Talk:Samhain/Archive 1

Music
also the name of glenn danzig's first band after he left the misfits. i see no particular reason to put pop culture trivia in the wikipedia, so i think it can stay on this page. :-)

Cult of the Dead
Mediterranean peoples had elaborated cults of the dead (remember the Egyptians?), and Christianity had cults of the martyrs and the saints entirely separately from the Celtic parts of the empire. Only the date is implicated in Samhain/All Saints, and I'm not even so sure about that. Almost all Christian liturgical dates go back to the Eastern Mediterranean, an area not involved in much Celtic contact (despite the Galatians). This is, in general, an exaggerated thing; there are, after all, only so many days in the year;  cf., Christmas = sun festival;  Easter = fertility. Bonfire, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is indeed Bone-fire. Admittedly, the clearest pagan example is meaning 4, but I think that's enough to revise upward in certainty! --MichaelTinkler

Your points about Mediterranean cults of the dead are well made, Michael, and something which made me have a good hard think about it; moreover 31st October is only an approximate date for Samhain eve, and was almost certainly not uniform throughout the disparate Celtic lands. As Christianity consolidated its administrative stranglehold, it is probable that the multiple dates on which Samhain (and possibly other similar festivities) were consolidated centrally in order to give the Christian religion the facade of coherence. Celtic mythic culture was not, as you are probably well aware, limited to the extremities of Europe; it was once widespread throughout France, Italy, Spain, and has many points of commonality, including some dates of festivities, with Norse and Germanic mythologies: it seems likely that all the autumnal pagan festivities were rolled up within the umbrella of what are now Hallowe'en and All Saints Day. sjc
 * stranglehold? facade of coherence?  Well, a tad non-npov there.  In fact, the 'facade of coherence' is in large part a facade projected back by 18th and 19th century historians on a Church that was cheerful enough about ambiguity, especially in the calendar. There never was a push for standardization across Christendom of the calendar until after the council of Trent.  What standardization existed in western Europe was actually the result of an odd accident - the Franciscans chose the calendar of Rome for their internal usage as a matter of convenience (they took a vote on it).  The fact that they were both an international order (unlike the Benedictines, who were federated instead of centralized) and mobile (liable to be stationed anywhere in Europe where they had relevant language skills, or even just expected to learn a few new languages) meant that they spread the pattern of the calendar of saints as observed in the city of Rome.  One of the greatest irritants when I teach later medieval art is sorting out the "usages" in all the prayer books - each diocese had its own serious quirks, and only the major feasts (and I mean only the feasts of Christ) were standardized.  Even the feasts of the events in the life of the Virgin other than Annunciation (which, after all, is supposed to be nine months before the fixed holiday of Christmas) were mildly irregular.  Your last sentence (all the autumnal festivals) is the most likely explanation, all in all.    --MichaelTinkler

I am firmly of the opinion that that NPOV can be safely done away with on /Talk pages! I'll try and get the article to reflect the idea of the roll-up, though... (I hadn't realised that the Christians were quite as revisionist as you are suggesting, though, and that has given me a little food for thought...) sjc


 * we need an entry on something like 'cult of the dead' or 'the dead' or some such, with sections on 'the early christian cult of the saints', 'honoring the dead in Islam', 'the dead in the Celtic world view'. What do you think the title should be? I tend to use 'cult' because I deal with the saints all the time, but it's not the normal english usage. 'The dead' sounds a little barren.  And I'm not *really* talking about 'the afterlife', per se. I like this article's phrase 'the world of the dead', but it's a little spooky. Yikes!


 * And yep, the history of the Catholic Church is an ocean! --MichaelTinkler

How about something terribly dull like 'Cultural beliefs concerning death and the hereafter'? sjc
 * hmmm. yes, that is dull.  I have a yearning for something snappier, but if nothing else springs to mind, I'll use something close to it. --MichaelTinkler

Maybe we need to get a couple of journalists in to write the page titles... sjc


 * Harvest/Seasonal (of?) death festivals?? JHK


 * I can see Rupert Murdoch offering you a job, jhk... :-) sjc


 * Many of these festivals are oriented more towards ancestor worship/veneration, particularly the Asian festivals. Maybe we need a page on that concept? I'll think about it. --Dmerrill
 * that's what I'm looking for, Dmerrill - a decent title. Veneration of the Dead?  Then we can lead off to cross-cultural entries or such. --MichaelTinkler


 * I like Veneration of the dead...jhk


 * Did Samhain really involve a festival of the dead? I know that claim is made again and again, but Nicolas Rogers doesn't seem to think it's true. (Halloween: From Pagan Ritual to Party Night, 2002, page 19 according to my notes). I'll have to get the book again and try to track down his references, but I recall that he thought the claim might be traced to an error that the 19th century anthropologist Sir James Frazer made, confusing Samhain customs with later Catholic customs.

