Talk:Easter/Archive 8

Missing: The Syncretic and the Secular
Right now the article presents Easter as a purely Christian event, seemingly existing in a vacuum, and devoid of the syncretic and secular elements that accrue around, influenced, or develop with modern popular western holidays. This isn't the reality. Regarding popular Easter customs see, for example, from the American Encyclopedia of Folklore, an academic work :
 * "Eggs and hares, for instance, both carry associations with a goddess of spring, and, further, symbolize fertility. By the same logic, the baskets—or in some cases, nests—children prepare and leave to be filled by the Easter Bunny represent nurture and rebirth. " (p. 121)

Moreover: "Although the image of a hare does not relate directly to the sacred purpose of Easter, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, it does carry an association with a pre-Christian goddess of spring. It also symbolizes fertility. Both ideas are tied, however tenuously, to Easter's general theme of renewal and rebirth." (p. 122)

Specifically regarding the Easter Bunny: "By custom, the Easter Bunny pays an annual visit to contribute to the holiday enjoyment of children at this time of year. It is the Easter Bunny who many children believe fills the empty baskets, nests, or hats boys and girls leave out before Easter. Consequently, the candy and treats made available at this season often pay tribute to the Easter Bunny, especially in terms of the traditional confection of chocolate molded into a rabbit. Some children also consider the items in use at special Easter festivities, such as egg rolls and e.g. hunts, were provided or hidden by the Easter Bunny for their benefit." (p. 122)

I get the impression that this article really goes out of the way to whitewash out secular observance of this holiday and syncretic elements. Easter remains a major Christian holiday, but it's not only that. One wouldn't know that by taking the time to read this article. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * In addition, from American Folklore: An Encyclopedia :


 * "The move away from official governmental sanction of Easter has not retarded development of a national Easter culture, which centers primarily around an extra religious elements of the holiday day, many of which probably derive from pre-Christian fertility symbolism in Europe. The gift-bearing Easter bunny and Easter egg hunts and rolls (one of which occurs on the White House lawn) need not reflect Easter's religious significance, but can suggest reawakened fecundity of spring. This season focus has also made Easter a time for purchasing and wearing new clothing in bright and pastel colors to contrast with the somber hues of winter attire." (p.455)


 * My bold. I can produce a ton of such examples from folklorists on the topic. Clearly there's going to need to be some introduction adjustment reflecting the reality of the event in various parts of the west, including the United States, a major theater for its celebration. It's also not particularly weird; as I mention in another thread, this is basically the same situation as with Yule and Christmas in Germanic language-speaking regions. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No need to avoid this element, which is notable enough. However, there is a need to balance it, historically as well. The development of secular celebrations is one thing, but they are recent, and it is scarcely appropriate to minimize the Christian religious significance when that is the origin and millennia-long history as well as the continuance into the present. This is the especially appropriate article in which to discuss the religious meaning of the holiday. If more concentrated detail of secular activity is desired, it is perhaps appropriate to have an article for that too. The two are not particularly compatible, since each would naturally compete for a more limited space, and I rather think the extra space of multiple articles is called for. There is sufficient material. How about "Easter celebrations" as a title? Evensteven (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's the issue with that approach. Sure, modern Easter can be divided into potentially three components: The Christian celebration, the pre-Christian syncretic elements (including the very name of the event in the English language—most of this stuff potentially far predating Christianity), and the secular. The secular need not necessarily be recent. However, the reality is that this stuff isn't so neatly divided; it's all combined together by the pressure of history. As a result, it's all Easter as we know it in modern popular culture. From crucified Jesus, to fertile bunnies, to chocolate egg companies. Pulling them apart is a difficult thing to do without arbitrarily deciding this stuff up. I think it would be wise to handle it all here together and just explain the situation. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There's no telling how far back some pagan beliefs or practices go; unfortunately, that knowledge is just lost, as so many things are over time. Secularism, however, is a recent phenomenon. "This stuff" is, however, neatly divided into Christian religious observance and social celebrations. The social element may or may not be Christian, but the religious observance is distinctly Christian. Likewise, a single symbol can be used in different ways within different contexts, and with different meanings. Hence, the meaning of a symbol within Christian religious observances is one thing, within pagan observances is another, within secular observances yet another. This doesn't require "pulling apart"; they were always separate. I think it would be wise to provide sufficient room for coverage with a minimum of jumping around different contexts, which could easily become confusing to a reader. Doing otherwise is more a matter of "cramming together" simply because of today's simultaneity of occurrence. Evensteven (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not uncommon for kids in the US to go to church and then get an Easter basket full of eggs and watch a totally secular "Easter special" on television sponsored by a chocolate company. It's probably just as common for them to hear nothing about any narrative regarding the resurrection of Jesus yet still receive a basket full of chocolate bunnies and eggs and see a lot of pastels in the supermarket and maybe someone in a rabbit costume, if not more. That is Easter in 2014 in the US.


 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sensing a potential desire on your part to maintain a sort of 'Christian purity' here. This is an issue because it isn't the reality of the modern holiday (and doesn't seem to have ever been). Syncretism is all over the history of the church/churches, and it remains an element of some of our most major holidays, most notably Christmas. As for the "secular", throughout history people have reacted negatively to the governing social institutions and/or simply left them totally unreferenced in their works. The churches weren't immune to this, and we have record of, for example, many medieval works that simply make no mention of anything to do with the church and probably just as much records of critical grumbling about this fact. After all, people frequently conserve the very ancient and yet also innovate, regardless of what a powerful institution may want from them.


