Talk:Halloween/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2015

Halloween is always (even to this day) celebrated on the last Friday of October in Kilmarnock, East Ayrshire, Scotland. This dates back to the time when factory workers would receive their pay packet on a Friday and in order to ensure treats could be purchased for children the day was moved to match that of pay day. 62.189.175.100 (talk) 13:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2015

please add in the Games and other activities that in sanford maine theres a place on halloween where you can go trunk or treating http://curtislake.org/2012/outreach/trunk-or-treat/ http://www.fosters.com/article/20151028/NEWS/151029330 http://www.fosters.com/article/20141023/NEWS/141029745 65.175.243.206 (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: trunk or treating is already described at the end of the Halloween#Trick-or-treating and guising section. There's no need to get specific with where this can be done Cannolis (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Gwrachod is welsh for Witches

I've not checked the source but the 'fearsome beings called Gwrachod' would translate as witches - but it may mean 'warlocks' or some other equivalent. Not sure - perhaps there is a wiki cymru entry for gwrachod this might link to ? EdwardLane (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2015

"in Poland, believers are taught to pray out loud as they walk through the forests in order that the souls of the dead might find comfort"

this is not true. There is long not practiced tradition of Dziady (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dziady) and actually practiced Zaduszki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaduszki) that take place the next day. There is no running through forests and no chanting any spells. Could this misleading sentence be removed?

Hubertlepicki (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Partly done: I have changed this sentence to be past tense, as the source is speaking of past observances, rather than modern day. If you could provide exact text (with source) for current day observances, I will replace it entirely. -- ferret (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Overly Religious

I am not an Atheist and do not have a problem with religion but Halloween, although it has religious origins or at least became so, is not associated with Christianity today. This page is littered with odd references here and there about abstaining from meat on Halloween among other things. It's not a religious holiday and while Nov. 1 and 2nd are, Oct. 31 is not. I think the page should have this tone taken down a bit. One or two churches in the world that have new views on Halloween should not constitute a part in the article. Stick with what it is which is a secular holiday in the vast majority of the world except pockets here and there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mctaviix (talk • contribs) 15:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

That depends on where you go. In parts of the world like Europe and Asia, All Hallows' Eve is indeed largely a Christian religious occasion preparing for the following feast days. In the United States, its more of a secular/commercial celebration and the lede of the article reflects that. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 16:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
In the UK, far from being Religious in any way, Halloween has become a commercial, secular/anti-religious event. And yet, on a night aimed at being frightening, people are wishing their friends a "Happy Halloween!" Might not a fitting comment on this perverted event be: Halloween RIP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.232.39 (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Yup. It reads like a bizarrely religious tract - I didn't even recognise it as an article on the secular festival I've grown up with. It also minimises the pagan roots of the festival in what appears to be an attempt to "christianise" the event. It is also inconsistent with the version of the article in other languages. For example, the only references to Christianity in the French version acknowledge the influence of Christianity as being quite peripheral: "En dépit de son nom d'origine chrétienne et anglaise, la grande majorité des sources présentent Halloween comme un héritage de la fête païenne de Samain qui était célébrée au début de l'automne par les Celts " (My translation: Despite the Christian, English origin of the name, the majority of sources present Halloween as an inheritance from the Pagan festival of Samhain, which was celebrated at the start of autumn by the celts."

The English version seems to present a revisionist version of history. Perhaps what is required is recognition that All Hallows Eve is not a synonym for Hallowe'en, at least in much of the world, and the two concepts are only tangentially related. This should be split into two articles. 70.74.116.208 (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Your ignorance of the history of the festival's history and customs is not an excuse. The fact that you don't know that Halloween and All Hallows' Eve are the same thing attests to that. Even an atheist publication acknowledges that most of Halloween's customs are not pagan but Christian. That being said, this Wikipedia article devotes a HUGE chunk of text to addressing the theory of pagan origins, even going as far as to present this theory as truth (despite the fact that many historians disagree with it) before discussing the Christian origins of the day in the next section! Take the complaining elsewhere. Bmbaker88 (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2015

