Talk:Day of the Dead

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This seemed to be someones paper on day of the dead. It isn't terrible and there is somewhat more information than there was in the original but the author completely removed the original content. I did some minor (and possibly bad) integration Thadk 08:53, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

I've wikified what's there a bit, but it still needs some heavy editing. I deleted a few duplicate facts left over from the integration, and shuffled a few paragraphs round to read better. The next thing that needs doing is the references, some of them are no longer being pointed to, so they will need removing and renumbering, but that should be done last after the edit. It could probably do with a sub heading or two as well, and i'm not sure all the dates are entirely accurate, ill have a google and see what I can come up with.--Beeglebug 11:39, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, i've done a bit more work on it, but it might need someone elses touch to get it flowing right. I've deleted all the duplicated facts, and added a load of stuff about the history of the festival. I've sectioned it off too. The whole thing is still a bit of a mess of short sentences though. --Beeglebug 18:00, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The link to Calacas is a bit misleading--it leads to a region in the Phillipines, not a page on skulls. jkupetz 21:00 August 6 2005 (EST)

Contents 1 Happy Ghost Liberation and Spook Appreciation Day! 2 Marigolds 3 NPOV 4 Not an Aztec celebration only 5 Altars and Shrines 6 Move to Día de los Muertos? 7 Anglo Saxon? 8 Vandalism 9 Vandalism 10 Deletion of recent material 11 Recent Changes

[edit] Happy Ghost Liberation and Spook Appreciation Day!

Have you kissed a ghost recently? Have you hugged the soul of your deceased great-great-great-grandma lately? Go on ahead and wish them a happy Ghost Appreciation Day! 204.52.215.107 05:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

There are a few mistakes regarding the celebration in this wiki. People dont wear masks in a dia de muertos, an the sugar calaveras are suposed to bear the name of the person who is to receive them as a gift. a living person. Theres no information on the altares de muertos, or shrines.

[edit] Marigolds

Someone was editing at the same time I was and it looks like we were trying to add the same information, so I put my edit back in after he was done, since it had more information, and removed the "red" link on "cempazúchil". If there was a link, it should redirect to Marigold anyways, since they are the same flower in different tongues. Maybe a Wiktionary entry for the term is justified?--Rockero 22:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC) Mariagolds

[edit] NPOV

I think that referring to the subject matter as "morbid" is biased. Obviously, it's not considered morbid in Mexico or they probably wouldn't celebrate it. Such a holiday is considered morbid within an Anglo Saxon context, not a Hispanic context. Andrew Parodi 13:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the current version only says that it "may be considered morbid from the Anglo Saxon perspective", not that it is morbid. There's nothing wrong with editing the line if you feel that doing so would improve NPOV, though I think it helps explain to those unfamiliar with the holiday that it doesn't have the same morbid character as Halloween, for example. My mistake. Sxeptomaniac 23:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not an Aztec celebration only

I just want to let you know it is NOT only an Aztec celebration. It is a Mesoamerican Celebration indeed. It is a party in which we celebrate how our departed souls dive into the inframundo, the underworld. I supposed it is related to the end of harvest, just as the Celt's (nowadays) Halloween.

[edit] Altars and Shrines

I question the use of the word 'wealthier' in "Some wealthier families do build altars or small shrines in their homes." Some families regardless of income build altars or shrines in their homes. Yes, some altars are more elaborate then others, but that seems irrelevant. Does anyone else agree? Lichking20 06:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Día de los Muertos?

