Talk:Good Friday

message: How does Zola explain the three days and three nights?
The question constantly arises: If the Lord was really crucified on Friday and rose again on Sunday, how could that have encompassed three days and three nights? The Gospel accounts indicate that the Lord was crucified on Friday at 9:00 a.m. and taken off the cross at 3:00 p.m. His body was prepared for burial and interred at sundown the same day, which was the beginning of the Festival of Unleavened Bread. The Lord then arose on Sunday morning after sunup. According to the modern way of counting, this spans barely two days. Yet that time period seems to disagree with Jesus’ earlier prediction: “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matt. 12:40).
The prophecy can be understood when we examine the Jewish way of counting days and nights. We must recall that the Jewish day always starts at sunset, so that Friday really begins on Thursday evening (a fact that is reflected in the language of Genesis – “the evening and the morning” are the first day). The second day then begins at sundown on Friday and continues through the daytime on Saturday. Finally, Sunday begins at sundown on Saturday and stretches through Saturday night and the daylight hours of Sunday, making the third day. And since the Jews counted any portion of daylight as a full day, then Friday morning through Sunday morning would have been seen as three complete days.
People have sometimes struggled to move Passover (the “Last Supper”) back one day in order to get three days and three nights the way we would count them in the Western world, but that would be inaccurate. Even in the Western world we begin each day on the night before at midnight, so the concept is not strange to us. And supporting this understanding of the Lord’s crucifixion on a Friday (against those who claim it happened on a different day) is the centuries-long history of Christians celebrating Good Friday, not “Good Thursday” or “Good Wednesday.” So this is one more evidence that we can trust in the accuracy of the Biblical account, as well as further confirmation that knowledge of the Jewish roots of Christianity can open up a deeper understanding of God’s Word  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.48.103 (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Zola

message: It may be true in New Zealand that TV and radio do not have ad breaks on Good Friday, but it certainly is not true in Australia. Was this ever the case in Australia, and if so, when did the practice cease? Cheers JackofOz 04:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New Zealand  

message: Why are there 2 dates listed for many of the Good Fridays. There should be some explanation on the different dates. I was looking for the date of Good Friday of 2005, but I don't know which one it was. -- 21:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As stated above, the Eastern and Western Christian churches have different methods of calculating the date of Easter (or Pascha as it is called by Eastern Christians)--see the article Computus for details. Most years, the Eastern Christian celebration of Easter falls a week or more after the Western celebration (it can be as much as an entire month later). Occasionally, as is the case this year (2010), the two observances fall on the same date. The most important factor in the different calculations is that Eastern Christians continue to follow the ancient Canon (enacted by the First Ecumenical Council) that Easter may not fall on or before [the first day of] the Jewish Passover. This Canon is no longer observed in the West. MishaPan (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why two dates? 

message: I don't know that it's appropriate to call 3 Apr 33 the "most probable date" of Jesus' death -- the chronology is highly, highly debated amongst Historical Jesus / NT Scholars. JP Meier, I believe, offers either 3 Apr 33 or 7 Apr 30; EP Sanders has another chronology. It's a hot topic, in any event. Makrina 06:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The 3 April 33 / 7 April 30 dates come from astronomical calculations of the phases of the moon, intended to determine the years during which the Crucifixion could have taken place on a Friday. As best I've been able to tell from studying the subject, either of these two dates are equally plausible based on the moon phase data alone. Richwales 03:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Most probable date" 

message: I removed these as not offering any obvious authoritative insight over and above that of the article itself, which is nicely encyclopaedic. There doesn't appear to be any pressing need to cover the traditions of individual denominations, let alone subgroups of denominations, and the photo gallery is 404 amyway. 	 
 
* The Eastern Orthodox commemoration of Holy Friday 	 
* Episcopal Good Friday Service 	 
* Good Friday hymns at http://St-Takla.org 	 
* Baena (Spain) Good Friday Photo Gallery 	 
 
Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: If Jesus died on Friday and rose on Sunday, then that is only the 2nd day. Why isnt it "on the second day he rose again"? Has this been overlooked for 2000 years? 	 
 
: It's "On the third day." They regarded any part of a day as a full day. 	 
 
