before you provide such claims? Bakulan (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The reference was to Scotland's Robert Burns, and nothing to do with Shakespeare. Burns' poem Halloween, was written in 1785. Slatersteven doesn't say Burns did create the modern image of Halloween. He says "it could be argued" Burns created the Halloween's modern image because of the imagery in his 18th century poem, e.g "when fairies light...beneath the moon's pale beams". I don't personally think the imagery of Burn's poem tells much about the modern Halloween, but that is my opinion. Still, the poem is evidence that Halloween itself is not strictly a 19th century American invention. Eastcote (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Editha Hörandner (editor): Halloween (2005)

As most of you do not have access to the book, which Bakulan quotes as a main source, here a short general description and some quotes. First of all, this is not really a totally scientific book. Its a collection of essays by scientists, to provide a view on modern Austrian H. from many perspectives. I'd call it "educated coffee table". At the end, it even delivers a full load of Halloween cooking recipes, like the "Dracula Shake", which would be rather unusual for a scientific book. Its written from an austrian/german perspective, and so mostly deals with Halloween as some kind of new phenomenon in these countries, or with the re-import from the US, the pumpkin from a botanical viewpoint, Halloween and mass media, or H. as an factor for the economy. However, its written by scientists of different sciences. It's editor Hörandner was an austrian folklorist scientist, and the first essay, written by herself, does cover a little bit the history of Halloween, before she turns to modern day H., which she, curiously enough, mostly describes by quoting scenes from a fictional book, the thriller "A Few Dying Words" by Paula Gosling.

So what does Hörandner say about Halloweens origins? She first quotes popular assumptions, and then says, nowadays science looks more careful at the history of customs, and demands real hard proofs (as opposite to hints or interpretations, as before). So its like in court, you distinguish between a hint, that someone did something, and a smoking-gun-style proof, which proves that 100%. Her point is, that the pagan/celtish origin is not 100% proven, and people have become more careful. She then quotes the book "Kelten" by Austrian historian Helmut Birkhan. Birkhan writes, that there were four important festivals, 1. of february, 1. may, 1. august and 1. november (Samuin/Samhain). At all these dates, and their eves, there is strong fairy activity (she still quotes Birkhan). The entries of the fairies hills are open on these dates. Samuin/Samhain also was a day for divination, she says, which hints to S. as the beginning of the winter. She quotes a document about the origin of trick-or-treat, which comes from the soul-cakes collected by beggars going from house to house, which in early europe (no date given here) was a popular christian custom also in Austria on 2. of november. For these soulcakes, the beggars would pray for the deads souls, so they got into heaven.

She then says (and Bakulan, please correct me, if you think my translation is not good or you miss anything):

One has to ... consider, that the hints (for celtic origin) only are two calendars, the druidic (Coligny?) calendar, of which only gallic fragments exist, on the one hand, and the pastoral division of the year on the other hand. Even the relation of this two is not fully, not totally explored, and even less is the question of real connections and continuities. Add to this, that one has to take into account historic reconstructions, or even constructions. But all that is not so important anyway. The wish for celtic origins, as a synonym for for a time far away, on which you can project things, is understandable, but the thing itself (the celtic origin!) can be neglected. The assured observances and especially the developement right in front of our eyes is much more exciting. (Page 11)

Afterwards, she again quotes trick-or-treat-like customs from Austra, which existed before the arrival of the (20th century US style) Halloween. Then she says:

Styria is a pumpkin country. [...] Pumpkin products belong to the Styrian identity. [...] The pumpkin with face and lamp inside is a symbol of Halloween customs. [...] Investigations found: At the end of the pumpkin harvest (she is speaking of historic Austria!) there were sometimes pumpkins put on fields or near houses, which were lit from inside and had faces, and were called "Kürbislotter", "Kürbisschädel" or "Kürbisplutzer". (Page 14)

On pages 25-27, she asks, wether H. is a pagan festival. After some general thoughts about churches in europe and the US, about pre-christian religion being viewn as "devilish" after christianization, and so on, she says (on page 27): The dispute around halloween as a pagan festival occurs in europe, and here the european continent is meant, because in Ireland and England with their galic tradition and the Wicca-cult, the situation is different, different to the USA., and in a footnote to this, she adds, Especially England would be an interesting field of study, because the Wicca-cult, "the cult of the witches" or Satan-cult, is practiced there.

On page 30, she quotes studies done by the Folklore institute of Graz university between 200-2002, studying the innovation and spread of modern Halloween, and says about these studies, Priorities were not the questions of a celtic genesis or pagan references, but rather that, what is told or written (and believed?) in this regard.

Thats about all she says about celtic orgins or not, i would resume her persepctive as "It's not a 100% proven, and does not matter anyway." Her book as source might add an interesting perspective on Halloween, though. Hope this helped, move it to the "sources" section if you think it fits better there. --93.232.160.50 (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes thats helpful. One should addas well that Hörnandner mentiones the continuity hypothesis inmore generic terms and dismisses it as being generally outdated and useless when she quotes e.g. Birkhan. She doesnt see the question as being worth while serious research. Hörander herself was an respectable old lady (1939-2008) when she wrote the book. She had a Lehrstuhl / tenure track, founded a series of books about European Ethnology and surely deserves an WP entry as well. Bakulan (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Samhain

Samhain is not longer being attributed apagan origin, its earmarked for medieval celtic / christian time. Should be coveredin the same way here. Bakulan (talk) 05:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need to start another debate thread on the pagan nature of Samhain. I think we should leave that to the Samhain talk page. Eastcote (talk) 10:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

History suggestion

• The word Halloween is first attested in the 16th century and represents a Scottish variant of the fuller All-Hallows-Even ("evening"), that is, the night before All Hallows Day. Although the phrase All Hallows is found in Old English (ealra hālgena mæssedæg, mass-day of all saints), All-Hallows-Even is itself not attested until 1556.
• Historian Nicholas Rogers, exploring the origins of Halloween, notes that while "some folklorists have detected its origins in the Roman feast of Pomona, the goddess of fruits and seeds, or in the festival of the dead called Parentalia, it is more typically linked to the Celtic festival of Samhain, ....
• The festival of Samhain celebrates the end of the "lighter half" of the year and beginning of the "darker half", and is sometimes regarded as the "Celtic New Year".
• A continuity between celtic rites and Halloween customs, is disputed especially by German speaking scholars.

This is more constructive, and could be a beginning. However, I'm very tired, it's after midnight, and my jaw hurts from today's root canal. I'll have more to say tomorrow. Eastcote (talk) 05:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it should also be popinted out that Samhain is the Gallic word for the festival.Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• The festival of Samhain celebrates the end of the "lighter half" of the year and beginning of the "darker half", and is sometimes regarded as the "Celtic New Year".. Samhainn is also the nGallic word for november, as well as the festival of Halloween.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding, "A continuity between celtic rites and Halloween customs, is disputed especially by German speaking scholars." This gets into the "rites and customs" aspect again. I don't think any serious scholarship, whether German-speaking or not, says today's Halloween customs are a continuation from Celtic rites. (I guess this is a classic "strawman". Setting up the continuity argument, when there really isn't one, just to knock it down). The question I thought we were trying to compromise on was whether Samhain formed a root onto which All Saints was grafted. So if the German-speaking scholars say that there is no connection between Samhain and Halloween, the compromise needs to say that, and not get into the customs issue at this stage. So something like this: "Some German scholars question the existence of a link between the Samhain festival and the historic Halloween." Eastcote (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

At this tiume I think we can only say its Maier's vire so the line should read.

• A continuity between celtic rites and Halloween customs, is disputed by Bernhard Maier.

Strawman doesnot apply. If there is a continuity, it shows up today. Various sources claim continuity between bonfires and celts or trick and treat and celts or apples and pomona. Generally any continuation is disputed by a complete generation of german speaking scholars (e.g. Döring and Hörandner besides Maier dismiss continuity generally as oldfashioned, Moser is even harsher) and Halloween is only a part of it. 20:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakulan (talk • contribs)

It is my understanding that we are currently debating the origin of Halloween itself, whether it has any root in Samhain or not. An argument about the Celtic continuity of modern-day Halloween customs is not at issue at this stage. Most scholars, and most editors currently participating, if not all, AGREE WITH YOU that there is NO CONTINUITY between a fabled Celtic past and today's Halloween customs such as trick-or-treat. To keep bringing up custom-continuity so it can be argued against, is setting up a strawman to knock it down again. Eastcote (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

According ot others who have read Döring and Hörandner they do not dismiss the idea that Halloween as a wider celebration has pagan roots. Perhaps you would quote Moser.Slatersteven (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit (as Harry Frankfurt has called it. "Others" - sorry could you come up with the alleged others and provide proof? http://www.theology.de/downloads/hisotorieneu.pdf Döring clearly speaks about Jack Santino claiming continuity between Tricks and treats and ancient pagan customs, last sentence could not be much clearer, same for Hörandner. Bakulan (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Bakulan, what's your position on the idea at the end of my redux section comment (search for word barebones)? –Whitehorse1 01:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Same question to Eastcote please. Your suggested lead looks good by the way. –Whitehorse1 19:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The question I think you're referring to is "perhaps reduce the History section to barebones, so it simply states as to origins/influences there're views among scholarship, historical and present, including x,y,z - without going into their veracity." Correct? If so, yes I agree with you. Barest bare bones. For instance, if we say, as I have proposed, "While most scholars trace the origin of Halloween to the pagan Celtic festival of Samhain...", then we just leave it at that, without going into what Samhain was or wasn't, whether there were bonfires and dead gods involved or not, etc. There is a separate article for Samhain, and the debate on the nature of that festival rightfully belongs there. I would keep this article to today's Halloween, with the bare reference to history. Eastcote (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

