Talk:Samhain/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Pagan Thought Police

Wow, that didn't take long. I posted a question about a pov revert to the intro of the Samhain article and within 30 minutes it was deleted. This article used to lead with the npov statement that Samhain was the word as Gaeilge for the month of November and gave it's etymology. It now leads with unsourced POV neo-pagan claptrap about their festival. I even mentioned in my comment that of course it was appropriate to discuss the modern neo-pagan festival of Samhain but that it should first be noted that it has a more generic meaning. That would be the encyclopedic thing to do. I suppose whomever deleted my post didn't like the fact that I pointed out that neo-pagans have essentially stolen Samhain from celtic culture and have made it in to something it never was. Ye love to point out how christians did that to "your" festivals but the goddess forbid that anyone point out that ye are doing the same thing with celtic culture and tradition. About 90% of the information in the current article is unsourced and reflects the typical overly romanticized concept of samhain popular among neo-pagans. Alas, I'm sure this comment too will be deleted. So much for the true meaning of wikipedia. --Dliodoir (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Your comment was removed because it was an insult-filled rant, not a constructive comment about improving the article. (And I say that as a Christian, not a pagan.) The article begins with a discussion of Samhain in ancient pagan Celtic culture, not with its significance in neo-Paganism. That doesn't come until two-thirds of the way down the page. If you care about "the true meaning of Wikipedia", read the article first without preconceived notions of what you expect to find, then read WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK, then come back here to discuss improvements to the article without name-calling. —Angr 14:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Pop Culture

I've added in a reference to the inclusion of Samhain in the Halloween series of movies, specifically with regards to Michael Myers himself. To be honest, I'm surprised there wasn't already any mention of the connection as the Halloween movies are more high profile than the other two examples. HDC7777 (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Take it to Irish mythology in popular culture. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

songs about Samhain

If we can have
[[Category:Christmas songs]]
List of Christmas hit singles
List of non-religious Christmas songs
Then what about List of songs about Samhaim?
Civic Cat (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding entry 6 The Spirit of Halloween

In looking over the entry on Samhain, this particular section seems somewhat out of place, as it is located between Celtic Reconstructionism and Wicca but does not seem to have anything to do with either of them or the previous section of Neopaganism. It is also put in as a top level headline, rather than a subheader; the implication is that Wicca falls under this heading. I would also like to note there are no references of any sort in regards to the information posted under The Spirit of Halloween. My main concern is for the accuracy of this information, as well as its correct location within the article. Thank you. 64.85.228.72 (talk) 08:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

References

This:

<ref name="Danaher"/><ref name="McNeill"/><ref name="O'Driscoll"/>

is not acceptable. We don't call for "references" because we like the look of these little footnote numerals. References are supposed to clarify which information is taken from where. Just a liberal sprinkling of the article with generic references that amount to a hundred pages does not do that job. The fact that statements are attributed to all three of these (doubtlessly valid) references, summarily, makes it clear that whoever added these footnotes did not have the sources in front of them. --dab (𒁳) 10:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at the article history, and it turns out that the edit in question is User:Kathryn NicDhàna's, from January 2007.

I respect Kathryn for the work she does on Celtic topics, and the edit was certainly a great improvement to the article as it stood in 2006, but now (2010) it becomes apparent that the "virtual referencing" (summarily slapping references on an existing paragraph written by somebody else) created a problem: the paragraph remained unverified for more than three years because editors assumed it had been based on reliable sources.

My present concern is the claim that the English term bonfire originates as a loan translation of 'tine cnámh. This piece of information has since Samhain 2006 made its way from Wikipedia to the internet at large. The question is, is it true? After Kathryn's edit, the claim was implied that this theory was found in "Danaher", "McNeill" and/or "O'Driscoll". Is this the case? If so, in which of the three? The point is that this claim was originally added by an anonymous IP with no reference whatsoever, but has now survived without challenge for three years because of the "pseudo-referencing". Such problems are extremely difficult to spot, and it would be better to leave information unreferenced than to create a false impression of backing in academic sources. --dab (𒁳) 10:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I've sourced the tine cnámh to O'Donaill, Focloir Gaeilge-Bearla/Irish-English Dictionary. Although, due to some spelling variation because of Irish spelling reforms in the 20th century, the actual spelling given in O'Donaill is tine chnámh. But my understanding is these are equivalent spellings for the same word.