64.61.220.72 (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Greg

Pronunciation
Could you add pronunciation of 'Samhein' and other Celtic names ? Taw

I'm gradually doing it as I go along. But you should be aware that there is no standard Celtic pronunciation for most of these names and events, (and usually no standard spelling)... A Scot will pronounce a word differently from a Manxman and a Manxman differently from a Breton. We are talking about big geographical and historical and linguistic differences here. sjc

The Irish way is roughly (ROUGHLY) sow-in, and the Scottish way is ROUGHLY sav(rhymes with "have")-in. ...very roughly. Oidhche is too hard to explain. 24.222.65.225 18:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Samhain vs. Samhain night
maybe we should disambiguate Samhain (the month) and Samhain Night (the festival)? dab (&#5839;) 11:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ToC
I removed some of the most blatant romantic pathos about tribes and dying honorably, and similar Keltick projections, and I am suggesting we do separate sections, one on pre-Christian Celts (some of the material I put in the etymology section may be moved there), and one on the traditions of medieval and modern folklore. The mythological bits (shield of Scatha etc.) should be put in context and given references. dab (&#5839;) 12:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

dating
From the entry: Samhain Eve, in Irish, Oidhche Shamhna, is one of the principal festivals of the Celtic calendar, and is thought to fall on or around the 31st of October. Can someone pin down just how the date of Samhain was established? (It is currently always 31 October, i surmise.) Wetman 00:36, 26 May 2004 (UTC)


 * If you are a pagan in the Southern Hemisphere and follow the Sabbats according the actual seasons and not the dates on the calendar, then Samhain would fall on 30 April or 1st of May. 202.147.45.134 12:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC) Cadence


 * I know now, putting together Coligny calendar. It must have been the three nights of the full moon closest to (or, after?) autumnal equinox of Oct/Nov ("TRINVX SAMO SINDIV"). dab (&#5839;) 12:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Its the (eve of) the first day of the relevant month. In mediaeval Ireland, using the Julian calendar, this would be exactly 31 Octobeer, the eve of 1 November. In the Coligny calendar, if the month of Samonios is taken to be the same as Irish Samhain (which is disputed), it would simply be the first day of the month of Samonios (the day starting at sunset, which is where the "eve" comes from in later calendars). However, since Coligny is a lunisolar calendar, that day when converted back to the (then) Julian or (now) Gregorian calendar would deviate by as much as five days from 31 Oct/1 Nov. --Nantonos 15:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned by the anachronisms and confusion in the following. It seems to assume that a Julian solar calendar was in use, so says things like "nearest 1st of Julian month name. It also makes over-confident statements about the lunar phase that started the month. It seems to bumble around the concept of a lunisolar calendar, All this material is much better described over at Coligny Calendar.


 * All months began at full moon, and the celebration of New Year took place during the "three nights of Samonios" (Gaulish trinux[tion] samo[nii]), the full moon of nearest 1st November. Likewise, the beginning of the summer season was celebrated at the full moon nearest 1st May (see Beltane). The full moons marking the middle of each half-year may also have been specific festivals, the Coligny calendar marks the mid-summer one (see Lughnasadh), but omits the mid-winter one (see Imbolc). Note that the seasons are not oriented at the solar year, viz. solstice and equinox, but that the mid-summer festival would be considerable later than summer solstice, around 1 August. It appears that the calendar was designed to align the lunations with the agricultural cycle of vegetation, and that the actual movements of the Sun were less important.

etymology and english
I'm guessing that the PIE root *samana is the same as that of the English assembly. Shouldn't this be mentioned?
 * the root would be *sem-. I'm not sure. "assemble" is from Latin, of course: from ad-simulare. Not a direct connection. dab (&#5839;) 09:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The Celtic languages are vastly different from the Latin based ones. Plus, the M in Samana would be MH, or a VEE sound. 24.222.65.225 18:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Gaulish vs Insular (Irish, Welsh)
In general, I think that using specific terms such as Coligny calendar or mediaeval Irish calendar, is better than using vague terms like "the ancient celtic calendar" because the two systems may not have been the same and our sources about them are very different. Some examples of potential differences: I think this article would be improved if the two were treated separately. --Nantonos 15:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * equating Samonios (which means summer month) to Irish Samhain (November) is popular, but has been challenged; equally its a stretch to equate Giamonos (winter month) with May.
 * starting the month at full moon is a popular claim, especially in Neopagan writings; ancient writers however state that the dark of the moon (Caesar), or the "sixth day" of the moon (first quarter?)(Pliny, Natural History) was the start
 * The mediaeval Irish and Welsh calendars were solar, using the Julian calandar; the Gaulish calendar (from Coligny and Villards d'Heria) was lunisolar.