That's the one, yes. Barer though. We'd have to drop the most parts I think, since we aren't as it stands in a position of having done a survey of high quality scholarship so as to give primacy to one view. I agree about the distinct articles, too. –Whitehorse1 00:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps take oout pagan, as there is little (but some) evidacen that Samhain was pagan but a lot of evodacne it was Celtic (well celibrated by teh Celtic church for a start).Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we can make some sort of distinction between traditional, mainstream, or whatever, scholarship, which does tie Samhain to Halloween, and the schlarship that sees no connection at all (if we can ever establish that Bakulan's sources see NO connection). That there is a connection between them is in all the sources I've ever read. Bakulan is asserting that his sources see no connection, but it's not totally clear to me yet whether these German-language sources are making the case for no connection at all, or they are seeing no connection to German/Austrian tradition. When I translate them it does not come across the way he is asserting it. Because they are all German language it is not clear to me, as an English speaker. Eastcote (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Continuing from our comments, and taking into account Dbachmann's paganism point, for example, how about this: On origins and influences of Halloween, there are views among scholarship, historical and present, which include that of the Celtic Samhain and Christian festivals of All Saints' Day and All Souls' Day. (Could add 'Roman feasts' I suppose.) Words wikilinked as appropriate. –Whitehorse1 18:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd give this wording thumbs up.KiwiJeff (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about its readability. I would prefer

There are many views among scholars, historical and present, as to the origins and influences of Halloween. These include that of the Celtic Samhain and Christian festivals of All Saints' Day and All Souls' Day. I don't thinki we need worry about Panona as its prety fringe now.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with dropping the Roman bit, yeah. I could probably go with breaking it up into sentences. I'd prefer the word scholarship to scholars though, so the focus is the views themselves. Agree? –Whitehorse1 17:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

a comment re "A continuity between celtic rites and Halloween customs, is disputed especially by German speaking scholars", could you make it any more obvoious that you haven't seen the source and have no idea what it is saying? The fact that Maier is a German speaking scholar (singular) has nothing to do with anything. If Maier makes a relevant point, kindly report what point that is, or else drop the reference altogether. I am also growing tired of the implication that "Celtic" means "pagan". There is no evidence that Samhain was a pagan "rite" to begin with, so obviously there cannot be any claims of "continuity" with such "rites" either. I would agree that Bakulan is shooting down strawmen. If the opinion that "there is continuity between Celtic pagan antiquity and modern 'trick or treat'" you will need to establish tht this opinion has any credibility in the first place and cite serious scholars that uphold it. Only then will it make sense to cite scholars disagreeing with this position. Trying to "debunk" something that hasn't been established as a serious opinion in the first place is a bad idea. --dab (𒁳) 07:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I beleive we have found sources that say there is a link between Halloween and the pagan Celtic festival at the end of October. Most however don't say pagan, just Celtic.Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just a note that I've now inserted the Lead Eastcote suggested elsewhere on this page, since its content is Neutral and not under dispute. I wikilinked it & very slightly copyedited the last part (telling ghost stories or other frightening tales --> telling scary stories) but otherwise it's identical. Still interested to hear your positions on the idea (now amended to account for other's input), in green directly above. –Whitehorse1 21:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

E.g. Jack Santino (SANTINO, Jack: Halloween in America. Contemporary Customs and Performances) tries to make a connection between trick and treat and pagan celts, Döring debunks it. If this is a strawman, its to be found in a good book. Balthasar Fischer sees a connection between the celtic (8./9.th century) Samhain and All Saints. This wopuld be a local issue of the celtic church but nothing about pagans. Dont try to play strawman with me btw. ;) I wont agree with anything trying to hide the fact that the origin of All saints is rather clear and the origin of Halloween is reather modern. Bakulan (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Jack Santino, well he says a lot of things. The paper you cited refers to customs traced directly to ancient Celtic days, first calendar day of the New Year, medieval witchcraft and ancient Greco-Roman fertility cults and lots else. The suggested green-text doesn't mention pagan celts, or indeed pagans at all, nor the early part of the early middle ages. By economy of wording, it doesn't discuss Samhain or All Saints, merely wikilinks. Hmm. I think you may've been replying to more than one comment. Just to iterate, the intention was it states: a) within scholarship views have been forward including but not limited to Celtic Samhain, All Saints'/All Hallows' days, b) specifically notes the views may be historical--and/or put forward long ago, or contemporary; and c) neither gives primacy to any view or debates all or specific elements of them. The article'll still need work; future article development will follow as we identify the best modern sources. –Whitehorse1 23:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm good with the green wording. Sometimes less is more. Eastcote (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, some distinction should be drawn between the origins of the holiday/festival itself, and the origins of the customs associated with it. When the wording says "origins and influences" it could be taken to also include the customs associated with the day. Perhaps drop "influences" from the sentence. Halloween itself might have originated with Samhain or All Saints, but it has been influenced by many things in it's customs and imagery. For instance Trick-or-treating per se might have only appeared in the 1920s, when the phrase "trick-or-treat" was first recorded, but scholarship has this activity as being influenced by the earlier guising. So I would propose, There are many views among scholars, historical and present, as to the origins of Halloween. These include the Celtic Samhain and Christian festivals of All Saints' Day and All Souls' Day. The various customs and imagery of modern Halloween (jack-o-lanterns, apple-bobbing, trick-or-treating, etc.) can be treated under separate headings, with summaries of the influences that made them what they are today. Eastcote (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Babysteps Eastcote, babysteps. –Whitehorse1 14:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah...that's exactly what I was saying. Keep it to the "origin" for now, and get into "influence on customs" later. Eastcote (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

'origins and influences' is broad/unspecific. –Whitehorse1

I would agree that spliting the aticle down more is a good idea, But for now lets just try and get this bit sorted. So do those who oppose the green text have an alternative text?Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It's more or less unopposed so far, I think: It's unclear if Bakulan opposes post-clarification. Bakulan, this wouldn't preclude Future additions like a sentence mentioning Döring or whoever. S, you okay with returning the word scholarship over scholars? –Whitehorse1 16:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Based on recent discussion in other sections, I think the wording does not adequately convey the prevailing view in scholarship of the origin of Halloween. In the attempt to accommodate all viewpoints, it has become wishy-washy. It sounds like "There are a lot of views, but no one is really sure." Scholars who have studied the overall history of Halloween are not that wishy-washy, and do come to conclusions about how Halloween came to be. As Hutton, probably the most circumspect and restrained of the scholars on the topic, puts it in the chapter "Samhain" in Stations of the Sun, "There seems to be no doubt that the opening of November was a major pagan festival... Its importance was reinforced by the imposition upon it of a Christian festival..." The wording should reflect that prevailing view. Sources offered in support of the other view are not looking at Halloween in the broad sense, but at the late-20th century invasion of the trans-Rhine by the Americanized Halloween. These sources should not be given equal weight when discussing the overall history of the day. Eastcote (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. The problem is the German view espoused by Bakulan cuts through the various developments (have a look at the farcical German wikipedia article). On this history discussion, i agree a rather fringe viewpoint in the wording has been given equal status, and basically tells the reader to make up their own mind without giving a more accepted viewpoint. IIRC i advocated your initial wording "while many" scholars see... and "others find no connection". I'm all for balance, with views weighted accordingly. KiwiJeff (talk) 06:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

What a difference a day makes. We seem to be going backwards. I thought we'd moved on from the notion that thorough research was either unneccessary or we'd already done it making us able to say what authorities hold foremost on all the various aspects. Please lets not lose focus. –Whitehorse1 21:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No one is going backwards. We should simply state what the principle scholarship says. Research has been done by many folklorists, and regarding Halloween most "authorities" do hold that Samhain was the origin of what we today call Halloween, onto which All Saints was heavily layered. This article should reflect what mainstream scholarship has to say. The article should not read as if "no one is really sure" when there are some solid works out there that state it solidly. Eastcote (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay. –Whitehorse1 23:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Compromise for Discussion

This proposed compromise describes what Halloween IS in the lead, and leaves any discussion of what Halloween WAS or MIGHT HAVE BEEN for the "History" section. This proposed compromise is from the point of view that the present dispute is only about the origin of Halloween. This says nothing about the origin of Halloween customs. We can discuss how to address that after we settle on wording for the origin of the event itself.

LEAD: Halloween (or Hallowe'en) is an annual holiday observed on October 31, which commonly includes activities such as trick-or-treating, wearing costumes and attending costume parties, carving jack-o'-lanterns, bonfires, apple bobbing, visiting haunted attractions, playing pranks, telling ghost stories or other frightening tales, and watching horror films.

HISTORY: The name "Halloween" is first attested in the 16th century as a Scottish shortening of the fuller All-Hallows-Even. While most scholars trace the origin of Halloween to the pagan Celtic festival of Samhain, heavily influenced in the Middle Ages by the Christian festival of All Saints, some have begun to question whether there is any connection with ancient paganism at all and see the celebration derived entirely from Christian tradition.

Please keep the discussion here limited to the WORDING of the compromise. Sources pro-or-con Celtic origin should be added above under "Sources" and should be dicussed there. Eastcote (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the article, I found that it was a complete jumble. Before we can even begin to consider subtle points of neutrality or bias, the article will have to be put in a halfway coherent arrangement.

There was a "history" section, but most of the history of the festival was actually discussed in the other sections. I have tried to arrange the existing material a little more coherently, and got rid of the most obviously flawed material.

The origins of the Halloween festival lie in the 19th century US, and the "history" section will need to discuss whatever can be discovered about that period. Of course there can also be a section on earlier, pre-modern roots of the individual components, but that is at best of tangential interest to the topic.