That idea makes Jesus out to be a liar! Jesus asked the question (John 11:9), "Are there not 12 hours in a day?" So part of a day cannot be considered a full day, because he said not only 3 days, but also "3 nights"! There have to be 12 hours in a night also. That makes it look like Jesus didn't really know what he was talking about. As Jonah, so Jesus (Mat. 12:40) Bible says Jonah was in the fish's belly three nights (Jonah 1:17) - So shall we say the Bible is inkorrekt? --63.25.0.247 02:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "inkorrekt"...WTH?--C.Logan 20:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You're misunderstanding a Jewish idiom. A "day and a night" meant any part of day and/or any part of the night (the day and night are part of an "Onah", or "period of time," and any part of the Onah is the whole of it). In other words, Jesus wasn't lying or incorrect, he was using a Jewish idiom and was understood perfectly in his time. We have other examples of similar idioms being used elsewhere in the Bible (Gen. 42:16, 1Kings 20:29, Esth. 4:16, Matt. 27:63).Vincent Valentine 05:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's more than a little unfair, AYArktos. It certainly used to confuse me and the other kids in my school religion class. Using our system of reckoning days, the third day after Friday would be Monday. We naturally wondered why Easter Sunday was not called the second day after Good Friday rather than the third, and I remember my teachers more than once having to explain the Hebrew system. JackofOz 11:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I've heard this theory before. However, I'm not entirely sure how it is necessary when the idiom which Christ used is essentially explained above. I've found that a lot of the problems people encounter with scripture is based mostly on a lack of understanding of the culture, idioms, and most importantly, the meaning of the original languages- for example, many people forget that the Hebrew word for 'day' in Genesis also means 'age/time period', and therefore adhere to a rather unrealistic seven-day creation theory. Additionally, many people who cannot understand the original Greek phrasing and work exclusively from the English translations come to strange conclusions, such as the misled understanding that St. Paul was a misogynist- an idea which can make sense from the English, but not from the Greek.--C.Logan 20:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: As you can see from the above discussion, there are many theories and explanations. Some hold to Wednesday, some hold to Thursday, and others, like myself, hold to Friday (although honestly, it doesn't really matter- it's just tradition, like the placement of Christmas; as long as we're commemorating it, who cares when it is?). There are plenty of sites with individual theories as well as apologetic sites from which you can draw your conclusions.--C.Logan 15:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the third day on Sunday because at the time, Roman inclusive numbering was dominant. The day Jesus died was also the first day of the three; the Sabbath was the second, and Sunday was the third day, when He arose. GBC (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rd day? 

message: It should be included that in Ireland Catholics abstain from meat on Good Friday also, but I can't find a decent reference for it. Anyone got a religious education textbook they could reference from? Maeve 14:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's there - "Catholic and Orthodox Christians treat this day as a fast day. Orthodox Christians spend all this day in fasting from all food, to the extent that their health permits. Catholics also refrain from more than one normal meal, though they may add up to two small meals as required for good health. The Book of Common Prayer designates Good Friday as a day of fasting, but the contemporary worship books make no such reference. As Good Friday is the most holy day in Holy Week, most Catholics do not eat meat." I see no reason to mention Ireland, specifically. Carlo 03:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Residual Customs in English-speaking World 

message: In the article, it says, "All Catholics have work abstention on Good Friday (as well as Holy Thursday, the day of the last supper)."
This is incorrect. Actually, we only have work abstention on Good Friday, and some work anyway because of economic reasons.
Boricuaeddie 16:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Friday in Latin America

message: :Jesus of Nazareth, had died so they made good friday and there is no school so we could remember him. having been arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane by the Temple Guards [...]
The opening here doesn't make a lot of sense, major WTF? 125.236.153.15 02:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original events 

message: User:216.68.158.254 removed a large section from the article  which I reverted as an "unexplained deletion". However, looking at the paragraph I reinstated, my view is that it is totally unformatted, and very difficult to read, not even being split into paragraphs of reasonable length. Therefore, I removed it again.
I am worried that the removal may have cut out important information, and knowing nothing about the subject, I will delegate the responsibility of determining the significance of the text to someone more knowledgeable than me. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph removal (February 27) 

message: An editor persists in altering the language "Roman Catholic", first to "Catholic", and then to "Latin Rite" Catholic.  (The same editor insisted on the same thing in Liturgical Colours, where it was clearly incorrect.)  This is an old issue on Wikipedia; the use of "Catholic" to refer only to those in union with Rome is POV.  Moreover, the same editor insists on saying "Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox", reversing the order this page has had them before, despite my suggestion that they should be in order of numerical predominance, as they generally are.  My efforts to communicate with the editor on his talk page have been ignored.  What say you all? Tb (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not the words that matter, but the intent in the heart of those who read, write or think about the topic. The words are secondary. There are those who can hardly read, yet have more faith than all the spell-masters around. I say let the spell-master do what he wants and say a prayer for him instead. History2007 (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. InfernoXV (talk) 03:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Tb, all such POV nonsense edits should be reverted on sight. Also, 'Eastern Orthodox' should certainly come before 'Eastern Catholic'. InfernoXV (talk) 03:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't think "levels of faith" are a part of the Wikipedia policies. Tb (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

