Talk:Halloween

Moved section on "Hindu Halloween"

This article is about Halloween as it is traditionally observed in the West - meaning a specific holiday. This material didn't really belong here; I'd suggest creating a wholly new article if sources are available. For now, I've moved it to Halloween around the world under the "India" subheading. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2010

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 for now: 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)

"Holiday"?

As an English person, I do not think the term 'holiday' is appropraite for Halloween. It is not a holiday as far as I am aware in the US, and certainly not in the UK. We would call it a 'festival' I suppose. Is this an example of American English? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.56.25 (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think usage of "holiday" in the USA is different than in the UK. Halloween is a "holiday" in the USA, but so are Mothers Day and Groundhog Day. (And of course while Brits go "on holiday", Americans go "on vacation"). Eastcote (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Is "holiday" even the right word? I would say it's a "day", or even a "festival". But it's certainly not a "holiday": It is not a public holiday in any country I know of, and anyone who celebrates it for religious reasons will refer to it by one of the other names. Can we please use a more appropriate name? Christmas, Eid, Hanukkah, Samhain = religious holidays. Depending on which country you're in, Bastille Day, American Independence Day, Nationalisation of Oil Industry Day are public holidays. Halloween, Father's Day, Maple Syrup Saturday etc are NOT holidays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.35.235 (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It IS called a holiday in the USA. You might want to look at the Holiday article and associated spin-offs. It's in a bit of a mess at the moment, at least partly because I and other non-Americans pointed out to less well informed editors there that what they call holidays are not called holidays elsewhere. One thing WIkipedia is doing is educating all English users that there are many "acceptable" ways of spelling and using it. I see it as a real positive. HiLo48 (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It IS NOT called a holiday in the UK. The use of the word holiday in relation to Halloween in the UK is misleading. It may be a holiday in the US or elsewhere, but it is not a holiday in the UK.--62.249.233.80 (talk) 09:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

shouldnt "origin of name" be etymology?

just sayin'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.49.104 (talk) 13:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sexy Costumes, Neutral Point of View

This bit:

"Another popular trend is for women (and in some cases, men) to use Halloween as an excuse to wear sexy or revealing costumes, showing off more skin than would be socially acceptable otherwise."

Does not reflect a neutral point of view and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.122.189 (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

In what way?Slatersteven (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

What should be removed? The sentence or the costume? (Sorry, I couldn't resist). I agree, though. It's POV, and not supported by any relevant source. Be bold. Eastcote (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

If we need a source, perhaps a newspaper article commenting on the trend toward sexy costumes, such as http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/19/fashion/19costume.html , would do the trick? Or do we need something more scholarly than the NY Times? 206.208.105.129 (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Eastcote (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks for the ref, IP. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure I wholly agree...(and the ref needs to actually be added in there, not just put in the talk page..)The reference certainly supports the assertion that more sexy costumes are becoming the norm. HOWEVER, I don't think the implication asserted, that it's "to use Halloween as an excuse to wear sexy or revealing costumes, showing off more skin than would be socially acceptable otherwise." is supported by the reference. Having read through it, those terms don't show up ("socially acceptable" only show up in relation to mens' costumes), and I don't think that that argument about motivation is made specifically anywhere. I think it's a slightly POV statement to imply motivation rather than to state the fact that more sexy costumes are becoming the norm for women, especially since the article supports the latter, not the former. I added the reference, but removed the bit about motivation, especially since it implies subjective words (how do you quantify what is socially acceptable? Excuse implies a value judgement too).Jbower47 (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm posting a comment for the first time in ages because this sentence really stuck out like a sore thumb for me as a neutral reader. I don't agree that the sentence about sexy costumes should be here at all! I'm not a prude, but the best we can come up with is an article from back in 2006 - and the practice is hardly a 'popular trend' for Halloween anyway! 'Popular trends': pumpkins, dressing as witches, fireworks, etc. But if you take that phrase out of the sentence, you might as well mention ANY way of dressing, which is hardly relevant in an article for Halloween. This sentence shouldn't have made it into the article before it was locked for the day. I say let's lose it after the lock is removed. Peripathetic (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Main Image

I have changed the main image on this page to what, in my view, is a more traditional, representative image of a Jack-o'-lantern. Full disclosure: it's my photo, and I also carved the pumpkin. I'm just putting a note here to say that I didn't make the edit purely for selfish, parochial reasons - I also genuinely think mine has a much more "classic" look than the (very finely carved) one it replaced (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jack-o%27-Lantern_2003-10-31.jpg). It's also already the main image for the "Activities involving pumpkins" section of the Pumpkin page.

If anyone strongly disagrees with the above, please message me before reverting the edit to explain why, as a courtesy :) Lost Number (talk) 12:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have a preference between the two images. But sorry, while your carving is a very nice job, it's not what I would consider the "traditional" face of a jack-o-lantern. Eastcote (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Props for the carving, but what about it makes it more "classic"? I like the old, classic one better. Yves (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear!

This article when downloaded as a PDF or printed, produces 13 pages! A bit too spooky, eh?--Tantusar (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Haha. If you're spooked by that there's no hope for ya on Halloween. :p --Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

For once somebody replies to me. Ok, you did annoy me, but, somebody replied to me! Thankyou! Oh, by the way, I made it through Halloween. Take that! Tantusar (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, just a bit excited. Tantusar (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Haunted attractions...

...bring in $300-500 mil/yr and attract 400,000 customers?

Definitely inaccurate. I don't think people are averaging $1,000 each at haunted houses.