As to the rather broad sourcing of whole paras to, as you say, a hundred pages in three sources, I'll see if I can address some of it since I believe I have all those texts available to me. But I'd like to note that I believe the citations can be refined exceedingly fine from these three sources, including multiple sources for multiple individual words in many of the sentences. Would you agree that seems an excessive approach to the citations? These are often dense sentences and perfect specificity of citation would inevitably lead to "citation drift" when other people edit the article, inserting phrases or rewriting sentences but very often moving the citation to an incorrect place or leaving it to cite the wrong info. I've seen this often on WP. I'm not saying the citations here shouldn't be more specific, only that it requires more ongoing attention by editors familiar with the sources.

I'm really not arguing with your basic point, only some practical considerations on limits in my opinion. --Pigman☿/talk 16:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

of course you can compile entire paragraphs or even articles summarizing a source. Without needing to attach a footnote to every punctuation mark. The problem begins when you attach a "reference" to an existing paragraph, written by other people.

also, my issue is not with tine cnámh literally translating to "bone fire". The question is, did the English term bonfire, attested from about 1500, originate as a Gaelic loan translation and not, for example, vice versa. --dab (𒁳) 16:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right; this needs work. I can't recall who added the whole "bone fire" thing. I haven't had a chance to go back through the history but, IIRC, it was removed, then re-added a few times by persistent editors, and never with a good source. The over-general sourcing in other places was probably me trying to put in something basic, intending to come back and make it more specific. Looking in the notes, we do have page numbers for each of those references, though often to an entire chapter or series of pages in the respective books (say, the Samhain chapter in Danaher). But it looks like since I added those refs others have inserted additional content in those sections, or rearranged the paragraphs, implying the sources still apply to all the content now it's been altered. I have the books at hand here, and can make the page refs more specific when I get a chance. But I imagine other stuff here will need to go. I won't get to it today, though. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify on the page numbers referenced in the abbreviated/repeated ref format:

<ref name="Danaher"/> links to Danaher, Kevin (1972) The Year in Ireland: Irish Calendar Customs Dublin, Mercier. ISBN 1-85635-093-2 pp.190-232,

<ref name="McNeill"/> goes to McNeill, F. Marian (1961, 1990) The Silver Bough, Vol. 3. William MacLellan, Glasgow ISBN 0-948474-04-1 pp.11-46,

<ref name="O'Driscoll"/> goes to O'Driscoll, Robert (ed.) (1981) The Celtic Consciousness New York, Braziller ISBN 0-8076-1136-0 pp.197-216: Ross, Anne "Material Culture, Myth and Folk Memory" (on modern survivals); pp.217-242: Danaher, Kevin "Irish Folk Tradition and the Celtic Calendar" (on specific customs and rituals)

btw, Pigman, if you have time to get to the more specific pages today or tomorrow, go for it. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

dab: Apparently, I am stupid. I missed your point entirely about "bonfire". My (English) dictionary says "bonfire" comes from Middle English. Technically, the sentence "The word 'bonfire', or 'bonefire' is a direct translation of the Gaelic tine cnámh" is basically correct but very misleading. The translation of tine cnámh is indeed "bonfire" but the English word "bonfire" is not derived etymologically from tine cnámh as far as I can tell. I'm removing the sentence entirely; it's unnecessary and obviously confusing. --Pigman☿/talk 16:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Also,

"A harvest festival with ancient roots in Celtic polytheism, 

it was linked to festivals held around the same time in other Celtic cultures, and continued to be celebrated in late medieval times. Due to its date it became associated with the Christian festival All Saints' Day, and greatly influenced modern celebration of Halloween."

No citation...

Loreena McKennitt's song

Is the Loreena McKennitt's All Souls' Night about All Souls' Day or Samhain?