text: From time to time, I go through pages that refer specifically to the Roman Church as the 'Catholic Church' and specifically Roman devotions, practices etc as 'Catholic' and clarify them as being 'Roman Catholic'. I apologise if it appeared as if I was virtually tailing you - I tend to start on one article and follow a trail- often contributions by specific editors, and I realise it was bad timing on my part this time. I'm not offended by the 'levels of faith' bit, merely that I fail to see how it's relevant - the atonement section already has its own article, so surely a link to that article, with a short summary in perhaps a few lines might suffice? May Easter be profitable for you - I celebrate mine next month :) InfernoXV (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology for Roman Catholics 

message: A few items important to Roman Catholics e.g. examples in Malta and Phillipines, and reparations to Jesus have been deleted a few times at will and with no notice, while many Eastern Catholic items seem to stay intact on this page. Those Roman Catholic items are "fully sourced" and very important to Roman Catholics. If it takes 1,000 reverts, I intend to keep them there, unless there is a rational Roman Catholic approved argument against them. Thank you for not starting a never-ending cycle of reverts. History2007 (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why they have been deleted: I think obviously discussion is needed if the folks doing the deleting insist on continuing.  But also, discussion requires some willingness of both sides to re-evaluate.  An attitude that you will keep them, no matter what, for a thousand reverts, until there is some official Roman Catholic approved whatever, is not reasonable either.  Both of y'all need to sort it out, and not adopt the "I will do what I want no matter what" attitude.  Tb (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not objecting to the text; I'm saying that all text is provisional, and if there is controversy, needs to be discussed, whatever day it is.  Yes, you must always assume good faith.  Tb (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Roman Catholic Items

message: Can some mention of the holiday status be made for Good Friday in various countries (G-8, others, etc)?
With specific mention of which sector is closed on that day?  (commercial, educational, institutional, retail, gov't, financial, etc) ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.12.91 (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Friday - holiday status (commercial, retail, banking, etc) status 

message: In this section  there's a reference to a symbolic Tomb of Christ, which is widespread custom in Poland. I don't know if it's known in other Catholic communities. The link in the paragraph points to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which is something completely different. I guess this deserves a separate article as in Polish Wikipedia. Llewelyn MT (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tomb of Christ as opposed to Church of the Holy Sepulchre 

message: An editor has persistently made a change, over objections, altering "Catholic" to "Roman Catholic". This expresses of course the POV that only the church in communion with Rome is entitled to the claim "Catholic", and the editor expressed here that this was exactly his goal in making the change.  This is well-travelled ground for wikipedia, and it's annoying, but understandable, that we must travel it yet again.  I rather suspect we need a clear policy about the question, or it will have to be refought here over and over again.  Regardless, I'm not willing to be steamrolled by a dogged editor who has determined that because his POV is "a matter of history" the existing consensus is to be discarded.  Tb (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "Catholic" v. "Roman Catholic" 

message: Are we really saying that only the Greek Byzantine Catholic Church uses this terminology? There are loads of other Byzantine  sui juris churches (Romanian, Melkite, Slovak, and the most numerically notable Ukrainians). Using "Greek" as synonymous for Byzantine is definitely something I have not seen in any text written after, say, the sixties. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With all respect, the only jurisdiction that uses 'Byzantine Catholic' is the Ruthenian Metropolia of the USA. Everyone else uses 'Greek-Catholic'. The name of the Greek-Catholic Church in Greece is a bit of a problem, as 'Greek Greek-Catholic Church' simply sounds strange and redundant. I've seen 'Hellenic Greek-Catholic Church' from time to time. I'm Greek-Catholic, and engaged in academia, and my experience has been that most scholars use 'Greek-Catholic' to indicate those sui juris churches of the Constantinopolitan tradition, never 'Byzantine Catholic'. In fact, the organisation described on Wikipedia as 'Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church' objects strongly to being called either 'Byzantine' or 'Greek', for historical and cultural reasons, preferring instead 'Bulgarian Orthodox Catholic Church'.  If you haven't seen 'Greek' used in texts, perhaps you might read material from the Ukrainians, who merrily call themselves 'Ukrainian Greek-Catholics', or the Melkites, to name but two. InfernoXV (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So what exactly is "Greek" meant to denote here? Carolynparrishfan (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Greek' here means 'of the Constantinopolitan Rite'. InfernoXV (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, to their being clearly Eastern Catholic, but they *are* Greek in liturgical form. Their Typicon follows the Constantinopolitan use, and there is almost no differenct, liturgically speaking, between them and the Greeks, as opposed to, say, the Ukrainians and Russians. InfernoXV (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Inferno is correct. The Melkites are Greek (ie, Constantinopolitan tradition) in their liturgical practices. Majoreditor (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek Catholic? 