The 400k figure seems very low, unless only about 1 in 750 people in the U.S. hit the pumpkin patches.

--174.253.150.49 (talk) 03:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request for Around The World section

I'd like to include a note in the Around The World section:

Although commercialism has caused Hallowe'en to be 'celebrated' in the UK, many people resent this as it is causing the local custom and practice of Bonfire Night (5 November) to be forgotten. Philwadey (talk) 12:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC) phil

should not quote name of some random historian

remove the historian's name from the first line of the Halloween page. Should not be a listed source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steuss (talk • contribs) 19:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Guising just in scotland

The article says "In some parts of Scotland children still go guising. In this custom the child performs some sort of trick, i.e. sings a song or tells a ghost story, to earn their treats." The main article on trick or treating also mentions guising in Ireland. Its hallowe'en here right now, and the streets of Dublin are filling with kids going trick-or-treating, some of them are performing stories, poems, songs etc to get their treat. So the article should mention that children in Ireland still go guising too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.75.182 (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I live in Glasgow, in Scotland, and every single child has performed for their sweets, as I did when I was young, and the concept that a child would get anything without telling a joke, singing a song, reciting a poem, or something like that, is completely alien. So I feel the statement in the article "In some parts of Scotland children still go guising" is also misleading as it doesn't represent that this is far and away the common experience everywhere in Scotland. Indeed not to go guising - that is, as defined in the article, not to perform before being rewarded with sweets, nuts, apples, or whatever - would be exceptional, rather than the other way round as the statement implies 82.12.122.147 (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree - I lived in Elgin and guising is as predominant there, so it's most of Scotland at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.38.185 (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Need semi protect

I think it should become a wikipedia policy that 5 days before and 5 days after the day of halloween, the page should become semi-protected. Just food for thought --Jab843 (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Celtic origins?

What historical and/or archaeological sources do we have that support the theory that Halloween goes back to customs and practices of ancient Druids and the Celts of the British Isles? No a single one, I would presume. What we have is some secondary literature. Wouldn't it be a question of honesty to stress the fact, that we know near to nothing about Celtic religion and customs and, therefore, cannot connect our modern day Halloween with ancient Druidic practices?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.131.255.52 (talk) 07:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No such Druidic connection is claimed in the article. The celebration of Halloween is, however, demonstrably Celtic and ancient. Much can be learnt from the oral lore, attested past traditions and present-day customs of the Celtic peoples (who are still here and not all 'ancient'!). What 'archeological' sources would you expect to find? What written 'historical' sources in an overwhelmingly oral culture? Do you claim 'we' know nothing about Samhain? And is, for instance, Frazer's 'The Golden Bough' [1] to be classed as 'secondary literature'? Ceartas 12:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no "Demonstrable and ancient connection" of halloween. Christianity in Ireland has eradicated celtic backgrounds much more thorough than anywhere else. Halloween is basically 19th and 20th century and an american BabyBoomer Timekiller. The hypothesis of John Rhys of 1886 wjich connected Samhain with All Saints, is as modern industrialist as most other Celtic Rekonstructionism around. Insofar ne has to adopt the article thoroughly. Bakulan (talk) 07:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

This view seems to be popular especially in Germany. But do you have any sources or references for your general claims, such as "Christianity in Ireland has eradicated celtic backgrounds much more thorough than anywhere else"? --93.232.142.77 (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Bernhard Maier: Die Religionen der Kelten. Götter - Mythen - Weltbild. 2. Aufl., München 2004, S. 178. Its as ancient celtic as a Queimada

is elder than 1960. Basically, the claim that most alleged "ancient celtic" costumes and traditions are basically 19th century or younger, is just one of the basic xioms of modern and post WWII Volkskunde resp Folklre science. Bakulan (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thats one source (I could find a few saying its Celtic) and it says nothing (from your quoted text about "Christianity in Ireland has eradicated celtic backgrounds much more thorough than anywhere else." As an eexample Trick or treating goes back to at least the middel ages (not the 1960's).Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Trick or treating is not at all celtic, its part of christian mainstream folklore and to be found e.g. in Martinisingen as well. There aremuch more sources about the celtic revival and about mislead continuities, including and mentioning halloween. Bakulan (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As a general rule we do not dismiss sources as not "nothing scholarly". Also your chosen source does not say that Halloween does not pre-date the 60’s only that some of the observances don’t.User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Youre right, however about the wrong item. Quemada is not to be found before 1960, halloween as "all saints eve" is ancient christian irish. Anything about Halloween being celtic is NOt to be found before +- 1830. Look at the picture, there is not anything inside about celtic or pagean elements. Bakulan (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what one drink has to do with anything. Secoondly there were many things that were not linked before 1830, that does not mean that modern scholership is wrong (if I am right in what you sem to be saying and that older scholership does not make the link). Also it might be worth pointing out that Helloween itslef is only about 400 years old with many of the observancies actualty pre-dating the festival itslef. Helloween has abosebed many elemnts, some appear to be Celtic, otehrs from Middlages some more recent.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

general trend is that most things told to be celtic, are basically based on the celtic revival. You will find nice coffeetable books claiming halloween to be celtic, but nothing scholarly. Halloweens eve as a christian fest might be as old as 400 years. Nothing about celts. Bakulan (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As a general rule we do not dismiss sources as not "nothing scholarly". Also your chosen source does not say that Halloween does not pre-date the 60’s only that some of the observances don’t.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As a generál rule, we call a spade a spade. Which 60ies are u talking about? Lets try a scholarly book like "Halloween in der Steiermark und anderswo, Volkskunde (Münster in Westfalen, Germany) Autor Editha Hörandner, Herausgeber Editha Hörandner, Verlag LIT Verlag Münster, 2005 ISBN 3825888894. Page 30 ff desrcibe diffenerent research projects, e.g. in Graz. Result: Halloween is neither celtic nor pagan, is predominantly modern, 19th or better 20th century. Its apart of nowadays event culture, nothing more. The bullshit about a celtiv background is to be dismissed completely. Bakulan (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