I've posted this in here and in Talk:All Souls' Day.Civic Cat (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

All Souls' Night is literally the evening of All Souls' Day, November 2. So therefore the answer would be no.BoyintheMachine (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly...

This holiday was originally named after a spirit of the same name. I'll look it up, but it seems like an oversight without mentioning that (if true). And I was going to mention Glen Danzig's band -- but I see there's a page for that already. :) --valerie (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring to "Samhain" the god or spirit of the dead then you would be mistaken. Samhain is not the name of a deity.BoyintheMachine (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidence of Pagan origin

Maybe I'm missing something, but I see no discussion in this article of the primary sources that provide evidence of a pagan origin for this holiday. It seems clear to me that this holiday can be traced back to the middle ages, but what makes anyone think that it had a pre-Christian origin? Rwflammang (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

everything has pre-Christian roots, including the word "roots" and Christianity itself. That's a null statement.

It is part of Wikipedia's fate that people will always keep re-inserting misconceptions that are already debunked in the article, simply because you cannot expect people to read more than the lead section (if even that) before clicking the "edit" button. --dab (𒁳) 16:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The german WP article mentions Samhain as predominantly neoceltic holiday +- invented by John Rhys around 1890. This can be based on quality sources as e.g. Bernhard Maier (Die Religionen der Kelten. Götter - Mythen. Weltbild, 2. Aufl., München 2004, S. 174ff) and others see more of a link between early christianity in Ireland and Caltic revival reconstruction than the other wayround. BTW Most things I am aware of have no prechristian roots, e.g. Wikipedia itself. ;) Bakulan (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

of course Wikipedia has pre-Christian roots. See e.g. Nabnitu, Old Italic alphabets.

in other words, the problem is not in the term "pre-Christian", it is in your exact understanding of term "roots".

frankly, I don't see what you want. The article doesn't allege that Samhain has "pre-Christian roots" beyond a sober discussion of the etymology of the word and its occurrence in the Coligny calendar. The remaining discussion of the festival's early history concerns the medieval period, i.e. the Christian period. The article is also aware that the notion of the "Celtic New Year" associated with Samhain dates to the 18th century. If you want to add further material concerning the modern-era popularisation of the festival, you are welcome to do that. --dab (𒁳) 11:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what "null statement" means, but I think a discussion of the primary sources regarding Samhain's origin would improve the article. I don't think that discussing the origin of wikipedia here would improve the article. Rwflammang (talk) 11:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

unless you provide us with a strong sources, preferrably the early Medieval or even Roman chronicles, not much will change. A scourge of all Paganism- and Early Christianity- related articles, maybe with an exception of Roman holidays which are well-documented, is the scarcity of the sources, which in addition in most cases represent a very strong POV. There are a lot of discussions on the Slavic holidays, too, though Slavic Paganism was preserved much longer than Celtic one (some peoples were officially Pagan even in XII century CE).

For example, the Harvest festival of Plony or Dożynki is described with details in Saxo Grammaticus chronicle "Gesta Danorum". Still, in Polish wikipedia there's no mention on the source, which may lead to accusations that it's a Romantic invention, which it clearly isn't (if anything, Saxo or his patron, bishop Absalon, could have invented or changed some facts in XII century).

Article about the Springtime festival Jare Gody was removed altogether, despite many references in the folklore and similiarities with other cultures (eg. Nowruz or Holi, which share a lot of customs similiar both with Easter and Jare Gody, despite the geographical distance). Again, there were no sources. In the case oc Celtic holidays, I am curious what about other holidays as Imbolc, Beltaine, Lughnasadh, etc? If they are historically confirmed, then this would be strange if Samhain was not observed, as most European cultures _did have_ the season-related festivals, and the time of these other holidays clearly indicates the preferrence for cross-quarter holidays (around the halves between Equinox and Solstice dates; of course I don't claim these peoples observed Solstices and Equinoxes as such, dating was rather based on Lunisolar calendar), rather than quarter ones (around, though probably not directly related to, the Solstices and Equinoxes).