The pre-modern festivals of Samhain, All Saints and All Souls already have their own standalone articles and can simply be linked. Likewise, detailed discussion of the origins of the jack-o'-lantern, wassailing etc. should go to the dedicated articles. This article has the business of discussing the incorporation of such elements into the US festival of Halloween, and it should stick to doing just that. --dab (𒁳) 13:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thats certainly not accurate; the concept of costuming and going from house to house at Halloween is 19th century Scotland. The practice occured in the form of trick or treating in 20th century US/Canada (1927 is when its attested). The phrase itself then was exported. Investigation is needed to verify other observances in the history section.LisaSandford (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

From what I can see, the reorganization looks good, and is perhaps a good way to start. I agree with DAB that if there is another article specifically about something mentioned in this article, we don't need to go into great length here, just link to the principal article. I also agree with Lisa that it is not just a USA thing. The origins go back beyond 19th century USA, as shown by Burns' poem from the 18th century. But, brevity and relevance are key. If it's important to giving an understanding of Halloween, put it in, but we don't need to get down in the weeds on every aspect. Eastcote (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with both Eastcote and Lisa. We need to give a definitive, chronological record of the development of the holiday. In terms of its ancient origin, there will always be a grey area as its predominantly opinion, therefore its essential it is displayed in such a way that represents the weight of each.KiwiJeff (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes Lisa, I agree that discussion of 19th century customs in Scotland and their transfer to America are within the scope of this article. I am just trying to avoid having this article spin off into a discussion of carved lanterns, wassailing, Samhain and other items in medieval Europe. KiwiJeff's use of "ancient" is a prime example of this: Halloween has no "ancient origin". The term can be traced to the 18th century, the associated traditions in Scotland, Ireland and the US to the 19th century. Let the article focus on that, and let other articles deal with medieval predecessors of these traditions.

Of course I am not opposed to the presence of a brief section on pre-modern origins. But whatever opinions we cite on the influence of earlier traditions on the formation of the festival in the 18th to 19th century, they concern developments that took place during the 18th to 19th century, not the ultimate origin of those traditions in the Middle Ages. --dab (𒁳) 17:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with both notions of the "origin" of Halloween, if that's possible. There was an "ancient", and European, root somewhere in time. But the Halloween we know today is (and I might catch flak for this) an American thing. Samhain had something to do with it, so it can't be dismissed out of hand, and there was a thing called "Halloween" in Scotland in the 16th century. But the thing-that-is-Halloween that this article describes, is an American invention. I lived in England in the 1980s and 90s, and in the early 80s the locals thought we Americans peculiar when we held a Halloween party, and I spent October and November in Scotland in 1982, and didn't see a sign of Halloween. It was a distinctly American thing to do. There were bonfires lit all over the place on 5 Nov, but no Halloween. By the late 1990s, there were parties all over London. I know there are roots in Scotland and Ireland, but Halloween, as it exits today, is as American as George Patton. Eastcote (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Not true, and its an easy mistake. You stayed in England (where i live) which is completely different to both Scotland and Ireland which have a shared Gaelic culture. Here Guy Fawkes Night (5th of November) has always been celebrated more, whereas in Scotland and Ireland its Halloween. This year the London firefighters threatened to go on strike on 5th November, if they were in Ireland for instance they would have done so on Halloween. We had this issue a few weeks ago when some English users wanted to remove UK from nations that celebrated it.LisaSandford (talk) 12:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You know its odd but I went to a school Halloween party in the late 70's. I can also remember local pubs (though onloy a few) having Halloween parties in the ealry 80's. This was in Essex. As I have said in the UK Halloween has always been regionalisedSlatersteven (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Question about the LEAD: Is Halloween an official holiday anywhere and b) really observed on Octobr 31th (one might assume the evening bevore first of Nov as for Christmas or Sylvester)? Bakulan (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The definition of "holiday" depends on which English-speaking country you are in, I think. "Holiday" doesn't have the same meaning in the USA as it does in the UK. As I understand it, in the UK a holiday is something officially sanctioned by church or state. But in the USA it's any day that has social, cultural or commercially-manufactured significance, whether official or not. By American logic, Mother's Day, Sweetest Day, and Groundhog Day are called holidays right along with Christmas or Independence Day. We do have "official" hoildays in the USA, as determined by congress I suppose. Halloween is not official. If there is a better word that "holiday" for Halloween that fits all definitions, I'm up for it. But the definition of holiday has been debated here before, I think. And yes, it is observed on October 31st, all day long. Eastcote (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

INterestin! That is an important difference. I assume most continental European and german customs focus on the evening, the "Eve" aspect. Döring, citizen assumes a "carnevalization" in the rhineleand. FYI All Saints is a "silent holiday" by German law. Most states (e.g. bavaria) do not allow dancing halls and discotheques to play loud music and have people dancing. Insofar commercial halloween parties often end at midnight. Bakulan (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

According Alois Döring, trick and treat started as late as the 1930ies in the US. However several cadging customs are much elder. Döring points out, that poor people used Halloween to move around at different houses, and offered to pray for the souls of dead members of the inhabitants families, They received small gifts for thios services. Interview with Döring, details in the book Brauchtum im Rheinland Bakulan (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we have a direct quote supporting the claim that Trick or treating only dates from the 30's as there are claims that the term is used as early as 1927 in the usa.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The term "holiday" means different things depending what part of the world you are in. As a kid in Ireland we loved Halloween as we got at least 3 dsys off school. Having lived in Ireland and then Scotland i have heard it being called a festival, celebration, event, probably more so than holiday. Andymcgrath (talk) 13:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

non american celibrations of Halloween, 19thC

Here is a source [[34]] that talks apple bobbing and other practices and makes it clear its an observed festival (1832, London) another [[35]] soucre that makes it clear Halloween was celebrated in the UK in the early 19thC (1843, Edinbough) anore early referance [[36]] (1846, London). Its clear from this that from at least the 1830's ( and with Burns included the 18thC) Halloween was celebrated in much the same way it is today in various parts of teh Uk. So no its not an American imported holiday.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

And in that context, I wonder, what the curious, superstitious, heathenish, and most censurable rites were, that the rural enyclopedia quoted above in the 19th century sources segment talks about (source Nr. 40), because to me, that does definitely not sound like "christian origin". --93.232.178.148 (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

First according the source Halloween wasnt at all celebrated in much the same way it is today - neither pumpkins nor treats nor parties. Second superstitions have been interpreted (19th century) by continuity believers as being pagan yes. But customs based on the concept of purgatory do not have anything to do with a pagan past, neither are divination nor apple bobbing proofs of that. Third if you use 19th century primary or secondary sources to underline your claims, you just prove the claim that continuism is oldfashioned and outdated. Folklore studies and Volkskunde have seen new results, would you dare to use 19th century Phlogiston textbooks to discuss articles about physics? Bakulan (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Firstly Treats are a part of Halloween from the past (what did thny give the Guisers?, what are apples?). Also you have onoly mentionjed two things, Apple Bobbing, Treak or Treating (called Gusing), Bomfires (excepting England), dressing in costumes (off the top of my head, there may be oterhs) can be attested to from about the 1850's, or earlier, in the Celitc lands of the west. Nor were these sources being used to prove what you appear to be objecting to. I was not using them to provide proof of a pagan past. I was using them to demonstartate that the idea that Halloween is an Ameicaqn creation (or even that most of the things we associate with Halloween as american) is wrong. That Halloween in its modern form (Apple Bobbing, begging in costumes ect) can be demonstrated to have been present in the British isle from the 1830's at the very least (before thewir alledged appearacne in the AMcerica's).Slatersteven (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but thats OR in its worst form. Bakulan (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Well - here's some more. I guess it depends on your perspective. As a kid growing up in Australia 50 years ago, Halloween did not exist. Everything about Halloween now "celebrated" (or hated) here has come from American TV and movies. OK, it may have started somewhere else, but without that American link Halloween would not exist in Australia. HiLo48 (talk)

That may be true, but this article is not about Halloween in Austrailia, the USA, or Germany. Its about the whole of halloween from it provable beginings in 16thC Scotland thru to its curretn incarnartion. With sections on possible earlier beginings. But we should not give undue wieght to (for example) the US (does it really matter when Guising is first mentioned in the USA?)Slatersteven (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Rpl to Bkualn, What's OR are you saying that the sources I provided that were published in say 1832 are tlaking about later eventsd?Slatersteven (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have sources (e,g, Döring) that claim that Trick or treat is an US american 20 century habit and most of nowadays customs are predominatly american. Thats using secondary sources as one is supposed to use. Your primary sources report about different halloween traditions, e.g. using a garter or other divibation vehicles to determine ones future spouse. Your assumption, that this would be similar to nowadays customs is Original Research in its purest form.Bakulan (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The earliest referance to Guising (the activity today called Trick or Treating) is in Shakesspear, he was writing some 200 years before the formation of the USA. Perhaps you could provide the Doring quote so we can put it in context. Its sad that souling has morphed into trick or treat, its such a poetic idea.Slatersteven (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Döring is quite in line which what the gusing article says: "Trick-or-treating does not seem to have become a widespread practice until the 1930s, with the first U.S. appearances of the term in 1934,[15] and the first use in a national publication occurring in 1939." Guising is definitely not trick and treating. "Before the 1980s, the North American phrase "trick-or-treat" was little known in the UK and when introduced was often regarded as an unusual and even unwelcome import. Guising is devoid of any jocular threat." In so far there is neither proof that one morphed into the other and there is again no proof of any significant continuity. I would assume that trick ad treat like most other nowadays halloween traditions (see e.g. Jack-o'-lantern) are 20th century and of US american heritage.Bakulan (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

But according to your source Hörandner, there were face-shape carved, lit pumpkins in Austria long before 20th century Halloween invading Austria. And souling as pre-trick-or-treat was common all over europe in the middle ages. I'd also like to point out, that we have all kinds of continuities coming from the iron age or even earlier. Fire. The wheel. Funerals. Farming and agriculture. Clothes, months, settlement sites. Language, art and music. Deities. Knives, scissors and cups. And so on. Or are these also 19th century reconstructions? --93.232.178.148 (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Also I do not see any part where Doring says that guising is not the direct ancestor (and parent) of Trick or treating, just that they have dissimilar aspects. Also the first use of the term in North America appears to be 1927, not 1934. So your source does not appear to be even that accurate. So I shall ask again provide the quote wee Doring explicitly says that Tick or treat is not a development of Souling or Guising.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me clear things up. Its the late 19th Century Halloween in Scotland that the Scottish started to go 'guising' — people in disguise going around the neighborhood and going up to doors to receive food/coins — which is the largest aspect of Halloween to this day. Today some guisers still perform for their treats e.g.poem or song, some don't bother, and instead state phrase "trick or treat" which is from Canada 1927. Parties, accompanied with apple bobbing, are certainly early 19th century among the Irish and Scottish. The Germans & Aussies who did not celebrate Halloween, have indeed been exported this holiday from America so they naturally have that take on it. Via mass Irish and Scottish migration it crossed the Atlantic to U.S. and Canada in the 19th Century, and over the last 20 years has crossed back over the Atlantic to Germany, and to a degree Australia. To give an analogy, the English language was brought to the Phillipines by the U.S., who had it brought to them from England in colonial times. Similarly the holiday has criss crossed.FrankieS17 (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

In a nutshell.KiwiJeff (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

My take on guising is that it is like "trick or treat" in that you go round doors dressed up, but that then you're supposed to do a trick or sing a song/do a dance. However, "trick or treat" has elements of Mischief night, which while not unknown in Scotland is much more prevalent in northern England.

