Talk:Samhain
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Samhain article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 12 months |
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 23 dates. [show]
October 31, 2007, October 31, 2008, October 31, 2009, October 31, 2010, October 31, 2011, October 31, 2012, October 31, 2013, October 31, 2014, October 31, 2015, October 31, 2016, October 31, 2017, November 1, 2018, November 1, 2019, May 1, 2020, November 1, 2020, May 1, 2021, November 1, 2021, May 1, 2022, November 1, 2022, May 1, 2023, November 1, 2023, May 1, 2024, and November 1, 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)
- Cagwinn, could you please discuss? Wasechun tashunkaHOWLTRACK 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. Cagwinn (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- [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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Good spots, both. I agree with the revert. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
I've invited the IP to discuss, here, and left them a 3RR warning. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:00, 23 November 2024 (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? 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)
- 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)
- Ah, it's already happened, I see. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- @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)
- 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)
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)
Sorry, Asarlaí, but Hallowe'en is not celebrated on the 1st November. It just isn't. References:
- 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."
BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- ... 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)
- No worries, we all make mistakes (even on Wikipedia)! ~Asarlaí 17:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- ... 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)
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)
@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)
- 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)
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Society and social sciences
- B-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
- B-Class Ireland articles
- Mid-importance Ireland articles
- B-Class Ireland articles of Mid-importance
- All WikiProject Ireland pages
- B-Class Neopaganism articles
- Low-importance Neopaganism articles
- B-Class Folklore articles
- Mid-importance Folklore articles
- WikiProject Folklore articles
- B-Class Celts articles
- Mid-importance Celts articles
- WikiProject Celts articles
- B-Class Holidays articles
- Low-importance Holidays articles
- B-Class Halloween articles
- Low-importance Halloween articles
- Halloween task force articles
- WikiProject Holidays articles
- B-Class Christianity articles
- Low-importance Christianity articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- Selected anniversaries (October 2007)
- Selected anniversaries (October 2008)
- Selected anniversaries (October 2009)
- Selected anniversaries (October 2010)
- Selected anniversaries (October 2011)
- Selected anniversaries (October 2012)
- Selected anniversaries (October 2013)
- Selected anniversaries (October 2014)
- Selected anniversaries (October 2015)
- Selected anniversaries (October 2016)
- Selected anniversaries (October 2017)
- Selected anniversaries (November 2018)
- Selected anniversaries (November 2019)
- Selected anniversaries (May 2020)
- Selected anniversaries (November 2020)
- Selected anniversaries (May 2021)
- Selected anniversaries (November 2021)
- Selected anniversaries (May 2022)
- Selected anniversaries (November 2022)
- Selected anniversaries (May 2023)
- Selected anniversaries (November 2023)
- Selected anniversaries (May 2024)
- Selected anniversaries (November 2024)