Talk:Easter/Archive 1

message: Wikipedia is a good place to get information, but it also includes ridiculous POV, that not very "normal" person or so wrote:
Anti-Easter Christians
Some Christian fundamentalists reject nearly all the customs surrounding Easter, believing them to be irrevocably tainted with paganism and idolatry.
In addition, some Christians believe the holiday is named for the Babylonian goddess Ishtar ([1] (http://www.origin-of-easter.com/) [2] (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t020.html) [3] (http://www.lasttrumpetministries.org/tracts/tract1.html) [4] (http://www.pathlights.com/theselastdays/tracts/tract_22n.htm) [5] (http://www.tiral.com/2004/04/the_origins_of_.html)), but there exist no etymological indications that would support such claims. In lands where this goddess was historically known, the holiday was never called by any name resembling hers.''
unfortunatly I never meet one. What has easter has to do with Ishtar? GIVE ME A BREAK! -Pedro 12:47, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Give you a break?  These "Christians" do exist, and they do claim that Easter is named for Ishtar.  The links document their beliefs, and your gross ignorance of them doesn't mean they don't exist.Dogface 01:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: the Good and the bad in wikipedia 

message: snip
::[Here I think a section on Jewish and pagan symbolism in Easter celebrations and various mainstream opinions: from "Keep all the pagan customs -- they do no harm -- and keep celebrating Easter" to "Get rid of all the pagan customs -- they're nothing but idolatry -- and keep celebrating Easter".] 
=== Objections to Easter ===
A few Christians do not celebrate it at all. Group A does so because Easter isn't in the Bible. Group B does so because they think Easter is a pagan holiday, which they should not celebrate. Group C believes both. These groups together are a tiny fraction of all self-described Christians. 
::Would this version be acceptable? If no, then why not? What would you propose as an alternative, and why? --67.69.188.80 09:38, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The Rest Of The Article As It Now Stands

message: A few Christians do not celebrate it at all. Group A does so because Easter isn't in the Bible. Group B does so because they think Easter is a pagan holiday, which they should not celebrate. Group C believes both. These groups together are a tiny fraction of all self-described Christians. 
::Would this version be acceptable? If no, then why not? What would you propose as an alternative, and why? --67.69.188.80 09:38, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objections to Easter 

message: Hi! The whole article seemed to need a major revamping for organization and clarity, but since I saw that so many people have been revising it recently I didn't want to step on anybody's toes. Thus I put my revised version here: Talk:Easter-alt.
Some points about my revision:
*the first paragraphs have been rewritten entirely for the sake of clarity: somebody wanting a quick explanation should be able to get it right away.
*certain other parts of the article have been rewritten for clarity and prose style
*however, its main goal was simply to organize and present the material in as straightforward a way as possible; so it doesn't really address any of the disputes you have been having recently. (perhaps the clearer hirarchy can put some of them into perspective, however)
*to the end of clarity several parts have been rearranged and the hirarchical possibilities of headers used more. 
*it makes explicit the obvious point that an essential part of the article is missing
*It could, if necessary be rearranged more: the whole date business could easily come later in the article.
My revised version breaks off from the main page version of April 11th 2004, 5:18 UST. Thus it does not incorporate any refinements made on the main page after that date. If you intend revisions to the current page, please check my proposed alternative to see if they are already incorporated there. If not, you may like to make your changes to my alternate so that it will be up-to-date if it ever replaces the current page!
Please, indeed, feel free to edit my alternate version just as if it were the main page; or if some old Wikipedia hand is willing to take the plunge and put it into the game, go for it. (I'm too shy myself.) Doops 01:36, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Rewrite proposal