 * But back on the topic at hand, I really think it's best to handle the topic for what it is today—what Easter is today. This article is, for example, only really going to be right when it begins with something like "Easter is a Christian and secular festival" with mention of potential syncretism in some of its most widely celebrated customs front and center. As the article reads right now, you'd think Easter existed solely in the domain of the authority of the church. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And Eid al-Adha is a Muslim and secular festival. Esoglou (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * See below. It is you who do not seem to understand "what Easter is today", and the insistence that it is little more than a secular observation demonstrates that. In any case, an article restricted to descriptions of "today" cannot cover the history either, even "syncretism". In addition, I have told you quite clearly that cross-cultural influences are indeed all over the church's history, so what's your argument there? Is it your contention that Easter religious observations do not take place, or that they are diminutive because they continue to be followed by celebrations outside of church, as they always have been? Today is not so different. It is the level of vocalized opposition to Christianity that is different, and the desire to promote that as an agenda - none of which has any impact on what Easter is. Evensteven (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Etymology position in article
After thinking about this a while, it still seems to me that the Etymology section is displaced in this article. It may be that this position is the one commonly used in many articles, but consider that for most topics the name is directly associated with the topic itself, often close to its inception, or at least prominence. In this case, "Easter" is the deviant term, the one used in relatively restricted circumstances in time as well as geography, and in fact is derived not from anything to do with the observance itself, but from a tacked-on association developed in an even more restricted environment. Really, it is an artifact of the English language (perhaps German as well), and not the term used during centuries of undivided Christianity and in large parts of Christendom to the present day. Etymological discussion of "Easter" as a term properly belongs to an adjunct position, like where I moved it before being reverted. The article would also do better to discuss in a more prominent way the etymology and meaning of "Pascha", which is the term directly attached to the Christian holiday and its origins. Evensteven (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Terminology and etymology are usually handled immediately in Wikipedia articles and this is probably because usage is crucial in approaching what comes after—the article itself. As this is also English Wikipedia, our English usage is of course most important here and, as discussed above, requires primary treatment. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In addition, as I've pointed out with Yule and Christmas and as various academics working this field have noted, syncretism may well be an element of modern Easter celebrations in the west. Your comment above seems to imply otherwise. Unfortunately, this article nearly totally ignores "secular" Easter. For many children in the United States, for example, Easter has essentially nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with an Easter egg hunt, a person in a bunny suit, and a big chocolate bunny. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Now that the discussion of the Etymology has been cut down to an appropriate length (for which I thank the involved editors), it seems appropriate to keep the discussion of the name near the beginning of the article. The discussion of the alternative term "Pascha" doesn't quite fit in the section discussing the Etymology of the word "Easter". Nonetheless, I see no reason for removing it as it clarifies the point that Easter was around before it was known by the name "Easter."  Alternatively, the discussion of Pascha might logically be placed in the context of the discussion of Easter in the early church, but any extensive discussion of the name "Pascha" belongs in the article on the Names of Easter. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] Bloodofox, "Easter celebrations" does not mean the same thing as "Easter". I note the disposition of certain western academics to promote the notion of syncretism, and no doubt some notice of it needs to be given. Nevertheless, whatever it amounts to, it applies to the cultural and secular celebrations attached to the holiday, whereas the holiday itself originated as a specifically Christian religious observation. The Christian religious observance is not to be ignored or shunted aside just because it is paralleled in the secular world, and surely children are not the arbiters of what the meaning is. Many Orthodox children also enjoy an egg hunt and chocolate bunnies, and while their youthful glee is most evident, that comes in the outpouring of community celebration following the religious celebration, not in contrast or opposition to it. If some people follow only secular patterns, there is no difficulty, and that also can be covered to the appropriate degree. But the religious underpinnings and history should not be minimized or sidelined either, and there is much more emphasis there throughout time than there may be in certain places currently. The religious celebrations have always been accompanied by later community celebrations, whereas exclusively community-based celebrations are quite new in comparison.
 * SteveMcCluskey, "Pascha" is not only a historical term, it is still used more widely than Easter, and it is the specifically Christian name for the observance which originated within Christianity. I agree with you that most etymological discussion belongs in the "Names of Easter" article, but if the word "Easter" requires discussion here, then certainly Pascha does too, particularly because English-speakers are altogether too unaware that their language uses the anomalous term, not the norm. It is most definitely not a historical-only matter, nor restricted to the early church. I tend to favor further reduction in etymologies here and full treatment in the names article, lest even an attempt to balance this treatment overweigh its significance to this article. Evensteven (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @Evensteven I fully agree with your comment on syncretism; all too often discussions of syncretism become cast in the tone that Easter (or Christmas, or whatever) is really the pagan feast of x.  The essential Christian nature of Easter is really central to any discussion.
 * As to terminology, however, your comment that Pascha is more widely used than Easter can only apply to the non-English speaking world, and this is the English Wikipedia. A quick check on the Google Ngram viewer found that in English Language sources since 1900, "Easter" is consistently used about 100 times more often than "Pascha".  Pascha is the name outside the English speaking world, and appears in liturgical contexts where Greek or Latin may be employed, but one in a hundred does not represent significant usage in English. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I recognize what you say about terminology as factual, but not as comprehensive. I have made this point before in several areas of WP. First, readers of English WP contain large numbers of people who are not native speakers. Its readership extends around the world and is comprised of so many races and cultures by simple virtue of the fact that it is the closest thing the world has ever seen to a shared common language (that includes Greek and Latin). We must write for the world, including all those places where Pascha is the normal word (and there are many). Second, English usage of Pascha is spreading at a fast rate, especially propelled by the Orthodox Church's accelerating translation of religious and scholarly works long available only in other languages: Greek, Russian, Serbian, many others. Those works are receiving increasing notice and readership not only among Orthodox, but among Catholics and Protestants who wish to understand more about these sources, and indeed, some who are simply exploring Christianity or history. Third, the name Pascha itself relates to its meaning as a Christian observance and celebration, its history, and its religious meaning. "Easter" does none of those things, having entered the vocabulary by the back door. A consideration of the word Pascha supports understanding of what the feast is and where it came from. Evensteven (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Early calculations
There was an objection to my link to the Attic calendar. At first, the Roman church was still using tables based on an 8-year cycle. There are other wiki pages linking that cycle (the octaeteris) with the Attic calendar, but fair enough: the Romans got their astronomy from the Greeks but I don't have a source with an explicit link and it's a simple-enough pattern that it could have been independently invented.

At the same time, Esoglou, with thanks for watching over the page, do not get so trigger-happy that you simply revert unquestionable improvements—links to octaeteris and Augustalis—along with one or two contentious aspects. — Llywelyn II   00:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

If there are concerns, we still  the information, but it may be time to shunt a good chunk of text to a new page on the History of Easter. It certainly needs clearing up: Nicaea's treatment of Easter was part of the reaction against those following Jewish dating, not something separate from it. — Llywelyn II   00:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Nicaea's decision about Easter dating reflected their stance of its high importance to the Christian faith. The principal problem was that while astronomical observation was widely understood and dependable in ancient times, astronomical prediction was not possible at the time because no one had the mathematics (which needs calculus) to do it. One element of Nicaea's decision was that the entire church everywhere ought to celebrate Pascha on the same day. But that required a calculation methodology that could be replicated throughout the church, because ancient communication of a central decision would take months or more to complete, and observation alone could not possibly possibly determine the equinox far enough in advance that the Church could begin Lent on schedule, even in any one place.


 * The council's rejection of Jewish dating was partly because the Jewish calendar was interpretive, adjusting its intercalary months to observations that kept the lunar and solar cycles synchronized. Final determination of the date of Passover could be left until it was close at hand (and observable) because everything took place in Jerusalem. But by the 3rd century, the Jews had long been dispersed from there, and were confronted with their own difficulties (not calendrical alone), and needed to make adjustments for reasons independent of Christianity. The council decided therefore that it was unseemly for those outside the Christian faith to be determinate in setting the date of Pascha, and that the Church would need see to its setting for reasons that were consonant with the faith. Therefore they declared that independent calculation, such as that done in the west in Rome and Alexandria, would be solution, as opposed to the more eastern practice that required asking the Jews when Passover was to be (which could not be performed on schedule anyway).


 * The problem remained to create a single computus, for Alexandria used its calendar and Rome used the Julian. (These were closely matched, due to Julius Caesar's method of consulting Alexandria about reform of the old Roman calendar, but they were not identical.) I do not know enough of the details of the Alexandrian calendar to speak authoritatively as to an eight-year cycle (84 years would seem more likely), but church history gives every indication that that is where the Alexandrian calculation must have got its cycle from, rather than the Attic calendar. It is difficult to conceive that the Attic calendar could have had enough influence in Alexandria, long an origin of learning as well as a center, to make it predominant in the Pascha computus.


 * The Church did indeed work to reconcile the calendars and create a single computus, but the work proved difficult to accomplish, especially at far geographical removes, especially after the fall of Rome. Dionysius Exiguus was thorough and instrumental in summing up and resolving two centuries of effort in the Church, and in so doing became largely assured as to the correctness of Alexandrian techniques. Only then was the Church truly able to follow fully the direction of the Nicaean council, and of course the adoption proved long and difficult in an unsafe world.


 * It is perhaps an overstatement in the article that the Alexandrian rules were ultimately adopted by Rome in their entirety. That should be questioned, and sourced. The work was always collaborative between Rome and Alexandria. But Rome made most of the adjustments. The Alexandrians, after all, had the better technology.


