Talk:Reform of the date of Easter

message: "It has been proposed that the first problem could be resolved by making Easter occur (...) on a Sunday within a fixed range of dates."
: Easter does occur on a Sunday within a fixed range of dates. · Naive cynic · 06:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pedant! Vilcxjo 00:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've fixed it to say "within a fixed range of 7 days". Karl 9 November 2005
I've found some references (eg this Dutch page) to the League of Nations deciding on the second option (Sunday after the second Sunday) as a fixed date for Easter in 1926. There's certainly a bill on the statute books in the United Kingdom, the 1928 Easter Act, which provides for fixing the date, but it is not in force (see this debate.) I'll try and figure out how to weave this into the existing text. blech 12:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I know, it's not particularly relevant to the article, but why aren't there any more public statements about how nonsensical this is? Easter should be on a Sunday and have some connection to the way the Passover is fixed, full moon and all. The Council of Nicea did this. Then 1200 years later the West says: "but the Calendar then was imperfect; there, we fixed it". And the East, in the meantime split off, says "how dare you change the tradition of millenia". So far so good; especially because contrary to rumour this has not been an aching wound of the Church. Ukrainian Catholics are quite Catholic, and have Julian Easter. I'm for the Western solution, as might be expected from a Westerner; but I grant the East did aim for the tradition which we also did, albeit with a due correction. I expect an honest Easterner to say say that while he opposes any change, he recognizes though that our change was obviously intended as a correction (and as such makes astronomical sense). But the solution they suggest to something that is at worst a minor problem is throwing tradition altogether over board: and both he and I will agree that this is worse than either and worse also than the split. For it would throw tradition over board if one had Easter on the such-and-sucheth Sunday of April or the like, forgetting entirely about the moon, making it impossible that Easter is at somewhat different stages of (in the northern hemisphere) spring (which is also a tradition), and that its moving around gives an impression that it is not quite of this world. --138.245.1.1 (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Section 

message: I can't find my sources but anyway.
Easter is celebrated seven sundays from Epiphany.  [This makes Easter being celebrated between 22 Feb & 28 Feb.]
:That sounds extremely improbable. Much more likely is that there may have been a suggestion of a fixed seven-Sunday Epiphany season before the start of Lent. That would place Easter in the range 9–15 April, or 8–14 April in a leap year, tying in closely with the existing proposals cited in the article. Vilĉjo 00:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gregorian Easter has a range of 35 Gregorian Calendar dates year-mm-dd, 36 Ordinal Dates year-ddd, and 6 Week-numbering dates year-Www-7 (see ISO 8601 for notation).  The above proposals would in general change those numbers to 7, 8, & 2.  Because in many countries there are business holidays around Easter-time, and business statistics use ISO week numbering, it would seem convenient to have Easter Sunday on a fixed week-numbering date yyyy-W15-7.  That gives a range in common years of 7 dates year-mm-dd and 7 dates year-ddd; in leap years the dates shift one day forwards (not hard to remember) so the overall ranges are 8, 1, & 1.  http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/estrdate.htm#Revs refers. In common years, Easter would be the Sunday after the second Wednesday in April; after the second Thursday in Leap Years; those are close to the other proposals. Note that any change to Easter Dates would need both religious and secular support.82.163.24.100 (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't the Sunday after the second Wed. the same as the Sunday after the second Thur?? Nitpyck (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in months beginning with Thursday.--138.245.1.1 (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Other methods

message: ... to Friday April 7, 30
According to my calculations, the propper date is Friday, April 5, 30 AD, which is JD 1732111.
Surprised, how close it is here attributed by many scholars...
But April 7 in year 30 should have been Sunday...?
About fixing the Easter to gregorian calendar? But it is now fixed to an astronomical calendar and the week much better... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.160.90.38 (talk • contribs) 
:The Unix program cal says April 7, 30 was a Friday.  Some things to consider in your calculations:
:*Wednesday, September 2, 1752 was followed by Thursday, September 13, 1752, due to the Gregorian Reformation.
:*The years 100, 200, 300, 500, 600, 700, 900, 1000, 1100, 1300, 1400, 1500, and 1700 were all leap years, because at the time, the rule was just "every 4 years", not the current "every 4 years, except not every 100 years, except every 400 years".
:Those two items introduce 23 days of change (10 for September 1752, 13 for non-400 century leap years), which (mod 7) gives the off-by-two error between April 5 and April 7.
:--Psiphiorg 12:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easter at year 30... 

