Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Keltik31 (talk | contribs) at 17:11, 2 November 2006 (→not a costume party). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Halloween was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. Review: October 5, 2006.

Archives

2003–4,2005,2006

"Bonaire" section changed to "Caribbean"

I have noticed a user has added a Bonaire section to this article, which is WAY too narrow (Bonaire is a Caribbean island with under 50,000 people). I think Halloween customs would not vary to that great of an extent from island to island, so I guess we could broaden it to "Caribbean", which is slightly more professional. Badlands17 03:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that wouldn't work. There's more diversity in the Caribbean than you give us credit for. I know that here in St. Vincent we definitely don't do what they do in Bonaire. In fact, it seems that the Guy Fawkes celebrations dominate the English-speaking Caribbean with the celebration of Halloween depending in those places on the level of American influence. I added a sub-section on Halloween in the Caribbean (before reading what you said here, actually). Perhaps the part on Bonaire can be included as a pargraph under that subsection. ~ Hairouna 22:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Food and masks

I have deleted this passage:

In Great Britain and Ireland in particular, the pagan Celts celebrated the Day of the Dead on All Hallows Day (1st November). The spirits supposedly rose from the dead and, in order to attract them, food was left on the doors. To scare off the evil spirits, the Celts wore masks. When the Romans invaded Great Britain, they embellished the tradition with their own, which is both a celebration of the harvest and of honoring the dead. Very much later, these traditions were transported to the United States, Canada and Australia.

The first and last sentences are redundant to text already in the article. And the assertions that the pagan Celts wore masks and left food at the door just are not supported by scholarship, although those claims appear often (without documentation) in popular histories of Halloween. — Walloon 19:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Halloween traditions

This is the more substantive and notable article so is suggested as the recipient of any additional material not already present. The merge should be discussed below. There is a proposal to split the source article a list and to merge the remainder here. Fiddle Faddle 07:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Template removed and the issue is resolved for now. See Halloween traditions talk page for more. --The Argonaut 11:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Link "reduction"

User:SiobhanHansa has "trimmed down list in keeping with external links guidlines" according to the User's edit summary. In the wholesale "trimming" of national and local customs, two far from mainstream christianist links have been retained. Rather than restore the censored links myself, I merely draw this action to users' attention. --Wetman 02:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Halloween in the 1960s Ireland

Wow! Didn't know Halloween was controversial! So a PERSONAL recollection: I grew up in Dublin in the 1960’s. By that time dressing up and going door to door was widespread; Halloween was a major event.

Bonfires were lit on Halloween; Guy Fawkes was almost unknown, except that in the British ‘comics’ (Beano, Dandy etc) which we all read as kids, the 5th November was the big night; the British equivalent of Ireland's Halloween. .

The phrase "trick or treat" was unknown, but "have you got any apples or nuts" was used instead. Apple bobbing, barm brack with the peas, rag, ring, cloth and wood was part of the fare; as was "colcannon"; a mixture of mashed boiled potatoes and green curley kale which was embedded with coins wrapped in paper; this was served at dinner time (as the midday lunch was called).

All the modern stuff, the masks, fireworks, bonfires, dressing up etcetera was part of the event.

PUMPKINS were unknown; but we carved TURNIPS in exactly the same style.

But I must say my firm recollection was that Halloween was not celebrated in England; rather it was Bonfire Night (Guy Fawkes) that was the big event over there. — Sarah777 16:51, 23 September 2006

Very interesting! Thanks for the first-hand information. — Walloon 05:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I agree with that rendition about Dublin. Well,I can go back to the 1950's in Dublin. I remember the kids powdering their faces white, and around their eyes black, just to look spooky. Then masks started becoming more popular from the early 60's onwards. It was more of a kids thing then. It was a sort of becoming of age thing, the only night of the year where the parents allowed the kids to indulge in freedom, and the kids reveled in it. My English cousins did not celebrate it, but celebrated Nov6, in burning the Guy. My mother, who is 94 remembers it being celebrated in western Ireland. Snap apple, picking up coins from a watery-plate with the mouth, bobbing apples etc. The local boys would light great bonfires, that was about 1920 or so. 86.42.141.109 22:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes Night

Mentioning Guy Fawkes Night celebrations is not totally inappropriate in the section about Halloween in the U.K. It occurs on the calendar close to Halloween, and the traditions, especially in the lighting of bonfires, are similar to the old Halloween traditions. The existence of Guy Fawkes Night helps explain why Halloween was little observed in England from the 17th to the 20th century. (The de-emphasis of All Saints Day after the English Reformation being the other main reason.) — Walloon 21:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Walloon, I agree with you. Guy Fawkes Night does have a relevance to the main topic, as that is the big night in Great Britain when effigies of the Roman Catholic conspirator Guy Fawkes is ceremoniously burned in these fires. Although Irish communities in England, Scotland and Wales continued to mark Halloween, whether it was celebrated in Britain pre 17th century is questionable. 86.42.146.19 13:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ignorance, prejudice - Do people even research their facts when commenting on other nationalities' culture??

This is not aimed at everyone at wikipedia and there are some excellent articles but please understand my anger and annoyance which will soon become clear.

There is a lot of confusion, inaccurate and unresearched 'facts' on Halloween in this article. Some bordering on the absolutely absurd.

First off; Halloween was celebrated throughout the UK, not just originally Ireland. The ancient Brits were a celtic people if you do your research, many survived the invasions of the Roman, Anglo Saxon and viking invasions as celtic archaeology and carbon dating has prooved and even though Christianity was brought over to the UK by Irish monks (oh the irony), pagan worship was not wiped out of the UK and never has been. Halloween has been celebrated for hundreds and hundreds of years in England, there is enough documents throughout the ages detailing this. 'Bobbing for apples' and carving vegatables was originally English customs that occured during Halloween celebrations which dates back many centuries ago. This fact (an actual truthful one) doesn't fit in with Misplaced Pages's strange and untruthful claim that the English don't celebrate Halloween, that's news to us then what have we be doing on October the 31st for several centuries and then some??

Secondly; 'Bonfire night' or 'Guy Fawkes night' (clue is in the name?) is celebrated on November the Fifth and is about Guy Fawkes attempting to blow up the houses of parliament. It has NOT replaced Halloween and never has done. It is a separate celebration and has nothing to do with Halloween? America has 'Thanks Giving' not that far away from Christmas. If us Brits can differentiate between the Americans celebrating 'Thanks Giving' and Christmas then why is it hard for Americans to differentiate between the English celebrating Halloween and Bonfire night, they may be close together but they're not the same thing.

Thirdly; The English have not only just started to celebrate Halloween in the last decade, and it is not only celebrated in the North of England. This, out of all of the ludicrous comments and claims on this article is the most unbelievable. Where do people get this stuff from, do they just make it up as they go along? It's absolutely crazy and unfounded?? So, according to Misplaced Pages the English started celebrating Halloween in 1996, when we've been celebrating it since way before the middle ages, before even America had been 'discovered' by Columbus??

If I know very little about other countries' cultures and customs I don't interfere by posting non truths and made up facts to suit political agendas, prejudice and ignorance.I don't understand why non-English people are posting untruthful, unresearched facts about the English and then when someone who actually is English (and has studied English history!) corrects these mistakes and untruths they get their correct entry deleted off and replaced with more 'make believe' comments?

Fourth; Someone has corrected my spelling of faeries. If this individual had done their research they would see that 'faeries' is the Cornish spelling of faires and was not incorrect. Whoever it was could of found that out in less than two seconds by doing a Google search or checking an English website instead of changing it. Cornwall also being where the myth of English children not sitting in a ring of yellow and white flowers came from and it is still spelt that way in Cornwall and most areas of England today. I understand that spelling mistakes and grammer etc need to be corrected and I appreciate it as sometimes I do make mistakes where I have to post fast due to lack of time but when words are edited due to ignorance and prejudice then I quite understandably get annoyed.

Fifth; English children have been dressing up for Halloween since the middle ages, they did not collect sweets but bread, apples and sometimes if they were lucky toffee due to the fact that the English folk were peasants, Yeomen (farmers), blacksmiths etc and weren't the rich 'evil' landowners that the English have been portrayed to be thanks to Hollywood but again it's only the Scottish and the Irish according to some of the Misplaced Pages folk. (What about the Welsh??)

And lastly, why are people allowed to post things that are not true and has not been researched about England's Halloween and when anyone English who actually knows the actual fact corrects it, it gets deleted off?

Is there any point to an inaccurate Misplaced Pages?? I thought you all strived for an accurate encyclopedia, all I've read is prejudice and unresearched facts?

I apologize if my rant has offended anyone, my comments are not aimed at everyone nor Misplaced Pages as a whole, and as I said in the beginning there are some fantastic writers here and some fantastic articles. It's just a shame it's spoilt by an ignorant few that can't be bothered to do their research instead of posting whatever pops into their heads or suits their political agendas?

I will continue to correct the mistakes concerning the English and Halloween, no matter how many times it's changed back to the lies and 'can't be bothered to check if it's 'accurate' comments by the 'I hate the English' brigade.

I will keep on doing it. The Green Dragon 00:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You wrote, "'Bobbing for apples' and carving pumpkins was originally English customs that occured during Halloween celebrations which dates back many centuries ago." Pumpkins are native to the Americas, not Britain. Carved vegetable lanterns (like pumpkins) were first called "jack-o'-lanterns" in North America, not Britain. And as historian David J. Skal writes in Death Makes a Holiday: A Cultural History of Halloween,

Although every modern chronicle of the holiday repeats the claim that vegetable lanterns were a time-honored component of Halloween celebrations in the British Isles, none gives any primary documentation. In fact, none of the major nineteenth-century chronicles of British holidays and folk customs make any mention whatsoever of carved lanterns in connection with Halloween. Neither do any of the standard works of the early twentieth century.

You write that "English children have been dressing up for Halloween since the middle ages." Can you supply any pre-twentieth century source that claims that English children have been dressing up for Halloween? — Walloon 01:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I know from personal experience that Halloween was not celebrated in England in the 1960's. Green Dragon, you claim that it was always well celebrated in England, well why did it not travel to North America with English colonists, or even to Australia with English colonists. In my experience, it is becoming popular in England this last 10 years or so. A study of archive newspapers dated circa 31st October should give some telling results whether it was as popular in England as you say it was. You will reach a blank as Britain is historically a very protestant nation and did not celebrate All Souls Day, or even Oiche Samhain which is a festival in Ireland. 86.42.137.109 20:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC) - Can YOU proove that is has only been celebrated in the last decade (1996???).

Why don't you PROVE that the English has only celebrated Halloween for the last ten years according to you the 'expert' (1996 are you on drugs??). Even Shakespeare mentions Halloween. I've been celebrating it for over 40 years as everyone else has here. Stick to posting about YOUR OWN country not other folks*

No rational person has to prove that the English did not do something for centuries. The burden of proof is upon the person making the positive claim. See also the logical fallacy "Negative proof".Dogface 19:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Bobbing for apples

Green Dragon, do NOT delete other people's posts from this page, as you just did to the replies above, or you will be banned from Misplaced Pages. — Walloon 20:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I am NOT the person who wrote 1996. — Walloon 20:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Walloon - my comment wasn't aimed at you but ten years ago/ 'the last decade' was 1996, you do the math? Ban me if you want to silence me, it's not a problem as I have access to many computers at different locations. I'm just sick of Americans writing complete and utter crap about my country (as are many English folks), why don't these people write about their own country, we wouldn't mind if any of it was actually true but usually these people just write crap because they have a hard on for the Irish and because they're either to lazy or thick to write anything truthful. It's funny isn't it more Scottish went to Ireland than the English did and all of this happened long before the Americans kicked out the Native Americans off their land. HYPOCRITES ANYONE?. If it carries on I will wipe the whole of the article off. 82.45.74.211 4:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This man is a complete embarrassment, surely the British are not supposed to behave like this?? Anyway we say maths not math, so maybe he is not really British? ;) Sir Hugh 30 October 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.183.158 (talk • contribs)

No, you will not. First, because the anti-vandal robot will automatically restore the article, as it has done twice today from your vandalism. And second, because each computer you try to do that from will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages.

