User talk:Kathryn NicDhàna/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 2: The Halloween Debacle of 2006

Contents 1 Halloween 2 Halloween edits- a thank you 3 Other Helpful Resources 4 Halloween

Halloween

Kathryn NicDhàna, all changes have been discussed at lenght beforehand at the talk page. Please see [[1]] for an extensive discussion about that issue. Halloween is a highly controversial topic among Christians of all denominations. The Church has been struggling with pre-Christian holidays for 2000 years. The views which have been documented and referenced with great care in the article are shared by the Church at large and by Christians of all denominations. Many Christians of course see Halloween just as a fun festival but nobody would even argue about the spiritual roots. The Question is, are the spiritual roots of Halloween and the endorsement of Halloween in the FORM it is celebrated today an obstacle for the faith through the customs of Halloween that contradict our relationship with God, including occult practices? That’s the point where opinions diverge: some say, it is just fun. Others point out to the entire ideology behind it and say it’s more than just funny dark costumes. That’s the controversy. This controversy needs to be described neutrally and the way it has been done before was extremely partisan.

According to the official Wikipedia policy, "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents;"[[2]] To write that "Christians get emotional about that topic" and that this view shared by a minority of "evangelical fundamentalists" is partisan and violates the Wikipedia NPOV guidelines. And it is not true anyway. Again, as it is shown in the references, Christians across all denominations have problems with the way Halloween is celebrated and therefore bishops, for instance of the Anglican Church, Roman Catholic priests and young Christian musicians took the initiative to redeem Halloween for the Church. (See the references in the article)

Please familiarize yourself with the NPOV guidelines of Wikipedia. Personal attacks and labeling everyone who shares a different view as "fundamentalist" as you did in your message above is violating the Wikipedia Policy and it is not the case anyway. No personal attacks please. Also, it is important to remain objective in the discussion. Please cite the article text correctly. As I already explained at the talk page: In order to deal with this issue objectively I structured the article according to the Wikipedia guidelines as folows: 1. Basic outline of the problem 2. Position which holds that Halloween does not raise spiritual concerns and arguments for this opinion 3. Position which holds that Halloween raises specific spiritual and arguments for this opinion 4. Ways Churches deal with this problem practically. Right now, both views and their arguments are equally represented.According to the Wikipedia policy "an article about a controversial person or goup should accurately describe their views." I believe, that every reader is mature enough to make up his mind on his or her own and that he or she has a right to hear the arguments of both sides. This is the Philosophy of Wikipedia. That is what I support and the basic value shared by the Wikipedia Community. Again, any constructive (!) comments are welcome. Caloon2000 19:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I stand by the edits I made, and my record as an editor. Your POV is not Neutral on this, as evidenced by the type of extremist positions and inappropriate links you keep trying to include. NPOV does not mean that fringe views are given a page-long tangent in an article. Most Christians don't really care about Halloween. Fundamentalists do get emotional about it, as seen in your edit war in this article, and your insistence on seeing fundamentalist Christianity as the only religious view that matters. You also mis-perceive criticism of the dubious sources you used as personal attacks. As seen by your User Contributions you only became a registered user one week ago. It seems you have spent that time pretty much dedicated to inserting fringe views and POV into the Halloween article, and deleting any links to religious views that contradict your position. I think you are a new user who means well, but you do not understand basic Wikipedia policy. What you are doing has now crossed the line into vandalism and abuse of the system. --Kathryn NicDhàna 20:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I realize that Caloon's edits can be quite provocative; but responding to his/her POV edits with more POV edits just makes the situation worse.

Example: "Other Christians get very emotional about Halloween, rejecting the holiday because they believe it trivializes the occult and what they perceive as evil".

I've put the wheels in motion for an investigation into Caloon's POV edits and possible sock/meat puppetry; please don't make the case for him/her better by reverting with vandalism. Thanks! -- Weirdoactor 22:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I didn't perceive the "emotional" thing as POV. Thanks for your input. How about if we change it to "concerned". The "rejecting the holiday because they believe it trivializes the occult and what they perceive as evil" was already there, I didn't write that bit. Feel free to change it, or I will if you prefer. Thanks again for your work on the article. --Kathryn NicDhàna 22:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry it took me so long to respond to your message. Thanks for your work on the Halloween article as well! I don't know if non-admins are allowed to hand out barnstars, but if I could, I would give you at least one. -- Weirdoactor 20:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Your undocumented change: 22:21, 1 November 2006 Kathryn NicDhàna (Talk | contribs) (Taking duplicates out of reading list. Alphabetizing. Again removing inappropriate extremist sources. Will replace Mike's changes momentarily.) was determined to be vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. -- Caloon2000

