Jump to content

Talk:Samhain: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
 
(204 intermediate revisions by 56 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|
1=
1={{WikiProject Ireland |class=B |importance=low |attention=|old-peer-review= |image-needed=yes }}
{{WikiProject Neopaganism|class=B}}
{{WikiProject Ireland |importance=Mid |attention= |old-peer-review=}}
{{WikiProject Celts}}
{{WikiProject Neopaganism |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Death|class=b}}
{{WikiProject Folklore |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Celts |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Holidays|importance= Low |halloween=yes|halloween-importance= low}}
{{WikiProject Christianity |importance=Low |halloween=yes |halloween-importance= low }}
}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2007-10-31|oldid1=168270090|date2=2008-10-31|oldid2=248747244|date3=2009-10-31|oldid3=323087928|date4=2010-10-31|oldid4=393910840|date5=2011-10-31|oldid5=458083822|date6=2012-10-31|oldid6=520799982|date7=2013-10-31|oldid7=579416373|date8=2014-10-31|oldid8=631724169|date9=2015-10-31|oldid9=688335844|date10=2016-10-31|oldid10=747035549|date11=2017-10-31|oldid11=808066200|date12=2018-11-01|oldid12=866808972|date13=2019-11-01|oldid13=923976688|date14=2020-05-01|oldid14=954015587|date15=2020-11-01|oldid15=986498267|date16=2021-05-01|oldid16=1020674969|date17=2021-11-01|oldid17=1053085034|date18=2022-05-01|oldid18=1085667439|date19=2022-11-01|oldid19=1119330682|date20=2023-05-01|oldid20=1152680518|date21=2023-11-01|oldid21=1182983888|date22=2024-05-01|oldid22=1221643531|date23=2024-11-01|oldid23=1254673752}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
|algo = old(365d)
|maxarchivesize = 50K
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|counter = 4
|archive = Talk:Samhain/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2007-10-31|oldid1=168270090|date2=2008-10-31|oldid2=248747244|date3=2009-10-31|oldid3=323087928|date4=2010-10-31|oldid4=393910840}}

== More than just "new year" questioned. ==

Given the reference to Hutton's book Stations of the Sun, I'm a little surprised that the most important academic objection to the story of Samhain is whether it was really the Celtic new year. Hutton also pointed out that the tradition of relighting hearth fires from a single bonfire was written by Keating without a reference, that no other evidence exists for it, and that it would require an unlikely degree of political and religious centralization.

He also explained that the notion that it was a festival of the dead came from Sir James Frazer, who had no evidence but reasoned that (1) festivals of the dead are common in other cultures, (2) other pagan holidays have been Christianized, (3) All Hallow's Eve involved a festival of the dead, so it must be a Christianized pagan festival of the dead. But Christians have had celebrations of the martyrs since the fourth century. By the 5th it was celebrated on Easter Week in Syria, the Sunday after Pentecost by the Greeks, and May 13 by the Romans. By 800 Germany and England celebrated a festival to all the saints on November 1, but the Irish on April 20. The dead didn't come into it until 998 when Odilo of Cluny ordered his congregation to celebrate a mass for the dead in February, and only later was that adopted throughout Christiandom and moved to November 2. In short, the festival for the dead originated with the Catholics.

There is the further theory (one among several) that All Saints' Day began as a yearly mass in an oratory in St. Peter's Basilica, dedicated by Pope Gregory III in 732, the November 1 date suggested by Irish monks but the mass celebrated only in Rome for a hundred years. (See the entry in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, and The Pagan Mysteries of Halloween by Jean Markale (2000, English translation 2001), p88 in the English translation. Unfortunately his references are in French. But that makes it a problem to connect All Saints' or its customs to Samhain.

It might also be mentioned that until the middle of the 20th century anthropologists pretty much assumed that any festival, however new it actually was, had ancient pagan roots, even if the people celebrating it gave a different story and were therefore thought to be ignorant of its origins. There was a romantization of rural cultures such that it was thought the rural folk were holders of ancient wisdom, but simultaneously ignorant that they held wisdom or that it was ancient, so they needed academics to explain it to them, based on theories that have long been discredited. Which results in the confusing state of affairs that there's a lot about the pagan past that we don't know, but a lot that people say as if they do know.

[[Special:Contributions/64.61.220.143|64.61.220.143]] ([[User talk:64.61.220.143|talk]]) 22:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Greg
:I've tried to fix it, but feel free to help, since you clearly have the relevant sources. --[[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 10:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

:: read the article about [[Lemuria (festival)|Lemuria festival]] in the ancient Rome; during the Christianization of Rome, the [[Pantheon]] temple was consecrated to [[Virgin Mary]] and all [[Saints]] and the holiday was established on May 13/14. The consecration and the holiday were clearly to replace the old Pagan custom by the new Christian one. Both events (Lemuria and All Saints) were dedicated to The Dead, only Romans wanted to expel them, while Catholics seem to give some respect to the Departed Souls, what reminds a bit some older traditions based in [[Ancestor Worship]] (though [[Christianity]] itself is not based on AW, of course; neither is its precedessor, [[Judaism]]). Another good article is about [[Festival of the Dead]] [[User:Critto|Critto]] ([[User talk:Critto|talk]]) 22:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

:::The Lemuria was considered an especially in-auspicious time of year to begin any endeavor or dedicate anything. It was so unlucky that it affected the whole month of May. ''Malae maio nubent'', "bad girls marry in May", went the ancient Roman saying. Its unlikely that Lemuria was still celebrated in Rome when the Pantheon was dedicated. If it was, then the Pantheon was dedicated despite the Lemuria, rather than because of it. On the other hand, there is evidence for All Saints celebrations in Syria on May 13th long before the dedication of the Pantheon; such celebrations may have influenced Rome's choice of the date. [[User:Rwflammang|Rwflammang]] ([[User talk:Rwflammang|talk]]) 03:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
:::: There's some misunderstanding between us two, I think this comes from the English language which, at least for me, is not a mother tongue. Polish, which I speak daily, is a Slavic language with a totally different structure and grammar (disregarding that both languages are Indo-European, of course). Anyway, I didn't claim that The Pope dedicated the Pantheon because of Lemuria; obviously the supreme Catholic priest wouldn't observe the Pagan rites, whether obsolete or contemporary to him. What I think is that it may be possible that he wanted to eradicate the old Pagan Roman customs and replace them with the new Christian ones, as people, especially from the lower strata, are very strongly attached to old customs.
::::It is widely known that in Christianized countries around the Globe, a lot of older customs were preserved. We may call then thet The Pope dedicated Pantheon _despite_ the Lemuria, to lower their meaning. Also, any dating of Christian festivals, even if of genuine Christian origin, doesn't preclude blending with other traditions. For example, while death of Jesus on the cross is probably a historical fact that took place in April around year 33 CE, it doesn't mean that a lot of Spring-related and fertility-related holidays and festivals weren't observed this time in Europe, Middle East, Northern Africa and elsewhere.
::::They naturally were observed (and still are, eg. [[Nowruz]] in Iran and [[Holi]] in India) and this way a lot of pre-Christian customs as egg painting (observed eg. in Zoroastrian Persia and probaably pre-Christian Slavs and Balts) were blended into the Easter customs. The same went for at least some of Christmas customs, which were blended with the ones observed on Saturnalia, Winterblot, Yule (if such a holiday existed), etc. This doesn't mean, of course, that Christmas is an extension of Pagan holiday, only that Christians borrowed some customs from Pagans. Not to mention the death of St. John the Baptist which could have taken place on June 24rd, however this doesn't mean that the Summer-related festivals didn't take place around this time, as they did and some customs might have been blended again.
:::: And, in most cases, rather than being ordered by the Church, such a borrowing and blending was a natural process of the people. Finally, the fact that Christian missionaries planted a holiday in some country and it was later blended with local tradition s doesn't mean, that the planted holiday wasn't borrowed from another Pagan holiday in another country. A lot was (and still is) common not only in the Indo-European cultures, but in agrarian cultures in many parts of the world. Cheers, [[User:Critto|Critto]] ([[User talk:Critto|talk]]) 17:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