We reapeat what RS say, not what scholers say only. If RS says its pagan then we say its pagan. If some RS says its pagan and otehr disagree we says that some say its pagan and otehrs disagree. Aslo you need yo be able to show that these are not just talkking about Halloween in Germany (for example page 131 of Halloween in der Steiermark und anderswo speaks about it not being known in German speaking for very long. Also the lead is for summerisaing the artciel, so I woould susgest you put it in the origons section first. Scholar who say its Celtic Nicholas Rogers (Nicholas Rogers is Professor of History at York University). There are others if you want them. So its not true to say that scholers agree its not Pagan or celtic.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Rogers speaks of a blend and is a historian without credibility in folklore. Of cause Hörandner is talking generically about Halloween, she describes describing various research projects in Volkskunde about the phenomenom. There are some interesting differences in the reception of the (+- american phenomenom) in Austria and Germany. But if youre able to believe that Halloween in Germany has christian roots while halloween in GB or USA is celtic, youre just plonking yourself aout of any reasonable discussion. Bakulan (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

First off we do not dis-miss sources based on some perception they are not credible. As to origins in differing countries, It is true that many of Halloweens more public facets were introduced both into the uk and Germany around the middle of the 20thC as a result of American cultural influence, and as such (for example in Germany that has not Celtic heritage) would indeed be post Celtic 20th cultural phenomena. It also true that in countries in which those observances are native (such as Scotland) they may well (and there are scholars who say they have) absorbed Celtic influences, that would not have existed within the German experience (that your scholars appear to be talking about).Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you dont listen. No rerasonable scholar assumes a continuity of celtic traditions. The (mostly austrian) scholars dont talk about a German halloween tradition at all. There is none. Thea talk about the generic phenomenom of halloween and its varieties in german speaking countries. FYI: Austria is not part of germany. There is a tendency in folklore to allege very modern phenomena with some ancient lore to give them more market impact. Here, according the sources, the celts have overtaken the role of the Germanic tribes,which had been overused in Nazi times. Bakulan (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Again I will say that we do not evaluate if sources are reasonable or not (have you met any of them?) we use them if there is dispute we report it but we do not take sides in such dispute (And you have still not demonstrated any scholarly consensus for this, there are scholars who agree and disagree with this idea). Also you yourself admit that your material is mostly from a German language perspective, and they are talking about Halloween in German speaking countries, not the rest of the world. also there may be mentions of a celtic origon of helloween as ealr as 1881. There are some scholers who say that the mexican El dia delas moretes (or something lie that ) maty have had influecne on the deleoplement of helloween in the USA. Jack Santino (a folklorist) believes that Halloween is in part Celtic. steve siporin (another folklorist agrees. So its not true to say that folklorists all agree that Halloween is not pagan, or Celtic. German folklorists may. If that is the case the article should reflect that.Slatersteven (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed text “There is disagreement over a proposed Celtic origin for Halloween Nicholas Rogers, exploring the origins of Halloween, says 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, whose original spelling was Samuin (pronounced sow-an or sow-in)".. Others (such as Bernhard Maier) disagree and say that Halloween is part of the 19th and 20th centuries Celtic revival and has no link to older Celtic festivals. This I thick covers all the bases and is fairly neutral but can have input from others. There may also be an argument for removing the text about samhain as it may not be linked to Halloween,.Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Rogers is a single source, Hörandner summarizes various research projects about Halloween in general. Insofar no consensus with the reverts. Bakulan (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Like Hörandner Rogers summerises the field of study. I have already provided other scholers who say that Halloween has Celitc origons. We do not need to give all of them jusy a sample. cIn this case the two I chose were Rogers (who says "it is more typically linked to the Celtic festival of Samhain," and Maier. Hoever lets try this then.

"There is disagreement over a proposed Celtic origin for Halloween. Some such as Nicholas Rogers say 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, whose original spelling was Samuin (pronounced sow-an or sow-in)".. Others (such as Bernhard Maier) disagree and say that Halloween is part of the 19th and 20th centuries Celtic revival and has no link to older Celtic festivals."Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