Instead of writing rants here (and presuming you know the nationalities of the article's editors), why not engage in sourcing your claims. If you claim that English children have been masking and costuming on Halloween for centuries, find, list, and quote a pre-1900 source that says so. If you claim that the English have been associating carved vegetable lanterns with Halloween for centuries, find, list, and quote a pre-1900 source that says so. I went through two shelves of books on English and Scottish folk customs, most written by British authors and many written in the 19th century, and none of them mention carved vegetable lanterns in association with Halloween. — Walloon 22:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to appoint regional editors to cover the ways that Halloween is observed in different nations? Those who demand pinpoint references for traditional oral sources of Halloween lore are in danger of being seen as playing semantic games in order to ensure that this entry continues to be a no entry zone to non-Americans.

In this kind of topic, it is logical to differentiate between oral and recorded sources - rather than taking a 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' approach. You may be unable to find carved vegetables etc. in your books, but I grew up in Derbyshire where the practise exists and has existed for so long that its origins are literally lost in the mists of time.

Bonfire (literally 'Bone Fire') Night (later fused with Guy Fawkes Night) rituals first began in Europe before the English came to Britain; they are nothing to do with Halloween.

Referring to the inclusion of native patterns of spelling as 'vandalism' (and removing them) instead of recognising them as potentially valuable insights which might be useful to folklore analysts and other serious researchers is entirely counter-productive.

Whilst it is laudable to aim for high scholarly standards and a 'hands on' approach to editing this entry, the person in charge has (perhaps without being aware of the transformation) merely squeezed out anybody who doesn't accept his views. I thought Misplaced Pages was supposed to be an open resource for everybody with reasonable input?

Ghosttracker 26th October 2006

No one disputes that carved vegetable lanterns have a long history in Britain and Ireland. What is being disputed is the claim that they were associated with Halloween in Britain or Ireland before the 20th century. No British or Irish folklorist of the 19th century or early 20th century mentions any such practice in association with Halloween. — Walloon 18:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Just because the Americanized version of Halloween has become the dominant one in the English speaking world it doesn't mean it is the only one. Please compare the way in which Coca-Cola's take on Christmas has been laid across various European festive traditions.Junius 11:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I must admit i feel it unfair that what i know is true, to be deemed untrue. Living in Lancashire, England, i remember when i was six or seven years old going to a park in Morecambe. Called Happy Mount Park it hosted, and had hosted for many years a halloween festival. This has now stopped due to the Mr. Blobby scandal when Noel Edmonds took over the land to create Crinkley Bottom. Shortly after opening the park closed as it was a major failure (By the way, this is true, please do not delete it, i know it sounds ridiculous, but it happened! And the residents of Morecambe are 1 million pounds worse off for it.). I am 22 now, so this festival must have happened around the 1980's. I have photographs.

I have also seen my parents photographs, and surprisingly they themselves are surprised to hear that nobody believes halloween occurred in England before the 1980's. They went to trick or treating and my father tought me some of his most mischievous tricks, which in turn his father had taught him.

This must mean that halloween was celebrated in the 1950's. I have no idea if it happened before this.

Halloween is not associated with Bonfire Night, it is hard to find proof to confirm this as nobody in England needs to have proof. It's just been information passed down for 400 years. Bonfire night is to celebrate the saving of the Houses of Parliament. When did politics have anything to do with ghosts and ghouls. Yes, Yes i know Margaret Thathcher, there is an exception to every rule! ;-)

But, seriously, Bonfire night is a 400 year old tradition. And i believe that celebrating halloween is an even older one. Do you know how many women were sent to their deaths in Lancaster, never mind the rest of England, as they were thought to be withches during the middle ages. England's middle or dark ages are a mysterious time, when tradition and folklore boomed, many traditions were created in this time and i see no reason why

I can see why green dragon is annoyed at this, as i am also. I do not presume to know where people originate from, but it is possible that some towns or villages in England do not celebrate Halloween, but some do.

There is no offence intended in this next statement. America is less than 400 years old, a tradition this old does not need proof as it is just passed from generation to generation.

Please can somebody with authoirty change what is said in the England section as it is completely false. Pinster2001 @ 31/10/06

Hi, do you have a source for this? We rely on verifiable information, not original research. KillerChihuahua 14:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

How can a person give a source of personal experience. If your friend said to you that she was nearly knocked down yesterday. Would you question it because you didnt see her nearly knocked over, or would you believe her first hand, eye wittness account?? There is very few sources for the entire tradition, as something as trivial as halloween in Britian in the middle ages was probably seen as not worth documenting.

What i think Green Draon was trying to say is why wdo Americans believe that Halloween was (for want of a better word) invented in America. IT is a celtic tradition and the British should be allowed to record their section, without people from other cultures vandalising the section.

It is unfair that what really has happened is not being aired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinster2001 (talk • contribs)

Hi, Pinster2001, could you have a look at http://www.bbc.co.uk/southampton/features/fireworks/halloween.shtml and comment whether this source explains what you mean. Addhoc 17:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That's great, it confirms almost everything i was trying to put across. I have been speaking to some older colleagues of mine and they too seem to think that after World War II they couldnt recall as many children dressing up. They said that in the 1980's especially after the release of E.T. the culture of trick or treating boomed. Thanks for finding that for me. It's just unfair when a tradition, part of a lot of heritage and ancestory is mistakenly explained as something it isnt. Pinster2001 @ 1/11/06

Colcannon

I mentioned above that the traditional Irish dinner (lunch) on Halloween was "colcannon" and was made with cabbage and potatoes. In fact that should have been green curley cale. You can find the recipe in the photo - try it!

Wrap a few coins in greaseproof paper and serve it up to the kids - be sure to warn then not to swallow any coins....this was the start of the Halloween festivites; dinner being served when we got home from school, about 2.30 in the afternoon.

Nowadays kids don't go to school on Halloween, but get the entire week off; the "Halloween Break"

(I've just spotted there is a Wiki article on "colcannon"; but it doesn't give the recipe.

I'll fix that!!

(Sarah777 12:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

UK Celebration Section

im new to wikipedia and im probably not even editing the talk page correctly.. but i just wanted to say thatthe section on celebration in the UK is really disorganized like, each sentence is a separate paragraph about a different tradition and it seems like people just randomly inserted things =D i will try to fix it but im not very good at this.. finisher 23:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Yeahhyeahyeah

Also, I am from England and have never even *heard* of a 'witch ball', let alone hung one in my window.213.160.122.2 13:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm also from the UK, specifically England, and a) have never heard of these, b) never met anyone who has, c) neither has google.

Searching google for "Witch balls" and "uk only sites" comes back with a staggering 1400 sites:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=100&hs=19D&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&q=%22witch+balls%22&btnG=Search&meta=cr%3DcountryUK%7CcountryGB

I'd suggest removing the "witch balls" comment, unless the person who added it is capable of backing up this claim. (after all the comment suggests it's something some who's lived in england all their life would know or would know of *someone* who does. Misplaced Pages's witch ball page suggests it was perhaps a common thing for rich people in the 18th century. Some traditions don't survive 3 centuries.

Heh, in fact, the only pictures I can find of any witch balls were all taken by people in the US, presumably sold them because they were told that people in England hang them in the windows by people who'd never BEEN to the UK on Hallowe'en. — 132.185.240.120 07:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Review

The Good Article review on this article has been closed, with three in favor of delisting and nobody opposed. At first the concern was the cleanup tag but that seems to of either been resolved or wasn't needed in the first place, but the references are still the big problem, although there are many notes, the majority of sections in this somewhat long articles have absolutly no references at all. Review archived here: Misplaced Pages:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 6 Homestarmy 00:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

'Originated in Ireland' - Oh no it didn't

Halloween did not originate in Ireland as quoted in the opening paragraph. It was a 'Celtic' festival, and as such was once known and celebrated across the whole of the British Isles (as well as Brittany in France). It survived, in one form or another, not just in Ireland but Scotland, Wales and England. To describe it as Irish in origin would be to deny the Celtic roots of many within Britain, something the Welsh in particular might not be to happy about.

I tried to amend this bias but some keen so-and-so has returned the page to it's privious stateJunius 11:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the opening paragraph from "Ireland" to "Britain and Ireland". — Walloon 12:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You may think this is petty, but it would be better to call Britain and Ireland as "Uk and Ireland, as Northern Ireland is separate to Great Britain and also separate to Ireland.

You can hardly say Halloween originated in the UK, since the United Kingdom didn't come into existence until 1801. "Britain and Ireland" refers to two islands, not two political entities. —Angr 14:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The Samhain festival of fire is definitely an Irish custom. All of the history of Samhain is particularly Irish, and even the name Samhain is of Old Irish language. The Wiccans have somehow focused in on this custom to claim it as their own. Parts of the article are losing focus. MelForbes 22:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

not only the wiccans but most pagans, and as the celts were pagans i think its our right to 'focus in on this custom' but we do not claim it as our own, we are not trying to steal it from you, it is a time to share and reflect, and as the end of the celtic year it hink it probably dates back before the irish were anywhere near being a unified nation, let alone anything but pagan

The intro... "Halloween originated among the Celts in Ireland, Britain and France as a pagan Celtic harvest festival"... sounds pretty spot on. MelForbes you are right that Samhain is particularly Irish but it can be said to have decended from a broader Celtic festival in the same way that Halloween itself has. Junius 13:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree, there were summer festivals and winter festivals in old Europe. When we talk about Samhain, we are distinctly referring to the Irish festival of fire, as the literature on Samhain is of Old Irish Literature and customs and folklore. It would be a mistake to make direct linkages between the various European cultures as regards Samhain. Whatever the distant history of Halloween, it is Ireland that it has been celebrated without interruption for thousands of years, and it was in that country that the tradition was held, even to the present day.

Samhain (Old Ireland) => Halloween (Ireland) => To USA (c 1840's with Irish Famine immigration) => Re-exported by American Culture
.MelForbes 15:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

MelForbes, the UK first paragraph is now more confusing than it was before. You removed Scotland from the list of areas to which the Celts were pushed after the Anglo-Saxon invasions. Are you saying that the Anglo-Saxon invasions did not push the Celts north into Scotland? And what nameless festival did the Celts take into Northern England and Wales? The UK section now says only "the festival" with no antecedent explanation. The Ireland section says, "The Celts celebrated Halloween as Samhain." So, which is it — was Samhain strictly a Gaelic festival, or was it a Celtic festival, celebrated throughout Celtic Ireland, Britain, and France? Please imagine yourself as a lay person, and not the Celtic historian, trying to make sense of this. — Walloon 03:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of ancient history is that Caledonia (now Scotland) was inhabited by the Picts. These Picts did not speak the same language as Britain (now England and Wales). About the year 500 A.D. or so, Irish Gales speaking Gaelic Old Irish invaded Caledonia and eventually implanted their culture and language on Caledonia to form what we now call Scotland. The Celts of Britain didn't go on masse to Caledonia with the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons, but mainly went west to Wales and Cumbria. Also, the Celts in Britain (England and Wales) linguistly were P-Celtic, and the Irish were Q-Celtic, so they didn't share a common language. The Picts spoke an unknown language. Therefore the people of Ireland and Britain and Caledonia were not a homogenous race, you cannot attribute Samhain to the Celts in Britain. And because of Scotland's connection with Ireland from about 500 onwards, Samhain may also have been celebrated there too. The article is losing focus,there are a lot of edits that need to be revisited to get things right with it. MelForbes 13:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

As it stands "Halloween originated among the Celts in Ireland, Britain and France" is not incorrect, Scotland is part of Britain as are Wales and England, surely this makes for a comfortable catch all as an area inhabited by the ancient Celts.

It is definitely worth remembering that the Romano-Celtic people of what is now England didn't all retreat to the fringes of the British Isles; many lived on and mixed genetically and culturally with the Anglo-Saxons, Norse, Etc

MelForbes - I don't think anyone is trying to attribute Samhain to anyone else but the Irish, what I believe is being said however is that Halloween is not Samhain but a melange that has its roots in Celtic culture. Junius 16:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a question of how accurate we want the article to be. Scotland was not classed as part of Britain in Roman times. Part of Britannia, yes. Too many editors will eventually un-balance an article. Samhain was Halloween in Ireland, probably called Calan Gaeaf in Britain (England and Wales in Roman times). Halloween is a newer word for the winter festival. MelForbes 17:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Calan Gaeaf is still celebarted under that name in Wales today. http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/history/sites/myths-customs/pages/events-customs.shtml

(The customs surrounding Dydd Calan, the Welsh New Year, are also quite fascinating) Junius 10:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone has had a bit of a hack at the opening paragraph...