Also, Scots started the lantern thing as well. Although traditionally we used a turnip (a "tumshie", not a "neep" btw) which is a bugger to carve out. So thumbs up for pumpkins anyway.

In regard to German influence, I'd suggest that the American Halloween has also taken on influences from Walpurgisnacht, which was presumably celebrated by the numerous old German communities in the states.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Poor peoples Guising is not souling and neither has to do with trick or treating by kids. Martinisingen or Walpurgisnacht are not observed in the US and have nothing to do with Halloween. You seem to prefer personal speculations in permanent comittee mode. Technically the turnip carving traditionally done in some german regions is being killed by halloween, not being continued oir enhanced. Bakulan (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you read what I said? I used the past tense - "was... celebrated". The USA is very German in some respects - e.g. the whole Fraternity business. I've no idea what you mean by "souling". Guising is not much different from trick or treating except it doesn't have the malicious element. That's not to say pranks were never played on Halloween.--MacRusgail (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes and I regret it. Provide speculation elsewhere, here it should be about actual siources. 22:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakulan (talk • contribs)

Some interesting points from MacRusgail concerning customs from Scotland, northern England, and Germany. Culture in the USA is an amalgum of many national influences. A major group to settle in colonial America were the "Scotch-Irish" (originally from Lowland Scotland and northern England, who had been resettled in northern Ireland). This group settled in Pennsylvania when they first came to America, in the same counties settled by Germans from the Rhine area. I've never read it anywhere, and this is my own self-indulgent original research, but the Scottish and northern English customs of guising and Mischief Night could have blended with other customs in Ireland, and been further influenced by German ideas from their neighbors in Pennsylvania. But again, I've never read this anywhere. By the way, we still have "Mischief Night" in the USA, but it's mainly called "Devil's Night" I think. It's the night before Halloween, and it has come to involve serious crimes such as arson in some places. Eastcote (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"could have blended", "personal research", "never read it anywhere". Thats a good conclusion of state and style of the EnWP Halloween article. Disgusted Bakulan (talk) 06:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

There is the same thing in southern Germany, where I witnessed it myself, but on Walpurgisnacht / eve of 1. May, called "Freinacht". German WP has an article on that [37]. Now Bakulan is right, that only scientific sources should be used, not personal speculation. But if this question is of importance here, one should be able to find folklorist studies on german immigration in the US, and cultural phenomenons connected with that. I only know of the "Octoberfests", derived from the famous Munich one, which is not too old. But again, I would like to point out, that Hörandner speaks about carved, lit pumpkins in Austria at harvest-home/All saints-time, long before 20th century Halloween. I do not know what that means and don't want to speculate. It maybe would be helpful for the history section, to create some kind of timeline, which displays changing, evolving and disappearing customs in different countries, connected with the festival. And judging from the historical accounts, Scotland and Ireland seem to be of special interest here. --93.232.154.236 (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course my personal musings are not intended to become part of the article itself. That's why it's on the talk page, not in the article. The point is, many things blended to become Halloween, and there's no hard line of contiunity from one specific source. Eastcote (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the existance of (assumed) hard lines of continuity in the 19th century and ealry 20th and the much more differentiated view nowadays are subject of large books and studies, e.g. "Kontinuität und Diskontinuität in der Archäologie: quellenkritisch-vergleichende Studien Thomas Knopf" or "Kontinuität-Diskontinuität in den GeisteswissenschaftenH Trümpy - 1973 - Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft". "Traditionale Welten Kontinuität und Wandel in der VolkskulturH Bausinger - Historische Zeitschrift, 1985 - JSTOR" and very suitable "Antike Motive und Elemente in der Fastnacht des Spätmittelalters? Zu Kontinuität und Diskontinuität der Traditionen des klassischen AltertumsW Mezger - Stätten und Formen der Kommunikation im …, 1993 - WVT Trier". The very fact that humans speak mate, eat, hold hands and die since ages does not mean that a catholic last supper, a protestant wedding, an atheist burial, a wicca handfasting and a free masons meal of brothers are the same. Some here subsume traditions with similar differences as"halloweeninc", which is lunatic One can describe Halloween as a modern tradition and give an idea about the post 1995 halloween invasion. This might be a nice job for the cartographers workshop. One can describe that various authors assumed continuities from prechristian times and non church resp pagan influences, verymuch along frazers "magic-religion-science" development paradigma. One has to show however that this is highly controversial. The clearest and best proven continuity is the change of some medieval alls saints (christian) customs into nowadays halloween, which have been misundertsood for being pagan. Bakulan (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I do see what you're saying, Bakulan. In many respects history study, folklore studies and volkskunde have seen a progression within from C19th methodologies e.g. Andrew Lang, hastily drawn connections of alleged archetypes (Dundes, 2005; Bausinger, various; et al.). I'm sure we'd all agree sometimes less talk is needed (!). Our shared interest is making progress; adding content that's being actively discussed [38] (final 2 sentences) can conflict with that. Your efforts in citing academic references here are appreciated. It's also important where others take the time to read what was cited, so as to make considered replies, that the understandable urge to make progress doesn't act against discussions taking place. Any feedback you have following the replies to your comment above would be great. Best, Whitehorse1. 21:17, 18 November 2010 22:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Some of us have tried to read the sources provided, and its thrown up many questions and doubts. I would also poinjt out that as all of his sources are i German we actiualy need some German speakers to come here and read them. Perhaops it would be helpfull if he either found English lagnuage sources or provided more quotes. We have also provided sources but one user refuses to acept them.Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I just have made clear what scientists say. My comment is based on Hörandner page 28-30. However in the article Rogers is still being taken serious and the direct connection of Halloween to all saints is still left out. Bakulan (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, not disputing your source says that. It's more that adding detail about 'kontinuität' in one section during discussion about it in another might be confusing! I think we're at crossed purposes? The proposed green text referring to All Saints would replace everything in the History section (aside from the Origin of name part). –Whitehorse1 22:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but the green text is not acceptable. The origin of halloween is Eve of All saints. Wether All Saints has been inspired by Samhain (respectively Samhain existed at all) is highly dubious, the idea that medieval all saints inspired various folklore still in use today, from irish to welsh to mexican is quite comon and convincing. 12:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakulan (talk • contribs)

Some sources say Samhain, some sources say All Saints. The proposed wording is balanced and does not play favorites. I think everyone has gone out of their way to balance the phrasing. Eastcote (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

After (what two weeks) we can sum it up as Bakulan's sources are right and every other source is wrong, am I correct? That the only text that Bakulan would find acceptable is one that makes that clear?Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

My sources are being based on actual research, yes. Bakulan (talk) 05:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you specify, which sentences of Hörandner/Halloween, page 28-30, you exactly mean? On pages 28-30, Hörandner talks about various things, including esoteric groups, witches, Walpurgisnight, Nazis, etc. The only hard facts she quotes there are on page 30: The study of Graz university, see the section about her book above for that. And your source also quotes scenes from a paperback thriller when it comes to modern US Halloween, is this really the best you can come up with? I think, Hutton is a better source in this regard, much more detailed, with sources, etc. --93.232.166.149 (talk) 11:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Bakulan, your sources are not the only ones based on "actual research", and as IP notes, there are better sources out there. I received Rogers' Halloween: From Pagan Ritual to Party Night, and in spite of the title, it is quite a well done book, and covers in detail what is under discussion here. Santino has at least two books out on Halloween, one from an overall perspective, and one about the history of the day in Ireland and how it has developed differently than the "American" version, though coming from a common starting point. Hutton, I agree, is superior for the "deep history" of Halloween, and takes a hard look at evidence on the origins and development of Halloween in Britain. I think we have stretched way out to give your point of view equal credibility, to the point that we may have gone a bit too far. I'm tired of hearing that your view is the "One True Faith". Eastcote (talk) 13:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

This does seem to be a rather regionalised fringe view. Perhpas we are gcving it too much wieght, but I had hoped it would help to create a spirit of compromise. It does not effectivly (as I suspected a long while back) there is a battel ground mentality that says I am right and everyone else is wrong. At no time has the idea of included the non-celtic view been seriously discused, and despite its relative limited representation in sources, had been given equal wieght to the more prevelant view.Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The "regionalized fringe view" is the one to get published in real reviewed journals, e.g. Zeitschrift für Volkskunde with international contributions and outlook. How you can estimate the farcicity of the German article I can only guess. As well I dont get what "at no time has the idea of included the non-celtic view been seriously discused" means. I miss some grammar and topic so far. Santinos ideas about halloween have been named and debunked, e.g. by Döring in a real journal.