This now seems to be turning into an edit war. I will not revert any more today but woold like an admin to look into this.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Both of you—in other words I'm not interested in assigning blame—in my view would likely be best off in the long run calmly discussing what solid reliable sources make of the matter or finding out what the best sources for the matter are so they can be sought out to greater ensure informed editing. I see no value in seeking page-protection for non-vandalism, something the page has managed to avoid for nearly a decade, or blocking by administrators, personally. –Whitehorse1 18:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree. Edit war is not the way to sort this out. I suggest a halt to edits while proposed changes are discussed here. Frankly, I'm getting confused as to who is advocating what. There's all this talk about Germany, Austria, etc., and Halloween being a 20th century creation. I agree that elements of today's Halloween are certainly modern. Elements of today's Christmas and Easter are modern, as well. That doesn't mean these do not have roots in the dim, distant past. To quote Ronald Hutton, in The Stations of the Sun: A History of the Ritual Year in Britain, "...there 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' peoples, 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... Its importance was only reinforced by the imposition upon it of a Christian festival which became primarily one of the dead..." Eastcote (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I have already said that I will halt my edits. My position is that there is no accademic consensus that Halloween has no Celitc roots. Its also that we should not imply that one bleife (it has no celtic roots) has greater accademic support then the view it does. Or to put it another way undoo Bakulan's last edits. The artciel prety much said thre was disagrement but assigned no value to sides of that disageemnt (and besides the new page may be mis-representing at least some soorces as writen).Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest restoring the article to 12:44, 7 November 2010, prior to the beginning of this round of edits. Then proceed with discussion and consensus on how it should read, before making any changes. In fact, I think I'll do it myself. Eastcote (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion. –Whitehorse1 19:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've reverted it to that earlier version. As I wrote in the edit summaries, the revert isn't an endorsement of either version. Particularly here, nuances and intricacies of what sources say can get lost during rapid back-and-forth editing, which clearly isn't ideal. I placed a {{neutrality}} disputed tag at the top to make it clear that what's below is disputed among editors. –Whitehorse1 20:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Any purported continuity from the Iron Age (thats to be proven) is plainly to be dismissed. Based on scholarly sources (and common sense as well ;) anything else is plain bullshit. All saints eve is a) first christian and second nowadays phenomenom is based on a sort of receltization being built around the celtic revival in the 19th and 20th century. Bakulan (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

One it is clear that there is no scholarly consensus for or against a Celtic origin of Halloween. Two we do not use common sense on wikipdia we use RS and verifiability (it may be bull shit but then I suggest you raise your concerns on the appropriate board). As to it being built around A Celtic revival, that may be true of some of the observances (though I find it interesting (that by your own admission) the sources for this are all German language) But there are also (or at least claimed to be) pagan elements as well. Not all Halloween traditions are Celtic or Pagan (such as haunted houses or films by John Carpenter), but does not dismiss all linkageSlatersteven (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Carpenter is 20th century,no proof of any continuity to 200 BC. I do not dismiss any neoceltic allegations, e.g. since 1830, however any continuity since the Iron Age has been ruled out definitely. Again you should try to differentiate between Germany and Austria. Not only the university of Graz has done yearlong research projects on halloween. Anything comparable in the english speaking world? Bakulan (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No it has not been ruled out deifinatly, the split (so far wiht the sources or scholers seen) is about 50/50 (by the way Professor Bettina Arnold Co-Director, Centre for Celtic Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Also holds the belief that Halloween is (not mealy deriving some aspects from) the Samhain . Nor did I differantiate bettwenn Germany and Austria, I sadi German language sources (not German). I do not know if any comparative studies have been made, I don't know how long Professor Arnold has studies the subject for.Slatersteven (talk) 20:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Bakulan, I don't think anyone is arguing that John Carpenter, trick or treating, or pumpkin-carving derive directly from prehistoric tradition. There are many aspects of ALL modern holidays that have recent or no historical precendent. I don't think Joseph and Mary (or Valentius) had Frosty the Snowman in mind when they contemplated the first Christmas. As I noted above, Hutton does see Halloween derived from "a major pagan festival" which was influenced by later Christian belief. I don't think it would be inappropriate to discuss the history of the day by saying "the origins of Halloween are obscure, and some scholars think A while others think B". To dump the Celtic-origin theory wholesale (as bullshit) doesn't make sense. Eastcote (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Editha Hörandner describes a major difference in the reseacrh about folklore phenomena (in general) claiming prechristian continuities and modern mainstream research which dismisses continuities of this kind. Halloween is an excellent example for the demand of those continuities. See page 3 and 4. Insofar either keep to modern research and leave continuities out or keep with oldfashioned sources like Hutton. Bakulan (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Ronald Hutton would probably find it humorous to be called "old-fashioned". He's very much alive and still writing. His Stations of the Sun was published in 1996. Very current, well-respected analysis. (I should point out that Hutton is considered by some to be ANTI-neo-pagan/neo-Celtic). What exactly does Horandner say, pertinent to Halloween? I don't happen to have pages 3 & 4 in front of me. Eastcote (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

MY propose edit covers the contorversy, it just does not imply that any side has a scholatic edge. Why is this unacceptable?Slatersteven (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• In a nutshell: Die Annahme eines keltisch-heidnischen Ursprungs von Halloween aus dem keltischen Neujahrsfest Samhain oder weiteren heidnischen Bräuchen ist trotz der völlig ausgeschlossenen zeitlichen Kontinuiät seit der Keltenzeit weit verbreitet. Sie entspricht einem weitverbreiteten aber gänzlich unrealistischen Bedürfnis, neuzeitliche Phänomene mit weit zurückliegenden historischen Wurzeln zu versehen.[1] (To assume a celtig or pagan origin of Halloween ... is a widespread error inspite of a completely unrealistioc timely continuity since the time of the celts. Its based on the widespread but completely irreal need to provide ancient roots for modern prhenomena). Bakulan (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this a direct quote?Slatersteven (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, that clears things up nicely. Since this is English-language Wikipedia, you have us all at a disadvantage. You wouldn't happen to have an English translation would you, Bakulan? Eastcote (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Its a short resume of the preface and the the first 30 pages of Hörandners study. The book is available at google books, it contains e.g. a nice title poster "Halloween a druids festival or the passion for continuity". I cannot provide an english resume but suggest you have a look on http://books.google.de/books?id=5ovDUkDEh9EC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Editha+H%C3%B6randners+halloween&source=bl&ots=POWn6cy_gK&sig=w5CpkRYYhKdfdGWKijhrfoW9eYQ&hl=de&ei=rBbXTMDbFMyUOo7d1LIJ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false and search for Kontinuität. Bakulan (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me but are you saying this is a direct quote? Also could you not transalte it for us?Slatersteven (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Its not a quote but a correct citation. The translation is to be found in brackets. I wont translate the book. 21:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakulan (talk • contribs)