 * Hope this helps understanding a bit. Evensteven (talk) 08:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * @Evensteven: Nice historical discussion, except for the first paragraph where you say "astronomical prediction was not possible at the time because no one had the mathematics (which needs calculus) to do it."  If you look at the history of astronomy, you will find that it was possible to compute the time of a new or full moon with accuracies of better than an hour using either Babylonian arithmetical schemes or Greek geometrical models (e.g., Ptolemy's).  Since Easter computus only needs to know the date of the new moon, even simpler calculating techniques were more than adequate for computistical purposes. (As a historical aside, the Gregorian calendar reform predates the discovery of calculus and post-Newtonian dynamical models). --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for giving Llewellyn the impression that it was a "so trigger-happy" "wholesale revert" to remove a reference to the Attic calendar supposedly used for determining the date of Easter and supposedly based on an 8-year cycle, and to a replacement of that calendar by an 84-year one supposedly of the time of Augustalis, whose floruit is disputed (3rd/5th century), and to add a "citation needed" tag to Llewelyn's statement that the Alexandrian system was adopted in Rome "following the tables of Dionysius Exiguus in 525 which introduced the Christian Era calendar". I gather from the Wikipedia article on Augustalis, which I presume Llewelyn will now correct, that there is a scholarly view that the table of Augustalis was never used in Rome.  I also gather from the article on the Attic calendar that there were several Attic calendars and that none of them strictly followed an 8-year cycle.  However, Llewelyn assures me that "there are other wiki pages linking that cycle (the octaeteris) with the Attic calendar, but fair enough: the Romans got their astronomy from the Greeks but I don't have a source with an explicit link and it's a simple-enough pattern that it could have been independently invented".  I would have thought that WP:OR and WP:SYNTH demanded something more.  The Llewelyn text does not specify that Rome was the place where an 8-year cycle was used to determine the date of Easter, but the statement here that the Romans got their astronomy from the Greeks suggests it.  The Greek astronomer Cleostratus, to whom the 8-year cycle is attributed, was not from Attica.  The Greek astronomer Meton was from Attica, but he is associated with a 19-year, not an 8-year cycle.  No doubt Llewelyn will clarify all this, and it is best that I stay out of it.
 * As you doubtless know, the canons of the 325 Council of Nicaea do not in fact say anything about the date of Easter, and even Constantine's subsequent letter specifies no particular system or authority for determining the date, but only asks for uniformity and declares that following the Jewish reckoning would be inaccurate and would lead to two Easters or none in some years (reckoned perhaps from the March equinox). Esoglou (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * @SteveMcCluskey: Your historical approximation is closer than mine, I agree; I was abbreviating somewhat - it's a complex set I was trying to communicate. By "astronomical prediction", I meant prediction to relatively high degrees of exactitude, to which the ancients did not have access. One hour from the new moon was in fact not close enough, because the timing also depends on the equinox, and the new moon in question must follow the equinox. That was built into the tables with the presumption that the calendar would indicate when the equinox was, but of course we recognize that the calendar was inaccurate to a degree, and drifted over the centuries. But in some years, the two celestial events occurred close together in time, and calculation beforehand was not enough to tell. Thus, the reliance on the calendar was the only practical solution to establishing a computus that could be done independently. In addition, it was the ancient practice to time the event of the new moon at the point where the first sliver of crescent appears to the naked eye, rather than to the modern point, which could often make the day of its occurrence vary by a day from the modern definition. In addition, it made the moment that much more dependent upon observation, but that was something the ancients were quite used to. I don't at all disparage what they were able to do - they did fabulous things with the tools and information they had at hand. But it still takes calculus and modern measurement to predict all dependencies with assuredness. In the closest circumstances, the ancients advised the Pope and then let him make a decision.


 * Of course you're right that calculus was invented in the 18th century, much after the Gregorian calendar. But the Gregorian calendar was not designed in order to make a better computus, but to correct for the drift that had been in the Julian. I think even the ancients knew the year was not exactly 365.25 days, but that was much closer than most calendars came to it in their day, and they may have thought it was the closest practical approximation. By Gregory's time, the rather simple leap-day-rule change was known to be a closer practical approximation. With the calendar change, the computus then needed tweaking to fit the new pattern of leap days. But the computus was still dependent upon the calendar for determining the time of the equinox. It is still only since calculus and reasonably modern astronomical precision that a truly predictive astronomical computus has become possible. So far, I have yet to hear anyone suggest using one. But for the first time, it could now be done, and entirely within what we received from the Nicaean council. For Esolgou is entirely correct about the canons and Constantine's descriptive letter: uniformity of date, and no prescription of system or authority for determining the date except that it be done by Christians, which it was (at the time) in Rome and Alexandria. Evensteven (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Date of Easter
In the lead section, the following text with respect to the date of Easter appears: ...the date of Easter as the first Sunday after the full moon (the Paschal Full Moon) following the March equinox.

Both "after" and "following" have a common implication that disallows coincidence. Using that implication, consider the case of the ecclesiastical equinox falling on 21 March. The earliest date for the Paschal Full Moon that follows that would be 22 March, and the earliest date for the first Sunday after that, i.e., the earliest date for Easter, would be 23 March -- which is incorrect, as Easter can fall on 22 March.

Clearly, either the term "after" or the term "following" should be changed to "on or after."

The Wikipedia articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_controversy#Second_phase and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#Separation_of_Easter_computation_from_Jewish_calendar state that Easter should come after the equinox.

Note that the Wikipedia article on the Paschal Full Moon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paschal_Full_Moon ) states the following, which is not inconsistent with the previously cited articles: The date of Easter is determined as the first Sunday after the first paschal full moon falling on or after the Spring Equinox (March 21).

Note the key clause "on or after," which differs from the other articles but properly allows for Easter to occur on 22 March.

If correct, the term "following" should be changed to "on or after", and this same edit should be made in other Wikipedia articles that have comparable statements about the date of Easter.

ChuckEdN (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out the error. Esoglou (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

In the year 2019 vernal equinox will occur at Mar 20, 21:58 UTC and first full moon after it, at Mar 21, 01:43 UTC. Georges Theodosiou — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.4.224.210 (talk) 11:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The date of Easter is not determined by the date of the astronomical equinox (the date of which can be different in Greenwich (UTC) and in Jerusalem or Japan, because of the difference in clock times). 21 March, not the astronomical date, is the starting point for calculating. And indeed it isn't the astronomical full moon (the date of which can also vary according to the geographical position of the observer) that is determinant.  That is particularly evident in the Julian calculations of the date of Easter, used by the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Gregorian calculations are very much closer to the astronomical data.  Esoglou (talk) 12:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Fairs fair.  When the Julian Easter table started out the fourteenth day of the lunar month (which rules, not the full moon) was astronomically correct, more so than with the Gregorian calendar with its awkward mix of 400 and 2500 year cycles.   It's not been updated because, as Kepler said, "Easter is a feast, not a planet".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.61.250.250 (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not been updated for many reasons Kepler probably had little insight into. But he was right in that astronomy has never been more than a tool for its calculation, and once the rules for calculation were set (6th century), the astronomy became peripheral to religious issues. Evensteven (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * By logic of "ecclesiastical equinox or ecclesiastical full moon" you can call beef "ecclesiastical fish" and eat it in fasting days. Georges Theodosiou, The Straw Man, chretienorthodox@hotmail.fr 86.194.230.230 (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not a result of logic, in the sense that it was a choice made when there were other reasonable alternatives. The ecclesiastical full moon is the result of a need that could not be met, a compromise over something that nothing could be done about (at the time). See the section below on "Early calculations". And there is more at stake than merely the calculation itself, even today. Evensteven (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Christianity and Sexuality arbitration
It's a real bind that "Easter" is semi - protected. References 46 and 81 need work. I asked an administrator to unprotect and my request was archived. Maybe IP editors are not taken notice of? Could someone with knowledge of the above case ask one of the administrators there (e.g. Lankiveil) to do it? This is supposed to be the encyclopaedia anyone can edit and four years is a long time. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Are the two references OK now? Some other aspects of what you have written here I do not understand.  Why don't you take a log-in name?  Esoglou (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Ephrem" is his first name (his monastic name) and his last name is "Moraitis", so I'm changing it in the references you edited. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The references look fine.  If there are no objections I'll ask an administrator to unprotect tomorrow. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2015
Please delete 2014 as its useless

92.161.223.95 (talk) 09:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: That's not a good reason Cannolis (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The standard for this seems to be that the 2014 date info will be kept until Easter 2015 passes by, then 2015 info will be kept until 2016, for backdated reference. Perhaps not entirely necessary, but it can be useful information. Crumpled Fire (talk) 11:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

What is Easter
What is Eid al-Adha? It is a Muslim feast that, to quote Wikipedia, "honors the willingness of Abraham (Ibrahim) to sacrifice his young first-born son Ishmael (Ismail)a as an act of submission to God's command, before God then intervened to provide Abraham with a lamb to sacrifice instead". That is what is essential about it and Wikipedia is right to define it as such. It is also a public holiday in some countries. A five-day holiday in the Sudan: an official explained to me that it is traditional for each married man to sacrifice a sheep or a goat for the feast; in his family, he said, "we are four married brothers and so we need five days to celebrate the feast". Non-Muslims in the Sudan celebrate the five-day holiday too, though not as a for them religious feast. They celebrate it in non-religious ways, even if they too may eat the meat of sheep or goats. That does not alter what the feast is in itself. The feast is called by various names in various languages: in the Sudan, it is called by the Turkish name of Corban Bairam. That does not alter what the feast is in itself. Customs, names, ways of celebrating, and the supposed origins of these do fit in an article on Eid al-Adha, but they should not be allowed to obscure what Eid al-Adha is.