"The pagan belief that lasted the longest in Brittany, and is by no means dead yet, was the cult of the dead. Caesar said that the Celts of Gaul traced their ancestry from the god of death, whom he called Dispater. Now figures of l'Ankou, a skeleton armed with a spear, can be seen in most villages of Brittany.</ref> as the Pagan Celtic harvest festival, Samhain. Irish, Scots, Calan Gaeaf in Welsh and other immigrants brought versions of the traditions to North America in the 19th century."

...all intersting stuff but hardly headline, can we revert back to an earlier version, and drop this stuff down to the regional refs?

Requires complete rewrite

Dear all,

this article requires a complete rewrite due to the fact that some sentences are very high-level and then there are sections that dive deep into local customs. If we mention two camps in Saudi, we should also mention some Halloween pockets in South Mongolia. Be more factual on the main points.

15.203.169.124 08:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

There is a comment from last year about this - Hallowe'en is the correct spelling. Who agrees the page is renamed? --Alex (Talk) 12:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

hallowe'en is AN acceptable spelling, as is halloween, and probably some other variants as well. --dan 23:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

What kind of nut spells something like "Hallowe'en"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.188.18 (talk • contribs)

Uh, me. That is the correct spelling. --Alex (Talk) 03:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you also spell "choose" as "chuse"? That's what they do in the Constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.188.18 (talk • contribs)

my fried sitting next to me is a linguist and a speech therapist, she wont pst but says that the english language is so convoluted that many different spellings are acceptable as words have been drawn from countless sources, and the only important factor is whether you can easily understand it.

i think we should use the more mainstream speling for ease of searching on a text based system, but the Hallowe'en spelling looks more, erm, mystical :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.150.169 (talk • contribs)

give a holiday a break

All holidays have there beginnings in pagan times. why don't we just enjoy them and quit trying to disect them — 68.201.147.89 23:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Washington's birthday, Columbus Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Veterans Day had their beginnings in pagan times? Huh! You can learn a lot at Misplaced Pages. — Walloon 06:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

you know what he meant, all the universal holidays - usually based on the season/crop cycle, no need to get all patriotic. — 89.240.150.169 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Midnight

The introduction currently says,

In Christian folklore, because it is an eve, the magic breaks at midnight, with the transition to All Saints' Day — a rare case where midnight brings beneficial effects.

Goldfritha added this same claim to the Misplaced Pages article on Midnight. Yet all Christian-era folklore I have seen held that midnight was the height of occult activity, not the end. It did not end until sunrise. — Walloon 03:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the passage quoted above. According to the recent book At Day's Close: Night in Times Past, by A. Roger Ekirch (pp. 138-140), the period between midnight and first cock crow (circa 3 a.m.) was considered the "dead of night," when evil spirits were most likely to prowl:

Not just boggarts and witches but the devil himself freely roamed his reign on earth lasting until cock crow, when, warned of the day's approach, demons took flight much as the ghost in Hamlet (ca. 1601). "Then, they say, no spirit dare stir abroad," observed the character Marcellus. This belief was at least as old as the fourth-century writings of the Spanish poet Prudentius. According to the Newcastle antiquary Henry Bourne, centuries later, "Hence, it is, that in country places, where the way of life requires early labour, they always go cheerfully to work at that time ; whereas if they are called abroad sooner, they are apt to imagine every thing they see or hear, to be a wandring ghost." Worse was to frequent those hours on certain nights of the year. All Hallows' Eve and the Eve of St. John (Midsummer Eve) in the British Isles, for example . . . .

From the end of the Roman era until about the 16th century, when town clocks became widespread in Europe, the day was reckoned to begin at sundown or sunrise, not at midnight. — Walloon 13:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The old Christian method of determining the end of a day was sunset, as in accord with both Jewish and Roman custom. This is still used in Eastern Christianity. Vespers "officially" ends a day for most Liturgical purposes. Midnight-centric methods came later.Dogface 14:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Quick Little Edit Note

I added "Snap-Apple Night" to the Nicknames section at the top of the page. Snap-Apple Night is a traditional nickname of Halloween (If you need a reference for this it would be "Death Makes a Holiday," a book already cited on this article.

I also suggest that searching for "Snap-Apple Night" redirects to the Halloween article.

Vyarnect 16:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

New Zealand

The reason the info on Halloween in New Zealand was removed was because Halloween is hardly celebrated in NZ, and it is not large enough tradition in the country to include information about it. 203.57.68.20 03:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ditto for Australia, although someone seems to have put the entries back. But seriously, it is Spring in the southern hemisphere and the halloween atmosphere is just not here. I am an Aussie who has lived in California for a while with young kids, and there is simply no comparison. How can you have a sense of Halloween when the sun is getting brighter, daylight savings kicks in, and water restrictions are kicked up a notch? It's even the wrong season for pumpkins. BTW, Easter has the same problem, but it is celebrated anyway for for the religious and chocolate components. Trishm 11:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I took out this paragraph, because it seems to assume that the lack of Halloween in the Southern Hemisphere is merely an accident of history.

A common misconception in Australia and in New Zealand is that Halloween is an American tradition when in fact it was brought to the United States by Irish immigrants who had practiced the festival in their own land for at least the previous 3000 years. In the early American colonies, the Irish diaspora were relatively free to practice their cultural and religious traditions. In the British colony of Australia however, Irish language, religion and cultural identification were banned by the British military authorities for decades after the colony was established. Australia was initially a penal colony where many of the forced labour inmates were identified as Irish political prisoners. Only in the late twentieth century, coinciding with the renewal and strengthening of the Irish-Australian cultural identity, have St. Patrick's Day and the much older Halloween festival received growing acceptance. Modern Australian Halloween celebrations are concentrated primarily in the Irish-Australian community but are becoming increasingly accepted in the wider Australian community.

The section on the Carribean will need to be modified accordingly. — Trishm 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Clearing up misconceptions about "Trick or Treat" as a custom

When I began to read the section on "Trick or Treat", I was quite pleased about the way in which this custom had been contextualised, but my pleasure was lost when I reached the section stating that in England, this custom is generally frowned upon as an American import. That may be true, but this is actually based on a popular but somewhat blinkered view of "Trick or Treat". In fact, some folklorists claim the custom derives from children begging for Soul Cake on All Soul's Day, which, being on November 2, is about the same time as Hallowe'en. ACEO 19:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Religious attitudes

There has been a persistant attempt most recently to change the article's discussion of religious attitudes toward Halloween, and present a minority opinion as if it were a majority opinion. The fact that the great majority of Christians celebrate Halloween should be an indicator of where the majority opinion is. Halloween was not created by satanists, and the fact that it is "embraced" by satanists has no more meaning than the fact that Halloween is also embraced by Christians. As part of this attempt to misrepresent majority Christian opinion about Halloween, the quotation from the Vatican official (that Halloween is harmless fun for kids) has also been removed again and again. While making passing reference to the holiday being accepted by some Christians, the editor has changed the section to a mostly negative portrayal of the interaction between Christians and Halloween. Misplaced Pages is not the spot for propagandizing. An article should be a neutral reportage of the facts of the world as they are, in the proportion that they are. Halloween is a problem for a minority of Christians, and the perspective of the article should reflect that fact. — Walloon 04:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Christmas and Easter are also based on pagan holidays. Just thought I'd say it. This debate does get a lot of attention. We should say it's debated, but I agree that most Christians really don't care that much. Holidays in our culture have a way of getting incredibly secular--I know plenty of non-Christians and even atheists who celebrate Christmas, and Halloween is far more secular than that in our culture. Ungovernable Force 06:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I had not realized that Passover was a "pagan holiday". Please read the Misplaced Pages articles on Easter.Dogface 14:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The discussion about religious attitudes is quite interesting and goes further than most people expect. Among the Christians I know the topic is very controversial. Halloween is for many Christians a mere secular tradition but many pastors have serious spiritual concerns about that. I did a quite extensive research about this topic and propose the following guidelines in order to deal with such a controversial topic: 1. The article should represent every opinion and the arguments which are brought forward for each opinion. In that way the reader can make up his mind based on the facts and the arguments presented. 2. The author should provide references. The link to the priest who said that Halloween is harmless fun for kids is leading to a quite obscure website I suggest that references to interviews and press articles should link to the original article itself. According to these standards I have drafted an article which summarizes the research I conducted about that topic. The article has the following structure: 1. Basic outline of the problem 2. Position which holds that Halloween does not raise spiritual concerns and arguments for this opinion 3. Position which holds that Halloween raises specific spiritual and arguments for this opinion 4. Ways Churches deal with this problem practically Please do not vandalize the article but rather make constructive suggestions. Any constructive comments and suggestions are welcome. Caloon2000 03:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The interview with the Vatican priest is from The Sunday Telegraph. The Telegraph is one of Britain's oldest daily newspapers, going back to 1855, with a daily circulation of over 900,000. Not an obscure source by any means. As for the proposed text, any discussion of the interaction between Christians and Halloween that spends nine-tenths of its text treating it as a troubling problem shows a definite bias from how the great majority of Christians treat Halloween — as a secular holiday with no real religious significance. A non-biased text will treat the subject in proportion to its status among all Christians, not fundamentalists. If Halloween is not troubling to 80-90% of Christians, then 80-90% of the text should be devoted to that opinion, not 10%. An article on meat that spent 90% of its text on how meat troubles vegetarians is similarly biased and unacceptable, no matter how many anti-meat sources it refers to in its footnotes. — Walloon 22:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The article about religious viewpoints as in its earlier version, most likely written by a non-Christian, painted a strongly biased picture of Christian attitudes towards Halloween labeling any criticism of Halloween as fundamentalist attitudes. This is simply not the case. I know from first hand experience that different Churches, Catholic, evangelical etc. indeed have serious concerns about Halloween which is not a Christian Holyday at all. These people are not “fundamentalists” but normal parishioners and normal pastors and priests. I don’t know whether the person who deleted the article and replaced it with his own version is a Christian or not but I do believe Christians can write most knowledgeable about Christian attitudes because otherwise you tell Christians what their attitudes are even if they disagree. The idea of this section is to help us understand why many Christian Churches have concerns about Halloween. The section starts with the pro-Arguments and then presents the contra-arguments. I believe the reader has a right to hear the arguments of both sides and then have his own opinion about that. If you everyone who is not following a certain opinion is labeled as fundamentalist that’s propaganda and Misplaced Pages is the wrong place for that. Please abstain from biased language. Use neutral words. The pastors and catholic priests I met and also those which I have cited with references are not fundamentalists but normal pastors in normal parishes. It is not true that 90 % of all Christians enthusiastically embrace Halloween because there are far too many graveyards which are vandalized during that season and if we look at the references which have been deleted we get a different image. Where does the person get the numbers from anyway? This is not the place for propaganda. The obscure website to which the former article about Fr. Amorth was linked was http://www.catholic-exorcism.org/ and it showed at the front page just a bunch of advertisements. Again the facts are mingled. It is not the Sunday Telegraph which is obscure (this is indeed a renowned newspaper) but the private website which I cited above. The wikipedia article linked to this private website and not to the Sunday Telegraph website. Therefore I suggested that all newspaper articles should be cited correctly, linking only to original sources and that’s what has been done afterwards. For these reasons I have included the link and quotation into the article now.