You don't have to, but you should provide the translated sections that support a claim that the book talks about all pagan links to Halloween (after all if it says that it would actualy at some point say i). This however is just yout interpritation of what the source says, that OR and that is not how we cite things.Slatersteven (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It plainly does, see the preface and the first thirty pages. Second I just summarize what modern European Ethnology is about. See http://www.aeiou.at/aeiou.encyclop.v/v763440.htm etwa, "Nach 1945 wurde Volkskunde - in Ablehnung fachlich wie politisch kompromittierter Volkstums- und Kontinuitätsprämissen - vor allem als "Wissenschaft vom Leben in überlieferten Ordnungen" (L. Schmidt) auf historisch-quellenkritischer Grundlage (L. Kretzenbacher) verstanden." (After 1945 the research about Folklore stopped the schlorarly and politically deeply comprmitted Continuity assumptions and started to research based on historical and source based evidence). Hoerender just applies this to halloween - no long term continuities, instead source based reasearch. You should try to apply it to Wikipedia as well. Bakulan (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you think it plainly does, if it said it you could provide a direct quote where it says it thats what is meant by OR. I am explicitly stating that the Forward makes no mention of pagans. and that the book makes no link other then between the Celts and Halloween and makes mention of no otehr pagan religion. It does seem to talk about things being called pagan just becasue tehy wer not chrisitan, but thats not the saem thing, Or talking about an novel by paula Gosling in which a preacher rants gainst a pagan halloween. Your sailing a bit close to synthatsis here.Slatersteven (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like POV pushing from Bakulan. On a sidenote, Maier's timing is out btw. The Bard of Scotland Robert Burns' poem Halloween (1785) records some of the Halloween observances in Scotland; Halloween Is thought to be a night when witches, devils, and other mischief-making beings are abroad on their baneful midnight errands; particularly those aerial people, the fairies, are said on that night to hold a grand anniversary HALLOWEEN KiwiJeff (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like OR from Kiwi. Sounds like a allegation to Freinacht. Maiers timing is about the main popularity of halloween. Bakulan (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"main"? Your material is dubious at best, full of holes, fringe, OR.KiwiJeff (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry byt this is not about halloweesn populartiy but its history. I think its clear that all of these souresd are talkinjg about the growth of populartiy in the celebration of halloween in german speakking countires as a result of the importation of an americanised hallowween in the 1960's -80's.Slatersteven (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, thus i mentioned on a sidenote (Halloween rife in Scotland 18th century). I was initially referring what smacks of POV pushing from Bakulan, and subsequent vague comments.KiwiJeff (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you read them? I doubt it. They explain part of the popularity with the alleged origins in ancient time and clearly rule out any of those origins. Bakulan (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You removed reputed material, and inserted your own. Now, to give a suggestion (counter argument) is sufficient in the article (SlaterSteven put forward a decent effort with his paragraph -- though Maeirs timing is out with Halloween being rife prior), but to rip out material and insert your own is POV pushing.KiwiJeff (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I think characterizing, by anyone, is unlikely to help. In the interest of keeping things collegial let's focus on the content. –Whitehorse1 00:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Direct Quotations

• Preface: Man kam auf die Kelten. Hallowenn soll ursprünglich ein Druidenfest gewesen sein, welches in der gälischen tradition der Volksbräuche weiterlebte. ... Interessanter ist der Gegenwartsbefund des Brauches, der mit der Einwanderungswelle 1840 in den USA populär wurde und von da aus weiter entwickelt wurde. Schließlich kehrt er auf den europäischen Kontinent zurück, wo er früher nicht praktiziert wurde. (They found the celts [refering to the search for the origins]. Halloween was assumed to be a druids cult, which had been continued in gaelic lore. ... More of interest is nowadays history of the lore, which became popular with the irish immigrant wave to the US 1840 ff and underwent various developements. ... Finally it went back to Europe, especially to the continent where it had not been practiced before.
• Page 8 Der Wunsch nach einer Tradition,deren Anfänge sich in grauer Vorzeit verlieren, ist bei Dachleuten wie laien gleichmäßig verbreitet. (Wishful thinking about tradiotions with roots back in ancient times is to be found among lay people and experts as well).
• Page 12 Abgesehen von Irrtümern wie die Herleitung des Fests in ungebrochener Tradition ("seit 2000 Jahren") ist eine mangelnde vertrautheit mit der heimischen Folklore festzustellen. Allerheiligen war lange vor der Halloween invasion ein wichtiger Brauchtermin und ist das ncoh heute. (Besides plain errors like allegations of a continuity since 2000 years, most reasoning about Halloween shows a lack of knowledge about existing folklore. All saints eve was and has been an important date for folklore, much before the Halloween invasion and even today.
• Page 30: So wie viele heimische Bräuche generell als fruchtbarkeitsbringend und dämonenaustreibend interpretiert werden, was trottz aller Aufklärungsarbeit nicht auszurotten ist, begegnet uns Halloween als ...heidnisches Fest. Aber es wird nicht als solches inszeniert. (As much local lore is being interpreted against all evidence as reproduction connected and exorcist, we are meeting descriptions of halloween as a pagan event. But actually this is again not at all the case. Bakulan (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