message: I have reluctantly removed the following Definition largely added by 81.86.141.61: 
:=== Definition ===
:Easter Sunday is the Sunday following the Paschal Full Moon (PFM) date for the year.
:In June 325 A.D. astronomers approximated astronomical full moon dates for the Christian church, calling them Ecclesiastical Full Moon (EFM) dates.   From 326 A.D. the PFM date has always been the EFM date after March 20 (which was the equinox date in 325 A.D.).
:Ecclesiastical Full Moon Dates were approximated astronimcal full moon dates and from 1583, do not differ by more than 3 days from the astronomical full moon dates
:==== Common Definition Errors ====
:* The calculation of Easter is not related to the vernal equinox:  Vernal means spring and Easter is not celebrated in September/October in the southern hemisphere.
:* It is not related to astronomical full moon dates:  Astronomical full moons occur at one instant and therefore on two different dates (consider the dateline).  Different countries do not celebrate Easter on different dates.
:* How Easter is determined
Although it contains elements that are correct, it is historically wrong, as the rest of the Easter page makes clear. It is based, almost verbatim, on the cited web page and linked pages thereto. The principal historical inaccuracy is that the medieval and modern methods of determining Easter began in 326. But Rome used its own methods until the fifth or sixth centuries and possibly for a couple centuries thereafter. Furthermore, "Paschal Full Moon" does not appear in the papal bull Inter gravissimas which promulgated the Gregorian calendar, nor is it even mentioned before the eleventh century — official definitions always use the "fourteenth day of the moon". Although the "Common Definition Errors" are mostly correct, it ignores the fact that the term "vernal equinox" is actually used in "Inter gravissimas". Related official publications of the late sixteenth century clearly state that all dates are whole days, not instants, and that they apply equally to the southern hemisphere. For more info see Computus. — Joe Kress 18:57, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
:Does anyone fancy working on WikiProject Christian liturgical year? Gareth Hughes 11:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: The English translation of the Paschal troparion given here is atrocious.  I apologize if putting it that way bothers anyone, but clarity has been sacrificed for the sake of preserving the Greek word order.  I don't believe most English-speaking Orthodox Christians use it, and I'm substituting a clearer version.  If another version would be preferable to someone I'd have no objection to it, but it ought to be good, comprehensible English. Csernica 03:21, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've a question:  Would you insist that Shakespeare's atrocious word order be corrected at every turn?  He regularly uses poetic inversions, after all.
Hi Dogface.  You forgot to sign.
No, of course not.  But Shakespeare wrote good poetry.  A poetic inversion is used where considerations such as scansion or rhyme scheme demand it. You certainly do not use them for no good reason and for fully half the text of the poem.  If you did it would be as incomprehensible as the translation I replaced and not good poetry.
Besides, these weren't poetic inversions.  They were slavish devotions to the Greek word order with some commas thrown in as a vain attempt to make them look like poetic inversions. That's neither good English nor good poetry. Csernica 00:42, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern Christianity 

message: I'm rewording the reference here.  Ásatrú is the name for the modern revival of the old Nordic religion, as the referenced article confirms, so it's a mistake to use it for the historical religion. Eostre is often presumed to be a fertility goddess, but the scant references give little support for that. The only sure association we have for her is the springtime Since her name appears etymologically connected with the dawn, she may simply represent the seasonal renewal and not "fertility" with all the baggage that tends to carry along with it. Csernica 00:53, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's "NPOV" at Wikipedia. How about "...is generally accounted as one of the most important holidays..."' for equating timidity with a mainstream point-of-view! --Wetman 14:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: This is because there is no credible evidence for a pagan origin for the festival -- or if there is, no one has bothered to display any. Csernica 08:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: The possibility that Eostre was concocted by Bede is already mentioned in the article, isn't it?  This lends further support to the idea, of course, so perhaps the point could be strengthened a bit. Csernica 22:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is, and the article doesn't add too much to that.  But tracking down the subject of the author and her work might give us an attribution for that statement. -Ben 04:33, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Ya know, this is one of those cases where the quest for NPOV has resulted in entirely too much space being devoted to what is really a fringe, minority theory (or its refutation) to the point where it detracts from the rest of the article. Sorry to be so blunt about it, but it's true. The whole idea really merits nothing more than a brief paragraph. Csernica 04:05, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the "of pagan origin" theories are fringe, and generally incorrect, but they're coming more and more into the mainstream.  See , for example — the first (and representative) result for a Google search on "origin of easter".  In cases like this, I think wikipedia is stuck going into detail of arguments and counter-arguments.  Though if your comment was in reference to the "Bede extrapolated a goddess Eostre", rather than the general "pagan origins" theory, I'm inclined to agree, despite my comment above. -Ben 03:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eostre/Ásatrú 