I suggest a fair and neutral way to present both viewpoints including the arguments which help understand why actually the leadership in many churches has concerns about Halloween. Every viewpoint should have the opportunity to present its arguments. That’s why I have included the pro-arguments into the draft and I expect that the text will not be vandalized again. Misplaced Pages is an open forum and everyone should have the fair chance to present his arguments. If the proponents of the Pro-Halloween position want to add arguments they are totally free to do so. In order to understand why many Christians have concerns we need to know the reasons and the arguments and this by nature takes more space than just saying, Halloween is ok. The version I released includes the original pro-arguments and is a fair way to give everyone the opportunity to speak. I believe this is a reasonable way to go forward. Constructive (!) critique and suggestions are always welcome.Caloon2000 03:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Having gone to Catholic schools all my life, I dont know why people are assuming (at least as the article stands) the 'most' or 'many' Catholics are upset by the holiday. I am the son in an Air Force family, so we move alot, and I went to many Catholic schools - and all of them had some kind of Halloween dress up trick or treat thing. Not a 'harvest festival' or whatever is said in the article. It only seems to be a few fringe Catholic groups who complain about it. As far as my own personal experience, the only ones I have heard complain about it are southern Baptists. user:Pzg Ratzinger

Caloon2000, I'm wondering about your sampling. While I don't doubt that many people have expressed concerns about this holiday, I think we'd need (a) a representative sample of Christians and (b) some sort of documentation that these concerns are as pervasive as you seem to believe they are. I was raised Catholic (am now Wiccan) and have many Christian friends and acquaintances. None of my friends, acquaintances, or family members have expressed concern anywhere near the level of concern you seem to feel is widespread. The 90% figure may be high, but I'd be unsurprised to find that over 90% of Christians don't find it the sort of source of concern you and your friends and acquaintances do.

By the way, you said "It is not true that 90 % of all Christians enthusiastically embrace Halloween because there are far too many graveyards which are vandalized during that season". I don't see how that remotely follows.

Septegram 22:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal experiences may vary tremendously and I do know many Christians including catholic parish pastors who think that their parisheners should not participate in that and who have concerns about their folks getting involved with the occult. The catholic parish who got attacked by an occult group as it was mentioned in the article earlier was not a fringe catholic group but a totally normal parish ]. Search the web for christian attitudes to Halloween and you will find tons of stuff. Precisely because it is so controversial the article should present as it has been the case before both sides so the reader can make up his mind. Caloon2000 21:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There hs been a persistent attempt by user Kathryn NicDhàna to remove proposed content without discussing it and by using false comments: The comment Taking duplicates out of reading list. Alphabetizing. Again removing inappropriate extremist sources. Will replace Mike's changes momentarily. removed text in the of religious attitudes section and replaced it by partisan text. us ethe discsikon board. Document your changes. Caloon2000

Halloween Vandalism

I didn't read the entire article but I am pretty sure there's absolutely nothing about the pranks done on Halloween, and in my town that's a big part of what happens on Halloween. Maybe add something about egging and toilet papering houses. Just a suggestion. New014 23:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Somebody has removed all the external links which explain Christian viewpoints. Is this the way to have discussions? Misplaced Pages is an open forum. Even if somene does not agree with a certain opoinion: be tolerant towards other people's opinions. The readers have a right to form their own opinions themselves. They are mature enough to be hear arguments of both sides and then form their own opinion. — Caloon2000 21:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No, Misplaced Pages is not an "open forum". ]Dogface 14:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There aren't any "Christian viewpoints" on Halloween, per se. It's very name comes from "All Hallow's Eve" as the night before All Saints Day, a Catholic holiday. (There are Christian sects that don't approve of Halloween, just as there are ignoramusus that don't realize that Catholics are Christians).

Mensch 01:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Misplaced Pages is an open forum, this is one of the five pillars according to Misplaced Pages's official policy: "Misplaced Pages has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics." — Caloon2000 09:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is different from open forum. An open forum exercises no discretion. Even Misplaced Pages exercises discretion. In an open forum, there is no need for "verifiable, authoritative sources".Dogface 19:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Pranks: there should be a pranks section. one we do over here in england involves stealthly tieing a fishing line to a door knocker and hiding in the bushes, you pull the string and and it knocks. much fun. Deffinatly doing it this year =P — 82.33.140.177 15:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

not a costume party

people who dress up as something other than something scary are missing the point of this holiday. halloween is not a costume ball, it is supposed to be scary. people who dressup as cops and construction workers look stupid. go join the village people. — Keltik31 08:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for these "rules" of which you post? Are these actual laws enacted by some government authority, or are these merely your own small-minded opinions? Do you have any other "rules" those of us not graced with your obviously wide experience should be living by? Do enlighten us, oh teacher. Weirdoactor 18:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

i think the tone of your response speaks for itself and i need to say no more Keltik31 21:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)keltik31Keltik31 21:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As does your tone. Frankly, as long as you keep using that tone, I would take your saying no more as a blessing. Happy Halloween. Justin Eiler 21:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the "Keltik31"'s tone definitely speaks for itself. The editor in question makes a bald assertion of some sort of universal law of human behavior, and when called to back up extremist and dogmatic claims with a bit of reality, refuses to do so.Dogface 15:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

i have always understood that halloween was a night when all the demonds came out. so you had to dress as one of them in order to blend in and survive. dressing like a cop or a princess is not going to help you blend in. Keltik31 13:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please cite your sources to back up your claims. You are presenting nothing more than mere personal opinion as if it were some sort of universal law of social necessity. Back up your claims. Dogface 15:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. Very shallow and padantic.

Please have the courage and basic decency to sign your statements.Dogface 15:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

for god's sake people, get a life. dont take what i say so personally. you'd think i was talking about making abortion illegal. Keltik31 21:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Keltic31, this is a serious project--not just this article, but all of Misplaced Pages. Justin Eiler 21:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

gee, thanks for the clarification justin. liberals beleive in a person's right to an opinion, as long as it is theirs. Keltik31 21:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

First and foremost, I am not a liberal. However, my political slant is not relevant to the issue at hand.

The issue at hand is "opinion"--everyone has one. Misplaced Pages is not a vehicle for opinion. If you want a vehicle to express your opinions, I invite you to start a blog where you may express your opinions to your heart's content. WP:NOT states "Misplaced Pages is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Misplaced Pages is not a forum for unregulated free speech. The fact that Misplaced Pages is an open, self-governing project does not mean that any part of its purpose is to explore the viability of anarchic communities. Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to test the limits of anarchism."

Our purpose here is to create an encyclopedia. If you do not share this purpose, then perhaps Misplaced Pages is not the best outlet for your efforts. Justin Eiler 21:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

this is a discussion page. i am discussing the article and giving my opinion. if you dont agree with my views, that is your problem, not mine. halloween is not a costume party. if you cant prove me wrong, that is your shortcoming, not mine. Keltik31 22:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

to clarify this argument, keltik31 is right in a way, there are rules of common sense to govern what you dress up as, the origional idea is to scare away malign or 'evil' spirits and energies, so no dressing up as a construction worker e.t.c. would not make sense, but really if you dont intend to stick to a tradition you dnt belive in then fair enough, dress how you want, but keltik31 stil has a point — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.187.123 (talk • contribs)

Keltik is right and the responses that attack him are aimed at the weaknesses in how the point was made, rather than at what his position would fully entail. You need to give someone the benifit of the doubt when reading something they write because there is nearly always a way to interpret it that makes the point seem inherantly weak. The point that "halloween is meant to be about the world of death becomming manifest - therefore your costume should be scary" is a valid point, and to say it's wrong because it is dependant on the idea of some "meta-law" or something is to attack a very weak version of the arguement! What he said entails that sort of thing no more than any faliure to understand requires a law being broken! In my view, quite how a Spiderman costume relates to a blurring between the worlds of the living and dead is beyond me. There is no harm in having some fun, but it does display a misunderstanding/ignoring of the roots of the holiday Korona82.19.53.110 06:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

but it does display a misunderstanding/ignoring of the roots of the holiday

This is a generalized claim that could be made for a number of other holidays. Please see also: Valentine's Day, April Fool's Day, Easter, Thanksgiving, Solstice, Christmas, and Hanukkah, and any number of other holidays that are celebrated with "a misunderstanding/ignoring of the roots of the holiday". Howza 'bout you celebrate Halloween *your* way, and "allow" others to celebrate in THEIR way. Free country, and all that... -- Weirdoactor 14:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

finally, some words of common sense, except for the wierdo guy. nobody is talking about passing laws against dressing as a hooker or a janitor. but do you go on easter egg hunts on veteran's day? Keltik31 14:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Keltik31:

- Seeing as you've been warned on multiple occasions about personal attacks (and specifically against attacking me); I suggest you find a new way of expressing your displeasure with my comments that doesn't involve insulting me.

- The word is spelled "weirdo"; as you can see...the spelling is right there on my tag. Heh.

- Please clarify who might be talking about "laws"? I'm not. Are you? I'm talking about whether people "miss the point" of the holiday, as is your assertion. Obviously, I don't agree with that minority opinion, and believe that if you want to dress up like a hooker, a janitor, or whatever, have at it, and have fun! Dressing up as a "scary" character might have been "the point" of Samhain at one point in history, just as Valentine's Day used to commemorate the martyrdom of Valentine of Rome, but now is a "Hallmark holiday" wherein we give chocolates, candies, cards and presents to our beloved. Does that mean that people who don't rend their clothing and weep because St. Valentine was beheaded are "missing the point"? No. Holidays evolve, usually because of commercialization, exploitation, or absorption by other holidays or religions.

- Re: your comment about "easter egg hunts on veteran's day"; are you suggesting that veterans DON'T deserve a fertility rite, but Jesus DOES? Don't you support the troops, Keltik31? -- Weirdoactor 16:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

weirdoactor, please put the crack pipe down. veterans dont deserve a fertility rite? what in the world are you talking about? dont i support the troops? and am one of them. are your questions serious? Keltik31 17:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Halloween in various nations

Just a note since you're listing traditions in particular US cities: In St. Louis, MO children are often required to tell a joke or sing a song to receive candy. I have so far not found this in any other cities. Lowiepunk 19:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)lowiepunk

That is actually very reminiscent of some of the Irish and Scottish guisers' customs associated with Samhain. See this section of the article: --Kathryn NicDhàna 22:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

I don't want to adjust an entry that has a problem with vandalism, so I am just bringing this to the attention of whoever owns the article.

The opening paragraph doesn't make any sense.

"Halloween originated among the Celts in Ireland, Britain and France as the Pagan Celtic harvest festival, Samhain. Irish, Scots, Calan Gaeaf in Welsh and other immigrants brought versions of the traditions to North America in the 19th century. Most other Western countries have embraced Halloween as a part of American pop culture in the late 20th century."

This should be adjusted to:

"Halloween originated among the Celts in Ireland , Britain and France as the Pagan Celtic harvest festival, Samhain (Calan Gaeaf in Welsh). The Irish, Scots, Welsh and other immigrants brought versions of their traditions to North America during the 19th century."

Further, this sentence is ambiguous, "Most other Western countries have embraced Halloween as a part of American pop culture in the late 20th century."

I can't decide if the author wants to convey that "other Western countries" recognize that Halloween is a part of American pop culture OR if they adopted Halloween because they wanted to emulate American pop culture. I suggest:

"By the second half of the 20th century, celebrating Halloween by children dressing in costume and going door-to-door asking for treats had become an American pop culture phenomenon. By the end of the century most Western countries had adopted customs similar to those in the United States despite the day's European roots." Mensch 00:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Samhain in celtic Iberia

I've read all of this and have to make a new coment.

I am from Galicia, at the north-west of the Iberian Peninsula, a place closely linked to the history of Ireland at one of the migrations of people to the island (recently confirmed by an investigation based on the DNA) centurys ago. So it's a place that shares some legends, traditions and popular music with the celtic world.

My father told me that when he was a child, the day of the dead (2nd november, a day after all saint's day) they used to empty pumpkins and fill them with burning ashes, leaving them outside home to be protected against de dead. So he told that his mother also remembered that celebration in 1920, and so her parents. So it's an ancient tradition.

That time, in a rural place and under the global ignorance produced by the spanish dictatorship, absolutely nobody in my little galician country could know anything about something called "Halloween" or similar. I remember begin hearing that term here by first 80's. It could not be a celebration imported from Britain or elsewhere. It was an ancient tradition known as the "Samain" (Samhain, as I've read here) that can only share its origins with the celt culture itself.

This celebration also has a related drink: A Queimada.

So I do PLEASE ASK TO INCLUDE Galicia as one of the places in wich this tradition continues, although many young people here doesn't know it's original name (Samaín) and calls it Halloween, and even believes that this tradition comes from the U.S.A!!!!