I wanted to add an edit about Halloween in the context of celebrations around Allhallowtide across cultures. The edit that I made (and that was reverted) was following the final sentence of the second paragraph of the lede, and was as follows:"Halloween is one of many cultural elaborations of celebrations of the dead during Allhallowtide that are found across many Christian cultures, including All Saints' Day and All Souls' Day, celebrated in many countries in Europe and Latin America, as well as Día de Muertos in Mexico, Dia dos Fiéis Defuntos in Brazil, and Undas in the Philippines." Possible sources include:[1][2][3] -CircleAdrian (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear User:CircleAdrian, thank you for your edit. I thought the addition was quite constructive but needed to revert this edit, which made major changes to long-standing edits in the lede of the article. I restored your contribution but moved it to another section. I also truncated it slightly since All Saints' Day and All Souls' Day are a part of Allhallowtide regardless of geographic location. Do you feel that your contribution merits a place in the lede or are you okay with it being in this section. I look forward to hearing from you! With regards, AnupamTalk 16:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
The way that you incorporated the edit makes sense to me. Thanks. -CircleAdrian (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually, Anupam, never mind: this doesn't make sense to me. I feel like there's a number of problems here. One is that the Mexican & Philippine practices listed here (and the Brazilian one in the edited text that I wrote above — you didn't use this text, you used the original one I wrote that you deleted) aren't on Halloween, they're on All Souls' Day, so they don't belong in a section called "[Halloween] Around the World". Another, pre-existing problem is that there's existing descriptions of past & present cultural practices on Halloween in the last paragraph of the "Christian influence" section earlier in the article — I think these practices are contemporary, rather than being purely historical... so, we have two different places in the article where we're talking about cross-cultural practices around Allhallowtide. And I think that putting this "around the world" section at the end of the article doesn't really fit very well — the cross-cultural context of Allhallowtide/Halloween should probably be explained together, in one place, rather than both under "Christian influence" and "Around the World" in very different parts of the article. Additionally, I found a source [here https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/liturgicalyear/activities/view.cfm?id=1185] that has much more detail on cross-cultural practices around Allhallowtide.
IMHO, I tend to think that there should be a sentence in the lede talking about the broader cross-cultural context — that Halloween is one of many cultural institutions around Allhallowtide that focus on honoring the dead — and then, in addition, there should then be a subsection at the end of the "History" section that talks about different examples of how Allhallowtide has evolved into different cultural practices today, with examples including both examples of Halloween celebrations and other cross-cultural examples of other Allhallowtide celebrations, so that the "History" section ends neatly with a discussion of how this history of Allhallowtide lives on in various cultures. (That said, I don't have time to work on this — I'm behind in my schoolwork as it is — so I'm hoping someone else wants to work on restructuring this.) -CircleAdrian (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply User:CircleAdrian. Would you like to propose, here, on the talk page, a sentence that you wish to be added in the lede? Since you didn't think that your first one belonged in the "Around the world" section, I removed it for now, although I would welcome including something similar in the lede. I don't see a need to restructure the History section of the article because academic sources usually discuss the possible Celtic influence, and then the Christian developments of the observance. That's what we've done here. Furthermore the "Christian influence" section does cover historical practices such as souling that have influenced modern customs, such as trick-or-treating. The "Gaelic and Welsh influence" does the same thing by talking about impersonating the Aos Sí. It only makes sense that some of the customs that occurred historically still occur today as part of the observance of Halloween. Allhallowtide (All Hallows' Eve/Halloween, All Hallows' Day/All Saints' Day, and All Souls' Day) is observed differently in different parts of the globe. Since this article just pertains to the first of the three days, including information on how Mexicans and Filipinos observe All Hallows' Eve (which is included as part of the Day of the Dead celebrations) would be best in the "Around the world" section. It might be helpful to talk about how Allhallowtide is observed in the cultural context of Undas and Día de muertos in those articles themselves. I hope this helps and best of luck in your studies! With regards, AnupamTalk 19:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Could this be of help? Although All Saints' Day and Allhallowtide each have pages on Wikipedia, topics to do with specifically those holidays and their practices are included in detail under the topic of Halloween. While it is very difficult, and would not be informative, to completely separate these related holidays as some seem to wish, I suspect having details of practices observed on All Saints' Day or the triduum of Allhallowtide and not on All Hallow's Eve on their own pages with a quick link to them in the Halloween article here might solve some of the above concerns. I am referring to not just this section, "Semi-protected edit request..." but above concerns as well. I am not being anti-religious, or pro-secular, nor asking that references to religious practices be removed at all, I should add. Those are as much a part of the traditions associated with this time as the secular and the pagan roots and current practices which are responsibly included too. The lack of cultural bias is commendable and vital to any encyclopedic account, and each end of the spectrum is the central theme of the day for many people. Understanding what we have in common and the different ways we can celebrate is healthy, imho, so I am speaking just as a researcher, wondering if anyone else feels that would help make the traditions of each day's observance across the world a little more clear, as they do seem to blend here a bit, especially for those who were unaware of the diversity of the holiday. I simply think clarity might be obtained by having each day's page deal with specifically that day's observances. The links included do admirably encourage further research on related days for a more complete understanding. All Hallow's Eve and Halloween are intertwined of course, but All Saints' Day and the three day practice of Allhallowtide are not the exact same holiday and details here seem to be making the topic more confusing to some readers. As the article is locked, and because there is some current controversy about this holiday (at least in areas of the U.S.), I imagine that editing mischief has occurred by people unwilling or reluctant to see the big picture at all, so I again assure you, I am not trying to erase or obscure the church influence or Americanize the topic. I simply seek to help make each day's information easier for readers to keep straight. Thank you for your time and for a very informative collection of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.149.104 (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Prayer

Taken from Halloween#Christianity:

Father, All-Powerful and Ever-Living God, today we rejoice in the holy men and women of every time and place. May their prayers bring us your forgiveness and love. We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen. —All Hallow's Eve Prayer from the Liturgy of the Hours

It seems like an opening prayer for the Solemnity of All Saints: [1], [2], [3]. Not sure if it could also be used on All Hallow's Eve. Rgds, Ign christian (talk) 12:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello User:Ign christian! I have a copy of both the Roman Catholic four volume set of the Liturgy of the Hours, as well as the Anglican Breviary. In the Anglican Breviary, on page 1514 (E494), for the "Vigil of All Saints", there is a Collect that reads: "O LORD our God, increase, we pray thee, and multiply upon us the gifts of thy grace: that we, who do prevent the glorious festival of all thy Saints, may of thee be enabled joyfully to follow them in all virtuous and godly living. Through." Since this is specifically for All Hallows' Eve, it might be better to supplant the current prayer in the article with this one. However, I have no problem with the current prayer, as I found it in a compilation by the Catholic author David Bennett, who lists the prayer from the Liturgy of the Hours as an "Eve of All Saints Prayer" here. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello Anupam, glad to see you again. :) Ehm..I tend to agree with your first idea, since it came from official sources. In my opinion, the current prayer has no good enough source (as you pointed out here). However I'll support what you think best. Thanks, Ign christian (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Halloween. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2016


halloween is not a contraction of All Hallows evening but of All Hallows Eve, eve being the day before All Hallows just as Christmas Eve is the day before Christmas.