== Pagan Thought Police ==
Wow, that didn't take long. I posted a question about a pov revert to the intro of the Samhain article and within 30 minutes it was deleted. This article used to lead with the npov statement that Samhain was the word as Gaeilge for the month of November and gave it's etymology. It now leads with unsourced POV neo-pagan claptrap about their festival. I even mentioned in my comment that of course it was appropriate to discuss the modern neo-pagan festival of Samhain but that it should first be noted that it has a more generic meaning. That would be the encyclopedic thing to do. I suppose whomever deleted my post didn't like the fact that I pointed out that neo-pagans have essentially stolen Samhain from celtic culture and have made it in to something it never was. Ye love to point out how christians did that to "your" festivals but the goddess forbid that anyone point out that ye are doing the same thing with celtic culture and tradition. About 90% of the information in the current article is unsourced and reflects the typical overly romanticized concept of samhain popular among neo-pagans. Alas, I'm sure this comment too will be deleted. So much for the true meaning of wikipedia. --[[User:Dliodoir|Dliodoir]] ([[User talk:Dliodoir|talk]]) 14:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
:Your comment was removed because it was an insult-filled rant, not a constructive comment about improving the article. (And I say that as a Christian, not a pagan.) The article begins with a discussion of Samhain in ancient pagan Celtic culture, not with its significance in neo-Paganism. That doesn't come until two-thirds of the way down the page. If you care about "the true meaning of Wikipedia", read the article first ''without'' preconceived notions of what you expect to find, then read [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:TALK]], then come back here to discuss improvements to the article without name-calling. —[[User:Angr|'''An''']][[User talk:Angr|''gr'']] 14:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

== Samhain translating to... Burning Man? ==

I am not an expert in the subject, but there does seem to be a rather large parallel here; a translation of an ancient spiritual ritual into modern times? Has this been discussed, or is it just ridiculous conjecture on my part?... ([[User:Pterantula|Pterantula]] ([[User talk:Pterantula|talk]]) 17:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC))

Burning Man has absolutely nothing to do with Samhain.[[User:BoyintheMachine|BoyintheMachine]] ([[User talk:BoyintheMachine|talk]]) 01:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

== Pop Culture ==

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

:Take it to [[Irish mythology in popular culture]]. - <font face="Georgia">[[User:Kathryn NicDhàna|<span style="color:#009">Kathryn NicDhàna</span>]] [[User_talk:Kathryn NicDhàna|♫]]<font color="navy">♦</font>[[Special:Contributions/Kathryn_NicDhàna|♫]]</font> 23:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)



== Historic Date ==
== Galician Samaín ==


[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Samhain&oldid=806916115 A recent edit] by {{u|Asarlaí}} removed the Galician people from the list of observers of the festival in the infobox. The justification given was that the article refers to the ''Gaelic'' festival. I have two points regarding the edit:
While a later part of the article discusses the tendency of many ancient groups to celebrate Samhain based on frost and harvest and land conditions, the first paragraph simply gives the date as October 31/November 1. I was under the impression that the October 31/November 1 date was largely a modern adaptation, whereas any ancient people who used a set annual date for the festival would have timed their events by the sun (such as those who built Stonehenge.) The midway point between the solstice and equinox is roughly a week later. This year it is November 6/7. Perhaps the initial paragraph could be changed to make the questionable or approximate date more clear. [[Special:Contributions/68.146.28.195|68.146.28.195]] ([[User talk:68.146.28.195|talk]]) 05:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
* The infobox section from which Galician people was removed was "Observed by > Today", as opposed to "Observed by > Historically". Whether or not the Galician people historically celebrated the festival or not is irrelevant, they ''do'' observe Samhain (or "Samaín", as is the term they claim to have reconstructed) today, in large public events at many locations throughout the region. I understand why it doesn't belong under "historically", I completely agree, but why is it any less relevant that they observe it "today" than, for example, Wiccans or Celtic neopagans?
* Back to the statement that the page covers only the ''Gaelic'' festival, this is an unnecessary criteria as there is no reason why a cultural observance should be limited to an ethnic group mainly defined by linguistic commonalities, especially when the Smurfit study and the ''[[Lebor Gabála Érenn]]'' draw genetic and pseudo-historical links between the [[Gaels]] and the [[Gallaeci]]. We'll never know how the original Gallician language fitted into the spectrum of ancient European languages, but there's no reason to suspect the festival is (or, perhaps, was) celebrated any differently because of language. '''[[User:Wasechun tashunka|<span style="color:#911e82">Wasechun tashunka</span>]]'''<small style="font-size:65%;"><sup>[[User talk:Wasechun tashunka|HOWL]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Wasechun_tashunka|TRACK]]</sub></small> 21:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
:{{u|Cagwinn}}, could you please discuss? '''[[User:Wasechun tashunka|<span style="color:#911e82">Wasechun tashunka</span>]]'''<small style="font-size:65%;"><sup>[[User talk:Wasechun tashunka|HOWL]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Wasechun_tashunka|TRACK]]</sub></small> 19:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


:: The Galician "Samain" has nothing to do with the ancient Gallaeci; it is purely a modern invention (and a very recent one at that!) promoted by Galician nationalists who are trying to separate from Spain (you are essentially rubber stamping the inclusion of nationalistic propaganda on Wikipedia by insisting on its inclusion here!). It's bizarre that you would bring the ''Lebor Gabala Erenn'' into this; the "Spanish connection" in the LGE is pure medieval fantasy with no factual basis; much of it is derived from Latin folk-etymologies and pseudo-histories from Late Antiquity written by Spanish authors such as Orosius and Isidore. [[User:Cagwinn|Cagwinn]] ([[User talk:Cagwinn|talk]]) 20:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
==Loreena McKennitt's song==
:: Also, you clearly way out of your league on the topic of linguistics by making the bizarre statement ''"we'll never know how the original Gallician language fitted into the spectrum of ancient European languages"''. In fact, we do know that the Gallaeci/Callaeci spoke a dialect of [[Hispano-Celtic languages|Hispano-Celtic]], which is an entirely different branch of Celtic from Insular Celtic (which includes Goidelic, the ancestor of Irish); so the Gallaeci/Callaeci shared no close linguistic affinity with the Irish, if that's what you're trying to imply. [[User:Cagwinn|Cagwinn]] ([[User talk:Cagwinn|talk]]) 20:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Is the [[Loreena McKennitt]]'s All Souls' Night about [[All Souls' Day]] or [[Samhain]]?


::: Very well, thank you for explaining your reasons rather than simply reverting. Although, I would like to make very clear that I ''implied'' nothing, simply questioned. I also really see no distinction whatsoever between a modern Galician festival based on what they believe to be their heritage, and the countless modern wiccan/neopagan inventions which are afforded an entire section on this article. Have a good night. '''[[User:Wasechun tashunka|<span style="color:#911e82">Wasechun tashunka</span>]]'''<small style="font-size:65%;"><sup>[[User talk:Wasechun tashunka|HOWL]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Wasechun_tashunka|TRACK]]</sub></small> 20:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I've posted this in here and in [[Talk:All Souls' Day]].[[User:Civic Cat|Civic Cat]] ([[User talk:Civic Cat|talk]]) 00:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


::::Ah I see this has been debated before. So to add my tuppence to this, Samaín is given in the Gran Dicionario Xerais da Lingua as ''Festa orixinaria da comarca cedeiresa que se celebra pola época de defuntos'' i.e. a festival from the Cedeira region celebrated around the time of the dead (my translation) but crucially gives the etymology as Latin ''sambucum'' (willow). Which means that it has nothing in common with Samhain other than a surface similarity. It seems to have been promoted as a modern reincarnation by some guy called Rafael López Loureiro. As for the link I was pointed at [https://portaldaspalabras.gal/lexico/mira-que-din/samain/] that doesn't actually make the claim that Samhain is linguistically Samaín [[User:Akerbeltz|Akerbeltz]] ([[User talk:Akerbeltz|talk]]) 18:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
All Souls' Night is literally the evening of All Souls' Day, November 2. So therefore the answer would be no.[[User:BoyintheMachine|BoyintheMachine]] ([[User talk:BoyintheMachine|talk]]) 01:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


::::: Samain (also spelled Samuin) is an [[Old Irish]] word; even if an ancient [[Hispano-Celtic]] cognate somehow survived into modern Galician, it would look different from the Old Irish word. I highly doubt that there is a genuinely old "Samain" (whatever its etymology) festival in Galicia; would need to see some more reliable sources on this. [[User:Cagwinn|Cagwinn]] ([[User talk:Cagwinn|talk]]) 20:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
==songs about Samhain==
If we can have<br/><nowiki>[[Category:Christmas songs]]</nowiki><br/>
[[List of Christmas hit singles]]<br/>
[[List of non-religious Christmas songs]]<br/>Then what about [[List of songs about Samhaim]]?<br/>[[User:Civic Cat|Civic Cat]] ([[User talk:Civic Cat|talk]]) 00:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