One this make no mention of other pagan religons. Two its quite clear from this they are talking abvout modern Germans language countires and the nature of the halloween tradition in those countries (the halloween invasion). Howver as I have said I have no issue with noting this in the articel, but not in a way that indicates it has more vadality then its opposite assertion. Also may

be you could care to provide the full text of the passages?Slatersteven (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

First it excludes any ancient continuity, celtic and others. Second its about halloween in general and in Styria. I have given an resume and I some quotation, I wont translate all and everything. Bakulan (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll let otehr jusdge your first ppoint, and ask why your version differs from the version I am looking at that reads "Man kam dabei auf die Kelten. Hallowenn soll ursprünglich ein Druidenfest gewesen sein, das in der gallischen tradition der tradition der Volksbräuche fortlebte" Roughyl transalted as One came thereby on the Celts. Halloween was originally a Druiden festival, in the gaulic tradition of the tales of those who had left the celtic lands lands. Thastn a bit different would not you say.Slatersteven (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) ...I don't speak German. When I paste the German-language page 8 and 12 quotes above into Google Translate, the translation is pretty close to what's given above. The pg.12 seems to match what's in the book preview as well. Gtranslating your text returns something close to your translation as well, Slatersteven. Searching in the book preview for "Man kam dabei auf die Kelten." shows it's on page 6. Perhaps the book starts by first laying out what it's going to explore/appraise in the subsequent pages? I couldn't say really; since, I don't speak any German. –Whitehorse1 23:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The actual page 8 text is "Der Wunsch nach einer Tradition, deren Anfänge sich in grauer Vorzeit verlieren, ist bei laien und fachleuten wie laien gleichmäßig stark".Slatersteven (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Like I say, it was only the p.12 German quote I checked against the book anyhow. –Whitehorse1 23:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Translated:"The wish for a tradition, which has its beginnings in ancient times, is strong among experts as well as among normal people". --93.232.148.120 (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Which makes the mis-trascriptio that much oddeer. The translations (By the way I sugest the last sentance of the page 6 passage is translated it also backs up the claim that Halloween is not Celtic) that much odder.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You translate "soll gewesen sein" ="was assumed to be" with "was". Hmm sounds like POV pushing. Bakulan (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Not at all its just (as I beleive I have said) that I'm not that good with German. but I thought the German for assumed was angenommen, so a treu translation is 'is to have been'. So it actauly says (this is where my German falls down) "Halloween is to have been a druid festival" as a literal translation, no mention that I can see of assumed. But perhaps in German the sentance structure means that. I would ask any German speakers oout there to wade in.Slatersteven (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps what I'm about to say will be taken as a bit bigoted, but I do not mean it to be. This is English language Wikipedia. Our sources should also, I think, be based on English, so we have ease of verifiability for the English speakers who use English Wikipedia. Works in other languages can certainly be used as sources, but I suggest only if an English translation is available that is an "accepted" English translation. Otherwise, we have to rely on the "neutrality" of an editor to do the translating for us. See WP:NONENG. Eastcote (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Its not bigoted in the slightest. The verifiability of the material is paramount, which the reputed English sources meet. I do believe that a brief counter point is valid though as SlaterSteven put forward (again aside from the timing which as i've mentioned is out with Halloween in Scotland rife in 18th century).. conversely the removal of content and putting forward ones own view is not valid. KiwiJeff (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

We have the same discussion in de:wp on the talk page of Halloween with Bakulan right now. Same book, same arguments. The author of the book he quotes (a respectable source, i would say) points out (i cannot read the book online, so i have to judge from the german quotes here), that there is absolutely no connection between H. and a festival Samhain, or anything celtic at all, and that this celtic reference is more romanticism of the 19th century. The translations are ok, but i wonder whats left out. Bakulan also refers to the history of Volkskunde, which after 1945 changed its views, because in Germany, Volkskunde was abused by the Nazis, and there are rightwing/esoteric traditions of inventing germanic traditions. Similar to the invention of celtic traditions in the 19th century inspired by Frazer/Golden Bough. So after 1945, Volkskunde saw its goal in showing, that these traditions were mostly fake. The bigger idea seems to be, that there is in no way any continuity between celts/celtic traditions, and anything we see today. So its a bit of german POV, and things like the Green Man or even existing german traditions similar to Halloween traditions (guising, lamps made of beets (?) instead of pumpkins, and so on, are being neglected/ignored.