86.162.144.58 (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The second source cited is not from an academic as stated in the article but someone running a website promoting Christianity. "Angie Mosteller is the director of Celebrating Holidays, a non-profit educational organization dedicated to teaching the Christian history of holidays."

https://www.amazon.com/Christian-Origins-Halloween-pamphlet-Mosteller/dp/1596365358

http://www.celebratingholidays.com/?page_id=805 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seumas Mactalla (talk • contribs) 12:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

 Not done The statement that the reference by Mosteller supports has four additional references backing it up. Since Halloween (All Hallows' Eve) has its origins in Christianity, there are, no doubt, going to be several articles and books that are written by professors who identify themselves as Christians and we do not discriminate on Wikipedia on the basis of one's religious background. In the case of Angie Mosteller, she has graduate degrees in theology and served as a university professor. Besides, the article written by Mosteller cites two other scholars, Francis Weiser and Nicholas Rogers. AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 15:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
It may be a good idea to consider putting the costumes section as a sub category of the trick or treating and guising section. Pagan viewpoints also deserve more space as they seem to be underrepresented. Sumidhak (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I think you're getting confused with Samhain, the holiday that neopagans/Wiccans celebrate on the same day as Halloween--October 31. If you notice there's a whole article dedicated to that topic, even though this article about Halloween covers much more than necessary about possible pagan influences, both here and here. AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 01:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2016

2602:302:D101:C6D0:D170:CD34:DC89:2B49 (talk) 02:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC) i would like to edit because i have more info on halloween and i may be able to answer questions about a lot of stuff on here thank you PS you left out that halloween is more irish than st.patricks day and that jacko lanterns are just carved pumpkins

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Primary Sources

I'm noting a lot of primary sources on this article, primarily linked to Catholic sites. This stuff needs to be removed: we need secondary sources discussing these matters. Answers aren't always obvious and it's important to have experts who have the academic background necessary to discuss this topic. I see that we have folklorist Jack Santino's Halloween in America: Contemporary Customs and Performances and we need a lot more of these reliable secondary sources. Santino also discusses a lot about coverage here that I'm not seeing. At some point this article could do well with a rewrite sticking to these sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding "Haunted attractions" Section

Please note that the page Haunted attraction (simulated) is currently under revision, which will likely result in changes to this section in the Article. I will notify interested editors here when the revision is complete. Oddjob84 (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Primary Sources

I'm noting a lot of primary sources on this article, primarily linked to Catholic sites. This stuff needs to be removed: we need secondary sources discussing these matters. Answers aren't always obvious and it's important to have experts who have the academic background necessary to discuss this topic. I see that we have folklorist Jack Santino's Halloween in America: Contemporary Customs and Performances and we need a lot more of these reliable secondary sources. Santino also discusses a lot about coverage here that I'm not seeing. At some point this article could do well with a rewrite sticking to these sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding "Haunted attractions" Section

Please note that the page Haunted attraction (simulated) is currently under revision, which will likely result in changes to this section in the Article. I will notify interested editors here when the revision is complete. Oddjob84 (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)  Done

Primary Sources

I'm noting a lot of primary sources on this article, primarily linked to Catholic sites. This stuff needs to be removed: we need secondary sources discussing these matters. Answers aren't always obvious and it's important to have experts who have the academic background necessary to discuss this topic. I see that we have folklorist Jack Santino's Halloween in America: Contemporary Customs and Performances and we need a lot more of these reliable secondary sources. Santino also discusses a lot about coverage here that I'm not seeing. At some point this article could do well with a rewrite sticking to these sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit protection

As of 02:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC) this page has been indefinitely semiprotected from IP users and unconfirmed editors. Thank you, Samara.  — Myk Streja (who,me?) 04:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding "Haunted attractions" Section

Please note that the page Haunted attraction (simulated) is currently under revision, which will likely result in changes to this section in the Article. I will notify interested editors here when the revision is complete. Oddjob84 (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)  Done — 03:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Retraction

While typing in the edit summary for this edit I mistakenly typed in Anupam's error. It should have read Anupam's edit. I apologize for my mistake and accept the blame.  — Myk Streja (who,me?) 04:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Halloween

(moved here from user talk page)
Dear User:Myk Streja, I appreciate your contributions to the Halloween article, but would like to point out that the changes you reinstated were made on July 6. The wording prior to this change was more accurate because it reflects the content of the sources. The first source used to buttress the statement, for example, provides quotes from three scholars, including Ronald Hutton, who have stated that the claim made towards paganism is not definitive, and that All Hallow's Eve (as well as All Hallow's Day) originate in 8th century Christianity. As such, I would be grateful if you could self-revert and reinstate the words "that may have" and remove the clause "much later" in order to reflect both perspectives, rather than just one. Once again, thanks for your work! With regards, AnupamTalk 05:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

With regard to your recent comment here, don't worry about it :) I've been in a rush and have typed too fast as well! Cheers, AnupamTalk 05:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
@Myk Streja and Anupam: Pope Gregory I inaugurated the doctrine of syncretism around 601 CE. The Celts and their celebration of Samhain are known to have predated that by a considerable period. Sometime in the mid-eighth century, Pope Gregory III moved the existing feast of the martyrs to November 1, and renamed it All Saints. Some scholars believe this was an effort to co-opt the celebration of Samhain among the Christianized Celts, who were not inclined to give it up. Morton, Lisa (2012). Trick or Treat A history of Halloween. Reaktion Books. p. 12-19. ISBN 978-1-78023-187-7. In any case, what we know as Halloween today has been relatively well demonstrated to be a confluence of at least those two observances, and probably more. (See quote in section below.) At very least, this point is debatable. Oddjob84 (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