Oh I agree, especially the medial -m- looks real fishy for an old rood (if it were Samain). I suspect there *is* a festival (the Dictionario Xerais IS a reliable source) that was historically held (possibly even around the time Samhain is held, it is after all a date based on the seasonal cycle) and that by pure coincidence, it shares a surface similarity to Samhain (to those who don't realise it's either /v/ or vocalised). Someone seized on that and saw a marketing opportunity! [[User:Akerbeltz|Akerbeltz]] ([[User talk:Akerbeltz|talk]]) 21:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
== Question regarding entry 6 The Spirit of Halloween ==
: Is the ''Dictionario'' truly reliable? Latin ''sambucus'' produced Galician ''sabugo'' - https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sambucus#Latin - https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sabugo#Galician - so how could it have also produced Galician ''*samain''? I searched some online Galician dictionaries for "samain" and found no such native word. [[User:Cagwinn|Cagwinn]] ([[User talk:Cagwinn|talk]]) 22:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


::::::[Edit conflict] Agree with both Cagwinn and Akerbeltz here. Tired of seeing these invented, confused, or misrepresented Galician things added to Gaelic-related articles. Whether it's out of an agenda or well-meaning ignorance followed by an attitude at being corrected, it wastes people's time. It also tends to be the same people doing it, though often with new accounts. Support consensus to just revert this stuff in the future as it's been debunked extensively already. (Though of course I always appreciate the linguistic discussion/documentation/debunking when folks are up to it.) If people living in Galicia are having Neopagan celebrations based on their interpretations of Gaelic traditions, they are already covered by the listed categories. To list "Galicia" would play into the misinformation. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|<span style="font-family:georgia"><b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b></span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]]</sup> [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 21:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
In looking over the entry on Samhain, this particular section seems somewhat out of place, as it is located between Celtic Reconstructionism and Wicca but does not seem to have anything to do with either of them or the previous section of Neopaganism. It is also put in as a top level headline, rather than a subheader; the implication is that Wicca falls under this heading. I would also like to note there are no references of any sort in regards to the information posted under The Spirit of Halloween. My main concern is for the accuracy of this information, as well as its correct location within the article. Thank you. [[Special:Contributions/64.85.228.72|64.85.228.72]] ([[User talk:64.85.228.72|talk]]) 08:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


:To date I have found it very reliable and Xerais aren't crackpot publishers and it was written by a group of experts (i.e. not a single author), so I'm inclined to take it seriously. It fortunately gives IPA which says that samaín is /samaˈiŋ/ and -mb- yielding -m- and a final -c yielding /ŋ/ are pretty uncontroversial sound changes. Nothing to stop a word being borrowed twice, Japanese is replete with words like that. [[User:Akerbeltz|Akerbeltz]] ([[User talk:Akerbeltz|talk]]) 22:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
== If I recall correctly... ==
:: How are these uncontroversial sound changes?? Can you provide any other instances of Latin -mb- becoming Portuguese or Galician -m- and -c- (/k/) becoming Portuguese or Galician /ŋ/? A -c- when followed by a -u- or -a- (as we would have in Latin sambucum/sambucus/sambuca) normally gave Portuguese and Galician -g-; cf. EB Williams, From Latin to Portuguese; historical phonology and morphology of the Portuguese language, University of Pennsylvania, 1938, p. 67: "Cl(assical)L(atin intervocalic c followed by a, o or u ((V[ulgar]L[atin] g) > P(or)t(u)g(uese) g : amicum > amigo; caecum > cego; dico > digo." Also note that the Latin cluster -mb- is normally retained in Portuguese and Galician (cf. Ralph Penny, Ralph John Penny, Variation and Change in Spanish, Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 111; Ralph Penny, Ralph John Penny, A History of the Spanish Language, Cambridge University Press, 2002, p. 27; Andre Klump, Johannes Kramer, Aline Willems (eds), Manuel des langues romanes, Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG,2014, p. 618). [[User:Cagwinn|Cagwinn]] ([[User talk:Cagwinn|talk]]) 01:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


:::I was speaking from a generic phonological point of view, I'm not an expert on Romance languages. But a quick search suggest Latin ''camba'' » Catalan ''cama'' and ''columbum'' » Sp ''lomo'' and Cat ''colom'' and ''palumba'' » Sp ''paloma''. [[User:Akerbeltz|Akerbeltz]] ([[User talk:Akerbeltz|talk]]) 10:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
This holiday was originally named after a spirit of the same name. I'll look it up, but it seems like an oversight without mentioning that (if true). And I was going to mention Glen Danzig's band -- but I see there's a page for that already. :)
:::: Neither of which are relevant here. Galician is closely related to Portuguese and they both differ from Spanish in their general preservation of Latin -mb-. [[User:Cagwinn|Cagwinn]] ([[User talk:Cagwinn|talk]]) 19:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
--[[User:Clash of nonconformity|valerie]] ([[User talk:Clash of nonconformity|talk]]) 02:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


:::::Re: The quote that said "sambucum (willow)": [[Sambucus]] is the Latin genus for ''Elder'' trees. [[Salix]] is Willow. If that helps with evaluating the credibility of sources. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|<span style="font-family:georgia"><b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b></span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]]</sup> [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 20:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
If you are referring to "Samhain" the god or spirit of the dead then you would be mistaken. Samhain is not the name of a deity.[[User:BoyintheMachine|BoyintheMachine]] ([[User talk:BoyintheMachine|talk]]) 01:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


That's more of a reflection of my iffy Galician than the dictionary ... seriously... I'm out. [[User:Akerbeltz|Akerbeltz]] ([[User talk:Akerbeltz|talk]]) 22:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
==References==
: There were apparently two different words in Latin, ''sambucus'' (whence Italian ''sambuco'' and dialectal ''sambugo'') and ''sabucus'' (whence Portuguese and Galician ''sabugo''); For anyone who is interested, here is on article on the development of the words in Romance languages: [https://www.e-periodica.ch/cntmng?pid=vxr-001:1952:12::466 Paul Aebischer, Les types sambucus et sabucus "sureau" et leur répartition dans les langues romanes, Vox Romanica 12 (1951-1952)]
This:
:<nowiki><ref name="Danaher"/><ref name="McNeill"/><ref name="O'Driscoll"/></nowiki>
is not acceptable.
We don't call for "references" because we like the look of these little footnote numerals.
References are supposed to clarify which information is taken from where.
Just a liberal sprinkling of the article with generic references that amount to a hundred pages does not do that job.
The fact that statements are attributed to ''all three'' of these (doubtlessly valid) references, summarily, makes it clear that whoever added these footnotes did not have the sources in front of them. --[[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 10:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


===Galician Samaín again===
I have looked at the article history, and it turns out that the [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Samhain&action=historysubmit&diff=100385565&oldid=100242069 edit in question] is [[User:Kathryn NicDhàna]]'s, from January 2007.
A new editor, {{IPuser|83.34.110.137}}, has [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Samhain&diff=prev&oldid=1257389775 added ''a lot''] of stuff on the supposed Iberian origins of Samhain and its supposed survival in Galicia. This followed [[User talk:Asarlaí#Samhain - new regions|a discussion]] on my talkpage.


Some of what's been added seems to be [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]]. It includes lots of speculation that Galicia is the origin of Celtic culture as a whole, and that the people of Ireland and Britain came from there, which gives [[WP:DUE|undue weight]] to a minority theory and is off topic anyway. For example:
I respect Kathryn for the work she does on Celtic topics, and the edit was certainly a great improvement to the article as it stood in 2006, but now (2010) it becomes apparent that the "virtual referencing" (summarily slapping references on an existing paragraph written by somebody else) created a problem: the paragraph remained unverified for more than three years because editors assumed it had been based on reliable sources.