All dictionaries agree on the definition of Easter. See Oxford English Dictionaries, Merriam-Webster. What Easter is in itself is clear. When, long after it originated, the name "Easter" was given to it, that did not alter what Easter is in itself. When it was introduced into areas where, as is claimed, a Germanic goddess was celebrated in the spring (not necessarily on exactly the same date), that did not alter what Easter is in itself. The attachment to it of various customs and usages, and its non-religious celebration, did not alter what Easter is in itself. All these matters have a place in an article on Easter, but they should not be allowed to obscure what Easter is. Esoglou (talk) 06:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Very well said. Evensteven (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed; I just said something similar above. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * When I get some time to sit down with the article again, I'll dig up some sources, and we'll talk about this some more. As the academic sources I've put forth above show, modern "Easter" is a lot more complicated than that 'it's a festival about the resurrection of Jesus'. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 02:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A flower means many things to many people, but what it is in itself remains the same. Esoglou (talk) 11:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What Easter is has not changed. Cultural celebrations have always existed, and they complicate nothing. "Modern" means contemporary, which is at most (and not very deeply) about cultural celebrations only. It does not replace the centuries-old, only adds a current flavor. Evensteven (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

This argument is based on both philosophic and linguistic essentialism, the notion that things and concepts have unique and distinct essences. While this is a valid position, it is distinctly a minority position in academia. Therefore it is not a satisfactory basis for deciding to omit anything from a Wikipedia article. Burressd (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

A good reference
Just published today:. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Methinks it to be an engaging read, but sloppy on the facts, e.g., England jumped 11 days, not 12, in adopting the Gregorian Calendar, and the Council of Nicaea didn't invent a method of reckoning Easter, but rather chose a specific existing one (that of Alexandria). Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I worded my heading badly. This article is a good source for leads, however facts should be substantiated with other publications (including academic publications). Softlavender (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Point well taken; it is, indeed, a good source for leads, and I learned a lot from it, even if I may question the precision of what I learned. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 10:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2015
2602:306:B80C:8870:79D1:D28D:5A94:A84 (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Nici  Vampire  Heart  08:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2015
This is not a Christian Ritual, but a catholic beginning so don't forget about putting that also.

2602:306:B80C:8870:79D1:D28D:5A94:A84 (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Nici  Vampire  Heart  08:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2015
Please make resurrection of Jesus Christ at the introduction only one blue link. Using one link for 'resurrection of' and another for 'Jesus Christ' is really exaggeration, and too many blue links only make crowd and create confusion... Thank you. --141.196.196.99 (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Easter's pagan roots
This article mentions that some consider Easter to have pagan roots, but doesn't discuss this it beyond that (or if it does, it does so without using the word pagan). Can someone expand on this in a dedicated paragraph? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As above, an editor apparently had just removed those sections. Per, hopefully they maintained those sections somewhere like origins of Easter or history of Easter—so it could be linked to from the article—rather than just deleting them. Regardless, the old format of the pages'll still be in the page's history. — Llywelyn II   00:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, neither does the article mention the pagan connection to the origin of the word Easter. That is, having the Greek word Ostera or Eostre (Anglo-Saxon goddess of spring) as it's origin. Neither is there any reference to the Wiki page (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostara) relating to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.125.12 (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Venerable Bede states that the name of the holiday comes from the name of the month in which the holiday usually fell. The Greek word connection is not attested to in scholarly sources, however.  The scholarly consensus is that Germanic peoples such as the Germans and the Anglo-Saxons named the holiday after the name of the month they used at the time.  Obviously, the Germans did not influence the Christians in Ethiopia and India.  There is no scholarly backing to the claim that Easter has pagan roots.  There is scholarly backing to the claim that Easter has Jewish roots.  Some do consider Easter to have pagan roots.  Some have the opinion that Christianity is a made up religion based on earlier pagan beliefs.  Personal viewpoints are not a basis for an encyclopedia, however. 24.190.51.21 (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually ... there's a fair bit of scholarly backing, some of which is or has been in the article already. Your opinion that there isn't scholarly backing isn't sufficient to ignore the topic. Rwenonah (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I came to this page to find links to academic controversies over the word and concept and content and ancient origins and antecedents and analogues of the Easter celebration. I'm annoyed they weren't here (at least at the time I visited the page). It is an extreme disservice to the reader to omit links to an important controversy merely because of what may be dogmatic religious beliefs on the part of some of the editors. (Essentialism by the way the way tends to be a marker of conservative Christian beliefs.) I view that simple censorship: it is a violation of NPOV to eliminate links to an actual academic controversy. Burressd (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There isn't much of an academic controversy over this subject; there is a scholarly consensus. If you want to read about real controversy that actually exists in the academic world, go look at Jesus Christ in comparative mythology.  Discounting fringe theories is what academics requires.  It isn't religious dogma that requires us to discount them.  If you disagree, write a book that doesn't contradict already established evidence and convince others.  This hasn't happened yet, hence the version of the article that you see here. 24.190.51.21 (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. There was a relevant section containing scholarly material detailing the fairly extensive controversy that certainly does exist, but it was deleted. Don't pretend that it or the dispute never existed; both do. Rwenonah (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I can see that those people who think that there is some sort of Christian conspiracy on this page would prefer citations to the Deutsches Wörterbuch, the Oxford Classical Dictionary, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, and the Oxford Companion to World Mythology. They might not like the scholarly consensus that Ishtar and the Christian festival of Easter bear no relation, but I suppose they will just have to accept mainstream science, linguistics, comparative mythology and archaeology until next Easter when they raise another ruckus and try to push their agenda. 24.190.51.21 (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The denial of cultural bias in Wikipedia articles is infuriating, but it is inevitable. To me, the general tone of this article presumes consensus regarding facts of "the historical Jesus" that are largely matters of faith. Any expectation of rationality in such an article is fantasy. You have to stick with the encyclopaedia that you are comfortable with (EB11 - I understand it's systematic biases and can filter them with relative ease), and just accept that the silliness that is Wikipedia is "immortal under the edge of the knife". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources exist; just look at past talk page archives for a sampling. It may or may not deserve to be in the article, but denying the existence of the controversy with an assortment of titles proves zilch. Rwenonah (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A recent post by the editor of the Jesuit magazine, America, provides a nice overview of the controversy over Ishtar, Easter and "The origin of the name Easter" His main contribution, besides an overview of the literature, is an introduction of the religious concept of "inculturation of the Gospel needed to make strong connections among the newly converted to beloved traditions and ways of life" to provide a motive for British Christians adopting a name related to an Anglo-Saxon feast and goddess. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This Jesuit magazine article is a total mess. Let's stick to the scholarship here, please. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed too the lack of reference to Easter as first being a Pagan day of celebration of the spring equinox and the worship of the Pagan goddess of fertility. Too much attention given to the cover artists here, not the original artists! The oracle 2015 (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2015
The official Greek name of Easter is NOT Pascha, but Lambre (Lampre) [Greek Λαμπρη] from Greek Lambros/ Λαμπρος meaning 'to shine' [the English word 'lamp' i.e. light bulb comes from the same root]. This is reflected in the English version of the word 'Easter' which originates from the proto-indo European 'Austro' also meaning 'to shine'. Additionally, the ancient Greek word 'Astro' means 'Star' and also denotes an object shining brightly. So, the name of Easter in Greek is LAMBRE. You have to research this and make the correction. Pascha is derived from Jewish customs which is NOT the correct word for Easter. Lambre is, or 'the Shining', which in the past referred to the Goddess of the Dawn Eostre and Ostara (austros), but obviously now refers to the new 'light', or shining of Jesus Christ. Another notable connection here should be written down probably, that the ancient Greek God Zeus also was called 'the Shining Father', from the old Sanskrit root 'Diau' meaning 'to shine'. Therefore, it has been common over the ages to denote Gods as shining, or owners of light, or bringing the light. This is not exception with Jesus Christ. Thank you. I am awaiting for an answer and I will check again this post. Please do consult/ contact any Greek authorized person to furnish you with the correct information about Easter, it is called Lambre officially in Greek and not the perhaps common Pascha as usually may be termed. Sincerely. 46.251.102.152 (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A brief check in a classical Greek dictionary (Liddell and Scott) and in Google Translate (for modern Greek) does not support the connection of Λαμπρη with Easter, while Google Translate does translate Easter as Πάσχα (with several other alternates all beginning with Πάσχα…). If you wish to have this change considered, please provide citations to reliable sources to support your claim. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Amortias (T)(C) 16:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Sir for your prompt answer. I think proof is the fact that the direct translation of Easter [or Eoster/ Ostara/ Austro/ aus] which means 'dawn', or 'to shine' to the Greek language is 'Lambre/ Lambros' from the Greek verb 'Lambo' [Λαμπω] meaning 'to shine'. Actually apparently is the opposite i.e. the English word Easter may be a direct translation/ association with the Greek word 'Lambre' since the Greek Christian Church is more-or-less perhaps one of the oldest Christian Churches, thus those who humbly actually kept the tradition of Jesus Christ and the Apostles, so the Greek word probably took precedence to the English equivalent word.