(moved here from user talk page)
Regarding Halloween: Lisa Morton in Trick or Treat: A History of Halloween says on page 12: "The unassailable facts of Halloween are fourfold. First, it boasts both a pagan and Christian history. Second, its position in the calendar- at the end of autumn/beginning of winter- means it has always served in part as a harvest celebration. Third, it is related to other festivals of the dead around the world, and so has always had a sombre, even morbid element. Finally, however, its combination of pagan New Year celebration and joyful harvest feast have also given it a raucous side, and it has almost always been observed with parties and mischief-making." I hope that helps. There are two full chapters on that topic, and it's complicated. BTW, Ms. Morton is an acknowledged leading authority on Halloween. Oddjob84 (talk) 09:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Oddjob84 and Anupam: I will be adding the Morton reference momentarily. Anupam, I've reviewed the July 6th edits by DrRC, and I'm astounded that I didn't notice what s/he did. If you have an objectinn to the restoration, say so now. I'll be exporting the deleted material to a sandbox to review before replacing. DrRC left no edit summaries,so, to my mind, that makes reversion fair game. BTW, if you review your edit summary you might see how it could be seen as offensive to an editor who is invested in the article. Given a little more detail I would have been inclined to drag you into the restoration effort here.  — Myk Streja (who,me?) 14:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
@Anupam: After a closer review of what was done, I realized all that was done was to reformat a picture, change those few words and add some carriage returns. No editing required and the sources (all seven of them) support the wording as it is now. Thank you for your concern.  — Myk Streja (who,me?) 15:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Adding a one more source to further a particular POV doesn't help the case. We have other sources, such as the one Anupam presented, that show that there are two views and WP:DUE weight must be given to both of them. The current intro is the result of the collaboration of several editors over the years and wording is of utmost importance. Myk Streja is right when they say that altering this against consensus could be perceived as disruptive. I'm going to reverse the changes to the WP:STATUSQUO and no edit warring should take place until the issue is resolved here. I would hate to have to file another report at WP:AN/3RR. AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 16:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Oddjob84, Eve Siebert, in Skeptic states that James Frazer, a 19th century mythologist, made the claim, without evidence, that Samhain was a "pagan Celtic feast of the dead", but "he had no evidence to support his claim" and that "none of the tales portray any...pagan religious element". Other modern historians also refute this but because of the flimsy claims made by Rhys and Frazer, the idea that Halloween is somehow "pagan" lingers in the minds of the public. Can you see why the word "possible" in the intro is so important here? It changes a statement that is presented as pure fact to one that is a possibility. AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 17:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
@Renzoy16: The only edit warring going on here seems to be coming from you. This discussion is between myself, Oddjob84 and Anupam Your hardly veiled threat shows a total lack of good faith and respect. Are you an administrator? Has someone asked you in to mediate? As of right now, if I called for an RfC on this article it would likely fall in favor of the status quo from before today. Your opinion carries no more weight than mine so why should I stand by while you start reverting? Oddjob? Anupam? Should I start an RfC?  — Myk Streja (who,me?) 17:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
@Myk Streja and Renzoy16: The problem with your thesis seems to center around the (apparently) loaded word "pagan". I have not mentioned religion vis a vis Halloween/pagans at all. Here's a quote from the page on the subject: "It is crucial to stress right from the start that until the 20th century people did not call themselves pagans to describe the religion they practised. The notion of paganism, as it is generally understood today, was created by the early Christian Church. It was a label that Christians applied to others, one of the antitheses that were central to the process of Christian self-definition. As such, throughout history it was generally used in a derogatory sense." — Owen Davies, Paganism: A Very Short Introduction, 2011[12]. I am beginning to suspect the present dustup has more to do with a Christian-centric view of Halloween than is actually due. Samhain was the the end of summer and the beginning of winter; debts were paid; there was even a romantic element. In short, it was a harvest festival. Actually, the James Frazer claim is based on one made by Charles Vallancey between 1762 and 1786. This claim was debunked during Vallancey's lifetime, but it gained traction and has been repeated since, including by Frazier. I think that Halloween has not only been influenced by Samhain, but may actually be rooted in that secular tradition. I'm not inclined to be drawn into a debate on the exact right word for the lead, but if there ends up being an RfC on the subject, I will attend and question the slant of the article. Oddjob84 (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention to this discussion User:Myk Streja. At this point, I don't think that a RfC is necessary as this is a small issue that can be settled with a small discussion. My personal suggestion is a compromise that reintroduces the reference added by you and also retains the wording that User:Renzoy16 restored. I think this should be acceptable to both of you (who have spent time working on the article) and if so, I can go ahead and implement it. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 19:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sensing a consensus here, so I'm going to bite the bullet and let it stand. I appreciate that you were offering me a bone, Anupam, but the reference was only there to prove my point. Moot under the circumstances.
Anupam's edit stays, the reference is left out. I'm guessing there's no reason for a real reversion here.  — Myk Streja (who,me?) 21:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Myk Streja, you've been really patient and polite throughout this whole discussion and I really commend your teamwork and understanding. By the way, great job with your work on the section discussing Haunted attractions! With regards, AnupamTalk 21:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Anupam, Renzoy16 and Myk Streja that the original wording is what we should use. It is well thought out, as it gives weight to both well-sourced views regarding the origin of Halloween. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Calan Gaeaf inclusion in the first part

Can someone who has more editing powers edit the first part to include Welsh 'Calan Gaeaf'?, so change this line; "It is widely believed that many Halloween traditions originated from Celtic harvest festivals that may have pagan roots, particularly the Gaelic festival Samhain," To; "It is widely believed that many Halloween traditions originated from Celtic harvest festivals that may have pagan roots, particularly the Gaelic festival Samhain and the Welsh festival Calan Gaeaf' Both Celtic branches are as old as each other and including just the Gaelic shows a bias to the more popular Irish identity, both cultures share very similar traditions, customs and myths, it is true that the Welsh custom is included within the Articles further down, but the introduction of the article bares no reference to the Welsh side, so if you have more powers to edit, it would be great to beef up the article with acuracy, thanks.

@Hogyncymru: Please note that Calan Gaeaf is covered extensively in the second and third paragraphs of History. Do you think it also needs to be in the lead? Please note that "leads" in general are supposed to be brief and succinct, and the lead in this article is already a bit long. Oddjob84 (talk) 11:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Oddjob84 I don't think you understand what I mean, the first part mentions the Gaelic fesitval 'Samhain'.. but that's just one part of Halloween's origin, the Welsh side has just as much claim to the origin as the Gaelic side so that's why I wanted the first part amended to include Calan Gaeaf, I'm only wanting a fair article covered at both sides not just one.. despite the article including Calan Gaeaf further down.