message: Is Easter Monday in Poland.  According to the information here in the traditions section here, it is also celebrated in Czech Republic (and thus probably in Slovakia), and I've heard of a similar custom in Russia.  I'm not sure of the names for the day are the same in all Slavic countries, but it seems to be a traditon common to the Northern Slavs. I don't know enough about it, so I've put up a request for a Dyngus article.  In the meantime, I added a note that it's also celebrated in Poland, and I divided the Non-religious Easter traditions section into geographical regions. --Jpbrenna 23:53, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dyngus Day 

message: I reformated the table to make it more compact and easier to read. Could the rows where the western and eastern dates are the same have the cells be combined to give the date once? --BrendanRyan 05:00, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to Joe Kress for doing the combining. Now I know about colspan. --BrendanRyan 09:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of dates 

message: Someone removed info about the Persians having springtime egg-painting tradition as "...clearly false...".  I don't know about the Armenians, etc., but the Persians have been doing it as part of Noruz for centuries, so that much is true. --Jpbrenna 23:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article mentions a Persian egg-giving custom and has for some time. As far as I know, it never mentioned that the eggs were painted.  Csernica 23:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually I relocated that passage rather than removing it. See below for my strenuous objection to the reversion of that and other changes. CBDunkerson 02:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persians & Eggs 

message: I've found that jumping in and editing these types of entries doesn't always work, so I'll point out my problem here and the continual editors can take over (appears at the bottom of the page)
:In all cases Easter is not a celebrated festival of our Fathers word. In fact only three festivals are defined in the word, all of which are defined in Leviticus chapter 23. Chapter 23 verse 5 specifically defines the timing of passover, which is the 14th day of the 1st month. In the whole of the 23rd chapter of Leviticus, there is no mention of Easter.
:Jesus clarified this in Matthew Chapter 5 verse 17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets, I am not come to destroy , but to fulfil, Verse 8 "For verily I say unto you,Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
:Paul tells us in 1 Thessalonians chapter 5 verse 5 " Ye are all the children of light and the children of the day, we are not of the night, nor of darkness. When you put this with Genesis Chapter 1 verse 16 " And God made two gerat lights, the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night he made the stars also. Its easy to see our festival timing is related to the suns events during the year. With such an accurate measuring device, we shoild not need the moon (night) to measure our festivals by.
:Easter simply put is a festival of man. Our Father never defined it and the fact that the timing is so unpredictable (measured by the moon "NIGHT") should be a definite indicator that man conceved it.
Basically this sounds like a sermon, and looks like it's a cut and paste job in places and preaching in others. The entire deal is hogwash, in my POV, as the Moon was used by Hebrews... but I assume that is what is being preached here. Not only does it smell of anti-Jewish propaganda that I hear and read elsewhere but it is a direct assult on Catholic beliefs. If there are points here, someone bring them out and drop the rest. Besides, misspellings and worse! Please Easter editors, help us readers out. A less controversal entry/article and I'd clean it up in a heartbeat. I must admit, I'm not a Christian so I don't think I have a place editing this article (simply because I don't know enough and would be very POV). I believe the word for this text is "juxtaposition" - the editor is stringing together bible quotes that don't belong together. Thank you for your considerations. JoeHenzi 14:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Our Father" / Very POV 

message: You may be interested in the WikiProject, WikiProject Holidays, a WikiProject that will focus on standardizing articles about Holidays. It has been around for quite some time, but I'm starting it up again, and would like to see some more members (and our original members) around the help out. Cheers. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Holidays 

message: The external links section seems to have reached the point where there are s many that everybody starts adding their own :-)
I have pruned it per my understandign of WP:EL and removed the following:
* Text of the Original Easter (Resurrection) Story
is rather POV and doesn't add to the article.  Is it a source?  If not, I don't see much point in linking it
* The Holy Pascha & The Great Lent page at http://St-Takla.org
Two links to one site (bad); no evidence that this is widely viewed as an authority; it doesn't appear to add anything to the article.
* Calculator for Easter - future and historical
We don't need dozens of calculators, and this is a university subpage (they often go 404)
*Writings on Easter, Eastertide and Lent liturgical days
* Augustine on Easter
geocities pages not good sources; multiple links to the same geocities user looks like vanity
* Easter and its customs
duplicates the purpose of the article, either it's a source or it's a distraction
* Frequency of the Date of Easter 1875 to 2124
* Calculation of the Ecclesiastical Calendar
Two links to a user page?  looks like vanity. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Although I just gave the section a copyedit, ISTM that this section is mainly an attempt at presenting the same material covered in the Quartodecimanism article and could be reduced to a summary.  It also doesn't cover what it purports to (that is, Easter in the early Church), but simply addresses Quartodecimanism as though that were the only feature of the early Church's Paschal observances.  Comments?  —Preost talk contribs 14:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're perfectly correct, but after an initial clash I ran out of the energy necessary to deal with it myself.  There were some very energetic editors working for a while there. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Easter in the early Church" section 