I miss a historical timeline in the article so far. Previous research claimed a celtic pagan origin, some a celtic medieval origin and more often we have interconfessional aspects where english orangemen denounced catholic folklore as being +- heathen. A real interesting idea would be to include the connection All saints and the use of the Pantheon in Rome, which often is used as a sort of prime evidence for "continuity". Bakulan (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Bakulan, I'm surprised you find the green text unacceptable. I thought you may reply that you wanted a sentence added, referring to e.g. Döring, but the green statement itself didn't seem contentious. All it says is that over time scholarship written on origins/influences has talked of Samhain and of All Saints. –Whitehorse1 21:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Scholarship has talked as well about Phlogiston in the past. I see the green text as a case of undue weight and weaseling. Samhain as a prechristian celtic festival is not at all proven, Samhain as a 11th century reinvention is OK, but this has to be outlined. Bakulan (talk) 10:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Except we are not talking about scholership that is 50 years old, or even 10 ears old. This (the pagan infkluences on Halloween) is not an outdated theory dis-prioved by more modern scholership. Its a currently accepted theory by a very large section of the scholastioc community (if we go by the sourcves provided) that i9s disputed by some Austrian Scholers (if there are some non-Austiran scholers who dispute a Celtic origon can we have some quotesd please)?).Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ney. The whole paradigma of continuity has been dismissed. Its up to you to provide a quote about continuity by someone doing actual reasearch and having his claims checked in peer reviewed literature. Bakulan (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Actualy thre is no such requirment, iun fact we do not even have to use scholers (though we have provided plenty of such) we just have to use RS (such as the BBC). Moreover how do you know that all of teh sources we have provided above have not done research? You have not demonstrated that your soures are speaking about anything more then Austria.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

?? Green cheese??. I have quoted e.g. Döring (which is a German) who dismisses Santino explicitely. I have provided as well sources that show that the whole continuity bullshit is being generally dismissed by actual research. Youre filibustering. Come up with a real journals instead coffee table books. Bakulan (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the "committee" speculation comment or whatever it was. I'm not one for working in "committees" as you put it. Frankly, your English is so quirky and bizarre I'm having trouble working out what sie meinen half the time. Was bedeutet "souling" auf Englisch z.b.?!--MacRusgail (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Committee Mode: Robert's Rules of Order, Souling: Try google. Bakulan (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing

It appears Wikipedia:Canvassing has been occurring. (cf. {{Uw-canvass}}.) All are invited to review that guideline. Thanks. –Whitehorse1 17:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Well bollocks to that, sorry. I'm all for it, especially if an article is in a bad way like this, and is badly needing attention. It's not the only article on wikipedia which has an American bias.--MacRusgail (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. As for the second sentence, esp. in the 1st version, yes, we know. :) Lots about it needs work. Overall, as articles are meant to be built from reliable secondary sources, where contributors come from should not and does not matter. For instance, own personal recollections or observations might be interesting to us (and very often are), but in themselves aren't material with which we can build the article. Nobody's saying talking to one another is bad. At the same time, notifying in ways discouraged by the guideline has potential to cause problems. Ultimately we should be able to produce a page that's disinterested, interesting, accurate, and which covers all that it should. –Whitehorse1 06:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The best way to find secondary sources is to work together, otherwise we end up with a bunch of edits which are basically aligned to personal opinion.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Globalize around the world section

Having scanned the article, the only section that contains a North American perspective is the "around the world" section. As noted in this discussion page, many features of Halloween (kids going from door to door in disguise, Halloween parties) took place in the British isles at Halloween prior to North America. Further up we have Ruth Edna Kelly's account of customs coming over to America from the British isles. The first line "Halloween is not celebrated in all countries and regions of the world, and among those that do the traditions and importance of the celebration vary significantly" is fine. Following this should be mention of Ireland and Scotland celebrating it, then the holiday being brought over to North America, and from there, nations whom it has since been exported to.LisaSandford (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

...from the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, Australia is one of those mentioned whom it has been. Through influence of TV shows i presume.LisaSandford (talk) 20:40 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, TV, movies, and commercial promotions. Those with something to sell love to find a new hook. HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Something like add as well as its celebration there having been influenced by the British isles to the 2nd sentence? –Whitehorse1 03:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Halloween is celebrated in many places, but is it really universal? I doubt it. Can't see it being much followed in Muslim countries or Africa, for example... -MacRusgail (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

When listing Scotland and Ireland, two Scottish Halloween practices; "Guising" (children going from house to house in disguise) and Parties (which include apple bobbing), are two of the four major practices in Ireland on Halloween night, others are lighting bonfires, and having firework displays. For the second sentence i propose; "In Scotland and Ireland, traditional Halloween customs include children dressing up in costume going "guising", and holding parties. Other practices in Ireland include lighting bonfires, and having firework displays." Andymcgrath (talk) 10:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Better one sentence: "In Scotland and Ireland, traditional Halloween customs include children dressing up in costume going "guising", holding parties, while other practices in Ireland include lighting bonfires, and having firework displays." That covers it. The next line should read something like..'Mass transatlantic immigration in the 19th century brought the holiday to North America'.. then continue how its currently written... and celebration in the U.S. and Canada.... The last line should read "continental" Europe. Regional chronology, i would add New Zealand [39] as similar to Australia its slowly gaining in popularity. KiwiJeff (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

There is already an article about Halloween around the world. what is needed here? Bakulan (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Its an overview, then with images etc. in the article.KiwiJeff (talk) 09:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually the practice of the bonfife is also a very Scottish tradition fireworks however are not used as they would have been done on the 5th of November this page [[40]] explains the scottish tradition of the bonfire during Halloween. Uthican (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Scotland/Ireland in one is fine. Following that, mass transatlantic immigration is apt in telling how it was brought to North America, then alluding to Hilo's point, "and via the media" 'celebration in the United States and Canada has had a significant impact on how', tells of how it was subsequently exported from North America to various regions. LisaSandford (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

+

Any sources for your claims? Bakulan (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Lisa just said the same thing you've been saying for days..."the return migration" of Halloween from America to Europe, as I believe your own sources phrased it. Eastcote (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The holiday did not move to the USA, it was developed and constructed in the USA on base of the model of a rather weak irish predecessor. Compare Queimada. Bakulan (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)-

The night Halloween itself was popularized in North America (Canada exists too by the way where "guising" is recorded in Ontario in 1911, and "trick or treat" phrase appeared there in 1927) following transatlantic immigration. You are giving a narrow German perspective of the holiday that came to Germany from America, a worldwide perspective (globalized) is required here.KiwiJeff (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely a global persepective is essential, also in reference to the return migration to 'continental' Europe, and NZ is also worth inclusion similar to Australia.LisaSandford (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah in New Zealand the celebration isn't as huge as others, but it is gaining popularity.KiwiJeff (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Varying degrees of importance is mentioned, so its inclusive of regions, such as NZ as you put forward, where it is not as significant. Other regions that this applies to can also be mentioned.LisaSandford (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Äh, you seem to see Austria as part of germany still und you seem as well to believe a state of research as of 1942 (Handbuch des deutschen Aberglaubens as copied and pasted by Serano and others) is the one to be prvided here. I doubt it. Bakulan (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we can proceed with that wider perspective in mind. We're back to talking about Spanish beverages again. Eastcote (talk) 12:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, discussion about the standard of German wikipedia article can be discussed elsewhere.LisaSandford (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

What you outline as "wider perspective" is rather narrowminded 19th century german, to say the least ;) Its interesting btw that the enWP still assumes an ancient origin of the Ossian sagas would be feasible. The German WP has it debunked, same as for the Hitler Diaries or Samhain continuity. Bakulan (talk) 11:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

And I think the German WP artciel has been described as a mess here. Besides jusr becasue the Marsian WP says that the moon is mae of Green chesses does not mean we have to.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I dont care about youze claims about the quality of Martian green cheese nor celtic customs. I miss important German speaking scholars research in this article, thats all. Bakulan (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Please stop copy and pasting on mass with older edits

I removed the copy and paste edit on the 18th July, 1) it contains now defunct older edits; 2) its way too long for an article as well as confusing for a reader. I understand we all want to contribute to wikipedia and make mistakes ourselves (myself included). Just dont think you'll contribute to an article by copy and pasting large blocks of text from a past edit. At least discuss your ideas for the article on this page as the text was removed for a reason.ZauRee (talk) 04:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Counter-reformational origin

While some other Protestants celebrate the holiday as Reformation Day, a day to remember the Protestant Reformation.

That is a distortion. 31 Oct is Reformation Day. As a result catholic Irish celebrated the holiday of their Protestant British rulers as All Hallows Eve. You should remove the bias of the article against Lutherans. --Rebestein (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

"Distortion" is a bit strong. The article does seem to imply that Reformation Day is celebrated as a sort of response to Halloween, but the implication might not have been intentional. However, I think it is certainly a biased distortion to pronounce that "[C]atholic Irish" celebrated Halloween "as a result" of the Protestant observance of Reformation Day. I would imagine Lutherans are thin on the ground in Ireland, and I'm not even sure if the Church of Ireland observes Reformation Day. Eastcote (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 25 October 2011

The 'C' in Gaels and celts should be capitalized

Kpmlucid (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

History section

Is the history section some kind of joke or is it just my imagination? Two small paragraphs dedicated to Halloween? Come on, I think the editors of the project can do much better than this. Yes we know the origins. But why not tell how Halloween was exported from Ireland to North America and how the commercialization of Halloween by the United States in turn has influenced the holiday celebrated in the world.From my understanding, Halloween is said to be the only time in the Pagan calendar when the dead the the spirits walk amongst the living. And this is celebrated at Stonehenge in England by the Druids on All Hallows' Eve.

Please, the history section needs expanded. Yoganate79 (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Halloween actually existed in the Americas prior to the Irish exodus of the Great Famine in the 1840s, also other groups of people celebrated the holiday for instance Scots poets like John Mayne are among the earliest works on the subject in 1780 and “Scots style” Halloween parties were recorded in North America (from 1788) using Robert Burn's poem Hallowe'en from 1786 as a guide.