@Hogyncymru: I do understand exactly what you mean. My objection is purely technical: The lead in this article is overly long, and will have to be edited. Leads are supposed to be a very brief summary of the article, with details expanded below. For better or worse, Samhain is by far the best known antecedent of Halloween and is appropriately mentioned in the lead. Calan Gaeaf, along with Kalan Gwav (Cornwall) and Kalan Goañv (Brittany) are appropriately covered below in History, as they are lesser known, but still important parts of the history. No one is discriminating against the Welsh. If you have well-sourced material which might expand the coverage of Calan Gaeaf in the History section, I will be happy to do it for you. Oddjob84 (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@oddjob84 How about this; http://cymraeg.gov.wales/news/index/calan-gaeaf?lang=en, The problem is that Gaelic(Irish) culture is dominant in the World whereas Welsh culture is not, and when people speak of the origins of Halloween, it's often reported as one-sided with the Calan Gaeaf thrown to the side as an example.. which is exactly what is seen in the introduction of this article, so you'll find far more articles covering Samhain than Calan Gaeaf even though they both roughly originated at the same time.. this is why I reached out to here, to make it look balanced, It would be nice if the article was amended to give the intro a two-sided account of the origin asap, but I don't mind waiting weeks or even months for it to be updated as long as it eventually does get a fair representation. I understand that the intro is supposed to be short, but the intro is the deal-breaker, it's what most people read quickly to get facts, so if one part is omitted.. people will automatically assume that Samhain is the true origin when it's only half of the truth, every year when I see somebody talk about Halloween, hardly ever do I hear them talk about Calan Gaeaf and people need to be educated on this even if it is just a small paragraph in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogyncymru (talk • contribs) 14:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Hogyncymru, I have added a sentence from the reference you provided to the article. Since the section focused on how Gaelic and Welsh traditions influenced the modern celebration of Halloween, the sentence I selected pertained to the lighting of bonfires. I agree with User:Oddjob84 that many sources claim that Samhain is the antecedent of Halloween and All Hallow's Day so mention of Samhain belongs in the lede, while other influences, such as Calan Gaeaf, are discussed in the "History" section of the article. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 15:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Outdated Sources and Pagan Bias

The section on pagan influences on Halloween appears to be based on outdated research. For example; regarding the issue of supposed customs of Samhain, historian Ronald Hutton explains in his book, Stations of the Sun:

[T]he medieval records furnish no evidence that 1 November was a major pan-Celtic festival, and none of religious ceremonies, even where it was observed (p. 362).

There are some folk tales where humans have dealings with deities or monsters that end or begin on Samhain, but as Hutton concludes:

[T]heir point cannot be proved from the tales themselves; it could just be that several narratives are started, set, or concluded at this feast because it represented an ideal context, being a major gathering of royalty and warriors with time on their hands (p. 362).

00:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)J Sorensen (talk)

Hello J Sorensen. It does appear that Hutton credibly challenges the long & widely held belief that Halloween *rites* have pagan origins, primarily in Stations, which was published in 1996. That said, he clearly states Halloween itself is the modern day version of Samhain (and other Norther European pre-Medieval pagan festivals) in this 2014 Guardian opinion piece:
"All Hallows Eve, or Halloween, is the modern name in English for the great north European festival which signalled the end of the light and warm half of the year, and ushered in the cold and dark one... It was known in Irish as 'Samhain', summer's end; in Welsh as 'Nos Galan Gaeaf', 'winter’s eve'; in Anglo-Saxon as 'Blodmonath,' 'blood month'; and in Norse as the 'winter nights'. As such it was one of the greatest religious festivals of the ancient northern pagan year..."
Levdr1lp / talk 06:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The first paragraph from the 2014 article only says that "Halloween" is the name used to refer to those more ancient customs today. From the article you linked to, Hutton also explains:

It is commonly asserted that [Samhain] was the pagan festival of the dead. In reality feasts to commemorate the dead, where they can be found in ancient Europe, were celebrated by both pagans and early Christians, between March and May, as part of a spring cleaning to close off grieving and go forth into the new summer.

So my problem with this Wikipedia article is the third paragraph under the heading "Gaelic and Welsh influence." It appears to be claiming that Samhain had some connection to honoring the dead similar to the Christian "All Hallows Eve," but clearly there is no primary source evidence for this.

J Sorensen (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

J Sorensen- You titled this section (in part) "Pagan Bias". Hutton's 2014 piece is clearly linking various pagan festivals to the Halloween of today-- the "roots go deep." Now your issue seems to be whether Samhain itself was a festival for the dead. I agree that Hutton challenges this view, but whether Samhain was a festival for "the dead" (which Hutton questions) or marked the beginning of the "season of death" (which Hutton advocates), doesn't appear to support your initial claim about outdated sources and/or pagan bias. Levdr1lp / talk 19:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It says the "European roots (which includes Christianity) goes deep. The pagan bias in this Wiki article just inserts a claim that "belief that the souls of the dead return home on one night of the year" is attached to a section about Samhain. This is, at best, misleading. My issue is the same. There is a pagan bias in this particular section that culls bits and pieces of things in European history to show some kind of influence.