If you would like additional proof, then I will have to find an authorized either priest, or I contact the Greek archdiocese, or a Greek university professor who is specializing in Theology to furnish me with the relevant information. I may require some time until i prepare such a proof, so perhaps we leave this topic open, until I conclude my search. Thank you for taking your time in reviewing this topic. Sincerely, 46.251.102.152 (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Lambre/ Lambros' is irrelevant because the name Easter itself is not original. Pascha is the name the entire undivided church used from the beginning, and which most of the world still uses and recognizes after about 2000 years. It is Easter that is a local deviation, spread mostly by means of the English language as it proliferated through the British Empire in relatively modern times. The Orthros service (Matins) of the Orthodox Church contains the words "It is the day of Resurrection, let us be radiant, O ye peoples; Pascha, the Lord's Pascha; ...". By this name the Church has celebrated the day since well before there is solid proof. But this service text has been used in Orthodoxy unchanged since the early centuries of Christianity (7th c latest), for which there is proof, and the name also pervades usage in modern churches in the west as it has since these same very early times. It's even in Scotland. It is primarily the English language that represents the naming aberration. This is what you find from the Greek Orthodox Church, and it is known not only to scholars and specialists, but very widely. Evensteven (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

wikilink to Jesus
This is the article about the main feast in Christianity, the wikilink I suggest is the one to Jesus' place in Christianity (which is the reason for the feast). It's really pretty simple. Evensteven (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Jesus is an historical figure according to the majority of relevant historians, and this festival is celebrating that figure specifically. "Jesus in Christianity" refers to how Jesus is viewed within Christianity, not to a person, and that's not what is being referred to in the article.Crumpled Fire (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's rich. He's historical, so the festival celebrates him, but the festival is the most important one in Christendom, and Christianity is why anyone remembers him. And his personhood is historical, but Christianity knows nothing about this person? On the contrary, this festival exists because of this person. The festival is a Eucharistic celebration, and the Eucharist was instituted by him. His memory was preserved how? By modern historians? Absolute nonsense!! Your comments are patent nonsense. Evensteven (talk) 05:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:CONSENSUS & WP:NPA. JoeSperrazza (talk) 07:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus here. I did not make the change initially. There has been no resolution through discussion. I'm not claiming consensus for my argument either, but it is a false claim that there is consensus for yours. That has yet to be established. And don't play the "personal attacks" card here. There have been no personal attacks, unless you have taken the attacks upon your arguments personally. Understand: it is your position that I take to be ridiculous and nonsensical. In what way is that an attack against you? I'm sorry, but I take that comment to be eyewash, to distract from the discussion about content. And that in particular is where you have offered no useful comment, merely assertion. Oh yes, I have also asserted, but the things I have asserted are not my own opinions, but are verifiable: historical, theological, and completely backed up throughout the history of Christianity.
 * I think you are making claims about things you have no understanding of. You and CrumpledFire both have been around here a long time, and I'm sure you understand WP:COMPETENCE. Well, competence varies across subject areas. Surely you must possess skills enough to do competent editing, or you would not still be here. So surely you also have competency in any number of other subjects. And that also means you must have some ability to recognize where the limits are of your own knowledge. If I ridicule your statements, it is because I expect these competencies from you, as is only reasonable, and yet I do not see them.
 * So, what do you know about? Are you claiming history, perhaps? You and I both know that pure historians do not necessarily have any expertise in Christianity, and like you, some wouldn't recognize even the most fundamental religious principles. What I think we're seeing here is anti-Christian bias, the implicit assumption that anything religious is mere myth, assumption, or [insert dismissive tone] "faith". But that is a false assumption. It is the Church's faith that Christ rose from the dead. It is not a matter of faith that that is what Christians celebrate on Easter (and, in fact, every Sunday - there's another fact). It is through faith that the Church preserved in testimony and in writing a great many things about Jesus. It is not a matter of faith that the Church did so, for we still have many writings, Biblical and non-Biblical. I don't think there is any historian who would deny that Easter is the Christian expression of faith in Jesus, in celebration of his resurrection, and if there are some, they are WP:FRINGE. It is perfectly verifiable that the Christian faith views the Eucharist as having been instituted by Jesus at the Last Supper with his disciples just before his death. (See the New Testament.) And it is also perfectly verifiable that Easter is a Eucharistic celebration. Now those are all expressions of Christian faith, but it is verifiable and not a myth that that is how Easter came to be and that that is its content. The connection between Easter and Christianity is not a matter of faith. And yet you are asserting (without any foundation) that nevertheless, Jesus' place in the Christian faith is not the central point in its relation to Easter.
 * I will overturn your edit once again. And I expect to hear some real discussion here before the article is changed again, for your assertions to date have been without backing, mere personal opinion. Mine, however, should be so obvious to anyone with any knowledge of the Church, its history, or the Christian religion, that they will be aware of the libraries of sources available. This should be "the sky is blue" obvious. Evensteven (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Speaking of "real discussion": how does anything from this screed relate to the question where the wikilink should point to? No such user (talk) 06:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I agree with Crumpled Fire and JoeSperrazza that the link should be to the main Jesus article. The holiday commemorates: An event that one religion believes in (the Resurrection) that, ostensibly, occurred in the life of an historical person (Jesus). IMO, it's appropriate, then, to have the word "Resurrection" link to an article about that Christian belief--but to have the name "Jesus" link to the general article about Jesus. (Similarly, the article Laylat al-Qadr describes a holiday that commemorates something Muslims believe happened to Muhammad--and that article's summary links to the main Muhammad article, not to Muhammad in Islam.) As Crumpled Fire says, Jesus in Christianity is not an article about Jesus per se--it's an article about Christian beliefs about Jesus. So it's not the appropriate target for this link. I'll go ahead and restore it.
 * Evensteven, it seems like you're taking this a bit personally, which I'm sure isn't how it's meant. But right now, I see three editors who disagree with you. Perhaps you could see if you can find someone else who supports you before you restore your edits? — Narsil (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The Jesus in Christianity article refers not to a person, but to how a person is viewed within a religion. Jesus is obviously referred to in this article as an individual, not a collection of views, so the Jesus link is more appropriate. Rwenonah (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The Jesus in Christianity article refers not to a person? Well, that is the essence of your argument, and of those preceding you. I will say again that that is personal opinion, a bias. Both articles are about a person. One is more biographical, the other more religious. But it is all about a person. To argue as all of you are doing is simply to make a point about how religion is false and therefore that anything that it has to say has no connection to reality. I can recognize as well as the next person that that's a common perception, and a very convenient one for those who wish to adopt it. But it remains only a put-down, dismissiveness. I don't expect anyone to make any life-changing decisions here. I do expect WP to speak in an unbiased voice, per its policies. And I can also see that, to date, bias prevails. Therein lies the cause of my feistiness above, though you may have thought I was on a soapbox. I wasn't; I'm not. If you are unwilling to hear me, so be it; you are free to do so. If you think that helps WP, I remain unconvinced, having heard only opinion, but I have felt very strongly that the point needed to be made. WP is what we (together) make it. I've taken it as my responsibility to contribute my say in that. But WP is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND, not even about policy, because it can't work if it is (so what would be the point?). Evensteven (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * When you massively escalate a civil discussion with rants about bias, you're the one showing WP:Battleground behaviours. Try to look past your obvious lack of neutrality on religious matters and look at the opening lines of the articles ("Christians consider Jesus" vs. "Jesus is"). We want the article about the person, not the collection of views. It's logic, not bias. Rwenonah (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, in my view, you are the first to be uncivil here. Narsil was particularly gentle, even though he misunderstood. What you all can't seem to grasp is that Christians view Jesus as a real person, even though you are saying they don't. Not only that, but that their view of him as a real person is not itself real, which is verifiably untrue. And not only that, but that this real person is just as intimately connected with Easter theologically as is all the Christological doctrine about which Church history fills volumes. And not only that, but that Easter fundamentally is a Christian celebration, the Christian celebration above all others, and celebrating the event in Christian history that is so central that St Paul said "if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile". Nothing of relevance to Easter is known of Jesus outside the context of Christianity. And yet you are somehow insisting that the article directly concerned with that very thing is not real, and that this other one is. I do not seek your conversion. I seek correction of bias. You take offense at that and say I am ranting. I would ask: apart from Christianity, what is Easter to you? There are people who wish to make it about bunnies, or eggs, without any context in which to understand symbols at all. Are you one of them? If not, then what is the context you understand about Easter? And why is it that you lack the historical insight to see where Easter came from in the first place? As I said above, this should all be "the sky is blue" obvious. Why isn't it? Explain why this is not anti-Christian bias. Evensteven (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't want to discuss the meaning of Easter with you, since you've hand plenty of opportunity to expend paragraphs of unnecessary spleen