And if Celts observed cross-quarters, then it becomes obvious: Imbolc (February), Beltaine (May), Lugnasadh (August), Samhain (November). Also, what's wrong with the sources as books by Nora Chadwick, who was a respected Medievalist for most of her life? Does anybody here have such an expertise in the topics of ancient/medieval holidays, that he/she may claim something is "naive", "serious", "true", "untrue"? Lack of the sources and too bold claims by the people who may or may not be experts in the themes they comment, whether as skeptics or apologists, is a serious threat to the reliability of Wikipedia and makes this project not much reliable one. Critto (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip about Chadwick. I'll look into it. I too am curious about the origins of the other holidays as well. Unfortunately, Google turns up very little that is useful, mostly just assertions and human interest stories of the "did you know" or "it's a little known fact" type, none citing believable sources. I think this article, (and the others as well) can benefit from a discussion of the evidence for the origins of these feasts. Rwflammang (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, Google doesn't help much here, with exception of Google books. I've been searching for attested festivals of Northern Europe, using the phrases like "attested Celtic festival", "attested Celtic holiday", "Celtic holiday" & attestation, etc., later replacing Celtic with European, Pagan, Norse, Germanic, Nordic, Slavic, Baltic; None of the results were satisfactory, most were related to the wikipedia pages, often reproduced on answers.com and many other sites, both with and without a citation. I don't believe there is no skilled scholar interested in the topic, it's rather a plight of Google type of indexing and searching. There were a lot articles in Pagan, Catholic and Skeptical sites, most of them seemed to be derivative works from Wikipedia articles. Greetings Critto (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you think so indeed. Then I would kindly ask you to review the edit history of this article and try to figure out who has tended to collect such decent references as this article currently does have.

Regarding Bakulan's complaint, I must say that the article still cites to many shoddy references. Citing the naive claim that Samhain was "the Celtic New Year" from Chadwick (1970) does not establish that this idea was popularised in the 18th century. It seems to be correct that John Rhys was the first to come up with this expression, apparently in the 1880s. Literature in the 18th century still discussed Samhain in the context of the yearly ritual of the druids, I might add based on medieval Irish sources. In this sense, the idea that the Samhain festival has pre-Christian roots is due to medieval Ireland, such as the 9th-century Sanas Cormaic. I am adding information from Hutton. We can lose inferior references such as Chadwick as far as I am concerned. --dab (𒁳) 11:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we have established the following:

• Samhain was the beginning of the winter season in medieval Ireland, attested from about the 10th century.
• the earliest claim of a pagan ritual celebrated at Samhain dates to the 17th century
• 18th century scholarship mostly took the pagan associations of Samhain for granted
• the theory that the festival did not just mark the beginning of the winter season but the "Celtic New Year" is due to Rhys and Frazer, and dates to the late 19th century.

I think there is a little misunderstanding here surrounding the terms "pagan" or "pre-Christian". Often saying "pre-Christian roots" seems to imply some religious significance. In my book, "pre-Christian" would simply mean that the "quarter days" marking the four seasons are a tradition that predate the 5th century, without supposing any religious cult associated with them. --dab (𒁳) 12:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. If so, then its allsaints thats influenced our view of Samhain and not vice versa. basically on should clearly state in the entrance paragraph, that Samhain is neoceltic reconstruction without much evidence in the ancient celtic record. Bakulan (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's so simple. I think clearly Samhain is an early (8th century?) medieval holiday, and not just a neo-celtic reconstruction. Its original meaning is shrouded in mystery. I don't know when All Saints Day was first celebrated in November in Ireland, but I do know that All Saints was celebrated in April in 5th century Ireland. I'd be surprised if All Saints was celebrated in November in Ireland before the 9th century, but I could be wrong about that. It's conceivable that Samhain originated as a local variant of All Saints, but it's also conceivable that it had an independent origin. If the latter, it's conceivable that its origins may have been pre-Christian, but far from certain. In fact, I know of no positive evidence to support any of this. Rwflammang (talk) 03:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