J Sorensen (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

J Sorensen- If your issue is limited to a specific point, that's fine. But you are apparently misquoting the article by inserting that parenthetical note on Christianity, which in turn misrepresents Hutton's own general view. This is what the piece says verbatim: "It is derided as a US import. But the European roots of the festival of dark and light go deep." I don't think Hutton is referring to Christianity there. He's clearly making the case that pagan Northern European influences pre-date Christian ones as the "roots" of modern day Halloween. He doesn't even mention Christianity until the 7th paragraph, and only then in conjunction with existing pagan customs. Levdr1lp / talk 01:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I am in agreement with J Sorensen - the article from "Skeptic Magazine" [4], as pointed out above, says that "the idea that Samhain marked the Celtic New Year came from nineteenth-century Oxford philologist Sir John Rhys, but that his evidence for this was “flimsy” (Hutton 363)." The author continues to say "According to Hutton, Frazer took Rhys’s idea that Samhain marked the New Year and used it as the basis for his own proposition ... he had no evidence to support his claim. There is no clear association between Samhain and the dead. There is, however, a very clear association between the Christian commemoration of Hallowtide." The Wikipedia article, as it is written now, incorrectly bases its Samhain claim in the speculation of Rhys and Frazer in an attempt to prove a false pagan origin, when in reality, most of Halloween's origins lie in Christianity. Sources from Frazer's "The Golden Bough" are present in the article and are passed off as fact, so yes, there are outdated sources in the article. If you have Hutton's book, "The Stations of the Sun", you will see that the material in the Gaelic and Welsh Influence section of the article is scrambled from two different parts of his book that he calls "Samhain" and "The Modern Halloween". The Wikipedia article strongly and incorrectly tries to push the point of view that these Gaelic and Weslsh customs have a pagan origin when most of them originated in the Christian Era as part of broader Allhallowtide observances. Even in the "Samhain" section of "Stations of the Sun", Hutton states that "in the seventeenth century fisherman would go down to the shore at Hallowe'en, kneel at the edge of the waves and repeat the Paternoster." I suspect that this was intentionally excluded from the "Gaelic and Welsh Influence" section of the article in order to make the festival appear pagan rather than Christian. Bmbaker88 (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
And I am in agreement with Levdr1lp. This issue has been litigated here on numerous occasions. The idea that Christianity is solely responsible for Halloween reveals an extraordinary bias, and cannot be supported with any reasonable scholarship. Please take a moment to read the discussion above titled "Halloween", and perhaps look at the Talk Archives. Oddjob84 (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I have looked through your edits, Oddjob84, and although Levdr1lp seems to be a reasonable editor, you have made an entry on his talk page that says "pro-religious editors who stake out the page and jealously guard their POV" [5]. I would like to remind you that Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND - you seem to be eager to try to remove any mention of Christianity from this article than looking at the evidence from scholarly sources. You should also know that it is against Wikipedia policy to WP:CANVASS users who might agree with your POV to this discussion and it seems like you have engaged in this behavior in the past. Bmbaker88 (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Bmbaker88 It is interesting that rather than address the discussion at hand, your first resort is to a personal attack. Please review WP:PA before heading down that road further with me. I have no interest in removing Christianity from this page, it is clearly a part of the history of Halloween. I would, however, point out to you that the current balance between the secular and the religious in this article has been carefully crafted among a large group of editors over a long period of time. The title of this discussion does suggest a certain bias. Oddjob84 (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bmbaker88. You seem like a fairly reasonable editor as well, so please consider what I have to say. I didn't take Oddjob's post on my talk page to be canvassing (I edited this article, and he commented on my edits), nor does he appear to me eager "to remove any mention of Christianity" from this article. Now I could be wrong, but that's my impression based on our limited interaction. Halloween's origins have long been a source of debate here; I suggest you review this page's archives if you haven't already. Hutton appears to be the dominant academic figure when it comes to Halloween's origins, and I don't think it would be fair to characterize him as pro-pagan (not that you yourself have characterized him as such, but it seems others have here over the years). And Hutton clearly views Halloween as rooted in pagan Northern European culture; it's the foundation upon which the Christian tradition rests. Whether Samhain itself was a festival for "the dead" seems beside the point, and I'm not arguing for or against that. Please also note that the Skeptic piece author concludes with the following:
"... pagan elements... are so intertwined with the Christian tradition that it is impossible to disentangle the strands."
This article is not a winner-take-all, pagan or Christianity contest. We need a balanced approach, and while there may be some "scrambled" details which need reviewed, overall I think this article achieves that balance. Levdr1lp / talk 22:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Oddjob84 and User:Levdr1lp expressed my thoughts perfectly. This article has been meticulously written over the years, with a significant amount of effort made in order to give weight to both the Gaelic folk influence, as well as to the Christian influence, on the development of Halloween/All Hallows' Eve. There is a nice balance of the two in both the lede and in the body of the article itself that reflects what reliable sources state. From time to time, individuals seeking to push a certain POV on this article will make demands on the talk page, but will come to realize that the origins are the festival are more nuanced than they originally thought. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 07:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello Anupam. If by "Gaelic folk influence" you mean pagan Northern European culture, then yes, we are in agreement. The key in my view is to strike a balance between the older pagan influence, and the later Christian tradition. Neither can credibly claim a monopoly on the origins of this holiday, at least not according to Hutton. Levdr1lp / talk 10:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Indeed User:Levdr1lp, that balance is what I was referring to and this article does a good job reflecting both sources of influence. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 15:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The sources I have been working through lately (Lisa Morton, in both "Trick or Treat a history of Halloween" and "The Halloween Encyclopedia") both agree with this nuanced view of the source of Halloween. A couple of minor points: I'm not certain either "Gaelic folk influence" or "pagan northern European culture" are exactly accurate. The Celts (Keltoi) were the actual group, and were spread all over Europe back to at least 400 BCE. As well, I would not refer to them as "pagans". I understand this word has a popular use, but in an encyclopedia, we should try to be accurate. See the paragraph in the "Halloween" discussion above, just above the OD margin reset. These, however, are minor points, and can be left for another time. I think we are nearing consensus. Oddjob84 (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Well let's see what Beth Allison Barr, a history professor at Baylor University says in her article in "The Washington Post", which says (the article is called "Guess what? Halloween is more Christian than Pagan"): "we have very little evidence about the actual festivals of the people we know as Celts. It is the medieval Christian festivals of All Saints’ and All Souls’ that provide our firmest foundation for Halloween. From emphasizing dead souls (both good and evil), to decorating skeletons, lighting candles for processions, building bonfires to ward off evil spirits, organizing community feasts, and even encouraging carnival practices like costumes, the medieval and early modern traditions of “Hallowtide” fit well with our modern holiday." The academic also says "James Frazer’s description of Samhain in “The Golden Bough” anachronistically projected medieval traditions onto the past" and that "most of the traditions we associate with Halloween are medieval or early modern in their origin — not “pagan.”" Take some time to soak that in before realizing that the supposed pagan origins of Halloween and Allhallowtide as a whole is hogwash based on outdated scholarship that was simply the whimsical speculation of the discredited pseudoscholars Frazer and Rhys. The Gaelic and Welsh influence section should either be removed or should come with a disclaimer that the view that Halloween has pagan origins is a myth and has been thoroughly debunked by modern scholarship. Bmbaker88 (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
To summarize your proposition above: 'the influence of the Celts and Samhain on the history of Halloween is a myth which should be debunked, and the reference provided proves this'.
In reviewing the Barr article and its author, it is immediately clear that both meet the criteria of WP:BIASED. I am not suggesting that the author is unreliable, but that the piece was clearly written to advance a particular point of view. The author clearly self-identifies as an evangelical Christian in the article. The polling she cites was conducted by LifeWay Christian Resources, a Christian advocacy group. A review of her CV makes it clear that Christianity is her academic focus, and that her area of expertise does not include Halloween.
For the purpose of fact-checking the Barr article, I have used Lisa Morton's book Trick or Treat: a history of Halloween (2012), a reference which is not already cited in the History section of the Halloween article. Morton has no discernible bias other than scholarship, and the two chapters I have relied on for this response are footnoted with 24 and and 37 scholarly references respectively.
Barr says: "First, we know that festivals commemorating saints (All Hallows Eve) existed in Europe by 800. We also know that these festivals were not created to supplant previously-existing pagan rituals." We know no such thing. In 609 CE, Pope Gregory I is credited with using the doctrine of syncretism, instructing the clergy to do exactly that with the Celts, that is, supplant previously-existing pagan rituals. In the mid 700s, Pope Gregory III followed up by moving the "feast of the martyrs" from May to November 1. Pope Gregory IV renamed it "all saints" a hundred years later, between 827-844. (Morton: pp17-19)
Barr goes on: "The Irish world (which provides the origin of the Celtic feast Samhain) celebrated a feast for saints in April while the Germanic world (which did not recognize Samhain) celebrated in November." The Irish did not have saints until they converted to Christianity. The Celts and Samhain predated the 'Irish' by centuries. Samhain was always celebrated in the fall, as its primary raison d'etat was as a harvest festival. (Morton pp14-16) The early medieval churches in Ireland celebrated the feast of All Saints on April 20. Barr fails to mention that the people of Ireland also celebrated Samhain on October 31 before, during, and after this period.
Barr states: "In fact, John Mirk’s Festial... actually explains how “All Hallows Eve” came about. Pope Boniface IV converted the Roman Pantheon into a Christian church dedicated to saints and martyrs during the 7th century. This day was then commemorated as All Saints’ Day." That's an anachronism by about 250 years. The conversion of the Pantheon took place in May 609 CE, and replaced the Roman celebration of Lemuria, which ended May 13. Lemuria was, in fact, a festival of the dead. As noted above, the date would not be moved to coincide with Samhain for 150 years, and not be named "All Saints" for a further 100 years. Lemuria and Samhain had no historical connection whatever, and the original replacement for Lemuria celebrated martyrs, not saints. (Morton pp17)
I am not inclined to work through Barr's article point-by-point. The above issues serve to illustrate the relative usefulness of the article as a reference. The article might be used to suggest that Christianity has a place in the history of Halloween. However, this fact is already fully obvious, and Anupam, Levdr1lp and I have already acknowledged this to a greater or lesser extent. What this article cannot support is a claim that Samhain is a fraud and should be deleted.
Morton says it best: "The unassailable facts of Halloween [include]...it boasts both a pagan and Christian history. [And]...its position in the calendar- at the end of autumn/beginning of winter-means it has always served in part as a harvest celebration." (Morton pp12)
The Halloween article is required to meet WP:NPOV, and failure to include Celtic influence would be a clear violation of this policy, as well as WP:UNDUE.
In summary, the view you are advocating is sharply contrary to longstanding consensus, and as such, you will have a formidable burden of proof to make this change. So far, I have seen nothing which is remotely convincing. Oddjob84 (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Halloween. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Intro misleading