Pronunciation?
Okay, are there any Gaelic speakers who can tell me how to pronounce it? I'm guessing it doesn't rhyme with plantain. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * A sound file would be nice. --Nantonos 17:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Or just a for-dummies version of the pronunciation key? I know the IPA is on there, but I can't figure it out even after poking around the IPA pages.  Someone once told me it's pronounced SOW-in, where sow rhymes with cow.  Is this right?  (And I know sjc pointed out there's no standard, but I just want to get close.)  --Allen 03:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 'Sow-in' would be the correct pronounciation, where 'sow' rhymes with 'cow'. At least, this is how it's pronounced in Ireland. Note that Halloween (Oíche Shamhna) in Irish is pronounced - "ee-ha how-na", where 'how' rhymes with 'cow'. - Ali-oops&#9997; 09:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In modern Irish, amha is generally morphed from 'ahwuh' to 'ow' as has the abha combination. It's essentially laziness.  You drop the second vowel sound, so the ai is just ignored.  So, many modern Irish speakers would actually rhyme Samhain with clown or frown.  It varies a bit from dialect to dialect and place to place, but it's fairly common.   HistoryGeek

SAMHAIN file integrity / intrusion detection system
there is also another samhain:

link SAMHAIN file integrity / intrusion detection system

dont know if i can add it to the page directly or if its needed to just add a note to the page

"Celtic New Year" Factoid
The popular literature over the last century or so has given birth to the near universal assumption that Samhain, now associated with the Roman Catholic theme and folkways of Hallowe'en, was the "Celtic New Year". A number of sources including both the work of scholarly historians and Neopagan writers have begun to place this assertion under the microscope. In his exhaustive study of the folk calendar of the British Isles "Stations of the Sun"(Oxford University Press, 1996), the historian Ronald Hutton points out that there are no references earlier than the 18th century in either church or civic records which attest to this usage. My point here is that although it may be generally correct to refer to Samhain as "Summer's End", this point of descent into the year's darkness may need better proof for us to cite this "end" as also being a "beginning". On the other hand, there -is- a huge volume of proof of the western world, including late Celtia, as having begun their calendars either at the end of December or around March 25th - at various periods far back through and before Medeival times. (added to the main article 7/11/06 by Earrach)

It's probably in response to tales out of irish lit, where a new day started at dusk. I suppose it would be extrapolated that the new year would start when it starts to get darker, too, and the days are shortening in october. 24.222.65.225 18:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words
I do not feel that the neutrality of the article/section is really in jeopardy, but it does contain weasel words, and even some peacock terms, that should be cleaned up as well as citing some verifiable sources. Otherwise, nice work.—Asatruer 14:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Neopaganism rewrite
I am deleting several lines because they are only accurate for possibly Discordian Wiccans or Chaos Magicians, a tiny faction within Wicca, and possibly true of a few other marginal groups... Defiantly not true for mainstream/some Wicca... thus making the comments almost irrelevant and unfairly negative about mainstream Wiccan's interest in being factual in their statements about Irish history. Many mainstream Wiccans do tend to believe that the symbolism of the veil between the worlds is thin is integral to the belief system, but the (during that night the great shield of Scathach was lowered, allowing the barriers between the worlds to fade and the forces of chaos to invade the realms of order) part is not common. The ("according to Irish mythology") again not accurate, some Wiccan's think all Wiccan beliefs are historical, and some do not think that is true or even relevant. Unless you are going to add condescending quote marks on the Christian pages, do not make Wiccans out to be misguided superstitious morons either. Additionally (dies by the hand of his Tánaiste (counterpart or heir), the Lord of Misrule) and (His Tanist is a miser and, though shining brightly in the winter skies, he gives no warmth and does not temper the breath of the Crone, Cailleach Bheare, the north wind.) are NOT normal Wiccan belief. I spent two hours searching Wiccan and Pagan Sites and could not find any references to these words in conjunction to Samhain except in sites that copied their info directly from Wikipedia, most stating this explicitly. Like Christians and Pentecostals, some Wiccans would not even agree that Discordians and Chaos Magicians are Wiccan, many Discoridans and Chaos Magicians would agree. --74.136.206.200 22:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Nicole Laws-Carroll, Ex-Wiccan Teacher turned Athiest