message: Removed section and link of promotional info for Brian Flemming's "War on Easter".  Main article is on AfD and there is no WP:V or WP:RS coverage of this.  If someone can post links showing that this story has been picked up and reported by major news media, I'll have no objection to it appearing here.  Right now though, it is promo material for a stunt that has gotten zero coverage.--Isotope23 19:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  War on Easter 

message: Well, yes and no. Yes, the date of Pascha on the Orthodox calendar does occasionally fall in May on the Gregorian calendar. But it never falls in May with respect to the Julian calendar by which its date is computed. So is that May or not? TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  May? 

message: Pesach is not the origin of Easter. Pesach itself came from the Exodus of the Hebrews during the time of Moses. They were commanded to celebrate this exodus from generation to generation through Passover. (More can be found in Exodus chapters 11-12 regarding Pesach.) Some seem to think that Passover came from the Babylonians during the Babylonian captivity, however this occurred much much later in the history of Israel. 
This article seems to be misleading and biased towards a Christian origin for Easter, however there are many articles which present the viewpoint that Christians merely adopted the cultural norm into their holiday practice. Here are a few links that I have found... 
"Modern-day Easter is derived from two ancient traditions: one Judeo-Christian and the other Pagan. Both Christians and Pagans have celebrated death and resurrection themes following the Spring Equinox for millennia. Most religious historians believe that many elements of the Christian observance of Easter were derived from earlier Pagan celebrations."-- for more go to http://www.religioustolerance.org/easter.htm
(These links are a little less professioanl in its writing, but nonetheless talks about the origins of Easter and the churches use of it from a biblical perspective.)
http://www.bright.net/~1wayonly/easter.html
http://www.kingshouse.org/easter.htm
http://www.albatrus.org/english/festivals/easter/is_easter_pagan.htm
http://www.thunderministries.com/pagan/easter/IsEaster.html
:It's funny that this is the one subject on which certain Fundamentalist Christian groups agree wholeheartedly with modern neopagans. We've been through this discussion before here, and I doubt many are interested in re-opening it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The possibility of a pagan origin for Pascha is thoroughly covered in the article.  It simply isn't much of a possibility when the facts are objectively laid out.  Carlo 00:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It very much is. --Oscillate 14:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not found "religioustolerance.org" to be a reliable source for information on Christian history.  They credulously repeat secondary or tertiary "sources" and never seem bothered to check beyond that.  What are the original sources for the "Easter is pagan" claim?  How many of them make the easily-demolished statement that the entire holiday was named for "Ishtar" (explain away the use of "Pascha" for centuries before the use of "Easter")?  Likewise, how many of them blindly assert (or presume) that the holiday was invented by the Saxons (cf misinterpretation of Bede's speculation), thus ignoring the centuries of the holiday's observance before Christianity made it to those particular Britons?  Here are the things you have to do to prove that Holy Pascha (called "Easter" by most English speakers) is just a pagan ceremony:  Refute Eusebius of Caeseria, for starters.  Give a source older than Eusebius that holds Pascha to be a pagan celebration.  Refute Socrates Scholasticus.  Give a source older than he that holds Pascha to be a pagan celebration.  Refute Melito of Sardis.  Give a source older than his Paschal Homily that proves easter to be a pagan celebration.  It is a sad and sorry trait of so many people to forget that not all Christians are English-speakers and not all Christians are even Western Christians.  It is a sad thing, indeed , that so much of what is flatly repeated about Christian history was pretty much unsupported speculation or even wholesale fabrication from the 19th century. Dogface 15:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is so much that is obviously non-Christian in origin, it's amazing to see how many people who call themselves Christian think it's perfectly acceptable to God to mix in the celebration of something so important with things from pagan religions. The commemoration or remembrance of Jesus' ressurrection is fine, the commemoration of his death even better, since Jesus commanded his followers to do so (Luke 21:19,20), but the other components and customs of what is now Easter in most of the (Western) Christian world I think is absurd, as is the various church's approval of such customs. --Oscillate 16:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please prove that all of us who celebrate Holy Pascha are Western Christians and use the trappings of Western Christianity.  I lay down my challenge.  Holy Pascha is the Christian sequel of the most Holy of Passover events, the Final Sacrifice of the Final Lamb (Great and Holy Friday).  Once again, I challenge you to prove that Holy Pascha is merely pagan.  I challenge you to refute the Church historians and sermons I have cited. Dogface 23:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't think the article adequately addreses the difference between the non-Christian trappings of Easter (eggs, rabbits, chocolate) and the religious observance itself?  Don't forget that there is a big difference between claiming a non-Christian origin for the Easter Bunny and claiming a non-Christian origin for Easter. -Ben 17:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the article is good. I was just responding to the opinion above. No problems here. --Oscillate 18:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pesach the start of Easter? 