The author of the book also regrets, that in (catholic) Austria, the good old All Hallows Day traditions get lost because of (modern) Halloween. We now have a discussion, because Bakulan wanted to erase other sources, like Frazer oder the "Handwörterbuch des deutschen Aberglaubens", which was written by swiss scholars in the 40ies and is an encyclopedia of superstition, and also claims celtic roots of All Hallows Day, and claims, the church moved that festival to the 1. of november because of these older heathen traditions. He also wants to erase the reference to the Encyclopedia Britannica, which also claims celtic roots of H (see there). So in my view, this is all part of a bigger discussion about 19th century views versus 21 century views in Volkskunde, but while Bakulan is not at all generally wrong, he/she is in no way a Halloween expert, quoting just one source that fits his view. But from his/her point of view, it is just obvious, that there CANNOT be a celtic tradition, because all these other references to germanic traditions were also invented/fake/abused. I asked him for other sources, that show that the view of H. is a consensus in Volkskunde, but Bakulan did not deliver, claiming in a arrogant way, that he/she studied Volkskunde, he/she is right, etc. Dunno if all this helps here, but as there seem to be very few german sources on Halloween, it would be also interesting for the german article if the dispute could be solved finally, and the question, whether H. has celtic roots, could be answered to everyones content, with respectable, modern, scientific sources one can then put in the article(s) as references (someone else on the talk page also claims that H. has no celtic roots, but in his case, its about a religious backround, he has a religious webpage claiming H. is a christian festival, and everything typical for H. has a christian backround). --93.232.148.120 (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most what the IP introduced here. However I have to add that I dont want to dismiss anything about the "neoceltic aspects" of halloween. There might be some. I havent found any. Have you? I have given evidence about the generic consensus in Volkskunde in German speaking countries, which clearly dismisses any claim of a continuity since the Iron Ages for ANY phenomenom. It is clear from what I read and have experienced, that the English speaking world does not follow this consensus as strictly as Germans do. However if one looks on e.g. "Halloween: an American holiday, an American history Von Lesley Pratt Bannatyne", it i very clear, that Hallowmas and christian superstitions and commercial aspects provide much more evidence to nowadays Halloween than stories about a continuity to original Samhain. A good compromise, how a Scholar with a background in both worlds (German and English) has treated controversial subjects, is Erik Midelfort award winning work about Witch Hunting. He ruled out any continuity of witchcraft between pagan and christian times and showed that witch hunting was formost a MODERN phenomemem. Its like Santa Claus, hes much more Coca Cola than celtic. We can and should use the same approach for Halloween based on modern sources, when we leave out most claims of Samhain having a direct connection to nowadays halloween.This is appciation of Undue weight. As it has been showed, one should focus on the actual, nowadays aspects. Bakulan (talk) 07:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at the German wikipedia entry; "Halloween was initially celebrated in Ireland, and irish immigrants (1830) introduced to the U.S.". So basically Halloween is a modern creation in Ireland, which was then transported to the U.S in the magic figure 1830 that keeps cropping up. It would appear the Germsns dismiss anything prior to this. So when exactly did Halloween start? We know it was rife in 1785 Scotland at least, does it not go back much farther than that?.KiwiJeff (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Bit problomatic, Halloween as a word is first recorded in the 16thC, but some of the traditions associated with Halloween go back to Middlea ages. Shakespear records trick or trating on a halloween (well actual Hallomass) in 1593. So its imposible to say when it started, espcialy as we are looking at a series of sperate tradition (some of which in this country have been hijacked by Guy Falkes night) that have over the coourse of at least (and remeber this is only when they were first recorded, not when they first happend) 500 years.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep. The eldest data describe customs around Hallowmass and not about nowadays Halloween. The start and the basic roots are christian and not celtic or pagan. The whole Pumpkinstory (which is as well basically christian) is not very old. 1830 is however the best date to integrate influences from the Celtic Revival in combination with the strong Irish emigration to the US. Here we find the first traces of nowadays halloween. Thats the reasoning behind this date. BTW.: I suggest to have a look on "Zeitschrift für Volkskunde 97. Jahrgang 2001, II. Halbjahresband, its only about Halloween and provides alleuropean data. The peer reveiewed contributions include authors all over europe, some write even in English. Authors comprise Patricia Lysaght, Dublin; Martine Segalen, Paris,; Nicoletta Diasio, Strasbourg; Fabio Mugneini, Siena; Josefina Roma, Barcelona; Ane Ohrvik, Oslo; Agneta Lilja, Uppsala; John Helsloot, Amsterdam; Bernhard Tschofen, Wien; Gabriela Muri und Ueli Gyr, Zürich; Heinz Schilling, Frankfurt am Main; Alois Döring, Bonn; Sabine Doering-Manteuffel, Augsburg. Best regards Bakulan (talk) 13:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This is getting a little too murky. To say that things like trick or treating, horror flicks and pumpkin carving are relatively recent (within 50 to 500 years) I agree with. I don't think anyone disputes that. The Christian influence goes back much futher, into the early mid-ages perhaps. But to say "Celtic" or pagan aspects only got involved in 1830 is not supported by scholars. Sure, NEO-Celticism of the 19th century shaped how we look at Halloween, but scholars (and Hutton is only one; there are more) agree that the date had prehistoric pagan significance before Christians got involved. I really don't see what the big issue is here. If you, Bakuman, want to say NEO-Celtic influence is relatively new, that's great. A lot of neo-Celticism was bunk. But to say "the start and basic roots are Christian" is wrong, too. The root is pagan, with significant Christian influence, and over the ever-changing centuries ever more influence by other social, cultural and commercial factors. Eastcote (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is not about the "generic consensus in Volkskunde" concerning witchcraft, Santa Claus or Queimada. Perhaps you could start another article on Volkskunde, if there isn't one already. As you say, "the English speaking world does not follow this consensus as strictly as Germans do", and we are relying on English-speaking scholarship which does tend to support a pre-Christian origin, although heavily influenced by Christianity. It appears the "Volkskunde" point of view is a uniquely German-language-country view, and as such might merit mention in a separate section of the article, but this content should not be in the lead. Eastcote (talk) 13:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with much of this..."The root is pagan, with significant Christian influence, and over the ever-changing centuries ever more influence by other social, cultural and commercial factors." Much broader in scope, as opposed to a rather simplistic, black and white viewpoint hasn't taken in all the various elements and influences over centuries.KiwiJeff (talk) 07:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Volkskunde or european ethnology is a field where Irish, French, spanish, Norwegian, and other scholars write in German peer reviewed Journals about the all European experiences with Halloween. Maybe you should try to widen your perspective. Bakulan (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Bakulan, according to you, it sounds like anything celtic was just invented, or we just know nothing about the celts, its just romantic reconstructionism. But we have a large article about the celts [2], so they might have existed, and they might have celebrated festivals, correct? So now there seem to be sources, claiming that there was an autumn festival, correct? And that festival might have included ideas of the souls of the dead returning to the living, which in my view, would be enough to see traces of a tradition, that ends up as Halloween Specials on TV with horror flicks. No? --93.232.152.157 (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