 * Excellent work on the update. I move your commentary over here on the talk page to help keep the article uncluttered and moved the reference links down to their own section. If any particular bits of your update came from a specific one of those sites, it would be good to link them to footnotes.—Asatruer 23:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but all this Wiccan stuff will have to be referenced (not to Wiccan websites, of course, but to verifiable publications). I am inserting one reference to "The Spiral Dance" (1979). Please attribute this stuff, otherwise it will have to be removed, accurate or not. I realize Wicca is built very much on hearsay and anything goes, but on Wikipedia the same rules apply to Wicca material as to any other material. dab (&#5839;) 00:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 'I realize Wicca is built very much on hearsay and anything goes' sort of like Christianity then? Clearly your are in no position to have a NPOV stance editing this article with such a condescending remark to the subject matter. As said comment could EASILY be applied to more other organized religions. And before you ask I am referring to the mistranslated, contradictory, mostly unverifiable (fictional) bible which the xian religion is based on. That isn't a swipe however, simply fact to make my point. -Strauss  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.80.95.243 (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank You both. I apologize actually. I am one of those Newbies that you are not suppose to bite (and I am glad to say I did not feel even a nip here, so that is pretty cool given how audaciously I altered the flow) I knew VERY little about how Wiki works when I altered this article. I thought I was sending my comments to some board who would consider the changes, apply whatever Wiki rules were relevant, and make the decision to change or not change. I was shocked when I hit save and all the deletions were immediately there on the real page. So I tried to go back and put the info in the comment so they were accessible. I have now looked at some of the help/info pages and thru checking in in and such, I think I have gotten at least a little better idea about how things are done here. Again I apologize for my bull-in-a-china-shop first try at being a contributor in the Wiki community. --Hypatia360 17:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Aka Nicole Laws-Carroll
 * no problem at all -- if people really hate your contributions, they can easily revert them, no sleep lost. dab (&#5839;) 18:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm removing The Spiral Dance link, and the sentence. Stawhawk is NOT Wicca. She believes in Goddess Spirituality, which contradicts Wicca (they believe in the duality of the deity, not just one). In her first book, I believe, she said she was Wiccan, but since then has gone on to say she isn't. So I don't believe it should belong here. If someone could find a different link, that is VERIFIED as Wiccan, that would be better. 204.112.158.242 03:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Starhawk IS a key contributor to modern Wicca. Terminology is always a hot issue, in feminist and wiccan circles, and I think that's the root of her statement that she "isn't Wiccan."  Nonetheless, her work and Reclaiming's are absolutely fundamental to much of modern Wicca (excluding Gardnerian descent practice).  For this reason, it's less than accurate -- in fact, misleading, to discount Starhawk as Wiccan. 207.81.73.97 21:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

On Citations
To Dbachman, No problem. I am an Academic actually. I am working on my Ph.D in Psychology. My interest is in Emotion Regulation in Interpersonal Interaction... Anyway, I will dig out some of my old Pagan books and try to document the part I contributed. For the parts that others contributed where I added "Some Wiccans", I can't help there, and although now that I have read about weasel words, I see how what I did is problematic. I added "some Wiccans" to the sentences that were already there, because I don't know where that stuff came from personally and it didn't completely reflect my own previous expirience with Wicca, but it sounded very plausible given what I know about Wiccans and Wicca influenced Pagans. Also, it should also be noted that it is perfectly acceptable to site websites (if the URL and date are given) in academic work, although it is advisable to only site websites that one thinks are fairly stable and long-term. It is not acceptable to cite non-academic works of any kind for peer-reviewed academic journals, whether they be websites, magazines, books, or etched in stone.. unless they are being used as examples rather than support/references for the truth of your ideas. So I have to say that, I am unclear about where the boundaries of these things are on Wiki. This is not academic work in the purest sense, obviously. A lot of the value of Wiki to people (at least in the academic community I am familiar with) is the ability to get accurate info about mainstream and popular culture instantly, and as long as you are including that kind of thing you can't exactly require academic level references for all the info you provide here. For Etymology and History of an issue sure; for who is MC Solaar or what did that guy mean by BSoD Black Screen of Death, not so much. So it seems to me that arbitrarily saying a sentence must be deleted if it has not been published in a book specifically, is kind of a shaky stance for someone to take on Wikipedia. --Hypatia360 17:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Aka Nicole Laws-Carroll
 * I am glad to hear it (meaning your attitude in general). Now on Wikipedia, the general idea is that it is better to have some material than no material at all. If the material is really substandard, it will be slapped with all sorts of warning templates until someone gets round to verify and improve it. It is different for articles that are already fairly developed, substandard material added to those is very likely to be removed immediately. The nature of the reference should have some relation to the nature of the subject; thus, a reference for a statement in a Pokemon related article will not have to be from an academic publication (but nevertheless verifiable), while people on Superstring theory are likely to tear your additions to ribbons if you don't know what you are talking about. Wicca, as we all know, is mainly a phenomenon of US popular culture, but it has been around long enough to be described in respectable, ISBN-ed publications, so while we'll accept major websites as Wicca-related reference, if you really want your contributions to be unassailable, you should attribute them to some author. If you look around the Wicca articles on Wikipedia, you will find that many of them are in rather poor shape, since they tend to accumulate half-informed additions in flowery prose, and you will be very welcome to insert a reference here or there. You will note that I added fact tags: these do not mean that I absolutely dispute what is being said, but they are a request for verification, and at the same time remind readers that it is their own responsibility to take at face value unsourced statements on Wikipedia. dab (&#5839;) 18:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Citation Format
I have checked out a mound of books, all stuff I used to own.. and read several Wiki pages on editing, etiquette, and citations, and I am about to start adding both citations and relevant content from Sanders & The Farrars (Alexandrian Wicca), Buckland (Seax-Wicca), Adler (academic perspective), Cunningham, Cabot, & Starhawk (Ecclectic Wicca), Budapest (Dianic/Feminist Wicca), and McCoy (Celtic Wicca). Most of these authors were major contributors to the modern birth and growth of The Craft from the late 60s to the mid 80s, and will generally be well known to those who have studied Wicca beyond a passing interest. However, I am sure that since I ceased to be a practicing Wiccan myself, that many other insightful authors have made their mark. Hopefully overtime those authors will also be included by others who know them well.