in my view, thinking about folk customs requires the evolutionary approach. This means, that the traditions, both local and "global", were simply evolving and blending customs from many sources. It was rather a folk-based, natural thing than an agenda eg. of the Church or Pagan priests of yore. For example, Christmas Tree is now popular in most Christian countries, while it originated in 16th century Germany. It might or might not be a remnant of the Pagan tree worship (not exactly in this way, of course), but anyway it was blended into traditions of other countries. :::Similiarly, Samhain might be a holiday that blended a lot of traditions, some of them originating in pre-Christian Celtic times, some maybe coming from the Anglo-Saxons or Vikings, and some being born just in the country, as a form of folk magick (which was a living tradition in most of Europe, not necessarily a continuation of Pagan traditions), folklorized version of Christianity (though I can't find any associations between some of the Samhain customs and Christian message; folk Christianity has usually more profound Christian themes, eg. the figures of Christ or Mary at the crossroads, open air celebration of The Passion of Christ, hanging of Judas, etc. Also, some popular customs are not Pagan, not Christian, not magickal, but just secular, eg. celebration of one's birthday, marriage/town foundation/school foundation anniversary, school year beginning, etc. I think that in a rural, agrarian society, a lot of customs, especially related to fire and fertility, can be explained this way. Greetings, Critto (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Bakulan, what is wrong with you? HistoricalSamhain is a medieval Celtic festival. Why do you keep going on about the "ancient Celts"? It may have escaped your notice, but there is a period of time between the ancient Celtic period and neoceltic reconstruction. It only spans about a millennium, the 6th to 16th centuries, and is known as the "Middle Ages". The Gaelic Middle Ages are neither "pagan" nor "neoceltic reconstruction", they are just the Christian Celtic Middle Ages. Your constant focus on paganism and neopaganism in a topic that concerns the Christian Middle Ages is completely beside the point, and also annoying.

I realize that there is much pseudohistorical nonsense flying around concerning the "ancient pagan Celts" and their connection to Samhain etc. But it is precisely the neopagan fallacy to ignore the medieval period, and pretend that the "ancient Celts" were somehow seamlessly followed by the Wiccans. I appreciate that you are trying to dispel such fallacies, but by ignoring the medieval period yourself, you are simply perpetuating the neopagan fallacy. The Gaelic festival did not so much "become associated" with a Catholic festival, it was a Catholic festival, celebrated by Celts who were also Catholics, or Catholics who were also Celts. It is completely undisputed that Samhain was an important festival in medieval (Christian) Gaelic culture. It is correct that the idea that this festival is somehow "pagan" seems to be modern, but that doesn't make the festical itself a modern invention. --dab (𒁳) 07:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to improve the article in this respect. Our earliest references establish that Samhain was a festival in medieval Ireland (say, 10th to 12th century). Any speculation on how the festival may have looked like at an earlier time, say the 7th century, let alone the 4th or 3rd century, are just that: speculation. Our earliest evidence linking All Saints to 1 November date to the 8th century, i.e. they are 200 years older than our earliest references to Samhain. It is therefore pointless to try and postulate a Samhain that was not associated with the Church festival of All Saints. --dab (𒁳) 13:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The entry sounds much better now. Bakulan (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, it's not much important what you or me think about this, as everyone can have his or her theories, it's important what the experts think about this. Did you read any of the sources mentioned eg. Stations of the Sun by Hutton? Did anyone of us read the literature for the commented topic? What does Hutton exactly say about Samhain? What do the Medieval sources say? I think it's a good idea to quote the fragments of original text in wikipedia, as not everybody has an access to the referenced books, while a piece of original wording would give the article more credibility.

Being skeptical to ALL theories, let's not forget about skepticism towards wikipedia. Having worked on this project for few yearts, I am very skeptical about its character, where anything may be changed indefinitely by an indefinite number of authors, many of whom might or might not have read the sources they cite. Articles like this one are DOOMED to be a front of war between Christian and Pagan apologists. Unless there is someone who specializes in the topic and who will quote some experts directly, the article will ever be unreliable, at least for me. Besides, a huge pity is that Wikipedia is being quoted on many sites (usually spam-sites), giving an exorbitant SEO popularity of its articles, to the extent of inability to find any other sources on the Internet. Critto (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

well, thank god for google books.

yes I did read what Hutton wrote, on google books. As soon as there is any doubt as to whether a particular reference is being misrepresented, it can make sense to give a brief verbatim quote of the salient point along with the citation in the footnote. You are free to add such quotes.

apart from that, it isn't clear what you are criticizing. You are more or less stating the obvious. Of course we should represent what the experts have written, this goes without saying, and this is what I am trying to do.