]

]

]

External links

I came across this Halloween search engine - what does everybody think of it? --Kartoony 10:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

a typo "cahtolic"

The sentence "Most Catholic parishes see no harm, and Cahtolic parochial schools in America typically have "

should be spelled Catholic

A.Freiberg@cenit.de 19:04 29.10.2006

84.160.242.87 18:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

the begininng of halloween

when did halloween begin? — Pogo935 12:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Samhain festivities already existed when the Romans occupied Celtic Britain in the first century B.C. Earlier than that, it is hard to say, as Britain had no written records before the Romans, at least none that have survived. Roman writers described the practices of the Druid priests, but the first written accounts specifically about Samhain were not written until centuries later, in the 700s A.D., after the Christianization of Ireland and Britain. — Walloon 19:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

would be worth while tracing celtic history back, this is their end of year celebration as recorded in the gregorian calender, so presumably it dates back to the first time the celts or their ancestors marked the passage of a year, i.e. very old — 89.241.187.123 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Samhain was not the marking of the new year (that was a mistaken belief of 19th century scholars), so no it cannot be presumed that Samhain goes back to however far back the Celts marked the passing of years. There is a whole section to this Misplaced Pages article on how that is a mistaken belief. — Walloon 15:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Unicef orange collection boxes anywhere in 2006?

Here in Canada UNICEF has discontinued the orange collection boxes. I can't really tell from their web site, or from the news article I referenced, whether this is just in Canada, or if it is more widespread. Have they cancelled it where you live (other than in Canada)? I wrote "In 2006 UNICEF discontinued their Halloween collection boxes in parts of the world" for now. Basho 03:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Basho. The US national commitee seems to still be running the orange collection boxes, per the US web page. HTH Justin Eiler 04:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I heard on the news a few months ago that they were cancelling the program, though I'm not sure if it's starting this year or next. — 58.89.4.79 23:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Mischief Night

Within the 'England' section there is a mention of 'Mischief Night' celebrated on 4th November. The author states that it is a Yorkshire tradition. However, it is also a tradition in the Northwest of England. Furthermore, it is believed that it originated from Catholic homage to the 5th November plot (ie: The mischief of the Gunpowder plot) and has nothing to do with Hallowe'en. I would be very grateful to anyone who can shed any light on this issue. — Smicer7 19:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Over in the U.S mischief night is actually thought of as the day before halloween, and that's when the pranks take place here. Generally the cops are out in good force because it can get pretty nasty sometimes. Henry Corvel 02:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Henry_Corvel

Where in the US? Just curious; I've lived in the South, the Northwest and the Midwest, and I've never heard of it in the US before now. -- Weirdoactor 03:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Halloween in the Philippines?

I don't think the Philippines warrants a mention as an example of countries where Halloween is becoming popular. There are many other countries where this tradition is gaining popularity. — 58.89.4.79 23:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Halloween in Australia

Halloween is not celebrated in Australia at all.

Hope this helps --60.241.115.57 08:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That is incorrect.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/061030/23/118h2.html

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,20674730-421,00.html?from=public_rss

--James Bond 09:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

From the second link above: "Halloween is a modern version of a pagan celebration of the winter solstice but in Australia it is an excuse to party, and any costume will do." Winter solstice? Halloween is nowhere near either hemisphere's winter solstice. —Angr 09:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice news articles. How about searching for ones about the impact of vandalism in Australia that comes with it? 202.72.187.152 10:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Haven't seen any so far. Will post them If I find any. Did this happen this year or in the past? --James Bond 10:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

OK the media tries to encourage it, but hardly anyone cares. There has been no increase in popularity more like a decrease. Don't tell me otherwise, since you don't actually live in

Australia. Haven't seen a 'trick or treater' for years because if they do try it 99% of people will have a go at them for following an American tradition that is completely irrelevant to Australia. Also "thousands of people" is something like 0.01% of the population, yeah it's huge. --60.241.115.57 10:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just quoted a few sources. I'm not going to debate on whether it's popular on not in Australia. Just because you live in Australia doesn't make you more an expert than me on the subject, at least not in here. I'm quoting media sources, anything else is original research. --James Bond 10:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah and sources with The American International School and costume shops trying to hype up the event are incredibly reliable. --60.241.115.57 11:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Halloween is pretty no existent in Australia and it is definitely not on the increase, I live in Australia I know and I can guarantee every Australian will say the same thing. For example I got 0 trick or treaters come by my house this years nor did I see any trick or treaters.

I would like to confirm that Halloween is not practised to any significant extent in Australia. "James Bond", do you honestly imagine that costume ads masquerading as news reports constitute an objective source? Do you really think that multiple residents in Australia stating that Halloween is really not practised is POV?

For a start, it's spring time here, so no pumpkins, the sun is brighter and the days are longer. Definitely NPOV. Yes, the media tries to promote it, usually with stories of how much Americans enjoy it. Those articles that were cited make the following points:

It is the biggest event in a costume sellers year.

There is no other event, and they do (really) want to talk up their trade

The only indication of participation was the American International school.

Only one other person was quoted as actually participating.

For myself, I saw no decorated houses, or any trick or treaters.

But I would say that if we are ever going to see any kind of momentum to Halloween in Australia, it would have to be in April. P.S. I live in Australia, but have lived in California for a few years with young kids. There is no way you could imagine Halloween exists here based on participation. By the way, I'm in Melbourne, in an area full of kids. Trishm 23:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Jack-o-lantern carving is not a Halloween tradition in Australia. Firstly, you couldn't even get the pumpkins to carve, because it is spring, not Autumn. Nor have I seen imported ones. Secondly, Halloween cannot, even optimistically, be reported as a tradition in Australia. St. Patricks day is observed in the Irish-Australian community, but not Halloween, unless they have recently taken it up, in which case it is still not traditional.Trishm 00:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Halloween is celebrated in Australia. Alternatively that might be because more kids kids know that if they knock on our door onthe evening of Oct 31, they will receive a bag of home made honey pop corn.

On the other hand, I am in my 50's and as a young child I went to the occassional Halloween Party. I am unable to comment on the source. The increasing intrustion of American culture into Australia may be a factor.

However, anyone who knows anything about Australian history will know that many people came to Australia from Ireland and Britian and could have easily brought the tradition, in whatever form they practised it, here. It was only in the very easly days of the colony, that other languages and cultures were suppressed, including the Roman Catholic Church. the various Irish diaspors, Highland (and lowland) Clearances and general poverty in Ireland and Britain and the continent, not to mention the various gold rushes, brought hundreds of ship loads (up to 500 immigrants) each year. So, an argument could be advanced that the increasing interest in Halloween is associated with a family cultural revival as well as the influx of USA culture.

I guess it's a matter of degree. To say that Halloween is never celebrated in Australia is clearly not true, but you can truthfully and objectively say that it is not part of Australian culture. For example, you could not say that yodelling does not occur in Australia. Personally, I have seen more yodellers from the Austrian/Swiss/Bavarian community in taking part in cultural activities in Australia than I have seen trick-or-treaters. But I would never presume to say that "Yodelling is part of Austrian, Swiss, German and Australian culture". That would infer that yodelling is more widespread than it really is, and could possibly be insulting to the German-speaking countries.

I thoroughly enjoyed Halloween when we were in the US, and when my friends ask if Australia participates in Halloween, the answer has to be "not really". Can you imagine what they would think if they came to Australia, expecting to experience an "Australian halloween", based on "Halloween is celebrated in the US, ireland, Australia and New Zealand"? They would be almost nothing to see. The image presented in wikipedia needs to reflect that. I think we can say, without stepping on each other's toes, that

"Halloween in Australia is celebrated only to a very small degree. Participation levels are currently at levels too low to consider Halloween an Australian cultural tradition"

— Trishm 05:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Féile na Marbh

I have no idea what Samhain Eve is. October 31st is Féile na Marbh in Ireland. November 1st is the Celtic New Year's Day. Corrections please. Jm butler 10:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Brittany

I'm removing the claim that Halloween originated in Brittany, which was supported by the following quote:

Kelley, Ruth Edna (1919). The Book of Hallowe'en, Chapter XI: In Brittany and France:

Gaul, as we have seen from Caesar's account, had been one of the chief seats of Druidical belief. The religious center was Carnutes, now Chartrain. The rites of sacrifice survived in the same forms as in the British Isles. In the fields of Deux-Sevres fires were built of stubble, ferns, leaves, and thorns, and the people danced about them and burned nuts in them. On St. John's Day animals were burned in the fires to secure the cattle from disease. This was continued down into the seventeenth century.

The pagan belief that lasted the longest in Brittany, and is by no means dead yet, was the cult of the dead. Caesar said that the Celts of Gaul traced their ancestry from the god of death, whom he called Dispater. Now figures of l'Ankou, a skeleton armed with a spear, can be seen in most villages of Brittany.

since this quote says nothing at all about Halloween or Samhain. St. John's Day is in late June, not the end of October. —Angr 11:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Mischief night Yorkshire: change doors to gates

I have changed the word door for garden gate/gate and marked it (incorrectly) as a minor edit. Doors were impossible to get at for removal but garden gates could be lifted off the pivots and removed in a trice. They were usually swapped with a neighbours gate as it was the easiest thing to do. The favourite trick was to tie string to the door knocker and hide in the bushes. This is from personal observation (and participation) in the mid 1950s. Petersheeran 12:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Australia and New Zealand

Although it is reasonable to question the level of celebration in these two countries, its stretching it a bit to claim its because it wasn't celebrated in England, both were colonised by all the inhabitants of GB & I.

NZ immigrants data http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/culture/homeawayfromhome-fromwhere

Why did the Celts not continue with it? Did it initially continue then cease later on?

Are there any southern hemisphere nations at all that celebrate it in the 'traditional' way? (Maybe a surviving legacy amongst the pockets of celtic immigrants?). Is there a rational for an 'End of Summer' festival to survive in the south? 83.67.8.162 14:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Uhh

Does this article even explain what halloween is? This article really needs improvement.

Did anyone find anything about Hallowe'en celebrated in the scottish village of Beattock (Dumfries and Galloway) I think they celebrate it on a different day to everyone else...11th of November I believe...it's probably just a wierd local thing as I couldn't find anything about it on the Internet anywhere...just thought it might be of interest to someone :)

SparklyFaery 17:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Halloween traditions

I removed the "Halloween traditions" section since none of it was sourced. Here's the full text if anyone wants to reference it.

Halloween traditions survive most accurately on the island of Ireland, where the last Monday of October is a public holiday. All schools close for the following week for mid-term, commonly called the Halloween Break. As a result Ireland and Northern Ireland are the only jurisdictions where children never have school on Halloween and are therefore free to celebrate it in the ancient and time-honored fashion.

The custom of trick-or-treating resembles the European custom called "souling", similar to the wassailing customs associated with Yule. On November 2, All Souls' Day, beggars would walk from village to village begging for "soul cakes" — square pieces of bread with currants. Christians would promise to say prayers on behalf of dead relatives helping the soul's passage to heaven. The distribution of soul cakes was encouraged by the church as a way to replace the ancient practice of leaving food and wine for roaming spirits at the Samhain. Further information: Puck (mythology)

Souling died out in most areas of England by the mid-17th century, during the English Reformation. There is no evidence that souling was ever practiced in North America, and trick-or-treating seems to have evolved there independently: the earliest report of ritual begging on Halloween is from 1915, and it did not become a widespread practice until the 1930s. Ritual begging on Halloween did not appear in Great Britain until the late 20th century, and imitates the American custom.

In Celtic parts of western Brittany, Samhain is still heralded by the baking of kornigou. Kornigou are cakes baked in the shape of antlers to commemorate the god of winter shedding his "cuckold" horns as he returns to his kingdom in the Otherworld.

In the Isle of Man where Halloween is known as Hop-tu-Naa children carry turnips instead of pumpkins, and sing a song called Jinnie the Witch.