Wiki's citations page makes it clear that the format of citations is up the contributors to any given page. I am a grad student in Psych, so the Harvard style, which is most similar to the APA style that I am familiar with, gets my vote. More info on that and other styles can be found at Citing sources and Harvard referencing. The short version is:

The Harvard referencing system places a partial citation — the author's name and year of publication within parentheses — at the end of the sentence within the text, and a complete citation at the end of the text in an alphabetized list of "References". According to The Oxford Style Manual, the Harvard system is the "most commonly used reference method in the physical and social sciences" (Ritter 2002).

Note: Harvard referencing is not complete without the full citation at the end of the page (article) in the References section, as described next.
 * For one author, add the author's surname and the year of publication in parentheses (round brackets) after the sentence or paragraph, and before the period: for example (Smith 2005).
 * For two authors, use (Smith & Jones 2005); for more authors, use (Smith et al. 2005).
 * If the "References" section contains two or more works by the same author but published the same year, use a letter after the year to distinguish the different sources (for example, (Smith 2005a) and (Smith 2005b). Make sure that the in-text citations use the correct letters that correspond to the full citation in the "References" at the end of the article.

Luckily, this entry already has an empty References section, it just needs the appropriate references to be entered as we go. Looking forward to feedback... Hypatia360 03:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Witchology.com Events Listing
I added a link to a website with info and an events list only to have it deleted. The website I added is a reputable source of high quality information that I thought would be useful to other users. It is not my personal site, nor am I affiliated with it, so I don't think that this means my submission is spam. I think it's important to open up the links section so that it's not mainly US-centric sites/pages like witchvox and Starhawk links. I found this website witchology.com when I was looking for events in my area and I think other users will also benefit from it.

Have a look at the info page at

And the events listing at —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.198.111.205 (talk) date (See WP:SIG for more info on signing talk page posts)


 * Greetings, and welcome to Wikipedia.