message: The article states, "In both schemes, account has been taken of the fact that--in spite of the many difficulties in establishing the dates of the historical events involved--many scholars attribute a high degree of probability to Friday April 7, 30, as the date of the crucifixion of Jesus." However, these sourcesColin Humphreys and W. G. Waddington, "Dating the Crucifixion ," Nature 306 (December 22/29, 1983), pp. 743-46.Colin J. Humphreys and W. G. Waddington, The Date of the Crucifixion Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 37 (March 1985)Colin Humphreys, The Mystery of the Last Supper Cambridge University Press 2011 , p. 193 indicate Friday, April 3, 33 as the date of the crucifixion. Given that this date has many sources and the other does not have even one source, it seems like there are many more scholars who believe that Friday, April 3, 33 was the date of the crucifixion, rather than Friday April 7, 30, and thus the sentence is inaccurate.Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: However. the 33 A.D. date would mean that Jesus would probably be closer to 40 years old than 30 years at the time of his death...  If the 30 A.D. date is what those who made earlier Easter date-fixation proposals were going by, then we can report that without taking sides.  If the 33 A.D. date has not been used by those who have made Easter date-fixation proposals, then it's actually completely and utterly irrelevant to this article!  This article is not the place for an extended discussion about the merits and demerits of the two proposed years... AnonMoos (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: To the first: not if He was born in 1 BC after all (and Herod the Great died in 1 AD; 4 BC being the year Herod's sons date their reign from, to wit when they became co-rules with their father - see the WP article). And besides, more importantly: what if He was?--138.245.1.1 (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If you use Luke 3:23 (about 30 years old at the beginning of his ministry) plus three years of ministry, the conventional answer is about 33 years old... AnonMoos (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date 

message: Shouldn't a statement of how the date is determined (first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring Equinox) be added before explaining how this formulation should be reformed?  Nitpyck (talk) 22:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the ideal Nicene rule, but it's been implemented in a number of different ways at different times and among different groups, and this article isn't really the place to go into the complexities of the current systems... AnonMoos (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A statement of how the date Easter is determined  

message: In some parts of the World week numbers are in common use. There are at least three systems in use (ISO 8601 used in e.g. most of Europe, the system used in USA/Canada, and the Middle Eastern system - to the extent week numbers are used at all). I think (but may be wrong) that the countries and organization actually using week numbers mostly are found where it's the ISO numbers that are used. In this system, weeks begin on a Monday, and Week 1 always contains January 4th, and also the first Thursday of the year; hence the Sunday of week 1 falls on January 4-10. (Up to three days at the end and/or beginning of each year may be counted as belonging to week 1 of the folloing year, or week 52 or 53 of the previous year.)
Now, in this ISO system, Jan. 4, 11, 18, and 25, and Feb. 1, 8, 15, 22 and 29 (if it exists) always fall in certain week numbers (1 through 9), but the rest of the year things are complicated by the difference between common and leap years. With this system, it would make sense to fix Easter as Sunday in week 14, say. In common years, this would be the Sunday falling in April 5-11, but in leap years it would be the Sunday in April 4-10. (In the American system where weeks begin on Sundays, the Sunday in week 15 falls on April 3-9 in common years but 2-8 in leap years, which would agree with Sunday in ISO week 14 except in years beginning on a Friday or a Saturday. Similarly, Sunday in Middle Eastern week 15 would agree with Sunday in ISO week 14 except in years beginning on a Friday.)
A Wikipedia talk page is not the place to discuss Easter reform (but rather to discuss changes to the Wikipedia page on Easter reform) - but has such a rule, e.g based on the ISO week numbers, been proposed, and is there a valid source for this?--Nø (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: PS. As an example of the use of week numbers, schools where I live have Winter vacation in week 7 and Autumn vacation in week 42 - every year. So Easter vacation every year in week 14 (say) would make sense!--Nø (talk) 08:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Easter is a Christian holiday and so should be linked in a specific way (and there are a number of ways) to the death and resurrection of Jesus.  If we choose the date of Easter to suit secular needs then it would be far better to abaondon Easter as a public holiday altogether.  Secular authorities could then declare a (northern hemisphere) Spring holiday in the 14th week of the year.  Since Easter will always be celebrated on a Sunday, Christians don't need it as a declared public holiday.  Wayne Jayes (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: One can argue in many ways about this - but as the computation is currently, Christmas is an anniversay in the Gregorian calendar (in protestant and catholic churches) of the birth of Christ (though historically incorrect), while Easter is an anniversary in the Jewish calendar of the death of Jesus. This is rather inconsistent! It does, however, point to the fact that changing the Easter computation would break a traditional connection to judaism. -- Anyway, we should not get into involved arguments about this here; discussion should be limited to things pointing towards changes to the article. So: Are there any valid sources for such proposals?--Nø (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is "inconsistent" only if one confuses truth with simplicity. An piece of art is not "inconsistent" if contains artistic devices not easily explainable, but possibly beautiful for exactly this reason. As it is, the Church now celebrates the feast where God took human flesh (well, that would strictly speaking be the Annunciation, but it's true for both that and Christmas) according to the (modern form of the) calendar the Greeks and Romans used at the time. (Heathens are rather more particularly "the world" than Jews.) Also, she celebrates the feast where Christ rose from the dead into Life Everlasting (roughly) according to the Jewish calendar. (The Promised Land has been a symbol of Heaven for time immemorial.) The reaction to this should not be "this is inconsistent", but "how is this not fitting?". --138.245.1.1 (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixed on Sunday in fixed weerk number? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Reform of the date of Easter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=14084
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 IITalk to my owner:Online 17:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I’ve removed this table from the article, after I had added it not that long ago. It shows excerpts from all week calendars for the possible dates of Easter. The new table is more concise and hopefully equally informative (although it doesn’t cover the Julian to Gregorian conversion). I’d like to keep this one here for reference, though. — Christoph Päper 15:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I will think about transposing the wide table. — Christoph Päper 16:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