Voretus 19:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Candy that has been tampered with

Hospitals were offering to xray kid's candy? Ok... that's just plain extremely paranoid. Fools. All they need to do is check the darn candy and throw out anything that isn't in a wrapper before tossing it in kid's mouths. Even someone with a lump of peanut butter for a brain could know that... pfff. I hate stupidity... SilentWind 20:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)SilentWind

Well, what do you expect of people who reproduce? —Angr 20:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Over Americanised

The whole article seems to revolve around American Halloween a lot, then kind of as a side note mentions that other countries do it too. I'm not concerned about bits like "Most other Western countries have embraced Halloween as a part of American pop culture" since thats probably true. However, parts like "The American tradition of "trick-or-treating" dates back to the All Souls' Day parades in England" confuses me a bit, surely it's an English tradition then? Americans aren't the only ones who trick or treat. I just think the word "American" seems to pop up a lot, and maybe the article should focus more on treating the holiday as an international event.--Santahul 20:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, the article already shows quite nicely how the holiday's origins are in the British Isles and how it's continued to be observed there. There's not really much to say about the holiday outside the Anglosphere. —Angr 20:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

i agree, there are traditional followers of the celtic new year, and there are people who enjoy samhain/halloween, but the marketing, advetising and blatant comercialism of halloween today is of american origin, so they have a seperate day, removed from the origional idea of a day for rememberance, and its more popular.

Eight sources in one sentence?

Other Christians, including those in Church leadership positions, consider Halloween as incompatible and conflicting with the Christian faith, due to its preoccupation with the occult in symbols, masks and costumes, its origin as pagan festival of the dead, and the fact that it is considered by satanists and other occult groups as a festival celebrated with certain rituals.

Does a simple statement like that need that much proof?

Not to mention citing some poorly designed offshoot source like the watchman. Sounds like someone's preaching.

It has to do more with the paranoia wise editors learn to have when saying something about a particular group of people. Without an obsurd amount of citations, someone will come along and remove the statement no matter how basic it is. -- THL 05:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The article page needs to be semi-protected for the day of Halloween

I've made two requests for semi-protection that have been largely unheeded. Meanwhile, there have been dozens of reverts to the Halloween page today due to vandalism. Shocking, I know, for vandals to attack a WP page about a holiday often loudly celebrated by...wait for it...vandals. Can anyone get an admin to listen to the semi-protect request? Thanks. -- Weirdoactor 21:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The current policy is not to protect or semi-protect articles that are linked to from the main page. See Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoon controversy for a similar case. Aecis 21:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You're incorrect; the policy is not to protect or semi-protect the Featured Article. Semi-protection of articles linked from the main page is allowed; especially if the article is under attack. - Weirdoactor 22:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Protection policy: "Important Note: When a page is particularly high profile, either because it is linked off the main page, or because it has recently received a prominent link from offsite, it will often become a target for vandalism. It is not appropriate to protect pages in this case. Instead, consider adding them to your watchlist, and reverting vandalism yourself." (Italics added for emphasis) Aecis 23:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That refers to full protection only. The semi-protection policy page (and common sense) says that it's okay to semi-protect a page if vandalism is truly out of hand. 15 vandalisms an hour isn't out of hand though, considering the number of admins watching this page. --W.marsh 23:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying this to quibble with you, but where does it refer "to full protection only"? It simply refers to protecting a page, without distinguishing between full-protection and semi-protection. Aecis 23:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I see "common sense" wasn't enough and we'll need a direct quotation from almighty policy... "pages linked from the Main Page may be protected if under attack" from Misplaced Pages:Semi-protection policy. --W.marsh 23:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Aecis: please see "When not to use semi-protection" on this page - Misplaced Pages:Semi-protection policy; particularly the phrase Other pages linked from the Main Page may be protected if under attack (Italics added for emphasis). Perhaps you don't consider the page to be under attack. Perhaps you think reverting dozens of vandal edits on an article about Halloween, ON Halloween is par for the course. I understand the concept of not preemptively protecting an article; but this would obviously be a good case FOR semi-protection, to prevent what Jimbo Wales refers to as "drive-by nonsense" (i.e.; "oh, d00d, it's HALLOWEEEN, let's go FUX0r with Misplaced Pages"). - Weirdoactor 23:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected on the policy. I'm not sure if semi-protecting the article is such a good idea though. Most of the edits are simply childish pranks, not vandalism. They are now on one page, which makes it easy to track and revert. If we semi-protect this article, I fear that they will spread out to articles linked to from this article, making the reverting of those edits more difficult and complicated. Aecis 23:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

One could argue that ALL vandalism is defined as "childish pranks". And why have any protection policy at all, if it can be argued that the vandals will migrate? It's sort of an "why put out the fire in the kitchen, because it might start back up in the living room" argument. Whatever. I'm done begging for protection and reverting “childish pranks”. It's Sisyphusian on a day like this, especially when admins show a complete lack of faith in enacting said policy when it’s shown to be necessary. -- Weirdoactor 00:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Aecis. Semi-protection/protection on a high profile article is just a last resort... the last time I did it was well, a few days ago to 2006 World Series, but we were talking 2+ vandals a minute, right after the last game ended. Halloween's almost over and the bots are getting much of the vandalism anyway. --W.marsh 00:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Check out 19:06 - 19:07; seven vandals hit in a one minute period. But there's no problem. Don't worry! Everything's fine. -- Weirdoactor 00:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

For admins watching this page, I'd also note that the Halloween traditions page is getting its share of vandalism today, too. --Kathryn NicDhàna 23:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The page is locked on Halloween with the Ireland section deleted. Shameful... — 72.139.241.185 21:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the Ireland section. — Walloon 04:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Halloween in Mexico

Hi everyone

I just added a bit of how Halloween is celebrated in Mexico. Obviously it does not have rich roots in tradition like the rest of the cultures here explained but I thought that it would be good to expand the vision of this primary Anglo based article.

Of course, for more detailed information on celebrations surrounding All Saint's Day and Halloween you must check out the Day of the Dead article.

Happy Halloween from Mexico City Rodomxoz 21:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

~i added happy halloween at the end.~ 8:23, october 31, 2006 — 65.41.53.108 19:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Extreme Religious Viewpoints

I compressed the Religious Controversies section, but I think it is still too long. Perhaps those who contributed to that section could make a different page, specifically about Evangelical and Fundamentalist views. Or something. Some of the sources cited were nothing short of propaganda and hate speech. One article cited and quoted at length, about the Eric Pryor case, was particularly shameful. I covered that case as a journalist - the guy was a hoax. He was an unstable, poverty-stricken drug addict, paid off by televangelist Larry Lea, first to pretend that he was a "leader" in the Neopagan community, then to make evil-fu death threats towards Lea, then to dramatically "convert" and become a televangelist. Lea later went down to his own scandals, but that stunt was one of the things that destroyed his credibility and led to his demise. While I think it is relevant to mention that there is a certain degree of religious hysteria in some quarters when it comes to Halloween, I am truly dismayed at the amount of POV and outright propaganda that I found there. --Kathryn NicDhàna 06:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Caloon2000, you need to discuss the changes you keep making to the "Religious Controversies" section here on the talk page. Though you summarized your reversion as "Returning to the NPOV version", it was nothing of the sort. The version you prefer uses as its sources badly made, poorly researched, websites or self-published screeds full of historical inaccuracies, cultural bigotry and extreme religious hysteria. These sources are not acceptable for Misplaced Pages. Nor is it appropriate for you to use the article to call other traditions "demonic". This article is already very long. I again suggest you consider making a page about fundamentalist views on holidays, or something, and not keep trying to re-insert these unacceptable sources into Misplaced Pages. Please familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages guidelines for acceptable sources. This page Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources, and this section Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Partisan and extremist websites should be helpful. Thank you. --Kathryn NicDhàna 17:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

During my edit, I changed a phrase that went something like: "Most Christians reject the holiday because they believe it trivializes the occult and evil. " to "Other Christians get very emotional about Halloween, rejecting the holiday because they believe it trivializes the occult and what they perceive as evil. " I can see now this is not entirely neutral. Perhaps we could change it to read "Other Christians are very concerned about Halloween, and oppose the holiday because they believe it trivializes the occult and what they perceive as evil. " --Kathryn NicDhàna 22:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Intolerant viewpoints and personal attacks

Kathryn NicDhàna, all changes have been discussed at lenght beforehand at the talk page. Please see ] for an extensive discussion about that issue. Halloween is a highly controversial topic among Christians of all denominations. The Church has been struggling with pre-Christian holidays for 2000 years. The views which have been documented and referenced with great care in the article are shared by the Church at large and by Christians of all denominations. Many Christians of course see Halloween just as a fun festival but nobody would even argue about the spiritual roots. The Question is, are the spiritual roots of Halloween and the endorsement of Halloween in the FORM it is celebrated today an obstacle for the faith through the customs of Halloween that contradict our relationship with God, including occult practices? That’s the point where opinions diverge: some say, it is just fun. Others point out to the entire ideology behind it and say it’s more than just funny dark costumes. That’s the controversy. This controversy needs to be described neutrally and the way it has been done before was extremely partisan.

According to the official Misplaced Pages policy, "Misplaced Pages has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents;"] To write that "Christians get emotional about that topic" and that this view shared by a minority of "evangelical fundamentalists" is partisan and violates the Misplaced Pages NPOV guidelines. And it is not true anyway. Again, as it is shown in the references, Christians across all denominations have problems with the way Halloween is celebrated and therefore bishops, for instance of the Anglican Church, Roman Catholic priests and young Christian musicians took the initiative to redeem Halloween for the Church. (See the references in the article)

Please familiarize yourself with the NPOV guidelines of Misplaced Pages. Personal attacks and labeling everyone who shares a different view as "fundamentalist" as you did in your message above is violating the Misplaced Pages Policy and it is not the case anyway. No personal attacks please. Also, it is important to remain objective in the discussion. Please cite the article text correctly. As I already explained at the talk page: In order to deal with this issue objectively I structured the article according to the Misplaced Pages guidelines as folows: 1. Basic outline of the problem 2. Position which holds that Halloween does not raise spiritual concerns and arguments for this opinion 3. Position which holds that Halloween raises specific spiritual and arguments for this opinion 4. Ways Churches deal with this problem practically. Right now, both views and their arguments are equally represented.According to the Misplaced Pages policy "an article about a controversial person or goup should accurately describe their views." I believe, that every reader is mature enough to make up his mind on his or her own and that he or she has a right to hear the arguments of both sides. This is the Philosophy of Misplaced Pages. That is what I support and the basic value shared by the Misplaced Pages Community. Again, any constructive (!) comments are welcome. Caloon2000 19:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I stand by the edits I made, and my record as an editor. Your POV is not Neutral on this, as evidenced by the type of extremist positions and inappropriate links you keep trying to include. NPOV does not mean that fringe views are given a page-long tangent in an article. Most Christians don't really care about Halloween. Fundamentalists do get emotional about it, as seen in your edit war in this article, and your insistence on seeing fundamentalist Christianity as the only religious view that matters. You also mis-perceive criticism of the dubious sources you used as personal attacks. As seen by your User Contributions you only became a registered user one week ago. It seems you have spent that time pretty much dedicated to inserting fringe views and POV into the Halloween article, and deleting any links to religious views that contradict your position. I think you are a new user who means well, but you do not understand basic Misplaced Pages policy. What you are doing has now crossed the line into vandalism and abuse of the system. --Kathryn NicDhàna 20:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

if you disagree with someones views its best to state why, put an argument beneath it, do not censor it.

to censor somthing means you dont want others to read it, and that means you see it as a threat, if it threatens you, think about why, you must have some doubts with your own belifes, address these first. i would like to read all the information about a topic, not a cutdown version that insults my ability to reason. as for POV, we are human, it will never be neutral, but every additional POV given will bring us one step closer to the truth.

Caloon's edit war & possible sock/meat puppetry

Caloon2000 is in violation of the three revert rule; in addition, the user continues to add NPOV information cited with links to extremist websites, and when reverted, adds the information back into the article. Caloon2000 has been warned more than once. User is new, but seems to have a preternatural knowledge of Misplaced Pages policy and lingo, leading me to believe that this is a sock/meat puppet. (note: this was also posted on the incident board) -- Weirdoactor 20:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not the case. We need to be careful with allegations. Weirdoactor is in violation of multiple basic Wikipdia principles, including the prohibition of offensive language, the use of partisan words ("fundamentalists", "Christians become emotional about that") and the misuse of the Warning template and ha sbeen reported. I call call him to participate constructively in the discussion. This is NOT an edit war. The changes have been discussed at lenght on this page. A consensus has been found which is complient with the Misplaced Pages policy. We have to be sensitive with controversial issues. Each side must be able to persent its arguments so that the user can make up is mind. Also, we need to be careful with allegations. I do not use multiple accounts to edit (what account by the way?). I call everyone to fairplay!!!! Caloon2000 21:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's start with your “allegations”:

- Weirdoactor is in violation of multiple basic Wikipdia (sic) principles

No. I'm not. I'm making good faith edits, and reverting your vandalism and link violations on the article.