*{{tq|"Archaeological findings in Galicia, including megalithic structures aligned with solar events, support the theory that seasonal observances such as Samhain may have been practiced by early Celtic settlers before spreading to other regions" <small>(Manuel Oliva, ''The Iberian Celts: Rites and Rituals in Pre-Roman Galicia'')</small>}} – does the book actually say this? Megalithic cultures are found [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Megalithic_Culture.PNG all over western Europe], and ancient structures with solar alignments are found [[List of archaeoastronomical sites by country|all over the world]]. No page numbers or quotes are given.
My present concern is the claim that the English term ''bonfire'' originates as a loan translation of '''tine cnámh''. This piece of information has since [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Samhain&action=historysubmit&diff=84635776&oldid=84558499 Samhain 2006] made its way from Wikipedia to the internet at large. The question is, is it true? After Kathryn's edit, the claim was implied that this theory was found in "Danaher", "McNeill" and/or "O'Driscoll". Is this the case? If so, in which of the three?
*{{tq|"Sykes theorizes that early Celtic settlers migrated from Iberia around 4000 BCE, potentially carrying cultural traditions that included seasonal festivals like Samhain" <small>(Bryan Sykes, ''Blood of the Isles'')</small>}} – does the book actually mention Samhain? Again, no page numbers or quotes are given.
The point is that this claim was originally added by an anonymous IP with no reference whatsoever, but has now survived without challenge for three years because of the "pseudo-referencing". Such problems are extremely difficult to spot, and it would be better to leave information unreferenced than to create a false impression of backing in academic sources. --[[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 10:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


The main sources used for most of the additions are:
:I've sourced the ''tine cnámh'' to O'Donaill, ''Focloir Gaeilge-Bearla/Irish-English Dictionary''. Although, due to some spelling variation because of Irish spelling reforms in the 20th century, the actual spelling given in O'Donaill is ''tine chnámh''. But my understanding is these are equivalent spellings for the same word.
*Coelho, Aurélio. "Galician Rituals of Samaín: A Celtic Tradition in Iberia". ''Journal of Celtic Studies'', vol. 21, 2019.
*Rodríguez, Ana. "Samaín in Galicia: A Legacy of Celtic Traditions". Galician Heritage, 2018.


I can't find these articles, or any mention of them, or anything about their authors. Since they're being used to back up some [[WP:EXCEPTIONAL|exceptional claims]], could the editor please provide us with links so we can read them ourselves?
:As to the rather broad sourcing of whole paras to, as you say, a hundred pages in three sources, I'll see if I can address some of it since I believe I have all those texts available to me. But I'd like to note that I believe the citations can be refined exceedingly fine from these three sources, including multiple sources for multiple individual '''words''' in many of the sentences. Would you agree that seems an excessive approach to the citations? These are often dense sentences and perfect specificity of citation would inevitably lead to "citation drift" when other people edit the article, inserting phrases or rewriting sentences but very often moving the citation to an incorrect place or leaving it to cite the wrong info. I've seen this '''often''' on WP. I'm not saying the citations here shouldn't be more specific, only that it requires more ongoing attention by editors familiar with the sources.


As {{u|Akerbeltz}} noted above, the name ''Samaín'' has only been borrowed very recently for Galician Halloween customs, which are similar to Halloween customs all over western Europe. It seems to be used mostly by Galician Celtist nationalists. There's [https://gl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversa:Sama%C3%ADn a discussion] on the Galician Wikipedia about the controversy. – [[User:Asarlaí|<span style="color:darkblue">'''Asarlaí'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Asarlaí|talk]])</sup> 22:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:I'm really not arguing with your basic point, only some practical considerations on limits in my opinion. --[[User:Pigman|'''Pigman''']][[User_Talk:Pigman|<font color="red">☿/talk</font>]] 16:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
::of course you can compile entire paragraphs or even articles summarizing a source. Without needing to attach a footnote to every punctuation mark. The problem begins when you attach a "reference" to an existing paragraph, written by other people.


:I concur, I actually think the Coelho one is a fake reference. The Journal of Celtic Studies ceased publication in 1981 and made brief one-time re-appearance in 2004. The '''North American''' Journal of Celtic Studies does have a 2019 edition but this article is not in it. There appears to be no scholar by the name of Aurélio Coelho that can be found anywhere on the internet. Same goes for the Rodríguez one, it doesn't even show up as a self pub or anything, it's only reference seems to be that Wiki articel. My view is, treat as fake news unless someone coughs up chapter and verse on these 'sources'. [[User:Akerbeltz|Akerbeltz]] ([[User talk:Akerbeltz|talk]]) 11:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::also, my issue is not with ''tine cnámh'' literally translating to "bone fire". The question is, did the English term ''bonfire'', attested from about 1500, originate as a Gaelic loan translation and not, for example, vice versa. --[[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 16:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
::Thanks for your input, {{u|Akerbeltz}}. I've [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Samhain&diff=1258415449&oldid=1257370106 undone] the changes and given the editor a link to this discussion. – [[User:Asarlaí|<span style="color:darkblue">'''Asarlaí'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Asarlaí|talk]])</sup> 16:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)


:::Good spots, both. I agree with the revert. [[User:Bastun|<span style="padding:3px;background:#ffa502;">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 16:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
:::You're right; this needs work. I can't recall who added the whole "bone fire" thing. I haven't had a chance to go back through the history but, IIRC, it was removed, then re-added a few times by persistent editors, and never with a good source. The over-general sourcing in other places was probably me trying to put in something basic, intending to come back and make it more specific. Looking in the notes, we do have page numbers for each of those references, though often to an entire chapter or series of pages in the respective books (say, the Samhain chapter in Danaher). But it looks like since I added those refs others have inserted additional content in those sections, or rearranged the paragraphs, implying the sources still apply to all the content now it's been altered. I have the books at hand here, and can make the page refs more specific when I get a chance. But I imagine other stuff here will need to go. I won't get to it today, though. - <font face="Georgia">[[User:Kathryn NicDhàna|<span style="color:#009">Kathryn NicDhàna</span>]] [[User_talk:Kathryn NicDhàna|♫]]<font color="navy">♦</font>[[Special:Contributions/Kathryn_NicDhàna|♫]]</font> 21:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


I've invited the IP to discuss, here, and left them a [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A83.34.110.137&diff=1259203559&oldid=1257369595 3RR warning]. [[User:Bastun|<span style="padding:3px;background:#ffa502;">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 23:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Just to clarify on the page numbers referenced in the abbreviated/repeated ref format:
:::<nowiki><ref name="Danaher"/> </nowiki> links to Danaher, Kevin (1972) ''The Year in Ireland: Irish Calendar Customs'' Dublin, Mercier. ISBN 1-85635-093-2 '''pp.190-232''',
:::<nowiki><ref name="McNeill"/></nowiki> goes to McNeill, F. Marian (1961, 1990) ''The Silver Bough'', Vol. 3. William MacLellan, Glasgow ISBN 0-948474-04-1 '''pp.11-46''',
:::<nowiki><ref name="O'Driscoll"/></nowiki> goes to O'Driscoll, Robert (ed.) (1981) ''The Celtic Consciousness'' New York, Braziller ISBN 0-8076-1136-0 '''pp.197-216''': Ross, Anne "Material Culture, Myth and Folk Memory" (on modern survivals); '''pp.217-242''': Danaher, Kevin "Irish Folk Tradition and the Celtic Calendar" (on specific customs and rituals)
:::btw, Pigman, if you have time to get to the more specific pages today or tomorrow, go for it. - <font face="Georgia">[[User:Kathryn NicDhàna|<span style="color:#009">Kathryn NicDhàna</span>]] [[User_talk:Kathryn NicDhàna|♫]]<font color="navy">♦</font>[[Special:Contributions/Kathryn_NicDhàna|♫]]</font> 21:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