I criticise exactly what I have told about:

1. adding information without sourcing - this doesn't relate to your work as I am aware of your care of sources and details, this does however relate to work of many editors not only in English wikipedia. Too many articles are being constantly rewritten or have been deleted because of this. Sometimes it's better not to post an info than post one that is doubtful. All of that makes Wikipedia a poor and unreliable resource

2. too obscure sourcing where it exists, a problem mentioned by some other editors here; citing the sources to the paragraphs they don't relate to or not confirm, etc. Quoting the material inside the article text would be a good antidote for this problem

3. too much attachment to one or two selected authors and selective use of their work; about 30 references are being used in the article about Samhain and still it now seems that only Hutton is being seen as reliable, despite the fact that most other sources were written by the experts with academic background, too, employing however a different methods, eg. based on etnography (interpretation of folklore , linguistics or archaelogy. This is unfair for me, as it favours one method of research (historical one preferred by Hutton) at the cost of other _academic_ methods. Of course, I mean today's research, not the one by James Frazer. Hutton,on the other hand, seems to me to confront the historical research with the outdated theses from "The Golden Bough", omitting the current etnography. I am sure that even among the sources mentioned in this article, some espouse the etnographic position, and still Hutton's way is being favoured.

Also, Hutton himself warns over any oversimplification, both in favour or against the thesis of pagan remnants in folklore, as what is true for British Isles doesn't have to be true eg. for Slavic or Baltic countries, where, as I am aware, a lot has survived in the rural culture. He also doesn't deny that there existed a pagan festival on Samhain, however it is probably elaborated on the p. 370, which is absent in the digital preview of the book (if you can provide me with a quotatation, I'd be grateful). Similiarly, he supports the idea that there existed Pagan festivals of Imbolc and Beltaine, though he thinks most of the current customs to be later invention. Critto (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

4. oversimplification - writing an article based on the single academic method instead of few ones that will complete each other, omitting important things as synchretic character of Celtic Christianity of the age of Saint Patrick and after him, period of Christianization which in every culture has adapted older traditions into Christian ones, etc. Christianity and Paganism seem to be harshly contrasted here, while in the folklore they have coexisted in most of the European cultures. In Slavic cultuer, for example, some myths were re-created based on the folklore, eg. the Creation Myth starring God and The Devil was a Christianized retelling of the popular, not only Indo-European myth of the Divine Combat between two deities: one of Light and one of Darkness; in Slavic setting this was probably a duel between Svarog and Veles or Perun and Veles. It would be impossible to reconstruct this myth from history alone, however it was quite easily reconstructed from folklore. Similiarly, a lot of customs related to Easter, Christmas, Pentecost, St. John's Night, etc were found to be of pre-Christian origin, whether religious or secular (if such a distinction existed at all in Pagan times). A lot of etnographers in Poland elaborated the topic. Why isn't this done in relation with Celtic holidays? Critto (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

of course it is irrelevant what you or I may be thinking about Samhain. This should be clear to anyone but freshest newcomers to the project. What is relevant is what you and I are thinking about what the relevant expert literature is, and how it is best represented. This also involves "thinking", and it's what makes us encyclopedic editors, as opposed to web crawling bots.

