Talk:Imbolc/Archive 1

Archive 1

Expansion

I'm going to expand this stub unless someone does some work on it soon... sjc

1 February?

From Laurel Bush 10:40, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC):

I imagine the date has been shifted by creation of the modern calendar. Modern months define quite arbitary periods. The mid-point between winter solstice and spring equinox is a few days later than February 1st, and half way through Aquarius.

Sources

Any mention of Imbolc/Imbolg by name before the 15th century would be an addition that would lend seriousness to this entry. And any online reference that isn't selling scented candles etc? --Wetman 10:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UT

Dates

Many who celebrate this holiday today do so on the new moon in Aquarius. This date changes every year. It is believed that this was when it was celebrated before the 12 month calendar came into use.

Reference added. Zymurgy 21:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Happy Imbolc

Happy Imbolc everyone! Zymurgy 19:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"Dark Lord" reference

That line, "During the Winter, the Maiden is with the Dark Lord and the land is bare." seems a bit fishy to me. I don't really know what to do... any thoughts?Ridan 22:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Kathryn NicDhàna 05:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Overhaul and Cleanup

This article had a heavy bias towards modern Neopagan interpretations/creations, and a tendency to treat the Irish and Scottish practices as only existing in the distant past. I have done a fairly major overhaul, but it could still use some work. At a cursory glance, the links seem to be almost all Wiccan, for instance. --Kathryn NicDhàna 05:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Checked the links. Some were broken, others insufferably twee and/or full of misinformation (Ireland is a mystickal, magickal land! The Dark Lord rules the Winter!!). Nicholson's is good, so I left that. I'm not crazy about the one other one I left, as that site has some garbage on it, but for now I left it. I'll google for some better ones. One I will suggest here, but it may not be my place to actually add it to the article as I wrote this one, is from the CR FAQ: "What do you do for Imbolc?" Off to look for others. --Kathryn NicDhàna 06:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Kathyrn, I've since done to this article what I did with the Samhain article before in making a clear distinction between neopagan groups that observe the holiday. Please correct and add any information you feel appropriate. :bloodofox: 02:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your work! The "twa winters" thing is in McNeill; I'll try to source it tomorrow. I can see a few things I want to poke at, but it's definitely looking better. What do you think about the Samhain and Imbolc links to the FAQ for external links? (My feelings will not be hurt if you think they're not suitable. ;-)) --Kathryn NicDhàna 03:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No trouble! Personally, I'd prefer more organization amongst the external links, as they seem pretty scattered. However, it can get out of hand when you subcategorize external links. I've gone back to your 'see also' sections in this article and in Samhain article. On this article, I made some subcategories and on the others I simple alphabetized it. It's probably best to go with one or the other, instead of leaving a space divide them. Your choice. :bloodofox: 06:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"Sabbats" nav box

I have removed the "Sabbats" box that was recently placed at the top of this article. I feel it is misleading in that it re-instates the POV that Imbolc is primarily a Wiccan or Neopagan thing. We have worked hard to make this and the other Gaelic fire festivals more historically accurate, and more reflective of the spectrum of people who observe the festival. We have a Gaelic festivals nav box at the bottom, and links in the body to the Wiccan "wheel of the year"; we do not need an additional nav box for the Wiccan sabbats. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Bolg

in the belly = sa bholg

in a belly = i mbolg

There is a difference that might not seem of import, but as Irish has no indefinite article, I'd thought I'd point out the cleft

Wiccan section

This bit has been waiting on a cite for quite a while now, and I'm not sure what to do with it:

"On the other hand, there is no evidence that Imbolc was celebrated in pre-Christian times anywhere other than in Ireland, whereas the celebration of Candlemas began in the eastern Mediterranean. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› "

Do others think it would work to just cut it down to:

"On the other hand, there is no evidence that Imbolc was celebrated in pre-Christian times anywhere other than in Ireland."