 * The reason I removed the link is because it is to a comercial website. However, that may be my point of view taking precedence over WP:NPOV, as I am morally opposed to "selling" training or initiation in Wicca. WHile I do oppose inclusion of the link, I will offer it to the Wikipedia community and yield to their judgement. Justin Eiler 18:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The site has a tone I'm not too pleased with. From the first page: "...this is an ancient Pagan holy day, corrupted by Christians. Find out how they did it and why." And it's very commercial-feeling, which goes against Wikipedia's no ads policy. Wikipedia is not a place for finding Wiccan events in one's area. Though WitchVox is based in the US, they do have worldwide listings for groups and events, are not a commercial site, and despite their name they do cover non-Wiccan/Witch Pagan groups, events and interests. I also want to avoid biasing the information and links to Neopagan perspectives. I think the article should prioritize history and Celtic culture. I think it's fine to include modern perspectives, but so many of the Neopagan sites are also full of misinformation. I haven't gone through and evaluated all the links we have now, but I think we need to. I'm for fewer "witch" links on this sort of article, not more. --Kathryn NicDhàna 20:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * yes, fewer neopagan/wiccan ramblings, more history and scholarship. "enlightened by modern research into the Celts many of today's Witches and Wiccans prefer to use the old name Samhain to mark this time of year" -- sheesh, the term is modern Irish, all "modern research into the Celts" you have to do is open a dictionary. Not what I consider high density of first class information. dab (&#5839;) 22:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Structure of Article
While articles on Wikipedia certainly run the gamut of tone, from very informal to highly formal and technical, there is a bit of a tone and structure issue with this article as it stands. Right now, after the brief intro, it launches into the rather technical etymology section and then the ancient stuff, all of which I think may be a bit difficult for the average reader to digest. The latter sections are, in contrast, in a much less formal/academic tone. I don't think the article needs to have uniform tone, per se, but I think it might behoove us to make it a bit more user-friendly near the beginning, explain some of the more scholarly references (briefly, if already linked), and move the etymology section down a bit. Maybe this could be most easily accomplished with an Overview section inserted between our current intro and the Etymology section, in which we summarize the article a bit more? As it is, I'm not sure if the usual reader will read past the Etymology section. Not that this is necessarily a problem, but it is something to consider. To this end, I've rearranged it a bit, but will have to wait to do more in-depth work on it. Thoughts? --Kathryn NicDhàna 03:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if that's a good thing, though it is well-intended. Wikipedia is intended to be encyclopedic--unfortunately, that's going to require a certain level of understanding on the part of the reader. Simplifying the more technical aspects takes the risk of removing valid information. I would be all for the idea of explaining any jargon or specialized vocabulary, but I would want to be careful that we don't include so much "side-bar" explanation that it gets in the way of the article. Justin Eiler 03:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh no, I'm not for removing anything. Just wondering if the etymology section is the best one to start with.  It's fine with me the way it is, however I know some articles with etymology up front have often wound up being rearranged a bit for these reasons.  I don't want to bog it down, either.  Maybe tomorrow I'll tweak some of the places I'm thinking need minor explanations and see what you and the others think. --Kathryn NicDhàna 04:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. And maybe I'm just being a worrywart. :) Justin Eiler 04:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"Also a Germanic holiday, spelt "samhein"."
I have never heard of this, so I removed it. After a brief Google search, I think that perhaps some Germanic Neopagan groups have imported the Gaelic holiday and now celebrate it, though I'm not sure if they celebrate it in a Gaelic manner or if they've changed it to fit a more Germanic style. If the Germanic observance of Samhain can be attributed, I think it deserves mention, although if the Google test was accurate, perhaps only in the Neopagan section. --Kathryn NicDhàna 21:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I assume this group is probably acting on their own and their information is false. I don't think it has enough notability to mention here. bloodofox: 02:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ITA, but assuming good faith and all ;-) --Kathryn NicDhàna 20:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"Sabbats" template
I have removed the "Sabbats" box that was recently placed at the top of this article. I feel it is misleading in that it re-instates the POV that Samhain is primarily a Wiccan or Neopagan thing. We have worked hard to make this and the other Gaelic fire festivals more historically accurate, and more reflective of the spectrum of people who observe the festival. We have a Gaelic festivals nav box at the bottom, and links in the body to the Wiccan "wheel of the year"; we do not need an additional nav box for the Wiccan sabbats. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫ ♦ ♫ 20:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Pronounciation 3
“A Scot will pronounce a word differently from a Manxman and a Manxman differently from a Breton”`

We are not dealing with some sort of pan-Celtic fantasy here. Samhain has a clear pronounciation; in Irish you can pick two or

“In modern Irish, amha is generally morphed from 'ahwuh' to 'ow' as has the abha combination. It's essentially laziness. You drop the second vowel sound, so the ai is just ignored. So, many modern Irish speakers would actually rhyme Samhain with clown or frown. It varies a bit from dialect to dialect and place to place, but it's fairly common. HistoryGeek”`

This statement is unclear. I will try to break it down:

The spelling 'samhana' is to indicate the genitive singular form; the 'ai' is not ignored -it a) does not exist as the 'i' is there to show palatisation of the n, plus a little 'glide' is sounded like a faint 'i' as the tongue moves thru the mounth before the n, but it is not a seperate letter, nor is 'ai' a diphthong here b) the 'n' in the gen sing is velarised (it is a seperate sound)

In fast speech the final vowel in dialects with heavy initial stress tend to lose the unstress vowel/schwa. I've heard it with it's final 'a' in pausa form, but I cannot attest for distribution everywhere, so the loss of schwa may be the form in someplaces; in Conemara, the most radical in terms of analytical noun grammar, they tend to add schwas onto words, and in other dialects the schwa is pronounced. However, I will go and find out, and write back here.