Can the discussion about the intro be altered please? the intro is incredibly misleading as it shows Samhain (an Irish side) more dominant than the Brythonic (Welsh/Cornish/Breton)'Calan Gaeaf', There has been a discussion about this before but it seems to have been archived to hide it from public view, also if there are any disputes regarding the intro designed to be short and sweet to only include the basic information of what the whole article contains, I can agree to this, but why leave out the Brythonic side which also is a large portion of the origins of Halloween?, this article should be levelled equally.. most readers only read the first part so if they read that bit they will leave the page believing Halloween's origins is Irish only, which is wrong.. and because the average editor cant edit this to be equal, it would be nice if those who do have control addresses this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogyncymru (talk • contribs) 02:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


I don't agree with that at all, in fact I think that Calan Gaeaf is over-represented. The history of Sahmain is far more conclusive and detailed than the Brythonic equivalent. It was the Scots and the Irish that brought Samhain to America which has come back as modern Halloween. Perhaps a separate section on the Brythonic equivalent would be appropriate, bearing in mind that this is an article about Halloween and therefore it would have to be demonstrated how Calan Gaeaf has influenced Halloween and not simply a section on Calan Gaeaf itself. S.Staines (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

And I don't agree to you, how is Calan gaeaf 'over-represented'? it is what it is and it's still existant today, if anything.. Calan Gaeaf is under-represented and overlooked, there is no proof to say that Samhain is older nor younger than Calan Gaeaf and as so, neither should be given a plinth in which it stands tall as being the founder of modern Halloween, in fact if I'm not mistaken it was the Briton that ruled most of UK after the Romans left and it is the Briton culture that remained in England long after the Brythonic speakers were pushed far into the West by the Saxons.