It is curious that some critics dismiss the connection between Samhain and the Iberian Peninsula as "vague." This critique raises an important question: does this skepticism stem from genuine scholarly rigor, or might it reflect an ideological resistance to the notion that Galicia and other Iberian regions could share a broader Celtic heritage?
:::dab: Apparently, I am stupid. I missed your point entirely about "bonfire". My (English) dictionary says "bonfire" comes from Middle English. Technically, the sentence "The word 'bonfire', or 'bonefire' is a direct translation of the Gaelic ''tine cnámh''" is basically correct but very misleading. The translation of ''tine cnámh'' is indeed "bonfire" but the English word "bonfire" is '''not''' derived etymologically from ''tine cnámh'' as far as I can tell. I'm removing the sentence entirely; it's unnecessary and obviously confusing. --[[User:Pigman|'''Pigman''']][[User_Talk:Pigman|<font color="red">☿/talk</font>]] 16:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The celebration of Samaín in Galicia, for example, is not a modern invention but part of a deep-rooted cultural tradition with striking similarities to Samhain. These connections are increasingly supported by a combination of genetic studies and historical research, which suggest significant links among Atlantic populations. This evidence challenges the long-held notion that Celtic influence is confined to Ireland and Scotland, and highlights the interconnected nature of the Celtic world.
While the dedication to preserving the Gaelic Celtic identity is commendable, it is worth questioning whether this cultural purism might sometimes cloud an impartial assessment of the evidence. Could it be that broadening the Celtic narrative to include the Iberian Peninsula feels like a threat to the uniqueness of Gaelic heritage, rather than an enriching addition to our shared understanding of Celtic traditions?
Acknowledging the wider Celtic context does not diminish the distinctiveness of Irish or Scottish culture. On the contrary, it enriches the story of a deeply interconnected Atlantic cultural sphere, where shared rituals and customs crossed geographical and cultural boundaries.
While some have persistently reverted edits in the article without providing clear explanations, this approach risks undermining the collaborative spirit that Wikipedia thrives on. Instead of repeatedly undoing changes, it would be more constructive to engage in the Talk page discussion, where the merits of these edits can be debated. If specific aspects of the article are seen as problematic or unsupported, the community can refine the content rather than dismissing the broader topic altogether.
The goal should be to improve the article by discussing and evaluating the evidence in an open and scholarly way. Zeal for preserving one’s cultural perspective should not cloud objective reasoning—it is essential for the collaborative and respectful nature of Wikipedia to prevail in such discussions. [[Special:Contributions/83.34.110.137|83.34.110.137]] ([[User talk:83.34.110.137|talk]]) 23:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)


:I've taken the liberty of moving your addition to this section, where ''the discussion was already taking place''. It is rich for you to state {{tpq|Instead of repeatedly undoing changes, it would be more constructive to engage in the Talk page discussion, where the merits of these edits can be debated}} when '''''you''''' have reverted multiple times in the last while, while failing to engage on this Talk page. We follow a process here called [[WP:BRD]] - Bold, Revert, Discuss. You edit Boldly, you get Reverted, so you Discuss. You ''do not'' re-revert to force your content in - you ''discuss'', to gain [[WP:CONSENSUS]] for inclusion. To allow this to happen, please now self-revert your addition, so discussion can happen. The alternative is that you will be blocked for edit warring, and the content will be removed anyway. [[User:Bastun|<span style="padding:3px;background:#ffa502;">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 23:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)


::Ah, it's already happened, I see. [[User:Bastun|<span style="padding:3px;background:#ffa502;">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 23:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Also,
"A harvest festival with ancient roots in Celtic polytheism,
it was linked to festivals held around the same time in other
Celtic cultures, and continued to be celebrated in late medieval times.
Due to its date it became associated with the Christian festival All Saints' Day,
and greatly influenced modern celebration of Halloween."
No citation...


:::So I dug my Galician etymoligical dictionary out of storage and under Name added a note explaining that despite a superficial similarity, there is no etymological link between Samaín and Samhain. True, it states it's a regional festival of the dead, but that does not automatically link it to Samhain, many cultures have festivals of the dead. What is made of Samaín in a neo-pagan context is a different question that I'm open to mentioning provided we get decent refs. [[User:Akerbeltz|Akerbeltz]] ([[User talk:Akerbeltz|talk]]) 14:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
==Evidence of Pagan origin==
Maybe I'm missing something, but I see no discussion in this article of the primary sources that provide evidence of a pagan origin for this holiday. It seems clear to me that this holiday can be traced back to the middle ages, but what makes anyone think that it had a pre-Christian origin? [[User:Rwflammang|Rwflammang]] ([[User talk:Rwflammang|talk]]) 16:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


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


The article links from the words "autumn equinox" to an article entitled September Equinox. I guess we could also call it the non-Spring Equinox. Anything but autumnal, which is not acceptable in Wikipedia? [[User:The age of fable|The age of fable]] ([[User talk:The age of fable|talk]]) 17:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
It is part of Wikipedia's fate that people will always keep re-inserting misconceptions that are ''already'' debunked in the article, simply because you cannot expect people to read more than the lead section (if even that) before clicking the "edit" button. --[[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 16:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


:{{replyto|The age of fable}} The article states that "it is held on 1 November... This is about halfway between the autumn equinox and winter solstice.", which for southern hemisphere readers is incorrect as their autumn equinox and winter solstice are in March and June respectively. [[User:Bazza 7|Bazza]] ([[User talk:Bazza 7|talk]]) 19:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
: The german WP article mentions Samhain as predominantly neoceltic holiday +- invented by John Rhys around 1890. This can be based on quality sources as e.g. Bernhard Maier (''Die Religionen der Kelten. Götter - Mythen''. Weltbild, 2. Aufl., München 2004, S. 174ff) and others see more of a link between early christianity in Ireland and Caltic revival reconstruction than the other wayround. BTW Most things I am aware of have no prechristian roots, e.g. Wikipedia itself. ;) [[User:Bakulan|Bakulan]] ([[User talk:Bakulan|talk]]) 05:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
::That's the problem. The article is not correct. The definition of autumnal is "of, in, or CHARACTERISTIC to autumn." Thus you can have a phrase such as "chilly autumnal weather." This could refer to weather occurring in late spring. But these distinctions are lost on most content moderators, who grew up a post-book reading world. This article becomes invalid if you click on the linked word autumn, which takes you to "September Equinox." Autumn is the politically correct adjective replacement for autumnal, that doesn't hold up to the total logic of the situation, and thus creates a failure. [[User:The age of fable|The age of fable]] ([[User talk:The age of fable|talk]]) 14:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
::of course Wikipedia has pre-Christian roots. See e.g. [[Nabnitu]], [[Old Italic alphabets]].
::in other words, the problem is not in the term "pre-Christian", it is in your exact understanding of term "roots".
::frankly, I don't see what you want. The article doesn't allege that Samhain has "pre-Christian roots" beyond a sober discussion of the etymology of the word and its occurrence in the Coligny calendar. The remaining discussion of the festival's early history concerns the medieval period, i.e. the Christian period. The article is also aware that the notion of the "Celtic New Year" associated with Samhain dates to the 18th century. If you want to add further material concerning the modern-era popularisation of the festival, you are welcome to do that. --[[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 11:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


== Date: 31 October ==
I don't know what "null statement" means, but I think a discussion of the primary sources regarding Samhain's origin would improve the article. I don't think that discussing the origin of wikipedia here would improve the article. [[User:Rwflammang|Rwflammang]] ([[User talk:Rwflammang|talk]]) 11:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
The article was incorrect. It's held on 31st October. It only drifts into 1st November if people are still up and out from the evening before. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 15:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
::: unless you provide us with a strong sources, preferrably the early Medieval or even Roman chronicles, not much will change. A scourge of all Paganism- and Early Christianity- related articles, maybe with an exception of Roman holidays which are well-documented, is the scarcity of the sources, which in addition in most cases represent a very strong POV. There are a lot of discussions on the Slavic holidays, too, though Slavic Paganism was preserved much longer than Celtic one (some peoples were officially Pagan even in XII century CE). For example, the Harvest festival of Plony or Dożynki is described with details in Saxo Grammaticus chronicle "Gesta Danorum". Still, in Polish wikipedia there's no mention on the source, which may lead to accusations that it's a Romantic invention, which it clearly isn't (if anything, Saxo or his patron, bishop Absalon, could have invented or changed some facts in XII century). Article about the Springtime festival [[Jare Gody]] was removed altogether, despite many references in the folklore and similiarities with other cultures (eg. [[Nowruz]] or [[Holi]], which share a lot of customs similiar both with Easter and Jare Gody, despite the geographical distance). Again, there were no sources. In the case oc Celtic holidays, I am curious what about other holidays as Imbolc, Beltaine, Lughnasadh, etc? If they are historically confirmed, then this would be strange if Samhain was not observed, as most European cultures _did have_ the season-related festivals, and the time of these other holidays clearly indicates the preferrence for cross-quarter holidays (around the halves between Equinox and Solstice dates; of course I don't claim these peoples observed Solstices and Equinoxes as such, dating was rather based on Lunisolar calendar), rather than quarter ones (around, though probably not directly related to, the Solstices and Equinoxes). And if Celts observed cross-quarters, then it becomes obvious: Imbolc (February), Beltaine (May), Lugnasadh (August), Samhain (November). Also, what's wrong with the sources as books by [[Nora Chadwick]], who was a respected Medievalist for most of her life? Does anybody here have such an expertise in the topics of ancient/medieval holidays, that he/she may claim something is "naive", "serious", "true", "untrue"? Lack of the sources and too bold claims by the people who may or may not be experts in the themes they comment, whether as skeptics or apologists, is a serious threat to the reliability of Wikipedia and makes this project not much reliable one. [[User:Critto|Critto]] ([[User talk:Critto|talk]]) 17:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