It would not be laziness, unless you meant non-native speakers unable to inflect into the genitive! The velarised quality of the n in the genitive would work to ensure the difference is kept, nonetheless —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.134.220.238 (talk)

I think you lost everyone :D Just throwing this out there: Scotch Gaelic would call it "Sav-in" where "Sav" rhymes with "Have." Sort of. ....ya know, the only people who haven't gotten after me for pronouncing it as in Scottish Gaelic are the ones who have studied Irish, it's usually the stupid English-speakers who have a problem with the "sav-in". 24.222.65.225 18:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wentz / Evans-Wentz
On the UK versions of Fairy Faith, which are the ones available online, his name is given as Evans Wentz, no hyphen. On the American version by Citadel Press, it's hyphenated, Evans-Wentz. I've never seen any explanation for this, but it does seem to me that as the prior versions of the book (including the original) were without the hyphen, I think the Citadel addition of the hyphen was a mistake. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫ ♦ ♫ 17:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * He's well known. The last name is "Evans Wentz". I think the Brits tend to leave out the hyphen, while the American method is to hyphenate it to avoid confusion. I think we can agree that Stanford University would know how to spell it? Jefferson Anderson 17:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge of Silent Supper
This merge was suggested on that article back in December of 2006, but the merge notice was not put here. Silent Supper was proposed for deletion but I have just closed the debate as keep, noting discussion there supporting this merge. I urge you to discuss the merge further here and determine a consensus. --Bduke 02:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Geez... Well, I'm thoroughly unimpressed with the Silent Supper article, and baffled as to why it's not known by the more common name, Dumb Supper. I believe the Dumb Supper may be mentioned in one of the Halloween or Halloween traditions articles (hey, I thought there was a Halloween traditions article... what happened to it?).  While I would not be opposed to mentioning historically accurate folklore about the Dumb Supper here, some of the sources on that stub really seem more suited for Halloween or a Wicca piece.  So while there may be a few bits that could be incorporated here, I would be very much against just plopping it in the way it now stands. -  Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 21:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like the Halloween traditions article was deleted for copyvio... -  Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 21:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if others can weigh in on this, either way, so we can ditch the flag. Whether we incorporate the less-sketchy bits, or decline to incorporate, I want the merge notice off this. -  Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 22:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There's been no discussion. I've moved the flag here to the talk page because I'd rather not have this article linked up top to an inferior article. If someone wants to insert some of the better material from the Silent Supper article, or rename it Dumb Supper and make it encyclopedic (as I'm not so sure the current one really qualifies as such) I can help with some of the folkloric bits. If I get some spare time I might incorporate some Dumb Supper traditions into this, but it won't look all that much like that other article. -  Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 00:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Full Moon and other assumptions
In the "Ancient Celts" section our article had: "All months began at full moon, and the celebration of New Year took place during the 'three nights of Samonios'"

FULL MOON??? I'm requiring a citation for the full moon statement:

If we have -anything- in the ancient record about what the people of central/western Europe did calendrically based on the phase of the moon we have two citations, from separate authors writing of their comtemporaries two thousand years ago: Pliny (in his "Natural History")and Tacitus (in his "Germania"). Both seem to be speaking of the D-shaped FIRST QUARTER, not the full moon. The sixth night that the moon could possibly be seen in the sky after new,is the night of the first quarter moon(seven days into its cycle. // PLINY: "(The mistletoe) is gathered with much ceremony; and above all, on the sixth day of the moon, by which these men reckon the beginnings of their months and years, and of their cycle of thirty years, because the moon has then sufficient power, yet has not reached half its size." // TACITUS:"except in the case of accident or emergency, they assemble on certain particular days, either shortly after the new moon or shortly before the full moon. These they hold are the most auspicious times for embarking on any enterprise." // - - In other words (imho), the First Quarter (the sixth night the moon can possibly be seen). The various statements by modern writers suggesting that all lunar calendars ("must") have been calibrated from Full(or New Moon) do not often cite the reasons why they say so and we are left to assume that they assume-so because that is how things were done in the Hebrew and the Islamic calendars. Central Europe was and still is is a long way from the Middle East. Anyone who looks up at the actual moon might find that the dead-straight terminator on the "D"-shaped First-Quarter is far easier to judge to-the-day/by-eye precisely than the several days on either side of Full where, visually its absolute "fullness" is dramatically ambiguous. This is why I feel that if the ancient Europeans actually did use the First Quarter to calibrate their calendar it would not be difficult at all to build a compelling case for the "why" behind it.

