:::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.