message: The infobox says this is celebrated by "most Christians". The question is, then, which Christians don't celebrate it? And do these only include Jehova's Witnesses and LDS members? 216.169.164.70 (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celebrated by whom 

message: had little practical use, so I added a paragraph, based entirely on the "Date of Easter" section of the Easter page.  If anyone wants to add proper footnotes, feel free.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.149.191 (talk) 03:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Calculating the Date of Good Friday" section... 

message: I know that Good Friday is also called Black Friday, in Australia at least. In reference to "From noon on, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon" Matthew 27.45
Is there a reason that this is not mentioned in the article? (Luthen) 01:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Alternate Name 

message: The word "myth" has been deleted from the lead by several users and an anonymous IP several times tonight. I can't reverse it back, because of WP:3R, but I think that it is clearly people with a POV agenda, and consequently vandalism. The crucifixion of Jesus is a myth, scientifically speaking, regardless of whether it happened or not. Removing this content is clearly an attempt at censorship, because some people find the material offensive or objectionable. It should be re-added. -Duribald (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've reached my 3R on this as well. Those reverting would do well to look at the article myth. The bible clearly falls into this category. CapitalElll (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it is a myth, but I am happy it be kept at "commemorates the Crucifixion of Jesus" to avoid an edit war, as Crucifixion of Jesus states it is "an event described in all four gospels" which is factually correct. Pontificalibus (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Factually correct but bias through omission. The phrase commemorates the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ by itself implies that the event occurred. The event is a story from the bible, this is not expressed. Qualifying the statement as mythology neutrally captures the idea. We wish to differentiate between the crucifixion and say Battle of the Boyne, arguably both religious stories. CapitalElll (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

text: The crucifixion will be treated as a myth by anyone who objectively studies religions; just like the battle of Kuruksetra, the Hadiths of Islam or the story in Rúnatal of how Odin discovered the runes. This is standard practice in the study of religions and is in no way meant to be offensive. We should use the standard vocabulary of the field of research to which the article belongs. The word "myth" is linked in the lead. You can simply click on the word and see what it means in this context. Anyone who still thinks it's the wrong word can bring it up here, instead of removing good content. After all - an encyclopedia is meant to educate people. That is the point of the whole thing. And it's the point of hyperlinking terms. -Duribald (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

text: You seem to suffer from the misunderstanding that I believe the crucifixion to be a lie. I don't. Please read at least the lead to the article on mythology. Myth does not mean lie in a scientific context. -Duribald (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, no suffering. Key point: Wikipedia is not about what is true based on debates, but about what can be referenced. But we will let it be. Cheers History2007 (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're saying that the article on Christian mythology isn't referenced? Or that the mythology article isn't referenced? To say that the crucifixion is not part of a christian mythology is as absurd as saying it's not part of Christian theology. I can buy, to some extent, the argument about simply calling the crucifixion a "myth". That can easily be misunderstood, if you don't bother to check the hyperlink, but mythology is a legitimate, and a well know, field of research. Wikipedia is based on verifiabilty, correct, and to say that you can't verify this is absurd. -Duribald (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not say that. What I do say is that if you want to debate please join a university debating society. What is not true is your statement that: "The crucifixion will be treated as a myth by anyone who objectively studies religions" and that statement is NOT referenced either. Neither is it true. I, as a scientist, am a counter example to that statement, which is just your personal opinion. There is really no debate left. Period. By the way, how do you say: "you just went past your 3 revert limit?" Is that a myth? Or should you get blocked? Cheers History2007 (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I did exactly three reverts in 24h. That's allowed. Now I have requested an RfC (see below). -Duribald (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Myth