Determined to be vandalism? By you? Please. What do you mean "undocumented"? There's the edit summary right there, and I posted about it on the talk page multiple times. Are you putting vandalism templates on the pages of everyone who reverts your POV? What about on the pages of the admins who had to lock down the editing because of your revert war? You violated the 3 Revert Rule five times to revert to the same version with the same, inappropriate sources. Calling me the vandal is laughable. --Kathryn NicDhàna 22:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edit [3] has been qulaified as vandalism. Please refrain from reverting. --Caloon2000 07:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, you do not understand what vandalism is. You have now been warned on your own talk page by an admin, Durova, that "your edits to the article have violated the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV." My blocking your POV reversions does not qualify as vandalism. It no longer matters that you believe your minority POV is "neutral" in this matter. You have been investigated and told by an admin it is not, and that your repeated insertion of it into the article is unacceptable and a violation of Wikipedia policies. And now you are here, inventing a new charge against me, because you don't like that I warned you not to delete warnings from your page. --Kathryn NicDhàna 08:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Followup on false, retaliatory charges of "vandalism": Admin warning to Caloon2000 --Kathryn NicDhàna 04:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Note to self - Caloon2000 also edits under IP 89.241.187.123 (contribs) --Kathryn NicDhàna 04:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice find! If we need to move to an RfC or mediation, that sort of blows his "I'm not a sock/meat puppet" argument out of the water, yes? -- Weirdoactor 19:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Especially as that's the IP he did partial reverts under - he proved it was still him by editing his own comments, then he removed the Celtic Christian and Gaelic cultural links I had added that show not all Christians are freaked out by Halloween. BTW, do you know who removed his personal attacks on me from the Halloween talk page? I'd like to cite them, but can't find them now. (They were the ones other editors told him were personal attacks - most notably his assertion that I shouldn't be allowed to edit because I "admit" I'm a feminist and involved to some extent in the Pagan community. What I find hilarious is his accusations of my "Wiccan bias" and "Wiccan agenda", as I am actually better known on Wikipedia for removing Wiccan bias from articles, especially those dealing with Gaelic culture and mythology. I haven't decided if "Wiccan bias" qualifies as a personal attack, or just more evidence of his confusion.) --Kathryn NicDhàna 20:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No clue who deleted those attacks, but I certainly have an educated guess, which I won't make here. You could sift through the contributions of those who have commented on the page in question (for example, here or here), and see if you can find the deletion. Somewhat related; I think "Wiccan Bias" would be a wonderful name for a band... -- Weirdoactor 20:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes! Wiccan Bias - the Christian Rock Spın̈al Tap!

Hi. I suspect, from a brief look, that this will blow over on its own. If it doesn't, please do feel free to keep me up to date on what's going on, especially if Durova gets busy with other things. Jkelly 17:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Beannachdan agus Tapadh Leibh! --Kathryn NicDhàna 20:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		is hereby awarded to Kathryn NicDhàna for her tireless work in protecting the Halloween article from becoming the Anti-Halloween article! Mo sheacht mbeannacht ort! -- weirdoactor t|c -- 23:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Tapadh Leat! I am honored! --Kathryn NicDhàna 19:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the body of work you've done, it's astounding this is your first. Many more to come, I'm sure!

Septegram 22:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You are very kind, thank you. I also appreciate your clarifications and dialogues on the talk page of the article. Hopefully they cleared some things up for those new to the party. ;-) --Kathryn NicDhàna 22:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope so too. Nice to see that a CR and a Wiccan can work together {grin}

Septegram 23:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Don't you believe it for a moment, Septegram. Kathryn is *low, ominous whisper* nice! Far too nice to be a mere CR ... I swear she has to be a closet historical scholar!