already. There's undoubtedly more to it than your obviously Christian-centric POV will acknowledge. It's not bias (well, you're obviously biased, so I guess that's kind of untrue as a blanket statement) because this question is very simple; should a link be to an article about a person or the article about how that person is conceived by a very specific group? Let's look at the sentence in question: "Easter is a festival or holiday celebrating the resurrection of Jesus Christ". The use of Jesus here obviously refers to a person, not a collection of views about a person - so we link to an article about that person, not the article about a collection of views. Honestly, calm down and stop making random accusations; it's rude and disruptive. Rwenonah (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for calming down as well. The question is indeed about what and who is obviously biased. Calling the article "Jesus in Christianity" an article about a "collection of views" is your point of view, reflecting your bias. There's nothing random in what I'm saying. And it's not an accusation to say you have a bias. It seems you are taking that rather personally. Bias is common, and about some things, every person is going to have biases. This bias is a failure to recognize the personhood of Jesus within Christianity. Hence, the same effect for the article. I, however, recognize the "Jesus" article as also about Jesus the person. I do not have that bias. Yes, I do have a Christian-centric POV, but POV and bias are not the same thing. My POV permits me to recognize and respect our differences of belief. You are confusing Jesus' personhood with differing human perspectives of him. Your perspective is a collection of views and an interpretation of his place in history just as much as mine is. Your bias recognizes only your perspective as valid, and calls that lack of bias, perhaps because you think of that as an accusation. You also do not respect the fact that billions of persons over 2000 years share my perspective, my POV. That is not bias, but disrespect. Perhaps you have taken up an idea widespread in Protestantism that religion is all a matter of individual belief, but you should know that that idea is not common to most of Christianity. Were you aware of this? My POV about the article is mine, of course, but my POV about the connection of Easter to Jesus is not merely mine. It is verifiable and clear. You do not realize what you are saying when you are so dismissive. Evensteven (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't about some anti-Christian bias; it's about which article is more appropriate. It's that simple. I honestly don't care what you believe - my POV isn't relevant here, nor should yours be, because it's a dispute about which article is actually, factually about a person, which the Jesus in Christianity article evidently isn't. Your relentless attempts to make this discussion some kind of crisis of anti-Christian bias are getting annoying; that's not what this discussion is, no matter how much you want it to be. Since you obviously have a serious case of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT and consensus is against you, I see no reason to keep commenting. Rwenonah (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's simple. The "Jesus in Christianity" article is more appropriate. But since I long ago heard (and said) that you disagree, and the others also, and stopped reverting edits and accepted effective consensus, I hardly think I am the one who has not heard anything, and wonder why you keep coming back, except for wanting to make your soapbox argument in criticism of my unreasonableness. I'm sorry if this is a crisis for you, but I don't see any need or reason to retract what I've said. Repeating your refrain does not give it extra weight, however much you want it to. It seems to me that you won't be satisfied until you have my acquiescence to your point of view, which is going to leave you quite unfulfilled, I'm afraid. You have been quite clear that you don't care what I say, which you apparently think is a foundation for discussion, and yet you demand from me what you are so unwilling to give yourself. I have given my understanding, and have been hoping you had some to give also. I have heard nothing to make me change my mind, and have already told you I don't expect you to change yours. But since no understanding has been forthcoming from you, and since you expect me to change, I see every reason to drop what has become personal. Your lack of insight is overwhelming. May you continue to see no reason, if it will keep you from commenting. Evensteven (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't want to get into the weeds on this, but in the interest of clarity--Evensteven said "Narsil was particularly gentle, even though he misunderstood. What you all can't seem to grasp is that Christians view Jesus as a real person, even though you are saying they don't."
 * I don't know that it's relevant, but (a) I am a Christian, middling faithful but of a fairly traditional sort; (b) I believe Jesus was and is a real person; (c) I think it's appropriate that Wikipedia has one page about the historical person (Jesus), one page about Christian beliefs about that person (Jesus in Christianity), one about debates about whether he existed (Historicity of Jesus), etc. If he were less important, we could fit that all on one page--there's one page about King David, which covers all of those sorts of topics--but in the case of Jesus, that would make the page far too big, so it's broken up into several articles. And given that, I think the appropriate link in the opening sentence of this page is to the main article about Jesus-the-person, not the secondary article about how he is (accurately!) viewed in Christianity. — Narsil (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * At last! Many thanks for returning, Narsil. Perhaps there is now a way to characterize the differences here, at the least. I have been frustrated that I couldn't find a way to make what I am trying to say understandable, but you've presented a clearer picture of your position that is worth a response. In your case, at any rate, our basic mismatch is in how two of the articles are characterized. First, Jesus in Christianity. One of the most central of Christological doctrines is that Jesus the Son of God (in his divinity) became a man, taking our human nature into himself, and thus creating a path by which we could be saved. That man is understood by Christians to be historical, not mythical, and is identified as Jesus of Nazareth, who ministered to and taught the Jews (and some others) during a three-year ministry until about 30 AD, some 40 days after he was crucified (the day of his ascension). The Nicene Creed is testimony to this belief, and much Christian writing verifies my characterization of it here. So, the point needs to be made that an article about Christian beliefs about that person is an article about Christ as a human being, of physical presence in history, and is every bit as much about the historical person as the other article. The article "Jesus" is also about Jesus of Nazareth, but without reference to Christianity, and its material is limited to what can be derived from documentary and outside evidence, since its purpose seems to be to separate him from religion. Well, there's nothing wrong with describing that evidence, or using it in a scholarly way for what it's worth, and making that the topic of a WP article. And quite clearly there is plenty of work that has been done in that direction, and plenty of notability of that work, etc, everything requisite. The thing is, that article presents Jesus from a viewpoint that differs from that of Christianity, within which there can be no such separation. That separate viewpoint seems to be desired by those who do not accept Christianity, and who view the Christian doctrines with disbelief. Again, fine. WP knows a good and reasonable way to deal with viewpoints, and having an entire article that describes a viewpoint is also reasonable when there is so much material, as in this case.
 * So, the beginning of my objections here is that the article characterizations as "Jesus" is "about the historical person" and "Jesus in Christianity" is about "Christian beliefs" is quite incorrect. They are both about the historical person, but from two differing viewpoints. Those viewpoints do not clash in every particular, but they are greatly distinct, and derive from different groups of sources. Both viewpoints are notable. But it is a third kind of viewpoint to say that "Jesus" is about the historical person whereas Christian beliefs are not, and a bias against Christianity to claim that only one view is historical or that only one has verified historical bases. It is this third kind of viewpoint that is dismissive of Christian belief, and forms a part of the opinions of those who reject Christianity. And when that rejection becomes an attack (as opposed to simple non-acceptance), then its formation as a bias is most firm. I am firmly of the opinion that such biases have no place on WP, but that the two basic viewpoints of the two articles are the appropriate means by which WP can represent the divergences of opinion. And finally, I am firmly of the opinion that, since Easter is a Christian celebration, verifiably tied inextricably to Jesus' deeds within history, that "Jesus in Christianity" is the appropriate article for the Easter article to link to. I sure hope that this has at least clarified where I'm coming from. Evensteven (talk) 05:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope this has also made clear how my argument is not Christians vs. non-Christians either, but simply drawing the distinction of views, and correcting misinformation about the Christian view (not my view, the Christian one). The bias has not been in the article, it has only been in some of the arguments on the talk page. Evensteven (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel the need to comment on this one, since I've been more or less accused of bias. The two articles are qualitatively different in a way you seem unable (or unwilling) to understand. The Jesus article is written in a biographical format, in other words, as an article about a person. The Jesus in Christianity article is written as an article on a group's views about a person. I'm not saying those views are invalid, or that the other article is in any way superior - we just need to consider, in the context of the link, which is more logical. The sentence ("a festival celebrating the resurrection of Jesus Christ form the dead") clearly refers to the person Jesus, not to a group's ideas about Jesus - after all, a group of ideas cannot be resurrected.
 * But let's assume both articles were biographical. The one not exclusively focused on Christian ideas is still more appropriate, because Easter is no longer an exclusively Christian holiday (if, indeed, it ever was). In modern Western culture, Jesus plays little role in Easter celebrations, which are primarily secular, celebrated widely by non-Christians, and focused on the Easter bunny and painting eggs. Not only that, but many Easter customs, including the holiday's English name, have obviously pre-Christian origins. So in large part Easter is tied to other religious traditions, as well as entirely non-religious ones, making the article inappropriate. Hope this clears up all those accusations.Rwenonah (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Rwenonah, I very much appreciate your return here also in this manner, for this comment is respectful and shows no bias. For much of bias is the manner in which POV is expressed, but also in a person's inability to countenance a differing POV. We each have our POVs still, and that is surely to be expected. But you have put away bias, and that is to be commended. It's what makes WP:Civility work.