Sorry, {{u|Asarlaí}}, but Hallowe'en is not celebrated on the 1st November. It just isn't. References:
Do you think so indeed. Then I would kindly ask you to review the edit history of this article and try to figure out who has tended to collect such decent references as this article currently does have.
* https://www.history.com/topics/halloween/history-of-halloween "Halloween is a holiday celebrated each year on October 31, and Halloween 2022 will occur on Monday, October 31."
* https://www.almanac.com/content/when-is-halloween "Halloween, traditionally called “All Hallows’ Eve,” is celebrated on the evening before the Christian holy day of All Hallows’ Day or All Saints Day (November 1). Therefore, Halloween is always celebrated on October 31."
* https://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/common/halloween Many people around the world celebrate Halloween, which occurs annually on October 31. It is the day before All Saints’ Day and is also sometimes called All Hallows’ Eve and Hallowmas Eve."
* https://www.discoveringireland.com/newsletter-halloween-09/ "When Christianity set November 1st as All Saints' Day or All Hallows' Day in the 8th century, the Irish Celts were reluctant to give up their festival and so celebrated Samhain as All Hallows' Eve, which later became corrupted to Hallowe'en and Halloween."
* https://www.britannica.com/topic/Halloween "Halloween, contraction of All Hallows’ Eve, a holiday observed on October 31, the evening before All Saints’ (or All Hallows’) Day."
[[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 12:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


:This article isn't about [[Halloween]], it's about Samhain, the traditional Gaelic festival. It's one of [[Quarter days|the four]] Gaelic season festivals along with [[Imbolc]]/St Brigid's Day (1 Feb), [[Bealtaine]]/May Day (1 May) and [[Lughnasa]] (1 August). For a long time the lead of this article has said that Samhain is 1 November, but that celebrations begin at sunset on 31 October. This is because, historically, the Gaels saw sunset as the end of one day and beginning of the next. So, what we now call the evening of 31 October, they would have called the start of 1 November. It's supported by many sources in the article, this being the main one:
Regarding Bakulan's complaint, I must say that the article still cites to many shoddy references. Citing the naive claim that Samhain was "the Celtic New Year" from Chadwick (1970) does not establish that this idea was popularised in the 18th century. It seems to be correct that [[John Rhys]] was the first to come up with this expression, apparently in the 1880s. Literature in the 18th century still discussed Samhain in the context of the yearly ritual of the druids, I might add based on medieval Irish sources.
:{{talk quote block|"The basic Irish division of the year was into two parts, the summer half beginning at Bealtaine (May 1st) and the winter half at Samhain (November 1st) ... The festivals properly began at sunset on the day before the actual date, evincing the Celtic tendency to regard the night as preceding the day"|source=[[Dáithí Ó hÓgáin]], ''Myth Legend and Romance: An Encyclopaedia of the Irish Folk Tradition''. Prentice Hall Press, 1991. p. 402}}<br/>Have you any sources saying that Samhain is only 31 October and ''not'' 1 November?<br/>Per [[WP:BRD]], once your change was undone, you should have taken the issue here rather than reverting. ~[[User:Asarlaí|Asarlaí]] 13:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
In this sense, the idea that the Samhain festival has pre-Christian roots is due to medieval Ireland, <s>such as the 9th-century [[Sanas Cormaic]].</s>
I am adding information from Hutton. We can lose inferior references such as Chadwick as far as I am concerned. --[[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 11:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


::... Apologies, {{u|Asarlaí}} - I've clearly had a mental block about this. You're entirely correct; I've somehow been treating this as the article on [[Halloween]], and '''not''' the one on [[Samhain]]. Maybe it's because I've been studying Irish lately, or maybe it's just galloping senility. Please accept my apologies. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 16:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I think we have established the following:
:::No worries, we all make mistakes (even on Wikipedia)! ~[[User:Asarlaí|Asarlaí]] 17:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
*Samhain was the beginning of the winter season in medieval Ireland, attested from about the 10th century.
*the earliest claim of a pagan ritual celebrated at Samhain dates to the 17th century
*18th century scholarship mostly took the pagan associations of Samhain for granted
*the theory that the festival did not just mark the beginning of the winter season but the "Celtic New Year" is due to Rhys and Frazer, and dates to the late 19th century.


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


The current photo opening the article is not covered under a Creative Commons license, as the photo’s source on Wikimedia links to two pages that attribute it to Getty Images. [https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/man-representing-the-winter-king-holds-a-flaming-sword-as-news-photo/870390282 Here is the purchase link.] Should we find a photo that is free for public use? (And is this the right space to ask?) [[User:HereAndThereAndEverywhere|HereAndThereAndEverywhere]] ([[User talk:HereAndThereAndEverywhere|talk]]) 20:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
: OK. If so, then its allsaints thats influenced our view of Samhain and not vice versa. basically on should clearly state in the entrance paragraph, that Samhain is neoceltic reconstruction without much evidence in the ancient celtic record. [[User:Bakulan|Bakulan]] ([[User talk:Bakulan|talk]]) 20:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


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


{{ping|Bastun}} You reverted {{diff||1181359155|1181357614|my correction}} to use the spelling "[[Beltane]]" (as the anglicised spelling of {{lang|ga|Bealtaine}} for the English-language Wikipedia), stating "we're writing about a Celtic festival; use the correct spelling". [https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/beltane], [https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=Beltane] and [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/beltane] confirm "Beltane" to be the spelling in English.
Bakulan, what is wrong with you? HistoricalSamhain is a '''medieval''' Celtic festival.
Why do you keep going on about the "ancient Celts"?
It may have escaped your notice, but there is a period of time between the ancient Celtic period and neoceltic reconstruction. It only spans about a millennium, the 6th to 16th centuries, and is known as the "Middle Ages".
The Gaelic Middle Ages are neither "pagan" nor "neoceltic reconstruction", they are just the Christian Celtic Middle Ages. Your constant focus on paganism and neopaganism in a topic that concerns the Christian Middle Ages is completely beside the point, and also annoying.


Its own [[Beltane|article]] is confused, but is titled "Beltane". As "Bealtaine" appears not to be an English word (it's in neither of those two main-line dictionaries), then this article should either use {{xt|Beltane}} (with ({{langx|ga|Bealtaine}}) on the first occurence); or {{lang|ga|Bealtaine}} throughout. I prefer (as you can tell from the edit you reverted) the former; what is your preference?
I realize that there is much pseudohistorical nonsense flying around concerning the "ancient pagan Celts" and their connection to Samhain etc. But it is precisely the neopagan fallacy to ignore the medieval period, and pretend that the "ancient Celts" were somehow seamlessly followed by the Wiccans.
I appreciate that you are trying to dispel such fallacies, but by ignoring the medieval period yourself, you are simply perpetuating the neopagan fallacy.
The Gaelic festival did not so much "become associated" with a Catholic festival, it '''was''' a Catholic festival, celebrated by Celts who were also Catholics, or Catholics who were also Celts. It is completely undisputed that Samhain was an important festival in medieval (Christian) Gaelic culture. It is correct that the idea that this festival is somehow "pagan" seems to be modern, but that doesn't make the festical itself a modern invention. --[[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 07:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


Once we've come to a consensus, then I'm happy to plough through other related articles for consistency. [[User:Bazza 7|Bazza]] ([[User talk:Bazza 7|talk]]) 12:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I have tried to improve the article in this respect.
Our earliest references establish that Samhain was a festival in [[History of Ireland (800–1169)|medieval Ireland]] (say, 10th to 12th century). Any speculation on how the festival may have looked like at an earlier time, say the 7th century, let alone the 4th or 3rd century, are just that: speculation. Our earliest evidence linking All Saints to 1 November date to the 8th century, i.e. they are 200 years ''older'' than our earliest references to Samhain. It is therefore pointless to try and postulate a Samhain that was ''not'' associated with the Church festival of All Saints. --[[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 13:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