text: I believe the table is covered by WP:CALC, because they’re basically just list date conversions. — Christoph Päper 09:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative table of possible dates 

message: Do these tables and the one actually used constitute original research, 
by revealing relationships between the proposals themselves and also with the ISO week and Sunday of year
that have no reference? Do the tables and related text make imply conclusions that are not referenced?
Karl (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the table is covered by WP:CALC, because they’re basically just list date conversions. — Christoph Päper 09:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research? 

message: I think that's mainly an Eastern Orthodox thing; it doesn't seem to be part of the Gregorian calculations of Easter or the WCC proposed reform, so its statement as it appears in the introductory section of the article would seem to be somewhat misleading. AnonMoos (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Like most of the collected requirements it seems more like a Should than a Must. I’ve relaxed it a bit to “not before” and moved it to the end of the list. — Christoph Päper 22:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I reordered the list again; now the first three items are the "Nicean" requirements which everybody theoretically accepts, while the last two are only accepted by some churches.  Not sure why they're all being placed on a level in the list format... AnonMoos (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your further edits; it looks good now. AnonMoos (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Easter only after Jewish passover

message: The section on the calculation of Easter on the page about the First council of Nicaea here seems to contradict this one. On that page it states that no specific rules were adopted in that council, not even that Easter should take place on a Sunday. Here it says that the this council determined that Easter would be a Sunday. I don't have the expertise to resolve this contradiction but I thought it was worth pointing out.
82.150.96.2 (talk) 08:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There’s no real contradiction. The referenced article currently explains that while the council did not explicitly require Easter to be celebrated on a Sunday, it certainly did so implicitly. — Christoph Päper 15:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction between this article and 'First Council of Nicaea' 

message: According to the Palmarian Church: the Easter Day should be March 27, as it is said by the Palmarian Church: "It has been several years since the Holy Palmarian Church moved Holy Week to a fixed date on the calendar. We did this because we do not see much sense in changing Holy Week to a different date each year when it is known that the 25th of March was the day of the crucifixion of Our Lord. Therefore, this day will always be Good Friday. That means that we celebrate Holy Week every year on the same date it occurred; that is, Palm Sunday will always be on the 20th of March (as it was) and Easter Sunday will always be on the 27th of March, no matter what day of the week it is celebrated." (source: 63rd Report on the Website of the Holy Palmarian Church) Baokhang48812002 (talk) 10:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, the tiny Palmarian Church and its conventions, which are violating the Nicaea rules, is not really relevant for realistically advancing actual reforms, but the article is also mentioning other esoteric sects like the Pepuzites. -- Christoph Päper 15:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: They seem to have more confidence in dating Jesus' death to one specific year than most scholars do -- 30 A.D. and 33 A.D. are commonly mentioned as being plausible. AnonMoos (talk) 05:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palmarian Easter