Shouldn't this page be at "Día de los Muertos" with "Day of the Dead" redirecting there? I think most English speakers who know of the event understand the Spanish name. Marnanel 14:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Why? This is the English side of Wikipedia. Latin America calls New York "Nuevo York" and that is not the name of the city/state (and there are countless other examples). Are speakers of English to be expected to take on a greater burden of political correctness than any other language? Mensch 07:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what political correctness had to do with it. New York has a sizeable English-speaking population, so it's reasonable to call it "New York" in English; Día de los Muertos is primarily a Spanish-speaking event. Marnanel 15:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally I would agree with a move -- even I know it primarily as Dia de los Muertos and I'm a gringo. But, we should probably wait to hear from a few more people. — e. ripley\^talk 16:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I like "Day of the Dead." It's not difficult to understand, and a simple translation.翔太^{「Shouta:talk」} 17:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not strongly opposed to the move, but I don't see any particularly compelling reasons for it, either. This is the English Wikipedia, so we should probably stick to translated names when they are commonly used. It also strikes me that, while those who refer to it as "Día de los Muertos" will almost certainly also know it as "Day of the Dead", there are those who know it as "Day of the Dead" but are unfamiliar with "Día de los Muertos" (I was talking to one yesterday). Sxeptomaniac 21:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The question, though, is is the English translation of Dia de los Muertos more commonly used? A case could certainly be made for, say, Oktoberfest. I doubt anyone would argue that we should house the article at Octoberfest because it's the English Wikipedia and that's the Anglicianized spelling, because there's no doubt that Oktoberfest more commonly used. But can the same strong case be made for Day of the Dead versus Dia de los Muertos? This may ultimately be an unanswerable question, because most newspaper articles mention both the Mexican and English version, by way of explanation.

Hmm. Well, a cursory Googling shows 3.9 million hits for "Day of the Dead" [1] versus 1.9 million for "Dia de los Muertos" [2]. Given this, probably, absent more compelling evidence, it should be left as it is. — e. ripley\^talk 21:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

How many of those hits were for Day of the Dead (film) or its upcoming remake, though? —Angr 08:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about that, too, so I tried adding "holiday Mexico" and got 291 thousand for "Day of the Dead"[3] and 151 thousand for "Dia de los Muertos"[4]. Sxeptomaniac 20:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I am all for using the local term instead of the translation... when it makes sense to do so. In this case, I lean towards keeping it under "Day of the Dead." There is, for example, the fact that in Mexico itself "Día de los Muertos" is not the only or even the most common term among people who actually celebrate the holiday (as opposed to schoolkids who learn about it in class, given that for many years the holiday was celebrated more in the countryside than in the cities).

First off, we are talking about two days, not one (All Saints/Todos Santos plus All Souls/Fieles Difuntos), so one often hears "Días de los Muertos" (in the plural). Second, "Muertos" sounds a little brusque, so many people use the name of the second day, "Fieles Difuntos" or "Dia de los Difuntos," instead. (This is popular speech, not the stuff that children are taught in schools nowadays, so of course these terms barely register on Google searches.) The most common term is simply "el 2 de noviembre." Given all this, I don't see a problem with using the English term. -Potosino 01:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Growing up in Texas, I always heard día de los muertos. To me, Day of the Dead is a zombie movie only. But if Google can be trusted, Day of the Dead is in fact used in English. —Angr 06:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree it should be referred to as Dia de los Muertos, Day of the Dead make people think of those dumb horror movies which have nothing to do with Dia de los Muertos.Ohquepretty 18:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)ohquepretty

[edit] Anglo Saxon?

I understand the author's intent of the phrase, "Though the subject matter may be considered morbid from the Anglo Saxon perspective, Mexicans celebrate the Day of the Dead joyfully...," but I think that Anglo Saxon is a much too particular term. Anglo Saxon implies a distinct ethnic group (an ancient one, at that) and is far too specific. Could it possibly be changed to "Modern European" and/or "Modern American" (or another phrase besides "American" that is indicative of the United States' culural perspective)? El Diablo Volador 1 November 2006

I've changed it to Anglo, since that article is more about the group intended (white non-Hispanic Americans). —Angr 08:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"Anglo" is a bit too informal for an article. How about we just avoid specifying and go with something more like "Though the subject matter may be considered morbid from the perspective of some other cultures..."? After all, it isn't really important which other cultures might find it morbid. Sxeptomaniac 17:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

FYI, I requested another semi-protection for this article because the vandalism seems to be even stronger than what it was before the first semi-protection was instituted a few days ago. Looks like it's going to be put into place soon, but I'm not sure exactly how long it will take. -- Tim D 17:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It should not be semi-protected as long as it's linked to from the Main Page. And really the vandalism isn't so bad we can't keep on top of it. Semi-protection really needs to be reserved for when the vandalism is coming so thick and fast you're getting edit conflicts with the vandals when trying to revert it. —Angr 18:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well it was protected for less last time, but if you and others are willing to keep a close eye on the article over the next couple days, that's fine by me. My big concern was vandalism slipping under the radar or staying up for more than a couple minutes when the article is probably at its peak traffic for the year. -- Tim D 19:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It's off the main page now, so if it's still getting vandalized we can semiprotect it now. —Angr