- including the prohibition of offensive language

What? When? Where? Cite, please. Baseless accusations are not helpful.

- the use of partisan words ("fundamentalists", "Christians become emotional about that")

I think you're mixing me up with Kathryn NicDhàna. I have made no such comments, and resent your baseless accusation. Speaking of "the use of partisan words", you might want to read this, per JoshuaZ's recommendation; specifically this section.

- and the misuse of the Warning template and ha sbeen (sic) reported.

Misuse? Your vandalism was obvious, and my response was textbook. I used a lesser warning, and used a stronger one when you persisted. Also; I looked where you would report my “misuse”, and saw no report. Making a false report would have been bad, but pretending to make a false report is just...sad.

- A consensus has been found which is complient (sic) with the Misplaced Pages policy

A "consensus" is a "majority of opinion", or "general agreement or concord; harmony". We have neither.

- Each side must be able to persent (sic) its arguments so that the user can make up is (sic) mind.

No. That is not what Misplaced Pages is about. What you are describing is a "debate", not an "encyclopedia article", built using NPOV writing and editing.

When you lie or twist the truth to make your points, you debase your arguments. It's just not constructive. I'm finding that you are incapable of honest discussion. This being the case, I will not continue to argue my honest points with you. -- Weirdoactor 22:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You are again lying aqnd twisting the truth! As I said, you have been advised by a Misplaced Pages administrator user:JoshuaZ - this is not me (!!!) - NOT to use the vandalism template and you ignored it multiple times. To clarify against any more false allegations, lies and twists of waht I said I insert the administrator's post from your talk page:

]]

Why are you guys not able to discuss without attacking others permanently? Caloon2000 01:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know...English is my first language. I have read and re-read JoshuaZ's comments (all of them in regards to this situation, not the ones you've cherry-picked), and find none of the content you are quoting. I haven't been "advised" not to use any template, and for that matter, I haven't used any vandalism template "multiple times". Perhaps JoshuaZ is speaking in some sort of code, and only you are able to translate his comments? You appear, from your posts, to be a religious person; are you aware of the ninth (or eighth, if you are Catholic/Lutheran/New Church) commandment, which states "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"? I realize that I am not literally your neighbor (at least, I hope not), but I believe that the Christian interpretation is that you shouldn't lie. You are lying; either by omission, or via a creative/fictional interpretation of comments and events. Please stop. It's terribly unbecoming, and rather boring. Thanks! -- Weirdoactor 02:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Concerning misuse of vandalism template. Editing the article I am working on Is not vandalism. You have been clearly advised by trhe administrator that this is not vandalism. But you ignored this and used the template again!!!

The article posted before has found consensus because it has been realtively stable for a long time before Halloween. Only minor edits occured, not the entire text was replaced.

Each side must be able to persent (sic) its arguments so that the user can make up is (sic) mind.

Yes, in order to avoid discussiong the old topic again I quote directly from the Misplaced Pages policy site as I did before:

"An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views ..." wikipedia:Guidelines_for_controversial_articles

"Misplaced Pages has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view"." Misplaced Pages:Five_pillars Caloon2000

Lets get back to a constructive discussion - Reasonable solution proposed

In respect to the controversy on religious attitudes towards Halloween I suggest that we all calm down and get back to the table and talk. There has been a balanced version of the article which has been removed during Halloween night and exchanged with a partisan version which strongly supports the view of the Wicca community and violates the NPOV policy of wikipedia. I suggest the following reasonable solution: The article should, as I have suggested before, be compliant with Wikipdia's policies. I suggest as I did earlier that:

1. The article should represent every opinion and the arguments which are brought forward for each opinion. In that way the reader can make up his mind based on the facts and the arguments presented.

2. The author should provide references. The link to the priest who said that Halloween is harmless fun for kids is leading to a quite obscure website I suggest that references to interviews and press articles should link to the original article itself.

According to these standards I have cut the article, adjusted the language and propose the following structure:

1. Basic outline of the problem

2. Position which holds that Halloween does not raise spiritual concerns and arguments for this opinion

3. Position which holds that Halloween raises specific spiritual and arguments for this opinion

4. Ways Churches deal with this problem practically.

Please do not vandalize the article again but rather make constructive suggestions. Any constructive comments and suggestions are welcome. In the proposal both views are occupying the same space. They present the arguments and references. If you have any suggestions or constructive (!) critique please use this forum. I hope this is a reasonable basis to start with and to go ahead ;-) Caloon2000 21:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus was never reached, in the previous discussion or in your recent postings, though you attempt to misrepresent this in your edit summaries. The Religious section does not "support the view of the Wicca community". Wicca is barely mentioned. It is, however, a religion, and if the section is to deal with religious views, it needs to represent a variety of religions. The edits to remove your POV were not vandalism. However, you have repeatedly violed the 3RR rule to push your POV. --Kathryn NicDhàna 22:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I've requested that article receive full protection until this matter is investigated. Please do not revert to any previous versions until the investigation has been completed. I will continue to revert your Three Revert rule violations, per the regulation regarding reverting vandalism. Let the system work, or find another place to play. Thanks! -- Weirdoactor 22:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Weirdoactor, gain, no personal attacks. The words "fundamentalists", "Christians become emotional about that" have been part of the article you inserted instead of the one I edited.

Concerning personal attacks and offensive language I insert your answer to my post. It may speak for itself:

You must have me confused with someone who fell off the turnip truck last night, dude. You certainly know a lot of Wiki policy and lingo for a newbie. Methinks you are a meatpuppet, and I will report you as such to the proper authority. I calls them like I sees them; if you don't like that, difficult mammary. -- Weirdoactor 20:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

-Weirdoactor, gain (sic), no personal attacks. The words "fundamentalists", "Christians become emotional about that" have been part of the article you inserted instead of the one I edited.

Those are not my edits. This isn't the editor you're looking for. I have actually added ZERO content to the page; I have merely been protecting it against vandal attacks over the past few days. I know that the history page can be confusing. With a bit of practice, you'll be able to blame the correct editor for reverting your bad faith edits, I just KNOW it!

I see no “personal attacks” or “offensive language” in my answer to your post, even by Victorian standards. Please be specific if you insist on making accusations. Baseless accusations further weaken your (already crumbling) grasp of the facts.

-You have been clearly advised by trhe (sic) administrator that this is not vandalism. But you ignored this and used the template again!!!

I have been "clearly advised" by you. You are not an administrator, thank Chaos.

-An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views

This is neither an article about a person or a group.

-Misplaced Pages has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view.

You are inserting information cited by extremist (ergo, not “neutral”) web sites, which are not a reliable source for such citations. For example, one doesn’t provide context for an article about the NAACP by linking to the Ku Klux Klan website.

The article posted before has found consensus because it has been relatively (sic) stable for a long time before Halloween. Only minor edits occurred (sic), not the entire text was replaced.

Your edits have been consistently reverted over the last week. The fact that others found your edits to contain far too much POV shows a complete lack of consensus. The fact that we are having this discussion shows a lack of consensus. The fact that it would appear to be you vs. the facts/Wikipedia/multiple users would seem to nail the coffin shut on your consensus argument. Please make honest arguments. It's truly boring to read lies.

As I stated previously, a report has been made about this article, and your POV edits/links to extremist websites; and that report will lead to an investigation. In the meantime, I suggest you refrain from editing the article, and also please refrain from making baseless accusations based on twisted information; much like your edits to the article itself. Thank you. -- Weirdoactor 22:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You are trying to threat people away who do not share your view. Misplaced Pages is the wrong place for you. Caloon2000

I'm sorry you feel that way; I am not trying to "threat" you. I am trying to help you understand how articles are edited. Something to think about; it's an article about Halloween, *not* an article about the Christian community's feelings regarding the holiday. Perhaps you could create a page about the religious reaction to Halloween. -- Weirdoactor 23:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Caloon, reverting POV edits and inappropriate links is not vandalism. Please stop putting vandalism templates on the pages of those who disagree with you, it is an abuse of the system. Thank you. --Kathryn NicDhàna 23:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Kathryn NicDhàna, articles which lable catholic, orthodox and prosteatnt christians and everyone who does not share your Wicca pesrpective as fundamentalists, who "get emotiobal about that" is not a NPOV edit. It is partisan.The article I used does use nrutral language. Caloon2000 07:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You present the "problem" of Halloween way out of proportion to its reality among Christians, in that you devote equal space to the anti-Halloween perspective when it reality only a small minority of Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox share that opinion. And you draw on a lot of fringe-level websites to back up your claims (the occasional cite to mainstream sources is far outweighed by your use of fringe websites). As I wrote above, this would be like devoting half of the article on "Beef" to vegetarian perspectives about beef, and then defending it by saying, "People should be allowed to choose." Wikpedia is not a debate forum, but it is clear from all of your edits and your choices of sources, and your additions to the "further readings" section that you are trying very hard to advocate a partisan position. The job of Misplaced Pages, as an encyclopedia, is to reflect reality, in its true proportions, and not to push a religious agenda. What you consider fair and balanced reporting on the religious aspects of Halloween is obviously not shared by anyone else in this debate. Your editing has been quite the opposite of balanced. It way over-exaggerates the prominence of a minority opinion, no matter how many footnotes you add to it. When you take a perspective that is shared by fewer than 20 percent of Christians, and devote most of the article section, about 70 percent of it, to that perspective, the article section is inherently unbalanced. For example, you refer to an event held by the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, but you do not put this in perspective. Catholic parochial schools throughout America routinely throw Halloween parties for their children. Irish Catholics have been celebrating both Halloween and All Saints Day for over 1,500 years. And the highest Catholic official to voice an opinion on celebrating Halloween — the Vatican's exorcist, no less, no stranger to "Satan and all his works" — has said it is harmless. But no, the only Catholic persepctive in the article after your editing was the Boston event (which seems in any case to have been more pro-All Saints Day than anti-Halloween).

No one doubts that fringe elements of Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox Christianity exist — and you certainly have found them. But they are, to repeat, the opinions of a minority of Christians. These are not opinions shared by most Christians. The amount of space the article section devotes to a position should be in proportion to its existance in Christianity as a whole, not to an individual's agenda. — Walloon 07:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

new year

erm, with all this arguing i cant seem to find mention anywhere that this is the end of the celtic year, and a day to remember the people and things that have been and gone, a night to feast and talk, and if one feels s inclined leave offerings to the spirits of the departed. this shuld trancsend religion as everybody does this at some point, on their wn occasionally or in a group at the end of whatever year they follow, its a shame some feel the need to slander such a simple and constructive celebration that just happens to fall on a different day to the gregorian calender's new year.

That is because it is NOT the "end of the celtic year". This is a 19th-century misconception.Dogface 23:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

from what i have gatherd it is, culd you provide some evidence to the contrary, i would like to know what you mean and where im going wrong?

otherwise dont just post with somthing that seems like fact cos u have used fancy phrases and punctuation :P

and on a personal note, open to opinion, a sexy red dress and horns, a sexy black dress and a witches hat, or a sexy white dress and wings ARE NOT good costumes, can you people make an effort, i wanna see those girls dress up as zombies, goblins, dragons and the like, after all you are supposed to be scaring away the malign and unwanted spirits/energies of the world, make an effort :P —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.241.187.123 (talk) 23:59, 1 April, 2006 (UTC)

Your "personal note" is entirely opinion; so yes, it *IS* "open to opinion". Heh. -- Weirdoactor 22:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The edit was not marked bat rather included a totally misleading comment. Caloon2000

dont understand what you mean or wh your talking to carloon, please be clearer. and to clarify, what i meant by confirmng it was open to opion was that i wanted peoples opinions if they had a good reason to do otherwise or other ideas, i like to change my views if hey are wrong.

im not very good at discussion/arguing because i have dyslexia, but il try and write less longwindedly, without wanting to sound sarcastic i do like the eloquence of some of the writers on here, the idea of presenting the information on wikipedia in a universaly acceptable way (an impossible task i think) along with the open collabaration brings out the best in the written word. — 89.240.150.169 08:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph talking about Utah and mormons is completely inaccurate.