A Halloween reader: poems, stories, and plays from Halloweens past by Lesley Pratt Bannatyne p19 states;

“. . . by 1788 American booksellers had the book] . . .[it was read especially passionately by ex-patriotic Scots in the United States and Canada where his poetry came to stand for Scotland before the Union the Scottishness of “Halloween” may have made it more popular than it would have been otherwise]. . .”

Even having these style parties reported in 1919 as stated in the article. The Irish played a part in the holiday of Halloween (perhaps after the 1840s when the majority of Irish came to the USA) of course as did the Scots, Welsh English and others have their influences and parts to play. Halloween was never just an Irish festival or just a Scots or Welsh festival or celtic it was “in its various forms” for hundreds if not thousands of years known as different traditional seasonal events. The trouble is that some people try to make this holiday too nationalistic the holiday like the USA is a melting pot of ideas and customs. If the article is to be expanded as you suggest it should be fair and cited.Uthican (talk) 03:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Well then, all this information should be added to the history section to expand it. The info would really add to the page, I didnt know about he influence of halloween from the british isles, and im sure others would find it interesting also.Beefcake6412 (talk) 03:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think in this instance, the United States has played a major part in commercializing Halloween and it is that nation which made it a holiday celebrated in different parts of the world. Before that, it was nothing more than a Pagan holiday. Also, it is important to note that the early settlers of America, especially the Puritans the 1600s, shunned Halloween since it was considered next to devil worshipping. It wasn't until the mid to late 19th century that Halloween was exported from Europe to the U.S. Yoganate79 (talk) 01:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The parties you are referring too were thrown by the Mayor of Atlanta in 1892 also might I draw your attention to (Halloween Nation: Behind the Scenes of America's Fright Night by Lesley Pratt Bannatyne p116), where they cite an illustrated magazine “A Halloween Wrath” by William Black in 1890 that appeared in Harper’s Magazine where most Victorians came to associate Halloween (as it was then) as a holiday celebrated by ethnic rural Scots, a source that was still thought of in the citation above till 1919. Then (Culture and Customs of the United States: Customs and society by Benjamin F. Shearer p166) cites two thirds of all Americans attend Halloween parties (in its modern form) appeared in the 1920s and 30s and the custom of trick-or treating did not become common place in the USA till the 1940s. The holiday is a twentieth century phenomenon in its current form no swarm or exodus of people (including the Scots, Irish, Welsh or anyone else) in the 19th century are exclusively responsible for the current US holiday it’s a mismatch at best from various sources and traditions.Uthican (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It does need some major work, although a lot of the history of all hallows eve is in All Hallows Day article there should be a summary here. Good source http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/holydays/halloween_1.shtml if anyone wants to write it. --90.194.241.3 (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-credible US centric remarks abound, eg "Trick-or-treating is a customary celebration for children on Halloween". Presumably, "customary in USA" is meant. It is not customary in the UK, nor in Australia. Others may have other examples. The statement as published is simply wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.180.153 (talk) 05:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 25 October 2011

Under History the line "However, according to the Oxford Dictionary of ...... there is no evidence that it was connected with the dead in pre-Christian times, or that pagan religious ceremonies were held"

This line is a counter-argument to an argument that isn't there. It should either be rephrased to something like "While Halloween/Samhain has strong connotations with death/afterlife there is no evidence...".

The next line could also be accused of being similarly out of place but it is not as blatant.

Finally I don't understand why dictionaries & historians need to be explicitly mentioned in the article. Can their content not be simply used and referenced at the bottom like in other articles?

Kpmlucid (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 26 October 2011

Please add Dead man's Bones (Ghadam tal-Mejtin in Maltese) under the traditional foods section. In Malta it is traditopn to make these almond fingers (little bone-shaped) pastries filled with ground almonds. File:Almond cookies recipe.jpg 78.133.122.106 (talk) 09:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I can vouch for this treat. I just returned from a holiday in Malta and Gozo, and I can assure you they are delicious (and rather fattening)! JA Kent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.82.114 (talk) 15:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Collection of reputable sources

I suggest, this segment is not for further discussion, only for a structured collection of reputable sources that talk about the origin/history of Halloween. Discussion about these sources can find place beneath.

• I suggest, for the sake of neatness, that any comments inadvertently entered here concerning these sources be removed and pasted below in the discussion section. Since it is bad form to move someone else's coments, Bakulan, please move your comments to the discussion section. Thanks. Eastcote (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Author claims Celtic origin

(Author, Book/Article, Year, Weblink if available), short quote

• Sir James Frazer, The Golden Bough (abridgement version, Wordsworth Editions), 1922, .. the Feast of All Souls at the beginning of November, which under a thin Christian cloak conceals an ancient pagan festival of the dead. [...] Of the two feasts Hallowe'en was perhaps of old the more important, since the Celts would seem to have dated the beginning of the year from it rather than from Beltane. [...] Such custom points strongly to Samhain or All Saints' Day (the first of November) as New Year's Day ... (Page 632), [41]
• My studies indicate that the CELTIC date for Stonehenge (inaugurated 56-year calendar) is 1554bc Jan 4 honored with the Egyptian date Koyak 24 on January 7 as Adam's year 2472am (72 years after Amizaduga of Babylon's death in 2400am). However, in my following discussion of 360-day calendar (the 360-day new year falls on November 1 of 1551bc with both the winter solstice point and Mars setting to the SW at 9:46pm). Connecting Genesis to Babylon (1894bc) involves the 360-day calendar new years day as the rise of Mars (resurrection of dead Mars) as the NEW YEAR Marduk every 13 years. Before 2009bc the rise of Mars must occur before the new years day every 13 years so that it rises as a morningstar on new years day of 2009bc (its heliacal-rise July 8), so that new years day will always be 20th day or 20 days before Mayan 360-days new year). (Using our current choice of which Julian year is leap year), this 13-year Marduk then falls on November 2 as ALL SOULS DAY honoring Babylon's 1894bc as the first king of Babylon. Thus ALL SOULS DAY is Marduk (planet Mars) the king of heaven rising to raise up dead society by installing a king in Babylon on Nov 2 of 1894bc. This qualifies as a resurrection of Damuzi poem, or of Marduk raised to be king of the mound. Thus ALL SOULS DAY is merely a one-day shifting of the return of ALL SAINTS DAY because every 139 calendar years (of 360 days) equal exactly 137 Julian years (pending leap day; 480 Julian = 487x 360 days). The result is 2031bc November 1 as calendar new year for the DEATH of Peleg (Mesanipada the founder of Ur) in year 339 at the age of 239 as sweeping a death thru all earth of a generation who dies 190 years before their parents die. [2030bc May 6 and then Ur's mass suicide exactly 365 days later on Koyak 24 on May 5 of 2029bc of Nahor Alumdug and grandson Haran Meskalumdug with all servants and all wives accept the wife pregnant with Lot left behind in Haran's city (Harran)]. Since the suicide was to ascend to heaven to join Peleg as king, their being the first of 144,000 then this qualifies that 2031bc new year as being ALL SAINTS DAY, the belief that death takes people to heaven. Memphis Egypt observes this date Koyak 24/25 as Christ-Mass so that Greeks insist that the "rapture of the boat" (the Egyptian boat of kings to heaven since 2029bc May 6) begins as Noah's Flood 2958bc (Koyak 25) on December 25 as the 40-day rain. This miscalculation is actually derived from Noah's death on Julian Greek December 24 of 2021bc (found the morn of Dec 25) with a 40-day seance at Babel speaking to Xisuthros until Egyptian date THOTH 24 of 2020bc Feb 2. In 388bc, the Zoroaster move of the 5 Gatha Days (epagum) taken away from Thoth and given to Koyak, shifts Persian civil Thoth 5 days to again equal Egyptian Thoth and so makes Persian Thoth the 10th month (Zoroaster Christ-Mass, the massing in seance for Xisuthrus on Thoth 24 ending 40 days in 2020bc). The fact that Holloween, Saints Day for Peleg, and Souls Day for Babylon's Marduk interlocks with the Christmas dates confirms a locked chronology. 98.144.71.174 (talk) 15:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• • Good research 1922 but doesnt hold water today. MAIER, Bernhard: Die Religion der Kelten. Darnstadt 2001. Seee e.g MAIER, Bernhard: Die Religion der Kelten. Darnstadt 2001., © Landschaftsverband Rheinland, Amt für rheinische Landeskunde Bonn (September 2001) »... und entzündeten Feuer auf Hügeln« Seite 1 Historische Notizen zum Halloween-Fest Von Alois Döring both sources dismiss the continuity hypothesis of frazer and others in general and discuss various aspects en detail Bakulan (talk) 08:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been doing a little German translation of some of Bakulan's sources that he says support NO CELTIC ORIGIN. I couldn't get a translation of Maier, but I did get a translation of Alois Doring's Historische Notizen zum Halloween-Fest (Historical notes on the Halloween festivities). While he does seem to discount continuity of such things as trick-or-treating and large bonfires, Döring states, "The origins of Halloween go back to the pagan Celtic festival Samhain which was celebrated on 1 November. ...Samhain was one of the Celtic major festivals. It was the Celtic New Year, marked the beginning of winter, and also served as a harvest festival. ... The Christian All Saints was superimposed on the pagan Celtic cult of the dead. And pagan Celtic ideas and customs would be transformed by Christianity." Maybe my online translator gave me some bad information, but it sounds like Doring SUPPORTS Samhain as the origin of Halloween. If this is the case, and my translation is correct, Bakulan is misrepresenting the source. Eastcote (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