Or should we just avoid having to prove a negative and cut the sentence all together? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly there are two statements here and each should be seperately supported. Combining them appears to be leading the reader. OTOH, while it is impossible to prove a negative, it is possible to cite a source which discusses that lack of evidence: if there is such a source, I think it is valuable information and should be included. Jefferson Anderson 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words tag removal

I've removed the Weasel words tag from the article because I think this is pretty much taken care of. The Wiccan section is thin but sourced. (It could certainly use more work.) There are what could be considered weasel words in the Neopagan section but a closer look reveals they fall under an exception clause where "...the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify." Perhaps these groups and traditions could be enumerated and listed but the specific list would be long and awkward. I believe the cites on each paragraph substantiate the statements. --Pigman^talk 00:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks for looking at it. I think a lot of what looks like weasel words that is left in other places is just people being overly cautious about definitions. I am going to be bold and remove some of them, since I don't believe that they are actually intended to be references to specific set of groups of people at all, but simply hedging uncertainties that are explained later in the article. Feel free to revert some or all of what I do if you disagree. Jefferson Anderson 16:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Serpent

Err, there are no snakes in Ireland, never have been. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.219.86 (talk)

The folklore that mentions snakes is from Scotland. In Ireland, the salmon is usually the creature that represents many of the qualities other, related cultures associate with snakes (such as wisdom and longevity). - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Celtic section

It talks a bit about Newgrange and other Neolithic references. Neolithic is before the Celtic invasion, thus Newgrange and the other bits should not be listed under "Celtic Origins."Penguinwithin 04:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Good catch! I can't believe I didn't notice that it was confusing to have it in that section. Thanks for fixing it. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that the phrase "Celtic invasion" above be replaced by "adoption of Celtic language and culture". I believe current studies have failed to find evidence of an invasion and now believe that a slower process of absorption of of Celtic culture occurred. In her book "In Search of Ancient Ireland" Carmel Mccaffrey cites a couple of theories as to the method that infused Celtic language and culture into Ireland. CaitSidhe (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Lactation of Ewes

The following change was made today. I considered reverting as a flawed good faith edit but I thought it worth discussion here. The para first looked like this:

"Among agrarian peoples, the festival was traditionally associated with the onset of lactation of ewes, soon to give birth to the spring lambs. This could vary by as much as two weeks before or after the start of February."

Then like this:

"Although it is said that among agrarian peoples the festival was traditionally associated with the onset of lactation of ewes, soon to give birth to the spring lambs, this is unlikely to be so. Only in the far south, such as Cornwall, would the grass be growing sufficiently for it to be worth ewes lambing so early. The usual time for lambing would have been April, when the really good grass is available to refuel the ewe after her trials and to feed the lamb once it begins to be weaned."

One problem is the removal of a reference suited to the content of the para. Of more concern to me is the additional material doesn't actually address the original point of the para: the onset of lactation in preparation for the birth of the lambs. I have no idea when the lactation begins but it obviously seems to occur sometime before the birth of the lambs in April. This makes sense to me. IOW, I think the original para was perfectly fine but the additional material actually muddies the point by confusing onset of lactation with the actual birth of the lambs. These are separate events. I don't know for certain about the reality of lambing but the para is about the traditional associations as sourced in Chadwick.

Does anyone have input on this point? Pig^man 16:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Check the change I made. The edit in question removed sourced content and added OR. As the theory is disputed, it's fair to mention this, but as for expounding upon it in any detail, that would need to be sourced. Hopefully the change I made is a workable compromise, at least until additional sources are cited. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

References

Non-Denominational and Astrological Recognition

This section is pure conjecture, unreferenced and in many ways meaningless. It is also fairly unencyclopedic. I suggest it is removed. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree for the same reasons. It's gone. If it comes back with more sources, it would be nice to have Wikipedia links to other topics like "Groundhog day". Lessthanideal (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like this was re-added, so I removed it. As we have megalithic alignments oriented to the sunrise at the time of the festival, I do think the position of the sun is relevant. But the megaliths are already mentioned. For getting into astrological and astronomical detail beyond that, it needs to be sourced. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The pre-celtic section refers to Loughcrew having an allignment on imbolc and samhain. This is not correct, the allignment can be observed around the 23th March and 20th September, the equinoxes. Sensibleken (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)sensibleken

Now how did that creep in? Wikipedia... You are of course correct. Off to fix it. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

When?

Is this the Feast of Saint Brigid (1 February), Candlemas (2 February - by definition 40 inclusive days from Christmas), halfway from the solstice to the equinox (around 4 February), or the first day of Spring (meteorologically closer to 1 March). Or is it a claim to be the origin of everything in the spring? --164.36.38.240 (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

edit - adds

Have added some more refs, links, pics and detailing. Downsized the POV while trying to keep all the diverse threads of celebration. Celtic, Irish, Pagan, american and cross European references all held. Happy Imbolc! Spanglej (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)