:Bealtaine is an Irish word, but it's absolutely ''also'' [https://duckduckgo.com/?va=o&t=hx&q=Bealtaine commonly used] in the English language. It therefore makes sense to use the correct and original spelling throughout the article. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 13:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:: The entry sounds much better now. [[User:Bakulan|Bakulan]] ([[User talk:Bakulan|talk]]) 20:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:15, 24 December 2024

Galician Samaín

[edit]

A recent edit by Asarlaí removed the Galician people from the list of observers of the festival in the infobox. The justification given was that the article refers to the Gaelic festival. I have two points regarding the edit:

  • The infobox section from which Galician people was removed was "Observed by > Today", as opposed to "Observed by > Historically". Whether or not the Galician people historically celebrated the festival or not is irrelevant, they do observe Samhain (or "Samaín", as is the term they claim to have reconstructed) today, in large public events at many locations throughout the region. I understand why it doesn't belong under "historically", I completely agree, but why is it any less relevant that they observe it "today" than, for example, Wiccans or Celtic neopagans?
  • Back to the statement that the page covers only the Gaelic festival, this is an unnecessary criteria as there is no reason why a cultural observance should be limited to an ethnic group mainly defined by linguistic commonalities, especially when the Smurfit study and the Lebor Gabála Érenn draw genetic and pseudo-historical links between the Gaels and the Gallaeci. We'll never know how the original Gallician language fitted into the spectrum of ancient European languages, but there's no reason to suspect the festival is (or, perhaps, was) celebrated any differently because of language. Wasechun tashunkaHOWLTRACK 21:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cagwinn, could you please discuss? Wasechun tashunkaHOWLTRACK 19:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Galician "Samain" has nothing to do with the ancient Gallaeci; it is purely a modern invention (and a very recent one at that!) promoted by Galician nationalists who are trying to separate from Spain (you are essentially rubber stamping the inclusion of nationalistic propaganda on Wikipedia by insisting on its inclusion here!). It's bizarre that you would bring the Lebor Gabala Erenn into this; the "Spanish connection" in the LGE is pure medieval fantasy with no factual basis; much of it is derived from Latin folk-etymologies and pseudo-histories from Late Antiquity written by Spanish authors such as Orosius and Isidore. Cagwinn (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you clearly way out of your league on the topic of linguistics by making the bizarre statement "we'll never know how the original Gallician language fitted into the spectrum of ancient European languages". In fact, we do know that the Gallaeci/Callaeci spoke a dialect of Hispano-Celtic, which is an entirely different branch of Celtic from Insular Celtic (which includes Goidelic, the ancestor of Irish); so the Gallaeci/Callaeci shared no close linguistic affinity with the Irish, if that's what you're trying to imply. Cagwinn (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, thank you for explaining your reasons rather than simply reverting. Although, I would like to make very clear that I implied nothing, simply questioned. I also really see no distinction whatsoever between a modern Galician festival based on what they believe to be their heritage, and the countless modern wiccan/neopagan inventions which are afforded an entire section on this article. Have a good night. Wasechun tashunkaHOWLTRACK 20:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see this has been debated before. So to add my tuppence to this, Samaín is given in the Gran Dicionario Xerais da Lingua as Festa orixinaria da comarca cedeiresa que se celebra pola época de defuntos i.e. a festival from the Cedeira region celebrated around the time of the dead (my translation) but crucially gives the etymology as Latin sambucum (willow). Which means that it has nothing in common with Samhain other than a surface similarity. It seems to have been promoted as a modern reincarnation by some guy called Rafael López Loureiro. As for the link I was pointed at [1] that doesn't actually make the claim that Samhain is linguistically Samaín Akerbeltz (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Samain (also spelled Samuin) is an Old Irish word; even if an ancient Hispano-Celtic cognate somehow survived into modern Galician, it would look different from the Old Irish word. I highly doubt that there is a genuinely old "Samain" (whatever its etymology) festival in Galicia; would need to see some more reliable sources on this. Cagwinn (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I agree, especially the medial -m- looks real fishy for an old rood (if it were Samain). I suspect there *is* a festival (the Dictionario Xerais IS a reliable source) that was historically held (possibly even around the time Samhain is held, it is after all a date based on the seasonal cycle) and that by pure coincidence, it shares a surface similarity to Samhain (to those who don't realise it's either /v/ or vocalised). Someone seized on that and saw a marketing opportunity! Akerbeltz (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Dictionario truly reliable? Latin sambucus produced Galician sabugo - https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sambucus#Latin - https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sabugo#Galician - so how could it have also produced Galician *samain? I searched some online Galician dictionaries for "samain" and found no such native word. Cagwinn (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit conflict] Agree with both Cagwinn and Akerbeltz here. Tired of seeing these invented, confused, or misrepresented Galician things added to Gaelic-related articles. Whether it's out of an agenda or well-meaning ignorance followed by an attitude at being corrected, it wastes people's time. It also tends to be the same people doing it, though often with new accounts. Support consensus to just revert this stuff in the future as it's been debunked extensively already. (Though of course I always appreciate the linguistic discussion/documentation/debunking when folks are up to it.) If people living in Galicia are having Neopagan celebrations based on their interpretations of Gaelic traditions, they are already covered by the listed categories. To list "Galicia" would play into the misinformation. - CorbieV 21:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To date I have found it very reliable and Xerais aren't crackpot publishers and it was written by a group of experts (i.e. not a single author), so I'm inclined to take it seriously. It fortunately gives IPA which says that samaín is /samaˈiŋ/ and -mb- yielding -m- and a final -c yielding /ŋ/ are pretty uncontroversial sound changes. Nothing to stop a word being borrowed twice, Japanese is replete with words like that. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How are these uncontroversial sound changes?? Can you provide any other instances of Latin -mb- becoming Portuguese or Galician -m- and -c- (/k/) becoming Portuguese or Galician /ŋ/? A -c- when followed by a -u- or -a- (as we would have in Latin sambucum/sambucus/sambuca) normally gave Portuguese and Galician -g-; cf. EB Williams, From Latin to Portuguese; historical phonology and morphology of the Portuguese language, University of Pennsylvania, 1938, p. 67: "Cl(assical)L(atin intervocalic c followed by a, o or u ((V[ulgar]L[atin] g) > P(or)t(u)g(uese) g : amicum > amigo; caecum > cego; dico > digo." Also note that the Latin cluster -mb- is normally retained in Portuguese and Galician (cf. Ralph Penny, Ralph John Penny, Variation and Change in Spanish, Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 111; Ralph Penny, Ralph John Penny, A History of the Spanish Language, Cambridge University Press, 2002, p. 27; Andre Klump, Johannes Kramer, Aline Willems (eds), Manuel des langues romanes, Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG,2014, p. 618). Cagwinn (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was speaking from a generic phonological point of view, I'm not an expert on Romance languages. But a quick search suggest Latin camba » Catalan cama and columbum » Sp lomo and Cat colom and palumba » Sp paloma. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of which are relevant here. Galician is closely related to Portuguese and they both differ from Spanish in their general preservation of Latin -mb-. Cagwinn (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re: The quote that said "sambucum (willow)": Sambucus is the Latin genus for Elder trees. Salix is Willow. If that helps with evaluating the credibility of sources. - CorbieV 20:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's more of a reflection of my iffy Galician than the dictionary ... seriously... I'm out. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There were apparently two different words in Latin, sambucus (whence Italian sambuco and dialectal sambugo) and sabucus (whence Portuguese and Galician sabugo); For anyone who is interested, here is on article on the development of the words in Romance languages: Paul Aebischer, Les types sambucus et sabucus "sureau" et leur répartition dans les langues romanes, Vox Romanica 12 (1951-1952)

Galician Samaín again

[edit]

A new editor, 83.34.110.137 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), has added a lot of stuff on the supposed Iberian origins of Samhain and its supposed survival in Galicia. This followed a discussion on my talkpage.

Some of what's been added seems to be original research. It includes lots of speculation that Galicia is the origin of Celtic culture as a whole, and that the people of Ireland and Britain came from there, which gives undue weight to a minority theory and is off topic anyway. For example:

  • "Archaeological findings in Galicia, including megalithic structures aligned with solar events, support the theory that seasonal observances such as Samhain may have been practiced by early Celtic settlers before spreading to other regions" (Manuel Oliva, The Iberian Celts: Rites and Rituals in Pre-Roman Galicia) – does the book actually say this? Megalithic cultures are found all over western Europe, and ancient structures with solar alignments are found all over the world. No page numbers or quotes are given.
  • "Sykes theorizes that early Celtic settlers migrated from Iberia around 4000 BCE, potentially carrying cultural traditions that included seasonal festivals like Samhain" (Bryan Sykes, Blood of the Isles) – does the book actually mention Samhain? Again, no page numbers or quotes are given.