OK this puts a differnet texture on things. If the user as (as he appears to be doing) cherry picking sources to support his own OR then I would susgest that we drop this. Its not the first time the user seems to have done this. I certaoily don't tink its posible to rely on the users vewis of what sources say and we need some others to comment.Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I have asked if some one who can read german can check this.Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to read the Döring again, have only time for that next week. But as far as i could see, Döring just quotes popular assumptions in a "is said to be" style, and is very careful about wether this is true or not. He also says in the interview, that in germany, churches now try to lend another meaning to Halloween, to reclaim it, and I think, thats what we just witness here. The other Bakulan source was Hörandner, her book arrived here today. I just took a quick glance, and will write something about it next week, when I have more time, but as far as I can say, her point is, that in modern science, people look much more careful at sources, and that the celtic roots today are more disputed (but not: "there are none"), because there also was this celtic reconstructionism, and mainly, that the roots of H. are just not that important, its contemporary H. she is interested in. Her point is, that looking for roots is oldfashioned, outdated, no matter if they exist. In fact, the book includes just one essay from her, which only partly covers the roots of H. The rest of the book is about contemporary H. customs in Styria, commercial Halloween, and the pumpkin from a botanical viewpoint, stuff like that. Her own sources are, btw., not the "Maier" book about celts, but the book "Kelten" from Helmut Birkhan (1997). More next week. --93.232.167.30 (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking when I first did the translation, that Doring was merely illustrating what other people had to say, then telling why it wasn't true. He does indeed appear to do this with trick-or-treating, and bonfires, and with 19th century sources like Fraser. But as far as the origin, it looks to me like he doesn't dispute the Celtic origin and simply states the Celtic origin as fact. Doring's focus is on the vulgar Americanized Halloween that's invading the Rineland. Eastcote (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Unknown/Encyclopedia Britannica (online version), Halloween had its origins in the festival of Samhain among the Celts of ancient Britain and Ireland. November 1 was considered the end of the summer period, the date on which the herds were returned from pasture and land tenures were renewed. It was also a time when the souls of those who had died were believed to return to visit their homes. , [42] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.232.146.227 (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Ridiculous. The claimed Rites around Samhain are not at all confirmed, Samhain as such is not based on prechristian sources. Bakulan (talk) 08:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

We do not dismiss a source unless its found to be not RS, our opinons of its material is irreleant.Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Ronald Hutton, Stations of the Sun: A History of the Ritual Year in Britain, Oxford Univ. Press, 1996, pgs. 360-370. "Samhain, 1 November, was a major festival which marked the opening of winter in early medieval Ireland... [T]here seems to be no doubt that the opening of November was the time of a major pagan festival which was celebrated, at the very least, in all those parts of the British Isles which had a pastoral economy. At most, it may have been general among the 'Celtic' people. There is no evidence that it was connected with the dead, and no proof that it opened the year, but it was certainly a time when supernatural forces were especially to be guarded against or propitiated; activities which took different forms in different regions. Its importance was only reinforced by the imposition upon it of a Christian festival which became primarily one of the dead..." (Note about Ronald Hutton's credentials, he is a historian, Professor of History at University of Bristol, fellowship at Magdalen College, Oxford, Commissioner of English Heritage.) Eastcote (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Point about Samhain, which is not based on acknowledged sources and not confirmed in actual research about the celts. Outdated c&p from Frazer. Bakulan (talk) 08:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

We do not dismiss a source unless its found to be not RS, our opinons of its material is irreleant.Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Robert T. Lambdin & Laura C. Lambdin, Encyclopedia of Medieval Literature, Greenwood (July 30, 2000), pgs 189-195. "In not a few cases festivals that in the Middle Ages were Christian in nature had been pagan in origin... ...[T]he Church successfully fused celebrations that had originated in the distant pagan past with Christian religious rites so that native peoples were permitted to continue, under Christian colors, their traditional customs. Thus many medieval holidays that were ostensibly Christian in character in fact commemorated ancient fertility rites as well as Christian tradition. For example, the feasts of All Saints (November 1), Candlemas (February 2), May Day (May 1), and Lammas (August 1) were part of an ancient cycle of agricultural feasts... Halloween and All Souls' Day are excellent examples of the merging of Christian and pagan traditions."
  • Point about Samhain, which is not based on acknowledged sources and not confirmed in actual research about the celts. Outdated c&p from Frazer. Bakulan (talk) 08:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

We do not dismiss a source unless its found to be not RS, our opinons of its material is irreleant.Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Jack Santino, Halloween and Other Festivals of Death and Life, Univ Tennessee Press; 1994, pg. xv. "Samhain was the New Year's Day of the Celts, celebrated on 1 November. It was also a day of the dead, a time when it was believed that the souls of those who had died during the year were allowed access to the land of the dead. It was a time when spirits were believed to be wandering, The festival was also related to the season: by Samhain, the crops should be harvested and animal brought in from the distant fields." (Jack Santino's credentials, Ph.D. in Folklore, Professorship in Popular Culture at Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio, and Director of the Bowling Green Center for Culture Studies.) Eastcote (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Direct countered by Dr. Alois Döring Landesverband Publication - e.g. Santinos idea about trick and treat having celtic origin is nonsense, halloween trick and treat is no older than 20th century US, other "Heischebräuche" connected to halloween are definitley christian Bakulan (talk) 08:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

We do not dismiss a source unless its found to be not RS, our opinons of its material is irreleant.Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• T.G.E. Powell, The Celts, Thames & Hudson Ltd:London, 1985, pg. 144. "The greatest festival in Ireland was known as Samain. In terms of the modern calendar it was celebrated on the first of November, but the preceding night was perhaps the most significant period of the festival. Samain marked the end of one year and the beginning of the next."
  • Point about Samhain, which is not based on acknowledged sources and not confirmed in actual research about the celts. See Josef Meier and others. Outdated c&p from Frazer and previous 19th century scholars Bakulan (talk) 08:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Frank Delaney, The Celts, Little, Brown & Co., 1986, pg. 87. "Samhain, the greatest Celtic festival, marked the beginning of the year, celebrated on the night of October 31st, now Hallowe'en."
  • Point about Samhain, which is not based on acknowledged sources and not confirmed in actual research about the celts. See Josef Meier and others. Outdated c&p from Frazer and previous 19th century scholars Bakulan (talk) 08:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

We do not dismiss a source unless its found to be not RS, our opinons of its material is irreleant.Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Rogers, Nicholas (2002). Halloween: from pagan ritual to party night. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 11–21. ISBN 0-19-516896-8. discusses "Samhein and the Celtic Origins of Halloween", stating that "many [writers] stress [Samhein's] elemental primitivism and its enduring legacy to the character of Halloween". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Peter Berresford Ellis, A Brief History of the Druids, Running Press (April 10, 2002), pg. 178. "On one night of the year the Otherworld became visible to mankind. This was the feast of Samhain (31 October - 1 November), when the gates to the Otherworld were opened and the inhabitants could set out to wreak vengeance on those living in this world who had wronged them. The ancient belief survived into Christianity in a transmuted form as Hallowe'en..." (Note on Peter Ellis' credentials, he is a Celtic historian, MA in Celtic Studies from University of East London, D.Litt from University of East London, Fellow of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, Fellow of the Royal Historical Society.) Eastcote (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Regina Buccola, Fairies, fractious women, and the old faith: fairy lore in early modern (2006, after Bakulan’s sources and only 4 years ago) “Halloween, the pagan holiday the immediately precedes the Christian celebration of all saints day." (she is however a prof of Lit).Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Rodger is quoted by Wikipedia: "...it is more typically linked to the Celtic festival of Samhain, whose original spelling was Samuin..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween

I found that its has Arabic and Islamic origins: 'Halwa' means sweets and during the fasting month of Ramadhan children go door to door after the sun goes down when the fast is broken asking for sweets. This continues today in some countries like Egypt where they even carry lanterns similar to those of American kids. Trick or Sweets! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andersonew (talk • contribs) 20:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Author claims NO Celtic origin

Add sources that claim no Celtic origin here, with relevant quotation. Eastcote (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Moser Salzburger Nachrichten interview, Kein „Trick or Treat“ bei Salzburgs Kelten: Stefan Moser "Dass Halloween auf das keltische Samhain-Fest zurückgehen soll, sieht Stefan Moser ebenfalls kritisch. Nachweislich habe es das Fest erst im ersten Jahrhundert nach Christus gegeben, es sei daher streng genommen gar kein keltischer Brauch mehr. Zudem gebe es auch keine Anhaltspunkte, dass es mit Totengöttern zu tun gehabt hätte. Auch die Datierung zum heutige Halloween-Fest sei in der Wissenschaft umstritten. Moser sieht die Ursprünge von Halloween insgesamt in einem christlichen Brauch, nicht in einem keltischen. Fest steht in jedem Fall: Irische Einwanderer brachten das gruselige Treiben im 19. Jahrhundert nach Amerika, von wo aus es in den 1990er-Jahren wieder den Weg zurück fand."

A. This seems to only talk about the Celts around Salzburg, not the wider Celtic community (so may be it shuod be used here [[43]]). B Is this an interview? It reads more like a report. For example it seems to have no by line.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Doring WDR Interview, Ist Halloween schon wieder out? Alois Döring the interviewers preamble said"Dr. Alois Döring ist wissenschaftlicher Referent für Volkskunde beim LVR-Institut für Landeskunde und Regionalgeschichte Bonn. Er schrieb zahlreiche Bücher über Bräuche im Rheinland, darunter das Nachschlagewerk "Rheinische Bräuche durch das Jahr". Darin widerspricht Döring der These, Halloween sei ursprünglich ein keltisch-heidnisches Totenfest. Vielmehr stamme Halloween von den britischen Inseln, der Begriff leite sich ab von "All Hallows eve", Abend vor Allerheiligen. Irische Einwanderer hätten das Fest nach Amerika gebracht, so Döring, von wo aus es als "amerikanischer" Brauch nach Europa zurückkehrte."

Thats not a quote from Doring, its what the interviwer is saying. If we have using quotes should we not actualy have quoted from the persons themsleves?Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it isn't first hand from Doring. These are sources Bakulan provided earlier. I put these here as a start at organizing the sources, so we can discuss. He provided others in various places around the talk page. Eastcote (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but this should be removed as it does not support the claim. If other users can find the placew she says there is no link then they can re-instate it. But we should not claim someone says something they do not, that is mis-representartion of sources.Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd leave it. It is a source given to support no Celtic origin. Whether it does nor not is part of the dicussion. It's not my source, it's Bakulan's. Eastcote (talk) 14:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Well at least reword it mso that we are not mis-attributing the quote.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Which you did not. Bakulan (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No mention of Wicca at all

There should be at least somewhere some reference to Wicca's holiday of Samhain, which is sometimes called Halloween and is also celebrated on the same day. It does reference pagan religions, but not Wicca. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.215.135 (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

A story of Verona

Two Gentlemen of Verona was a play written by an English author. It's a fiction not a historical documentary. So this, on it's own, does not really show that these traditions were being practiced by the Italian children.