And in fact the vandalism is ongoing, so I've semiprotected it for a while. —Angr 17:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

This article had a chapter about the day in popular calture which has disappeared somehow. Deror 15:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. This massive piece of vandalism from last May never got fully reverted. —Angr 15:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of recent material

Please explain your rationale for deleting the recently added material. It seems to me to be a perfectly appropriate addition. Los Angeles is developing its own celebration of the Dia de los Muertos that honors and extends the traditions. I see no basis for deletion - it is interesting, encyclopedic, squarely on topic, and does not meet any WP criteria for deletion.LAVisitor1 15:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't do the deletion, but I think the addition is something that needs discussing, because the type of Day of the Dead celebration discussed in the addition is unusual, even for the LA area. Most of the celebrations of the Day of the Dead in LA are fairly traditional by Mexican-Americans. Typical is the celebration at Self-Help Graphics, which probably has done the most to introduce the Mexican Day of the Dead celebration to non-Mexicans. ^BlankVerse 18:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, BlankVerse, for your useful thoughts. With all due respect, no one has spoken up to articulate a legitimate reason to exclude this material from this article.

• First, the material is referenced, NPOV and germane.
• Second, the rest of the current article contains information about non-Mexican "Day of the Dead" observances in the Philippines, about a "Month of the Dead" in China, as well as references to movies, books and computer games. Surely, discussion of a purely American "Day of the Dead" celebration - even if it were totally unrelated to the Mexican Day of the Dead - would be appropriate in this article.
• Third, the proposed Day of the Dead material is a direct extension of the traditional Mexican Day of the Dead celebration. It is directly connected with the main body of the article - showing how ancient Aztec and Mexican celebrations are being expressed today.
• Finally, the new material covers a celebration that has been around for some seven years, and has attracted tens of thousands of people, including national coverage in the New York Times (check out Google News). This is not some minor detour, but an important and interesting step forward. In case the concern is that this LA celebration is mocking or disrespectful, the reference material makes clear it is not.

My understanding of Wikipedia is that material is in unless there's a good reason why it should be out. Again, with all due respect there are at least four good reasons why it should be in, and there is not a persuasive reason yet articulated why it should be excluded.LAVisitor1 01:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi LAVisitor1...I was the one who reverted the edits referring to LA. Don't worry, there was no aggression intended here. I noted that a discussion should take place before adding a whole section like this, so here we are! I basically had a couple concerns: 1) the creation of a new section labeled as "Los Angeles, California" seemed a little tacked-on; 2) there isn't any evidence that this is a real cultural difference in a global sense (Mexico, Latin America, Philippines, China, and L.A.?); and 3) the inclusion of a relatively large picture for a small section seemed a little much (it overlapped with the next section as well). Overall, my thought is that some of the modern interpretations of the holiday should be integrated elsewhere perhaps...or if there are other examples from other places, there could be a section that incorporates all of them. Just some thoughts. -- Tim D 14:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, Tim, thanks for articulating your concerns. My thoughts: 1) BlankVerse had an excellent suggestion to include the Dia de los Muertos celebrations by Self-Help Graphics in East Los Angeles, which according to that article can be similar in tone - that is, taking and extending the Mexican traditions while honoring the traditions. 2) As to your interesting point about whether these Southern California celebrations have "global" significance - even if that were a valid WP criterion, it seems to me that they are. These extensions are certainly relevant to anyone who celebrates the Day of the Dead or is otherwise interested in the study of the celebrations. The fact that the Day of the Dead celebration is undergoing growth in Southern California would be of high interest to anyone in the world wanting to know about the holiday. 3) Regarding the image, my view of Wikipedia is that the reader experience is definitely improved by colorful graphics that illustrate a point. My suggestion would be not to eliminate the image you deleted, but rather to add images from the Philippines and China. That said, the image can be reduced in size; also, with the addition of Self-Help Graphics material, the image will more closely match the size of the text. 4) On the title point, would "Southern California" meet your parallelism concerns (which I don't share, by the way)? 5) Finally, other Wikipedia articles, such as St. Patrick's Day and Cinco de Mayo, have sections dealing with American variations of holidays originally from abroad.LAVisitor1 17:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Also (and I don't want to scare you too much!), it looks like San Francisco has a Day of the Dead event with similar tradition-plus tones and themes, see [newspaper article], and see [photos]. It appears that the title of the proposed section should be "California" and not merely "Southern California."LAVisitor1 21:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a "United States" section with a paragraph or two for California would be more appropriate. That way it will provide a structure for future additions from other states. Sxeptomaniac 21:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly OK with a "United States" section, and state-specific subsections as the need arises. For example, there seem to be quite a few Dia de los Muertos celebrations in Texas as well.LAVisitor1 22:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