And while we're discussing broad assumptions made on celtic calendrics we should remeber that, in his Gallic Wars, Julius Caesar says that the Gauls began their (...days, etc.)"at night". That's it. And from there all the assumptions and confusion have proceeded. In any of the several Latin translations I've checked Ceasar quite plainly does not say "from sunset-on". I've been lobbying for a long time that the main reason for this, perhaps unqualified, "jump" is due to a Bibliocentric historical scheme where the Celts (like everybody) were assumed to have descended, not from the trees, but from the landing-ramp of Noah's Ark... the "lost tribes" would no doubt measure their days using the semitic custom of measuring "from sunset-on". Nope,Ceasar just says the Gauls did it "at night" though. You know, possibly like some other culture I'm thinking of does it"at night", say, perhaps even at 12:00AM? earrachOct1st2007


 * I think it's more likely the months began at the new moon, myself. One argument that's been made to support this is the general Celtic thing of seeing things beginning in darkness.  Starting the month at full moon would make the Celts very different from other cultures with lunar calendars. I agree the sources are open to interpretation, though.  In terms of generally-accepted theories being questioned, though, we will need to cite WP:V sources.  I think it's acceptable to change it from "full moon" unless someone has a quality cite for that.  I may tweak the wording a bit, but I'm basically cool with your changes.  Slàinte Mhath, -  Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 21:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is what I have found: "The months begin on the first quarter moon, so that the first half of the month is in the light of the moon. The second half of the month is in the dark of the moon." ( Hmm, this seems to differ from other sources regarding the beginning being dark...)[]
 * More: "The Celtic concept of the month commencing at the first quarter moon as reported by Pliny the Elder is confirmed on the Celtic calendar, since the lengths of the months and the number of months in each year show that the months correspond to lunations; and the second half of every month is headed by a label 'ATENOVX', which translates to 'returning dark'." []
 * "A dualism in the Celtic calendar extends at all levels: night precedes the daytime (Caesar, Bellum Gallium, 6.18) so that the first-quarter moon appears overhead at the start of the first day of the month (Pliny the Elder, Natural History, 17.95). The first half of the month is brightly lit by the moon, followed by a division on the Coligny Tablet headed by 'Atenoux', meaning 'returning dark'. Like the first half of the month, the year is split into the first light and warm 'Samon' summer half, followed by the dark, cold shorter days of the 'Giammon' winter half. The dualism of the calendar extends to the names for the months. The first months of the two halves of the year form a complementary pair, 'Samon' summer, and 'Giammon' winter." []
 * Doing history on ancient culturs on the world wide web is silly. Artoftransformation 07:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Liminality
Anyone want to write a bit about the importance of liminality in Irish lit and it's connection to Samhain? It's mentioned in many, many tales as an extremely important day. All this pagan and wiccan stuff should be in a different article and limit it to historical Celtic references, and to the tales it's a part of. 24.222.65.225 18:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge of "Silent Supper"
I checked the sources for this "Wiccan" ritual, and none of them mention it as a Wiccan practice. One of the sources (the online BOS) mentioned the Dumb Supper as an Irish custom, sourced to Danaher. I checked Danaher, and it's not mentioned on the page cited, nor could I find mention anywhere in the chapter on Samhain. Though I've heard of the Dumb Supper, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the people who observe the custom might be Wiccan, there was nothing in the inserted text to support it as "a Wiccan ritual". The quote about marriage divination from a folklore journal looks more promising, but there is nothing included that says this is a custom from one of the Celtic cultures (or if so, which Celtic culture). I'll reproduce it here, in case anyone can pull other info from the source that places it in an appropriate context:
 * Three girls would do this together when they had the house to themselves. Walking backwards, they set the table just before midnight, not speaking or laughing.  A word or a laugh breaks the 'charm' and everything must be done over again.  Places and food are set for each girl, and a place opposite each for the expected guest.  When all is ready, the girls seat themselves and wait.  On the stroke of midnight each maid will see opposite her the man she is to marry.||| }}

As it is, this does not fit in with the WP:V sourced content we have for offerings to the ancestors, as it isn't about feeding the dead. It might be worth including in a section on marriage divination, but again, we need more context. -  Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 05:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Etymology
We need more sourcing on the Samhain section. There are some sources mentioned in the text, but only by names, titles and publication data are missing. The modern language stuff is uncontroversial, imho, and can either stand or I can footnote it later. But for an otherwise well-sourced article, we need improvements there. Specifically, footnotes with full publication data so others can check the sources. I can source some of it, but wanted to note this here, too, as I can't get to it today. -  Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 05:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I admit I wrote it in a hurry, some time ago, but I assure you the material is all taken from the sources given. Now I have linked the "KZ" and given Pokorny as the source for the basic material, I would argue the paragraph is adequatly sourced and can be verified by anyone with access to the references cited (which I admit is specialist literature). dab (𒁳) 09:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * When you add refs, I'd appreciate it if you could use the format established in the article (footnotes). Thanks. -  Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 21:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * it is perfectly admissible to give important references inline as long as they don't clutter up the text unduly. There is much room for subjective judgement here (Citing sources). That said, I'm not going to edit war over citation styles, so feel free to morph it to your preferred format. Talking of MoS, I don't quite see why you insist the "Etymology" section has to languish between "'Celtic New Year' questioned" and "Neopaganism". We usually discuss etymology and terminology right after the lead. dab (𒁳) 14:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)