Thanks for the informative and entertaining article.

69.174.58.108 (talk) 12:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Frank D. of Ohio.

Edit request from , 01 November 2011

In the second paragraph of the History section: "By the end of the 12th century they had become days of holy obligation across Europe ..." the phrase 'days of holy oligation' should be 'holy days of obligation'. Could somebody please correct this and also make it a blue link to the Wikipedia article Holy Day of Obligation. Thank you. Freeman501 (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Catholic Origin - More Precise

Altho praying for and/or to the dead accurately identifies a religious purpose accommodated by this event, Catholicism is the primary Christ-claiming denomination which advances this practice. (See //www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Nov2000/Wiseman.asp#F1 for current Catholic teaching, only one of numerous sites which could be cited.) Nearly all other Christ-claiming denominations reject praying to anyone other than the Godhead and/or members thereof, which are understood to be truly alive. Painting all Christians with a Catholic brush is unnecessarily imprecise, and likely offensive to members of the many other Christ-claiming denominations. JoLaRo (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Declined All Saints Day (Hallowmas) is observed by many Christian denominations, such as the Methodist Church, Lutheran Church, Anglican Church, etc. In the same fashion, All Hallow's Eve is also observed in the Anglican Church (reference). I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 04:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Correct Spelling is "Hallowe'en"

Hi,

The correct spelling is Hallowe'en, because of the origin of the word, that is to say, a contraction of the words All-Hallows-Even, as shown in the article.

I think the modern, widely-used and totally incorrect spelling is partly an American influence, partly to do with computer scripting languages (where apostrophes have a great influence on the actions of webpages) and partly to do with a general fear of using apostrophes incorrectly. The correct spelling, shown above, is to indicate that the single word is a contraction of other words, in exactly the same way that apostrophes are used in words like can't for "cannot" or it's for "it is".

I hope this correction is accepted and that the main article will be updated on this basis.

Thanks!Little tree sixty (talk) 09:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

There has not been a thoroughgoing discussion of this, but I am inclined to agree. How about proposing a page move, Little tree sixty? fishhead64 (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Unless there is a definitive source that says one or the other is THE correct spelling, then a move would be pointless. It's a tomayto-tomahto sort of thing. As far as it being due to the influence of those evil spelling-challenged Americans, it seems both spellings have been used on both sides of the Atlantic for a long time. Eastcote (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

One could also argue that Hallowe'en is incorrect because it lacks an apostrofy after w (to stand-in for the missing s). If one wants to be fully correct they'd write Hallow'e'en (the first apostrofy for the missing s and the second for the missing v).

In short, it's either two or none. Halloween is the most common spelling and I hav no qualms with it. ~Asarlaí 14:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Well the Americans call it Halloween and they influanced the world with there widely accepted version of the holiday & i live here in America and i dont know of anyone or seen any stores, commericals or anything with the word "hallowe'en" it is always spelled halloween thus it shall stay halloween. ChesterTheWorm (talk) 11:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC) ChesterTheWorm

Just because cafés have "pie's" on the menu doesn't mean we should adopt that spelling as correct. People in general can't use apostrophes but that's no reason for those of us who know better to give up. Language is precious.78.86.61.94 (talk) 14:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I am American and as woefully undereducated as we may be, I do know that the correct spelling was originally "Hallowe'en". But then again, I also spell the 50th State to join the Union "Hawai'i", and one doesn't see that anymore, either. 74.83.14.59 (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

As I pointed-out in my last post, Halloween has become a widely accepted spelling and is no less correct than Hallowe'en. If one is worried about being "correct" then surely All-Hallows'-Even is the spelling to use? ~Asarlaí 01:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Cross Quarter

Isn't Halloween part of the calendar derived from early recognition of its being half the distance between an equinox and a solstice? It is the Fourth Cross Quarter with origins now mysteriously lost from common understanding. Others extant of this very old celebratory quartet include Ground Hog's Day, May Day and 1 Aug expunged from celebration by excommunication and death on order of the early church because it was a Roman harvest festival which lasted for three weeks.

Randall R. Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.198.50 (talk) 12:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This might be an interesting piece of supplemental information, if you have some RS to go along with it.204.65.34.224 (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Mr.Vladimir Cerrato SUCKS! Youssef bvi2ol da shabah el deba haha bas 7ramk netrya2 he is nice bas msh byshra7 kwayes ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.130.65.206 (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The word Christian has been use to define the original followers of Jesus Christ in a sect called "the Way". Roman Catholics, up to the recent years never called themselves Christians and referred to Christians as Protestants. The Roman Catholoism began 300+yrs after the Apostalic age and under Emporer Constintine as a mix of Christianity and Paganism using the pagan rituals to worship Jesus Christ and added numerous non-scripual beliefs and distortions to the Bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.81.156.229 (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Where DO they come from? And why do they all seem to find their way to Wikipedia? Eastcote (talk) 02:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Catholic halloween?

The article (as currently semi-protected) states that "In the Roman Catholic Church, Halloween is viewed as having a Christian connection", with a reference to a US Catholic publication. This contrasts with my experience in Italy, where, for example, the local archbishop regularly tends to criticise the decadent "Anglo-Saxons", whom he holds responsible for what he—like others in the Vatican—considers to be secular interference, if not worse. Maybe US Catholics are more conciliatory, given the overwhelming popularity of Halloween in their country?--MistyMorn (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like some wording to account for US Catholic views and also those from Italy (using both cites) may solve this. Do you want to take a stab at it? If not, I can. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, though as a complete layman [and one who'd prefer not to get involved in the actual editing - thank you for your understanding, btw], I would have thought that the official Vatican line would perhaps be the one to cite first. The difference in the viewpoints seems quite marked. Although the 2009 papal story cited above understandably seems to be the one mainly reported in English-language media, in recent years Italian cardinals have been reacting to the increasing popularity of halloween in the country by strongly condemning it. For instance, and this is just one example of many, I see that this year the archbishop/cardinal of Bologna has called a farmers' pumpkin-cutting stall set up in a central town square "an ugly surrender to rampant relativism". In Vatican parlance, that means bad. Cheers--MistyMorn (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I have now actually made the edit, using the Telegraph link cited above as the supporting ref. I've also attenuated a claim made in the previous sentence, which seemed to me misleading.--MistyMorn (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanksgiving is...?

Why is Thanksgiving celebrated?Why is it so important that we celebrate Pilgrims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.147.245 (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanksgiving is celebrated because it marks an event in American history. It is also an American tradition and is a part of U.S. culture. It celebrates a coming together. This statement could definitely be expanded upon.--MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Connection to pogroms

There is some rather poor history associated with Halloween in Europe. Specifically, "mischief night" was tied to rousting the non-Christians (i.e., Jews, Romany, "witches") from a village to "purify" the town ahead of All Saints' Day. The disguises enabled this to be done with anonymity. (The Ku Klux Klan practiced similar tactics.) I don't have the inclination to find citations on this: family tales from "the old country" suffice for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.181.93 (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Around the world

Source 55 was a proven publicity stunt and is unreliable. Here is one of the sources that proves the publicity stunt. http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3060601.htm Also stated in the opening paragraph is "a yearly holiday observed around the world" while in this section it is stated "Halloween is not celebrated in all countries and regions of the world." Which is it? I would suggest it's the latter since I feel the former is hyperbole. Perhaps the opening paragraph could be reworded. sourcechecker58.107.224.31 (talk) 03:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Default meaning?

Regarding the resistance of one editor (O'Dea) to my change of "commonly" to "widely", I do not know what "default meaning" is supposed to mean (I do not think it is an established linguistic term). Seriously... I had some concerns about ambivalence (possible alternative readings based on unintentional shades of meaning) in the wording of the sentence in question at the start of the Pre-Christian Origins paragraph. I carefully rephrased it to avoid any suspicion of cultural/religious bias and to try to improve stylistic flow from the preceding section on Etymology. I was surprised to find my edit rejected out of hand and reverted. However, I accepted the resistance and made a small edit by changing "commonly" to "widely" to avoid any impression that the theory being propounded might be of non-academic (popular, common) origin. That edit was again reverted on the grounds that "commonly" means the same thing as "widely" (and this time I reverted, leaving a query as comment). If that is so, what is this editor defending by reverting "commonly" to "widely"? Please note that I do not like edit warring and do not intend to get involved. I am quite prepared to leave this issue. I am just somewhat surprised by the hostility shown to my relatively minor good-faith language edits which were not intended to alter the intended meaning of the sentence. Regards, MistyMorn (talk) 10:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

"falling on the last day of autumn": Samhain comes on October 31, but the last day of autumn is the winter solstice, roughly December 21. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seidensticker (talk • contribs) 03:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Depends on where you are. 21 December is "mid"-winter in some places, not the first day of winter. Eastcote (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It is addressed in the same sentence. it falls on the last day of autumn per traditional Celtic calendars, NOT the modern solar calendar (which would, of course, place the end of autumn at the solstice as Seidensticker said). DigitalHoodoo (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Halloween in 2001

I remember in 2001 many communities cancelled Halloween activities and tried to ban the holiday, at least temporarily, since the terrorist attacks of 9/11 less than two months earlier were fresh in everyone's mind. This article could have more information on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.119.14.165 (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Not really notable to the subject as a whole, since the canceling of activities was a specific event/timespan that also only occurred in the US. - M0rphzone (talk) 07:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Never heard of this before - cancel Halloween because of 9/11? ?? HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)