message: From the description box: "Observed By most Christians, although many non-Christians observe secular practices, especially in Australia, Canada, UK and the US"
Having lived both in continental Europe and North America, I don't see how Easter is any more prevalent as a secular holiday in the Anglosphere (Britain and its [former] colonies) than the rest of Western civilization. In Scandinavia, for instance, Easter is a public holiday and observed by pretty much anyone to a greater or lesser degree, and those countries are arguably more secular than Australia, Canada, et al. Perhaps it would be better to say "Observed by most Christians, as well as a secular holiday by most people in formerly majority-Christian countries", or something to that effect. Unigolyn 06:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it accordingly. joturner 06:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I know it's not especially popular as a secular festival in Spain or France. The Easter Eggs and Easter Bunny things are Anglo-Saxon, not Christian or generic European in origin. To say it's particularly popular in "the Western world" is somewhat vague and awkward. While what you say about Scandinavia may be true, what is in the article at the moment is vague and not entirely accurate. elvenscout742 09:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight anglocentrism? 

message: Just to get THIS one off my chest:  Apparently the Wikipedia Manual of Style does specify that periods and commas can go outside of quotation marks.  But that's just wrong.  I was a proofreader for five years for a large company.  Inside is according to the New York Times Manual of Style and Usage and according to every single book you pull off your shelf.  How do you change that?  It's ridiculous.  That usage is disagreed with by every publishing company in the country. Carlo 20:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the country? Do you mean the United States? Wikipedia is an international project, remember. But even in the U.S. (and I am an American too) there is more than one style. The style WP adopted very early in the project, often called the logical style, is often used by those who work with computers, because of the importance of quoting strings very exactly. I assure you many "in the country" do use it. In any case, it is the house style here. Jonathunder 21:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the United States OR England.  Pull a British book off your shelf and check.  And this isn't a computer program, these aren't strings, and the English Language isn't Visual Basic.  In other words, I strongly disagree.  But ok.  Not my decision.  Carlo 21:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have run into martinets who told me that I was wrong for daring to deviate from the all-sacred MLA citation dogma when I write scientific papers, then they tried to dictate that I ought to follow "correct" procedure even when the journal editors plainly stated that their journals did not use MLA.  What the senior editor or editorial board determines to be acceptable use is acceptable use.Dogface 15:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: As I understand it, the historical reason for the rule where punctuation always goes inside quotations was aesthetic. For most typefaces, it looks much better for the quote marks to always be on the outside. This is just how the art of typography evolved; there's no real grammatical justification for it. However, as Jonathunder mentioned, this is falling by the wayside because it is inherently illogical. Especially in a computer context, it's impossible to accurately express command line examples and so forth if the punctuation is constrained in this way. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Punctuation inside quotation marks

message: I would like to check one point. I have always thought that Easter is the most important holiday for Eastern Christians, while the Roman Catholics celebrate Christmas with much more pomp. However, I infer from our article that Easter is the principal holiday for all Christian denominations, Orthodox and Catholics alike. Can anyone sort it out for me? --Ghirla -трёп- 09:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance

message: "Perhaps the earliest extant primary source referencing Easter is a 2nd century Paschal homily by Melito of Sardis, which characterizes the celebration as a well-established one."
This statement is misleading and anachronistic. Melito of Sardis was clearly a Quartodeciman, the "well-established" celebration was of course the biblical Quartodeciman (). 63.201.25.74 05:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading statement currently in the article