Having lived in Utah, and gone trick or treating or taken my nieces trick or treating here many times, I can tell you that 99% of the state, or even just the LDS people here would have never even heard of "trunk or treating", much less have participated in it. This information was taken from a webpage describing alternative ides to trick or treating, not something people actually do. Halloween is a huge holiday here since there are so many children, and I can tell you they go trick or treating just like everybody else. Just to make sure I haven't been missing some huge trend here, I called a few LDS friends with children and asked them if they'd ever heard of "trunk or treating". Not one had.

I don't really know how to edit pages well without messing them up, so could somebody that can please take that paragraph out, it's completely inaccurate. — Mdgeist747 16:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this. Looking at the reference provided, the web article doesn't actually report this happens, so I've removed the paragraph. Thanks, again... Addhoc 22:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Minor Error

In the begininning of the article it's said that halloween originates as All-Hallows-Even. It's probably a spelling mistake, but it could be misleading if you don't realize it's actually "All-Hallows-Eve" — Henry Corvel 20:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I was always told it was "All Hallows Even": the even is where "e'en" comes from in the correct spelling "Hallowe'en. --Alex (Talk) 02:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I put that in, and no, it is not an error. That spelling is taken directly from the Oxford English Dictionary, and I've had to change it back from many others who think that it is an error. The words eve and even are both shortened forms of evening, with even being the older abbreviation. After all, where do you think the letter "n" comes from at the end of the word Halloween? — Walloon 02:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Halloween has passed, request unprotection?

--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 05:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I would request waiting till sometime tomorrow.(see below -kpn) When it was unprotected late last night, vandalism took place all night, resulting in a great deal of work for us today. More of the US editors will be able to keep an eye on the article if it waits till tomorrow (or longer, depending). If protection is lifted, I suggest at least partial protection for now. (see below -kpn) --Kathryn NicDhàna 05:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to keep it on full protection until my RfC and my incident report (re: Caloon2000's revert/edit war, and his/her POV edits and unreliable citation links) have been acted on. Semi-protection would not prevent Caloon2000 from going on another POV editing tear. -- Weirdoactor 05:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, that said, I agree the article should remain on full protection until the incident reports (those listed above, plus mine for Caloon's violation of WP:3RR) are all dealt with. I do not want to lose another day to doing this all over again. --Kathryn NicDhàna 05:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Partisan POV version requires change

The version which is online now is highly partisan and in violation of the NPOV rule. I redited the article and created a balanced version using neutral wording. However, the version which user User:Kathryn NicDhàna inserted and which is now online is highly partisan uses POV wording "Other Christians get very emotional about Halloween", "A response among some fundamentalist Christians" "Some fundamentalists consider" and removed most of the references, links and literature. From 12 books a single one is supporting the position held by many christians. Most of the others have been removed by User:Kathryn NicDhàna ] The article which is now online is in clear violation of the NPOV rule and can not stand as it is. I suggested a resonable way to go and to discuss this subject. I hope that this forum is able to discus even controversies with respect and tolerance towards others. Caloon2000 08:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Having had a quick look at only the section (Religious controversies) both today's protected version and an edit by Caloon2000 on 21:48, November 1, 2006, there seems to be a good foundation in the current article, but some of Caloon's ideas could probably be included. From an outsiders point of view the use of the word fundamentalist in labelling Christians who have a problem with Halloween is a bit harsh, and I think gives the wrong impression - note I am an atheist. From my experience, I know of at least two evangelical (but I would say not fundamentalist) Christians who wont read Harry Potter let alone celebrate Halloween. Also use of the word fundamentalist in the current war on terror climate and extreme animal rights campaigns, suggests a more violent response than is probably seen from Christians.

So I would propose that someone (not Caloon200) takes Caloon2000 old section and merge the useful bits in and see if the section can work with a fleshed out bit on the Christian viewpoint. Also suggest subsections possibly for the different responses. Cheers Lethaniol 13:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

'Emotional' sentence

I would suggest the following sentence should be removed:

"Other Christians get very emotional about Halloween, rejecting the holiday because they believe it trivializes the occult and what they perceive as evil."

My objections are that firstly it lacks a clear reference, multiple sources are indicated, however it would appear the inference that Christians are getting emotional isn't cited. Secondly, the sentence is too vague, 'Christians' also refers to Eastern Christianity for example. Lastly there is an implication that Christians are overly emotional, this represents a derogatory opinion, which isn't appropriate. Addhoc 13:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree Pinster2001 15:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Version as a basis for discussion

Thanks for your helpful comments! For reasons of documentation and as a basis for discussion I am posting the following draft of my suggestion which has been repeatedly removed. This article attempts to give a balanced and neutral view of the controversy and the concerns aof many Christians. The structure is as follows:

1. Basic outline of the problem

2. Position which holds that Halloween does not raise spiritual concerns and arguments for this opinion

3. Position which holds that Halloween raises specific spiritual and arguments for this opinion

4. Ways Churches deal with this problem practically

I tried to give sufficient reference for the statements I amde. This is the draft which I suggest. Any constructive critiqe is welcome.

The fact that Halloween and the old Christian feast of All Saints Day are on two consecutive days have left many modern Christians uncertain of how they should react towards this tradition. The issue is controversial.

Most Christians ascribe no doctrinal significance to Halloween, treating it as a purely secular entity devoted to celebrating imaginary spooks and handing out candy. Fr. Gabriele Amorth, the senior exorcist of Vatican City, said in an interview with London's The Sunday Telegraph, "f … children like to dress up as witches and devils on one night of the year that is not a problem. If it is just a game, there is no harm in that." The secular celebration of Halloween may loom larger in contemporary imagination than does All Saints Day. Some Christian churches commonly offer a fall festival or harvest-themed alternative to Halloween. Others focus on the Christian aspect of the following All Saints Day. Still other Christians hold the view that the tradition is not satanic in origin or practice and that it holds no threat to the spiritual lives of children: being taught about death and mortality actually being a valuable life lesson. To many Protestant churches, October 31 is also the date of Reformation Day, a minor religious festival and it is often used to reclaim the Christian aspects of the tradition, the All Saints Day, as a day of prayer.

Other Christians, including those in church leadership positions, consider Halloween as incompatible and conflicting with the Christian faith, due to its preoccupation with the occult in symbols, masks and costumes, its origin as pagan festival of the dead, and the fact that it is considered by satanists and other occult groups as a festival celebrated with certain rituals. They argue that Halloween is also a prime recruiting season for satanists and therefore poses a considerable chance for children to convert. They point out that while even many Christians may participate "all in fun," Halloween is serious business for satanists and witches. Others are concerned about vandalism and destructive behavior after a church had become a victim of destructive "shock rituals" by satanists leading to targeted monitoring of these gatherings by the police. Another argument brought forward is that according adherents of Wicca (witchcraft) practices “Halloween is one of the four major Sabbats celebrated by the modern Witch, and it is by far the most popular and important of the eight that are observed. . . Witches regard Halloween as their New Year’s Eve, celebrating it with ... rituals..." The concerns many Christians have are shared by members across the denominations on the ground that it trivializes the occult and what they perceive as evil. Evangelical and Protestant Churches, the Eastern Orthodox Church and many Roman Catholics , Jews and Muslims, object to the tradition and refuse to allow their children to participate, pointing out to its pagan origins as well as its occult imagery.

The ways that Christian churches deal with Halloween are various. Most churches ignore Halloween and treat it as a merely secular tradition. In the Anglican Church some dioceses, picking up a concern amongst parents and teachers, called to focus more on the positive messages of All Saints Day, the day following Halloween. For many Protestant churches, October 31 is celebrated as Reformation Day in remembrance of the Reformation. Luther's hymn "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God" is traditionally sung on this day. Other Christians, particularly Roman Catholics and the Eastern Churches, traditionally focus more on All Saints Day which is celebrated the day after Halloween as a day of prayer. Other Curches, such as the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, organized a 'Saint Fest' where Roman Catholic priests together with Christian musicians tried to bring the holiday back to its Christian roots. Many Catholic churches have instituted the days before All Saints Day which is on November 1 as days of special devotion such as the tradition of "40 hours of adoration and prayer." Another response among Christians in recent years has been the use of Hell houses or themed pamphlets (such as those of Jack T. Chick) which attempt to make use of Halloween as an opportunity for evangelism. The tradition, to discourage pagan celebrations and to give it a Christian meaning can be traced back historically to the eighth century when Pope Gregory III designated November 1st as All Saints' Day, a time to honor saints and martyrs. Some believe that All Saints Day was moved to November 1 to counteract the ghouls, demons, and devils that were celebrated on October 31.

Objections to celebrating Halloween are not limited to those of the Abrahamic religions. Some members of the Wiccan practice feel that the tradition is offensive to real witches for promoting a stereotypical caricature of a witch. Additionally, many Wiccans and other neo-Pagan adherents object to Halloween, which they perceive as a vulgarized, commercialized mockery of the original Samhain rituals which are traditionally celebrated at October 31. Caloon2000 16:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please use diffs to show the difference between your proposed "neutral" edits and the current state of the article, so that we might see how the article would change. Thanks! -- Weirdoactor 16:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

1. ^ "Bishop challenges supermarkets to lighten up Halloween" (HTML). www.manchester.anglican.org. n.d. Retrieved 2006-10-22.
2. ^ "Halloween Profile" (HTML). n.d. Retrieved 2006-10-22.
3. ^ "Halloween - Harmless Fun or Pagan Rituals?" (HTML). n.d. Retrieved 2006-10-22.
4. ^ "Halloween origins and customs" (HTML). “”. n.d. Retrieved 2006-10-22.
5. ^ "Halloween's Occult Connection: An extensive study of the roots of Halloween" (HTML). n.d. Retrieved 2006-10-22.
6. Philips, Phil. Halloween and Satanism. 091498411X. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |origmonth=, |month=, |chapterurl=, and |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |origdate= ignored (|orig-date= suggested) (help)
7. ^ "What Witches, Satanists and Other Occultists Say About Halloween" (HTML). n.d. Retrieved 2006-10-22.
8. ^ "Satan group heads our way" (HTML). www.news.com.au/. n.d. Retrieved 2006-10-22.
9. "Should Christians celebrate Halloween?" (HTML). www.answers2prayer.org. n.d. Retrieved 2006-10-22.
10. Brandreth, Gyles (2000-10-29). "'The Devil is gaining ground'" (HTML). The Sunday Telegraph. Retrieved 2006-10-26. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
11. Philips, Phil. Halloween and Satanism. 091498411X. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |origmonth=, |month=, |chapterurl=, and |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |origdate= ignored (|orig-date= suggested) (help)
12. "Satanists promise "shock rituals" in Brisbane" (HTML). www.cathnews.com. n.d. Retrieved 2006-10-22.
13. Phillips, Phil (1987). Halloween and Satanism. Infinity Pub. pp. p. 146). {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
14. ^ "Salem 'Saint Fest' restores Christian message to Halloween" (HTML). www.rcab.org. n.d. Retrieved 2006-10-22.
15. Examples of literature representing the Christian perspective towards Halloween include Halloween: Satan's New Year (2006) by Billye Dymally, Halloween: Counterfeit Holy Day (2005) by Kele Gershom, and Halloween: What's a Christian to Do? (1998) by Steve Russo. An opposing viewpoint is found in The Magic Eightball Test: A Christian Defense of Halloween and All Things Spooky (2006) by Lint Hatcher.
16. "Halloween and All Saints Day" (HTML). newadvent.org. n.d. Retrieved 2006-10-22.
17. "What's the difference between All Saints and All Souls" (HTML). uscatholic.claretians.org. n.d. Retrieved 2006-10-29.
18. Reece, Kevin (2004-10-24). "School District Bans Halloween". KOMO News. Retrieved 2006-09-14.

• Delisted good articles