Being older or younger is irrelevant, although as I said the history, traditions and customs of Samhain are far more researched and definitive. It is over represented in this article as it doesn't state anywhere how it has influenced modern Halloween yet it is continually named alongside Samhain in equal measure which we know is the basis for modern Halloween, that is why. All well and good about Briton culture but how has it influenced modern Halloween is the question? S.Staines (talk) 05:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

"Observed in a number of countries" is also a bit misleading. It is really only observed in a handful of countries of British origin, with aspects of it bleeding into other countries due to what amounts to cultural imperialism and an aggregate of commercial interests. 84.248.218.89 (talk) 10:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2017

Hi - article is claiming Halloween is spread out over continental Europe. This is not the case. The tradition is not being generally followed here; also there is a general discussion as often it is regarded as an instrument of marketing and not coherent with prevailing religious views. Joachimbbelz (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

That may be true, but edits must include a source. Try to find a news article in which people interviewed talk about how Halloween is not a European thing, if that's the case.--~TPW 14:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Your request does not specifically state what text should be changed, nor what is should be changed to. Oddjob84 (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Does the original statement or bias include a source? 84.248.218.89 (talk) 10:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Hola i was a princess for halloween!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.1.229.138 (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The OP hasn't presented the full picture in the appropriate context. In many countries of Europe such as Spain and Sweden, the day is traditionally marked by visiting family members' graves in preparation for the following day, All Hallow's Day. Uppsala Cathedral, for example, is packed each All Hallow's Eve, with individuals celebrating a Requiem Mass before the visitation of cemeteries. In contrast to the usual solemn observances, there is some hostility to the importation of American customs, but even still, these have become popular in recent years among youth. Academic Challenger (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Visiting graves has more to do with All Hallow's Day. A lot of that stuff only happens around that day simply for convenience. Halloween itself really is an imported thing of it's own with no ties to other observations around that time. The celebrations are being pushed to sell stuff to children. 84.248.218.89 (talk) 10:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC) Halloween today is known as dressing up and getting free candy, but it used to be for scaring away the evils spirits.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Halloween. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The same argument each year

When editors want to include Calan Gaeaf in the synopsis of the page, another higher rank editor feels it is acceptable to ignore the Brythonic side of Haloween's origins, Most of the world believe that Haloween originates solely with Samhain and Calan Gaeaf is almost always overlooked/ignored, in this article, it discusses Calan gaeaf as being a part of Halloween however, when it comes to the brief summary at the top, Calan Gaeaf is being left aside.

The argument last year was that one of the editors believed that the adding more detail in the synopsis would cramp it, this argument was folly, why add Samhain but not Calan Gaeaf? It seems unfair to ignore this, it gives the illusion that Samhain is the origin whereas the rest of the article contradicts this.

Why is this an issue? why can't Calan Gaeaf be given an equal mention in the synopsis?, is it because the publicity given to Samhain is overwhelmingly larger than Calan Gaeaf?, please give a logical reason why Calan Gaeaf cannot be given this equal status in the synopsis please. thanks!, I welcome all editors who check out the talk page to give their view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogyncymru (talk • contribs) 17:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Coverage dictates content. The overwhelming majority of coverage on Halloween's origins notes Samhain, not this other festival. Levdr1lp / talk 11:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous argument, just because there are less information about Calan Gaeaf, does not invalidate its right to be represented as a joint origin of Halloween, give me a reason as to why without the 'there's more information on Samhain' argument, the issue here is that Calan Gaeaf is lesser known because Welsh culture was lesser known in America in its formation where-as Irish culture was overwhelmingly dominant in culture, therefore more people documented it whilst Calan Gaeaf was left in the shadows, give me a real argument to prove that Samhain is older than Calan Gaeaf, then I'll understand your process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogyncymru (talk • contribs) 11:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

https://www.countryfile.com/countryfile/the-ancient-origins-of-halloween/ < here's one article that gives the origin as these three — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogyncymru (talk • contribs) 11:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a personal essay. You may believe this lesser known festival should receive more credit for Halloween's origins, but that is not what the majority of reliable sources say. A Wikipedia article reflects the sum of reliable coverage on a given subject, particularly in the lead which summarizes the most important aspects of that subject. Levdr1lp / talk 21:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Show me evidence that Samhain is older than Calan Gaeaf and I'll agree with you, otherwise this article is flawed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogyncymru (talk • contribs) 23:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2018

A grammatical correction: Location: Halloween article; Food section; 2nd paragraph; Error: "...candy apples (known as toffee apples outside North America), caramel or taffy apples are common..." Correction: "...candy apples (known as toffee apples outside North America), caramel apples or taffy apples are common..." This phrase, as it currently is showing is grammatically awkward. The word 'caramel', by itself without the following word 'apple' produces a grammatically bad structure in the listing of 'candy apples, caramel or taffy apples'. By adding the word 'apple' after 'caramel' the sentence's faulty structure is fixed. Greg Stokley (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2018

The first picture under Symbols discussing a Halloween yard with witches, skeletons, ghosts, cobwebs, and headstones, does not have ghosts linked to the Ghost wiki. This should be added. Hiroshou (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done This might be overwikifying, but I did it anyways because this isn't the type of edit meant to be prevented by protection. I would not oppose this edit being reverted. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hallowe'en

I wonder whether it would be better to call this article "Hallowe'en" and make "Halloween" redirect to this page. Vorbee (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome to make a proposal by following the instructions at WP:RM, but first I'd suggest looking over the naming conventions for articles. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2018

68.109.234.108 (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

this isent trew

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Etymology

[OK, ignore this. Apparently I was viewing an old edit. Sorry to waste everyone's time.]

The etymology section makes the rather strange claim that Hallowe'en "comes from a Scottish term for All Hallows' Eve". It cites to the OED, but I've checked my OED (1971) and far from supporting the claim, it explicitly notes "Hallowe'en" as being "shortened from all-hallow-even".

I'm not sure why someone felt the need to attempt to connect "Hallowe'en" to Scots, given its obvious English derivation. I'm not familiar with Scots other than that it itself descends from Old English, which may explain any similarities. However, Scots did not emerge as a distinction dialect/language until the 13th century, too late to claim exclusivity to words such as "hallow" and "even". CNJECulver (talk) 07:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ Santino, Jack, ed. (1994). Halloween and Other Festivals of Death and Life. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.
  2. ^ Alea, Sonny Lawrence D. (29 October 2014). "Honoring our Ancestors: The True Meaning of Halloween". Pachamama Alliance blog. Retrieved 31 October 2015.
  3. ^ "About Day of the Dead". Human Planet Explorer. BBC. Retrieved 31 October 2015.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Halloween/Archive_15&oldid=1136784129"