But don't tell her I told you that. :) Justin Eiler 23:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Halloween edits- a thank you

I just wanted to thank you for keeping an eye on the Halloween page. I noticed the High Priest link and removed it before all this started, thinking it was vandalism. The link and the quote struck me as very slanted and I found the entire page it referenced to be suspicious. Rather than rewrite anything, I just deleted the High Priest quote and left the link in the references section. The spirit of the section remained the same without it, but that one user kept putting it back and calling it more neutral. Anyway, thank you. I feel better knowing there are other users that try to keep propaganda and other suspicious references from slipping into articles. From the looks of the revision history, it's a full-time job. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.126.158.145 (talk • contribs) 6 November 2006 (UTC).

Thank you! And thanks for your work on the article, as well. It was a crazy and overwhelming few days there, and I'm glad it's over... <creepy, ominous voice> FOR NOW </creepy, ominous voice>. --Kathryn NicDhàna 20:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Other Helpful Resources

Tips for the angry new user

WP:SPIDER

WP:NOT

Cranks

Halloween

Hi Kathryn,

This is regarding the "Religious Controversies" bit. While I agree with your general sentiment,

Halloween and all Saints Day were originally the same day, much as Christmas Eve and Christmas Day are the same (and for the same reason).

When the Pope declared "All Saints Day" or "All Hallows Day" (same meaning) in the 8th century, the day was reckoned as starting at Sunset. It was several centuries later that the day was assumed to start at midnight, so it was at that point when the holidays fell on consecutive days.

Halloween, is of itself, a Christian celebration. It is celebrated, of course, by what is left of earlier rituals, which is what makes Christians uncomfortable. Halloween was deliberately created to supplant the non-christian festival, I would say more or less unsuccessfully.

Check out the wikipedia entry on "Florentine Reckoning" and "All Saints Day" for a fuller explanation.

Cheers, Trishm 11:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Trish - I know this and agree with you, actually :-) A lot of what I did with that section was cleanup, under pressure, in the midst of intense vandalism and edit warring. When I found it it was full of extreme POV of the "All Christians think Halloween is Teh Evol!!!" variety, I mostly cut out the completely unacceptable stuff and rewrote it to be at least tolerable. Even this was controversial at the time. I didn't want to go too far as things were so heated and bizarre at the time (see my archived Halloween Debacle page for a stumble down memory lane). But things have calmed down now, especially since our main agitator was blocked. Please, feel free to work on the section. In particular, if we're going to include religious views, it is still heavily biased towards Christianity, with a few points about earlier and contemporary Pagan views. Though I felt it important to add the Celtic Christian quote that I did, we could use to trim the Christian stuff a bit more and at least touch on other religious perspectives (to the extent other religions even care about the holiday). Thanks for your work on the article! --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw the award on your page, tres cool. I was thinking about celtic celebrations, and the attempt to "bury" them under new Christian holidays. The one that seems closest to Halloween is Krampus, which is more-or-less an Austrian celebration which was taken over as St. Nicholas's day, on Dec 6. St. Nick, the Christian add on, seems to be a lot like a stern Father Christmas. Krampus, on the other hand, is wild, boozy and very Celtic. It is still very current and very wild in Austria, and I think Switzerland, and worth looking into. I gather this sort of thing is right up your street? Trishm 11:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

What I mean to say, is do you think there is any value in making a comparison between Krampus and Halloween? They both share a number of elements, including unsuccessful assimilation by the Christian church. 124.168.135.128 02:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Krampus seems more connected with Midwinter festivals, really (or interpretations of the Christmas season more in tune with Terry Pratchett's Hogfather ;-). I guess the "dark" aspects could relate to Halloween in a way, but I don't see enough of an historical connection to make it worth pursuing in the Halloween article itself. I suppose if you wanted to put in an aside about festivals that couldn't be completely assimilated, it might find purchase there, but it doesn't seem to be an historical precursor the way Samhain is. Also, the climate in Ireland at Samhain is still fairly mild compared to the harsh weather one would find in Austria and Switzerland in December. So Samhain is a festival of looking ahead to the harsh winter, while Krampus seems to be about struggling to survive after Winter has already struck and hung around a while (and maybe already killed some of your friends and family). Perhaps the closest connection between the two would be about facing the fear of death, and the struggle to survive adversity, whether one is dreading that possible struggle or already in the midst of it. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I enjoyed Hogfather. Krampus is not really mid-winter, more "the snow will close in soon", but you are right, Halloween is a few weeks earlier and that does make a difference. The way the festival is unassimilated caught my attention, especially when you experience it, but it is a relatively minor point. Thanks for your thoughtful comments. 203.214.99.222 12:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)