The main sources used for most of the additions are:

  • Coelho, Aurélio. "Galician Rituals of Samaín: A Celtic Tradition in Iberia". Journal of Celtic Studies, vol. 21, 2019.
  • Rodríguez, Ana. "Samaín in Galicia: A Legacy of Celtic Traditions". Galician Heritage, 2018.

I can't find these articles, or any mention of them, or anything about their authors. Since they're being used to back up some exceptional claims, could the editor please provide us with links so we can read them ourselves?

As Akerbeltz noted above, the name Samaín has only been borrowed very recently for Galician Halloween customs, which are similar to Halloween customs all over western Europe. It seems to be used mostly by Galician Celtist nationalists. There's a discussion on the Galician Wikipedia about the controversy. – Asarlaí (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, I actually think the Coelho one is a fake reference. The Journal of Celtic Studies ceased publication in 1981 and made brief one-time re-appearance in 2004. The North American Journal of Celtic Studies does have a 2019 edition but this article is not in it. There appears to be no scholar by the name of Aurélio Coelho that can be found anywhere on the internet. Same goes for the Rodríguez one, it doesn't even show up as a self pub or anything, it's only reference seems to be that Wiki articel. My view is, treat as fake news unless someone coughs up chapter and verse on these 'sources'. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input, Akerbeltz. I've undone the changes and given the editor a link to this discussion. – Asarlaí (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good spots, both. I agree with the revert. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've invited the IP to discuss, here, and left them a 3RR warning. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is curious that some critics dismiss the connection between Samhain and the Iberian Peninsula as "vague." This critique raises an important question: does this skepticism stem from genuine scholarly rigor, or might it reflect an ideological resistance to the notion that Galicia and other Iberian regions could share a broader Celtic heritage? The celebration of Samaín in Galicia, for example, is not a modern invention but part of a deep-rooted cultural tradition with striking similarities to Samhain. These connections are increasingly supported by a combination of genetic studies and historical research, which suggest significant links among Atlantic populations. This evidence challenges the long-held notion that Celtic influence is confined to Ireland and Scotland, and highlights the interconnected nature of the Celtic world. While the dedication to preserving the Gaelic Celtic identity is commendable, it is worth questioning whether this cultural purism might sometimes cloud an impartial assessment of the evidence. Could it be that broadening the Celtic narrative to include the Iberian Peninsula feels like a threat to the uniqueness of Gaelic heritage, rather than an enriching addition to our shared understanding of Celtic traditions? Acknowledging the wider Celtic context does not diminish the distinctiveness of Irish or Scottish culture. On the contrary, it enriches the story of a deeply interconnected Atlantic cultural sphere, where shared rituals and customs crossed geographical and cultural boundaries. While some have persistently reverted edits in the article without providing clear explanations, this approach risks undermining the collaborative spirit that Wikipedia thrives on. Instead of repeatedly undoing changes, it would be more constructive to engage in the Talk page discussion, where the merits of these edits can be debated. If specific aspects of the article are seen as problematic or unsupported, the community can refine the content rather than dismissing the broader topic altogether. The goal should be to improve the article by discussing and evaluating the evidence in an open and scholarly way. Zeal for preserving one’s cultural perspective should not cloud objective reasoning—it is essential for the collaborative and respectful nature of Wikipedia to prevail in such discussions. 83.34.110.137 (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of moving your addition to this section, where the discussion was already taking place. It is rich for you to state Instead of repeatedly undoing changes, it would be more constructive to engage in the Talk page discussion, where the merits of these edits can be debated when you have reverted multiple times in the last while, while failing to engage on this Talk page. We follow a process here called WP:BRD - Bold, Revert, Discuss. You edit Boldly, you get Reverted, so you Discuss. You do not re-revert to force your content in - you discuss, to gain WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion. To allow this to happen, please now self-revert your addition, so discussion can happen. The alternative is that you will be blocked for edit warring, and the content will be removed anyway. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it's already happened, I see. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I dug my Galician etymoligical dictionary out of storage and under Name added a note explaining that despite a superficial similarity, there is no etymological link between Samaín and Samhain. True, it states it's a regional festival of the dead, but that does not automatically link it to Samhain, many cultures have festivals of the dead. What is made of Samaín in a neo-pagan context is a different question that I'm open to mentioning provided we get decent refs. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Autumnal Equinox

[edit]

The article links from the words "autumn equinox" to an article entitled September Equinox. I guess we could also call it the non-Spring Equinox. Anything but autumnal, which is not acceptable in Wikipedia? The age of fable (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The age of fable: The article states that "it is held on 1 November... This is about halfway between the autumn equinox and winter solstice.", which for southern hemisphere readers is incorrect as their autumn equinox and winter solstice are in March and June respectively. Bazza (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem. The article is not correct. The definition of autumnal is "of, in, or CHARACTERISTIC to autumn." Thus you can have a phrase such as "chilly autumnal weather." This could refer to weather occurring in late spring. But these distinctions are lost on most content moderators, who grew up a post-book reading world. This article becomes invalid if you click on the linked word autumn, which takes you to "September Equinox." Autumn is the politically correct adjective replacement for autumnal, that doesn't hold up to the total logic of the situation, and thus creates a failure. The age of fable (talk) 14:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Date: 31 October

[edit]

The article was incorrect. It's held on 31st October. It only drifts into 1st November if people are still up and out from the evening before. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Asarlaí, but Hallowe'en is not celebrated on the 1st November. It just isn't. References:

BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't about Halloween, it's about Samhain, the traditional Gaelic festival. It's one of the four Gaelic season festivals along with Imbolc/St Brigid's Day (1 Feb), Bealtaine/May Day (1 May) and Lughnasa (1 August). For a long time the lead of this article has said that Samhain is 1 November, but that celebrations begin at sunset on 31 October. This is because, historically, the Gaels saw sunset as the end of one day and beginning of the next. So, what we now call the evening of 31 October, they would have called the start of 1 November. It's supported by many sources in the article, this being the main one:

"The basic Irish division of the year was into two parts, the summer half beginning at Bealtaine (May 1st) and the winter half at Samhain (November 1st) ... The festivals properly began at sunset on the day before the actual date, evincing the Celtic tendency to regard the night as preceding the day"
— Dáithí Ó hÓgáin, Myth Legend and Romance: An Encyclopaedia of the Irish Folk Tradition. Prentice Hall Press, 1991. p. 402


Have you any sources saying that Samhain is only 31 October and not 1 November?
Per WP:BRD, once your change was undone, you should have taken the issue here rather than reverting. ~Asarlaí 13:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
... Apologies, Asarlaí - I've clearly had a mental block about this. You're entirely correct; I've somehow been treating this as the article on Halloween, and not the one on Samhain. Maybe it's because I've been studying Irish lately, or maybe it's just galloping senility. Please accept my apologies. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, we all make mistakes (even on Wikipedia)! ~Asarlaí 17:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finding a New Photo

[edit]

The current photo opening the article is not covered under a Creative Commons license, as the photo’s source on Wikimedia links to two pages that attribute it to Getty Images. Here is the purchase link. Should we find a photo that is free for public use? (And is this the right space to ask?) HereAndThereAndEverywhere (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

English spelling of Beltane

[edit]

@Bastun: You reverted my correction to use the spelling "Beltane" (as the anglicised spelling of Bealtaine for the English-language Wikipedia), stating "we're writing about a Celtic festival; use the correct spelling". [2], [3] and [4] confirm "Beltane" to be the spelling in English.

Its own article is confused, but is titled "Beltane". As "Bealtaine" appears not to be an English word (it's in neither of those two main-line dictionaries), then this article should either use Beltane (with (Irish: Bealtaine) on the first occurence); or Bealtaine throughout. I prefer (as you can tell from the edit you reverted) the former; what is your preference?

Once we've come to a consensus, then I'm happy to plough through other related articles for consistency. Bazza (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bealtaine is an Irish word, but it's absolutely also commonly used in the English language. It therefore makes sense to use the correct and original spelling throughout the article. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]