--dab (𒁳) 20:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

yep, surely it does, however this requires expertise in the topic, which is not guaranteed by the character of Wikipedia and evidenced with the lengthy and sometimes hot discussions and debates on each article which last for years. Again, this is not a criticism of your work, which being balanced and sourced is among the best examples of wikipedia input, it's about the people who recklessly start and develop articles that need to be rewritten from scratch then. Cheers, Critto (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

sure, I know, but in my experience articles that are written based on solid expertise, with the proper references, are much less likely to deteriorate by naive or misguided additions, because such will stand out much more than if the article was itself poor to begin with. Once an article is really solid, it can also be semiprotected in the long term, because the likelihood of useful additions by passing IPs will decrease to virtually nil. This article isn't quite there yet, but it is improved every time somebody brings up questionable material. Ultimately, the sub-standard additions are the motor that drives Wikipedia, because they annoy people enough to make an effort. --dab (𒁳) 12:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Christianization

So we both agree that the Wikipedia articles should be well-sourced. It's good, as this is crucial for Wikipedia to be received as a reliable resource base and not another hobby only. What's very important for me, though, is better sourcing about Samhain and other holidays based on the folklorist/etnographic approach. One should not underestimate this position only because Frazer and some other researchers have overstated their claims about some relations.

Most of what we know today about Slavic, Baltic and Finnish mythology comes from the folklore, including the creation myths, roles od the Deities and Spirits, etc. A lot was recovered about Slavic pagan customs thanks to the numerous analyses of the living folklore, too. I know that the case of Celts is much more complicated, as they were christianised few centuries before Slavs, not to say about the Balts who (in Lithuania) were baptised in XV century, and a lot survived as a live tradition; similiar case is with Finns and Sami people.

Anyway, I have serious doubts, that the customs like passing cattle between bonfires, dressing up as ghosts, goblins and demons could have originated as a Christian custom. What Christian message does it contain? How is it related to the messianic revelation about Christ as the only Saviour of the World? Jews and early Christians despised such things. By contrast, Pagans have venerated and worshipped fire and considered it sacred, protective and healing since the oldest times in most or all cultures, as found by the numerous archeological discoveries, surviving traditions, myths, legends, etc.

That's a good point, and your impression is, I suspect, widely shared. But I have my doubts that passing cattle between bonfires, dressing up as ghosts, etc. are really pagan in origin. Remember that the pagans were really creeped out by widespread Christian practices like veneration of relics, boneyards, sleeping in coffins, and other momento mori practices that were generally more popular among Christians than pagans. A major part of pagan ceremonial had to do with ritual purification after pollution by contact with death. Christians did not share these taboos. In ancient times, Christians were in some respects the subcultural goths of the ancient world. Rwflammang (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If anything, it may be just the secular or "magickal" folk custom; I think this should be researched for and if I find anything, I will add some sources. I have some friends who are into magickal and druidic traditions and are interested in history, so as soon as I know anything, I will share this with you. Anyway, folk magick thrived in Christian countries, too, and it wasn't always a continuation of Pagan customs; a good example is Iceland where a lot in this domain (eg. Icelandic magical staves) was created during the late Middle Ages, Renaissance and later eras. While proving that this or that custom originated in ancient or "very early" medieval Ireland, Scotland or England may be difficult or impossible, I am almost certain this is not Christian custom at all, though Christian community may have tolerated and adopted it. Some customs are simply found in most or all agrarian cultures, despite the lack of contact between some of them (eg. both Aztecs and Romans venerated fire and Sun, though it's obvious they never communicated in ancient times). Insight in the psychology of archetypes (eg. Jungian psychology) could be helpful here as I think.

Anyway, I think we shared our thoughts as for now and as I said, I will provide you with the proper folklorist sources as soon as I get them. I am not skilled enough in Celtic matters as to assess the writers eg. Nora Chadwick or Ronald Hutton. Cheers, Critto (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, there is a fallacy in there: "I have serious doubts, that X could have originated as a Christian custom. What Christian message does it contain?" This is because of a dual meaning of "Christian" here: one religious and the other chronological. Assuming that every custon that isn't Christian in the religious sense must logically be pre-Christian in the chronological sense is obviously mistaken. Star Trek conventions are clearly not a Christian custom. After all, what Christian message do they contain? Does it follow, therefore, that Star Trek conventions must be a pre-Christian, ancient pagan custom? Folk customs can originate any time, regardless of mainstream religion. They will also often not be clearly "secular", but expressions of folk religion or myth (just like Star Trek). If that makes them "pagan" is probably a matter of definition, but they certainly aren't pre-Christian chronologically. --dab (𒁳) 08:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)