According the German article you mentioned, most claims of esoteric continuity of celtic traditions have to be diismissed as they are not being backed by archeological facts. The celts might have had festivals some thousand years ago. Why bother? Actually, Halloween in continental Europe exists as living tradition since 20 years. The remarkable success of the Halloween invasion is much more interesting than any dream about continuity and is itself a strong counterproof of your claims. Bakulan (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it is a semantic problem? No one states, that "Halloween", in a modern way, or a neoceltic way, was celebrated prior to, lets say, 1830. But the big dispute, I think, is about Frazer, who quotes "traditions" of "Halloween"/Samhain - a celtic festival celebrating summers end, winters beginning, with big fires, celebrating the return of the cattle to the villages, and which, according to Frazer (and other sources?) was (still) celebrated in the early middle ages around 800 . And which he also calls Halloween. He claims sources for that - christian synodes, which wrote about that, old, festival. And this festival included also the idea, that the souls of the dead were thought to return to the villages of the living, and it included wearing costumes to frighten away evil spirits. According to Frazer/Golden Bough (source is online [3]). And he also quotes similar festivals under slightly different names, like on the Isle of Man, which left traces until today. But of course, that festival was not called Halloween - until the church moved All Hallows Day (which was invented, I think, around 600/7700 ) from May to the first of november, because it wanted to include the older heathanish festival into something similar, new and christian. Thats why it was called Hallow E'en, according to Frazer. Now was Frazer totally wrong on this (he was a scientist, not a neopagan hippie freak) - or were the people wrong, that used his book, and others, to invent all this neoceltic stuff. And if he was wrong, what did he missinterpret? And were celtic traditions really totally erased after the christianization of Ireland? Difficult to imagine that, the process of christianization was a process, not a single event, were everyone stopped believing in their religion (whatever that was) one day, and went to church the next sunday, I would guess. So, what about Frazer? [4] --93.232.152.157 (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Frazer lived from 1854 till 1941. His research is just oldfashioned. Using his research which is deep in the continunity trap is as outdated as quoting Eduard Suess on alpine geology. Now frazers beliefs in continuities can be easily argued against. All Saints and Hallowmass originated around the 7th century and is connected to christian thinking about the afterlife and the community of saints all over Europe. If Samhain was behind it, why start in the 7th century, and not earlier, why is halloween only present in some english hillybilly regions and not in the major former celtic dwellings and holy places like the Hochdorf Chieftain's Grave? The claim of Samhain being a base for Halloween is as questionable as a saurier clan haveing survived since the jurassic in Loch Ness. Its much easier to reconstruct a sort of receltification of Halloween after 1830 by homesick Irish in the states, the same reason as for the sucess of Queimada (drink) by galicians in Madrid after 1950. Bakulan (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not doubt the Queimada research, or the invention of irish traditions by irish emigrants (like the strange Octoberfests in the US, that are celebrated by Americans with german roots). But this dispute is about Halloween. Above, you say, celts might have celebrated something a thousand years ago, why bother. But that is the point here, isn't it? And why the 8th century? Because right then, the All Hallows festival introduced prior in Italy (around 600, I think I read), (was) spread to the rest of europe. In Germany, it finally arrived 835, introduced by Ludwig der Fromme. Before that, there was not a global celebration for all Hallows, they had own days each in the chrsitian year, but then became just too many. So there was All Hallows Day created, and celebrated May (23., I think). And then, it is moved by the church to the beginning of november. Why? Maybe people celebrated something else at that date, that did not fit the church, and could not be ended totally? I think you or the scientists you quote, argue from some kind of ideological perspective, like, there must'nt by any continuity, because so many other continuity claims were wrong. But Frazer quotes older documents, he says, the first evidence for the celtic festival is from the 8th century, because christian synodes at that time write about this festival. Are his sources wrong, then, or did he make them up? I read nothing about this in the Frazer article, it just states, that his conclusions (magic -religion -science as an evolution) are not the present scientific standard. But that does not say, his sources were wrong. --93.232.143.236 (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, son. "English hillbilly regions?" What are you smokin'? Whether Halloween has existed in Germany for only 20 years is really irrelevant. Lots of stuff happened in other countries more than 20 years ago. Sounds like any research you don't like is "old-fashioned", and if something isn't evident at Hochdorf or some other place east of the Rhine, then it is just plain "outdated" "receltification" that can be "dismissed". Pretty POV in the face of present-day scholarship in the UK and the USA that DOES see a connection with the pagan past. Eastcote (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Having scrolled down the page and waded through some of the elongated comments, Bakulan is becoming more ridiculous and trying to rewrite history; reconstructing the development of Halloween in his own eyes and overlooking swathes of scholary information and regional customs.Bostonian Mike (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)