One more thought - a section entitled something like Celebrations outside Mexico. This could include the present Philippines and China material, and could comfortably be expanded to include Brazil, the U.S. and other countries. This separation would keep the Mexican traditional material clean, and still allow for additional, related material.LAVisitor1 22:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I can summarize the option under discussion. For all the reasons discussed above, I would like to put forward that a new section entitled "Celebrations outside Mexico" be created. This new section would discuss Day of the Dead celebrations which are related to those in Mexico, as well as Day of the Dead celebrations unrelated to those in Mexico. The content already in the article about the Philippines, Brazil, and China would be subsections in this new section, as well as new content about other celebrations outside Mexico.

This is the format followed by the St. Patrick's Day, Cinco de Mayo, Chinese New Year, and Persian New Year articles - each of which have a home country celebration, as well as discussion of the observances outside the home country (St. Patrick's Day parade in Moscow; Chinese New Year in San Francisco; Persian New Year in Turkey). Reactions, please. LAVisitor1 19:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems like there are no further objections to following through on the option described above - namely, moving this article to the format used by St. Patrick's Day, Cinco de Mayo, Chinese New Year, and Persian New Year articles, along with the additional material that can be added. LAVisitor1 14:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you to those who provided input regarding the re-structuring of this article!LAVisitor1 16:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Changes

I think that all the recent changes have made for a much better article. It looks like the article probably meets Good Article standards (next step, Featured article?).

The two biggest remaining problems that I see are: 1) the References section, which looks like one-half of Harvard referencing (see WP:CITE) without the partial citation in the body text of the article. I'm not sure how to fix that unless the person(s) who added those citations can be contacted, or the references themselves can be found and then matched with the article text. 2) the External links section, which has some links that look like they might have been used as references, and some probably unecessary, obscure or inappropriate links (Prague?) (see WP:EL for Wikipedia's external links policy). It also might be good to look for a few more academic or authoratative links for the Day of the Dead. ^BlankVerse 08:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the material now under "References" was added here, in 2004, by User:Shrive22. Unfortunately, after adding what appears to have been a college paper of some kind, Shrive22 disappeared into the graveyard of contributors.LAVisitor1 08:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

PS - thanks for the GA nod. LAVisitor1 08:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Good work on finding that edit. I HATE doing forensic work on well-edited articles. It is interesting that Shrive22 dumped their short school paper (unparagraphed and unwikified) over an already existing article, but nobody caught that. At least the unwikified dump has the original Harvard-style partial cites in the text, so if there is any of that text remains in the current article, it can be matched to the reference section.

Although I didn't notice anything specific, there needs to be a comparison of the current article with the pre-Shrive22 version [5] to see if there is anything that needs to be rescued from it. ^BlankVerse 12:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I carefully compared the original Shrive22 material (containing the partial cites in the text) with the current article; interestingly, none of the Shrive22 material which has a cite has survived into the current version - that is, not one of the items listed as a "Reference" currently points to any statement in the present text. I'm just going to turn that section into a "Further reading" section.

Plus, looking at the some of the websites listed under "External links," there's plenty of support in there for the statements in the present text.LAVisitor1 16:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that several of the links in the External links section were actually used as references and therefore should be moved into the Reference/Notes/Footnotes section, and then some sort of citation put next to the text in the article that the external link supports.

You might also want to look at the All Saints' Day and All Souls Day articles to see if there is anything that can be used in the Day of the Dead article. ^BlankVerse 06:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)