Let's dispose of peripheral matters first. The English name "Easter" is a naming anomaly peculiar to our language, and its connections to paganism do not remotely affect the holiday. There's no harm in a secular or nonreligious holiday that uses bunnies or egg painting, and for all I care, it can be called Easter too. And I'm not in denial about present-day western culture and its disinterest in religion generally. But that's current demographics only.

The origin of Pascha (the foundational name) derives from Hebrew and is Christian. The holiday has always been a Christian one, and still is just as much as it used to be. Secular society has co-opted the name Easter (that's ok) and some celebrations (like egg hunts) and celebrates a secular holiday. That one is not the same as the religious holiday, which remains religious. And some people in the west celebrate both, so there's quite a bit of cross-celebration. But that doesn't negate the religion in the religious festival. What you do see is that there are also many people who do not take their religion very much to heart, and so everything they do treats religious matters lightly. And I grant how widespread that is. It still does not separate the Christian holiday from its religious base, neither its religious origins nor its current religious celebration. Many secular persons consciously shut out religion and its celebrations from their lives, preferring not to see them, but that does not mean they aren't there, nor does it mean that the religious celebrations are considered to be highly important to those who observe them, well, religiously. So the argument that Easter has virtually changed somehow isn't true. What has changed is peoples' behavior - but not all people. I think there are some biased anti-Christian advocates who wish to maintain the idea that religious Easter has disappeared, but that is a bias designed to dismiss those who don't share their POV. Don't be put off by my use of "bias". But understand that Orthodox Christianity has undergone repeated persecutions across most of its 2000-year history, as well as other less brutual contentiousness. The most serious it has ever known occurred in Soviet Russia under the Communists. It knows and recognizes all the gradations of disrespect from experience. That is, perhaps, one reason why eastern Christianity generally is so much more alert in its religious practice than western.

So now we're ready to head back towards my previous comment: the Christian faith (that's faith singular, as in the whole Church together) is 2000 years old, and is very much alive and present today. One foundation of that faith is in Jesus, the Christ, a single person who is both God the Son (in his divinity) and the Son of Man (in his humanity), and who in his humanity lived on earth from around 3-4 BC to around AD 30. The article "Jesus in Christianity" is about that person. There is no article about "Christian ideas" because the only idea ever maintained throughout Christianity is that Jesus is a person, and a most exceptional person. Do I have an idea you are a person? Yes. But so what? Do I say you are a person. Yes. And that's what matters, because otherwise I'd just be talking to my own idea. You need to understand that Christianity in its entirety is not a "collection of ideas". That would merely be a philosophy. It is also not a "collection of beliefs". That would be a collage. It is a faith, a religious faith, a single thing, but a thing shared among people, and not just people still living, but people long dead. I couldn't give a hoot about anybody's idea about even a historical person, or a resurrection, or any other miracle, and consider that my religion, and neither have other Christians. To bring it up again, St Paul said "if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile", and Christians have shared that faith. And as you have said, an idea cannot be resurrected (well, maybe, but that's actually a different subject). The manner in which you are viewing these two WP articles makes no sense in term of Christianity. If what you say is really how Wikipedians want to characterize them, then the result is that there is no actual article about "Jesus in Christianity" at all. It would need to be retitled (if you want accuracy) to "Christian ideas about Jesus" (or some such).

All of which gets us back to how Easter (Pascha, really) is tied to Jesus, for the tie is through the religious festival in Christianity, and an article called "Jesus in Christianity" must be talking about the person who is Jesus. Biography is a wonderfully wide type of literature, by the way, and our modern approaches are not the only valid ones. But biography itself is also not the only way to talk about a person. Evensteven (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC) Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree. Rwenonah (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, I was afraid we would. But thanks for coming back to talk, anyway. Evensteven (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2016
I would like to add the following information ( source, p.1 Daily Telegraph Saturday 16 Jan. 2016 - and probably other UK newspapers) to the Dates of Easter section Deecej (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC) On Friday 15th January 2015 The Archbishop of Canterbury, The Most Reverend Justin Welby announced that Anglican leaders would join discussions with other church leaders about a move to fix the date of Easter. Archbishop Welby said that primates had agreed to join talks initiated by the head of the Coptic orthodox Church, Pope Twadros II on fixing a date for Easter and that following a meeting of bishops and archbishops, Anglican leaders had voted to join discussions with the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches to set an annual date. He said that Easter should most likely be fixed for the second or third Sunday of April, but that he did not expect any change to happen "for between five or ten years time."
 * Good point, although it is more fully discussed already at Reform of the date of Easter. A brief mention here seems appropriate. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Rejected, please make it more clear what you want changed. Krett12 (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Ilya Ryepin's picture
What on earth is meant by "cynically depicting"? Could anyone explain, or remove this clause?

