Talk:Halloween/Archive 8

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. A  ecis  Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 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 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) A  ecis  Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 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. A  ecis  Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 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 Semi-protection policy. --W.marsh 23:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Aecis: please see "When not to use semi-protection" on this page - 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 Wikipedia"). - 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. A  ecis  Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 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)


 * This is something I was thinking about. Further up the article someone mentions Day of the Dead being of European origins and that it was imported to the Americas. As I am very loud and proud of, I am a member of an indigenous tribe of North America. So I was discussing with a few friends of mine of European descent about Dia De Los Muertos and how it owes its origins to the indiginous peoples of Mexico. My European friends said "It was imported to Mexico by the Spanish, that's why the name is spanish. They covered this in Spanish class." To which I just said "Whatever, as if multiple holidays cannot occur simultaniously across multiple cultures with different origins but similar themes." The fact is that Dia De Los Muertos was celebrated by the peoples of Mexico for over 3000 years. Some might argue that it owes its existance in Europe to the Conquistadors importing it from Central America. I'm not saying that's how it happened. Personally, I believe that the two holidays are coincidences about when they occur and their general themes.

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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines for acceptable sources. This page Reliable sources, and this section Reliable sources 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. [30]" to "Other Christians get very emotional about Halloween, rejecting the holiday because they believe it trivializes the occult and what they perceive as evil. [30]" 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. [30]" --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 Wikipedia policy, "Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. Personal attacks and labeling everyone who shares a different view as "fundamentalist" as you did in your message above is violating the Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. That is what I support and the basic value shared by the Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.187.123 (talk • contribs) 21:41, November 1, 2006 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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:


 * "The caloon matter is not a matter of simple vandalism. I suggest you take it to WP:ANI if there is a continuing issue. JoshuaZ 20:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)" [Weirdoactor]


 * 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 Wikipedia policy site as I did before:

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

"Wikipedia 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"." 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.


 * -Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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)


 * "Trunk or treating" was described in the New York Times article of October 31, 2006, "Trunk or Treat! Halloween Tailgating Grows", as a practice which has "exploded" in the past year.

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 ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  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)