--188.95.247.163 (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Deleted word "cynically".--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Intro : Full Moon
Introduction, paragraph 3, near end : "full moon" should be "Ecclesiastical Full Moon", for which there is a page to link to. The behaviour of the actual Astronomical Moon is no longer relevant to finding the Date of Easter Sunday. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you! YBG (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 one external links on Easter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081103111329/http://www.smart.net:80/~mmontes/ec-cal.html to http://www.smart.net/~mmontes/ec-cal.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071213064102/http://www.oikoumene.org/index.php?id=2677 to http://www.oikoumene.org/index.php?id=2677
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110426025504/http://www.thercg.org/books/ttooe.html to http://www.thercg.org/books/ttooe.html#c
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120206202629/http://www.fum.org/QL/issues/1112/EarlyQuakerTop10.htm to http://www.fum.org/QL/issues/1112/EarlyQuakerTop10.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080304151920/http://www.greekorthodox.org.au:80/general/livinganorthodoxlife/liturgicalmeaningofholyweek/saturdayoflazarus to http://www.greekorthodox.org.au/general/livinganorthodoxlife/liturgicalmeaningofholyweek/saturdayoflazarus
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20031202162538/http://www.ely.anglican.org:80/cgi-bin/easter to http://www.ely.anglican.org/cgi-bin/easter

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2016
In the Easter page under theological significance it says that Christians believe Easter allows for a 'spiritual resurrection' for Christians that believe in Jesus. There are quite a number of Christians who believe that when Jesus returns we will experience a Physical resurrection, and that this is in fact the meaning of Easter. That this is a historical belief is shown by reading the apostles creed where it refers to 'and we look forward to the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting'. My request is simply that the word 'spiritual' be deleted from 'spiritual resurrection'. Thank you.

24.253.38.57 (talk) 04:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2016
'''The Easter entry needs to be fixed so that it does not reference Passover. Easter and Passover have nothing in common and are totally different. It's an insult to reference Passover as being similar to Easter'

Gschofer (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Gschofer: That's quite an antichrist agenda you have there. Y'shua bar Yosef was lashed 39x and crucified on the first day of Passover Friday April 7, 30 AD / 7.4.783 AUC / 14 Nisan 3790 HC. The Jewish Messiah was born on Saturday (Sabbath) April 17, 6 BC / 17.4.748 AUC / 29 Nisan 3755 HC. God-incarnate was both born and crucified under the sign of Aries the Ram/Lamb and is known as the (Passover) "Lamb of GOD". 2601:589:4705:C7C0:99D1:6EC8:266C:262D (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2016
The 17th century Russian icon of the Resurrection is in fact Bulgarian, as can be seen in the details here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:17th-century_unknown_painters_-_The_Resurrection_of_Christ_-_WGA23478.jpg or here http://www.wga.hu/html_m/m/master/zunk_y/13icon.html

Peter Vlahov (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ by modifying the caption. YBG (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2016
there's a markup mistake: after passover, there should be two "'", but there is only one. Quote:

derives from the Hebrew pesach, ''passover'.|date= 20 January 1998}}

141.76.96.71 (talk) 06:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 08:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Original Easter Sunday was on April 9, 30 AD / 9.4.783 AUC / 16 Nisan 3790 HC
EDIT REQUEST - The original Easter Sunday was on April 9, 30 AD / 9.4.783 AUC / 16 Nisan 3790 HC. 2601:589:4705:C7C0:99D1:6EC8:266C:262D (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Methinks this request is good reason to keep this this article semi-protected for a very long time! Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. We've had this appearing on Maundy Thursday and Last Supper as well—reverted as unsourced, of course. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Julian Easter date for 2025 is incorrect
In 2025, Gregorian Easter and Julian Easter are on the same date, April 20. http://www.orthodoxchristian.info/pages/Pascha_dates.htm The WCC referenced page incorrectly says that the Julian date for Easter is May 20. This is wrong, both the Julian and the Gregorian Easter must fall on a Sunday. May 20, 2025 is a Tuesday.

This page has the correct date for 2025 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_for_Easter Wynnac (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Pagan origins of Easter
I find it quite strange that the article on "Easter" does not discuss the pagan origins of the tradition. There seems to be a bias here toward one particular religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.205.236.66 (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This has been covered extensively in talk discussions, though those get archived frequently enough that you need to go digging. See discussions at Missing: The Syncretic and the Secular, Easter's Pagan Roots, Pagan aspects, Missing history, Pagan Association, and Pagan origins for the most recent examples.  If you have something to add not covered there, please make the case here.  Ben (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

section has no references
The Religious observance section of the article has no references. This will prevent the article from being listed on the Main Page on Sunday. Many of the Holy Week articles have been omitted due to general lack of quality, and it would be a shame if this one were too. Thanks. — howcheng  {chat} 06:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Do not use matzah when describing the Last Supper
By using the word matzah for the Last Supper, the article is biased. Orthodox Christians do not believe the bread at the Last Supper was unleavened bread. We believe the Last Supper was a preparatory meal for Passover not a Passover meal itself. To support this claim, the original Greek text in the Bilble (Luke, John, and Mark were originally written in Greek) uses the word ἄρτον which describes leavened bread. I would suggest just using the generic word bread instead of matzah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.107.188.8 (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC) There is no question Exodus refers to unleavened bread. That is not the discussion here. I have never seen any translation of the Bible that uses the word matzah. They all use bread when describing the Last Supper. When receiving the Holy Eucharist, Orthodox Christians use leavened bread not unleavened bread. As I said before; Mark, Luke, and John were originally written in Greek. The use the word arton which refers to leavened bread. I am not here to argue who is right regarding leavened versus unleavened bread. I am suggesting to use the work bread to make in acceptable to all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolverineguy55 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2017
The explanation "Jewish festival known in English as Passover, commemorating the Jewish Exodus from slavery in Egypt" is ambiguous and misleading. It seems to be a pandemic misunderstanding that "Passover" refers to the Israelites crossing the Red Sea and the Sinai desert fleeing slavery under the Egyptians. While this is certainly true of the Exodus, Passover specifically refers to the 10th plague visited on the Egyptians prior to flight where all the first born of Egypt were slain by the Angel of the Lord, except those with the Blood of the Lamb painted above their doorways. For these the angel of death "passed over" (when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you... Ex.12:13). Also, I suggest omitting the term "Jewish" before "Exodus", as not only Jews (children of the tribe of Judah) but all twelve tribes of Israel participated in the Exodus. Thus, I recommend an edit stating:

"Jewish festival known in English as Passover, commemorating the 10th of the Plagues of Egypt where the first born of Egypt were slain by the angel of death but the Israelites were "passed over" prior to the Exodus from slavery in Egypt..."Jesrbryant (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)jesrbryant Jesrbryant (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: the English term "Passover" derives from the passing-over of the 10th plague, but it's incorrect to say that the entire Pesach festival is based around that one specific detail, rather than the Exodus as a whole. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Contextual comment should be added
In the first para, there should be a short phrase stating something like, "according to Christian belief", as it relates to that and only that.1.144.107.104 (talk) 05:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * . The context is so obvious that it doesn't need to be said. I doubt that anyone would be confused by the first paragraph. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2018
In Canada, I don't think Easter Monday is a holiday. 2001:569:732D:2D00:555:503C:701D:C3A4 (talk) 09:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 17:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)