message: Again, thisis going in a circle, but why has ths not been tried:
:"Good Friday, also called Holy Friday, Great Friday or Black Friday, is the Friday preceding Easter Sunday ("Pascha"). This religious holiday commemorates the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ and his death at Golgotha, a belief central to Christian theology."
It is certainly a belief and it is a holiday. Matters not if it is an event. That debate does not belong on this page. End of debate. History2007 (talk)
:I don't think it needs to have "belief" added. Treating it as an event in Christian Theology, as a recent edit had it, covers it nicely. If you think Christian Theology is actually mythology, you're validated, and if you think it isn't, you're also validated. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer to have "event" but the word "belief" will educate Wiki-readers about the holiday as much and avoids all this debate and wasted effort that could go into the repair of 10,000 Wikipedia pages with "needs better references" tags on top of them. History2007 (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I got no issue with this. (aside from the obvious grammatical ones). Padillah (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, please correct the grammar and let us be done. And SarekOfVulcan, no I would never drop it, but see no major difference between the two versions when it comes to educating the 90% of users who just click on the page the first time. History2007 (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Padillah, I noticed you corrected the typo, thanks. But I suggested adding that sentence to the article, and since you are a somewhat neutral party, it is best that you do it, rather than me. That may end this wasted effort. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I have edited the lead sentences to make it abundantly clear that the topic of the article is focused on a religious holiday, and that the religion is Christianity. HokieRNB 20:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is much better now. But believe me that exactly 364 days ago there was a major discussion on this very page about various issues. If you want to avoid that in 2010, can we just say belief and save ourselves the headaches in 2010? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not be inclined to arbitrarily reclassify an historical event as a "belief" just to avoid the potential of a future headache.  I think the adjustments to the thrust of the lead paragraph should be satisfactory. HokieRNB 20:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think it is an event more certain than most scientific theories about various topics. But having belief there, does not say it was not an event, or not an event. Leaves it open. Anyway, if you want to leave it is ok. I will mark the date on my calendar for 2010, and set time aside for it anyway. I bet there will be another long discussion here in 364 to 365 days from now anyway. Time will tell. History2007 (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

text: This is not resolved. There is still nothing to differentiate this article from The Twelfth. The Twelfth is a commemoration of a historical event. Good Friday is a commemoration of a mythological event. This should be made clear in the introduction. CapitalElll (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  (brought in by the RfC) I don't understand the distinction being made here; it seems like by adding 'myth' to the intro, a discussion over historicity is being injected in a too-prominent place.  A commemoration commemorates an event, not the myth of an event.  Other articles on major holidays across religious traditions- Christmas, Vesak, Hanukkah, etc.- do not say they commemorate a myth.  They say: the birth of Jesus, the birth, enlightenment, and death of the Buddha, the re-dedication of the Temple, etc.  'Commemorates the crucifixion of Jesus' implies no value judgment about historicity.  'Commemorates the mythical crucifixion of Jesus' implies that it is not a historical event, in the popular understanding.  It's just not necessary in the introduction; the article is about the holiday observance, not the historical facts of the life of Jesus.  If someone wants to learn about what is being commemorated, they can click the link and read the article- in which case they would see that the Battle of Boyne is a historical event, and the crucifixion of Jesus an event whose historical status is up for discussion among scholars.  --Clay Collier (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to believe that mythology=fiction. This is no the case, please familiarize yourself with the definition. Further, I am in favour of mentioning mythology in Christmas, Vesak, Hanukkah where they celebrate mythological events. I don't see what is wrong with Commemorates the crucifixion of Jesus, an important part of Christian mythology. It accurately and precisely states the facts without a bias as to the factuality of these events. CapitalElll (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't personally believe that; I do, however, believe that when the average reader sees an event specifically referred to in the intro as mythology that they will conclude that the article is saying it is a less than historical event.  My point is that I don't see what the compelling need for that addition is: first, the fact that the crucifixion is significant to Christians is evidenced by the fact that there is a holiday to commemorate it.  For instance, the Independence Day (United States) article states: "commemorating the adoption of the Declaration of Independence on 4 July, 1776, declaring independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain." without adding 'an important event for Americans'.  We know it's important- there's a holiday to commemorate it.  Now, the signing of the Declaration of Independence is an important event in American mythology, just as Good Friday is for Christians.  Happens to be one that is historically well documented as well.  But using the argument that is being made here, we should also add that the signing of the DOI is 'an important part of American mythology', just as we should add 'an important part of blank mythology' for hundreds of commemorative holidays, whether they commemorate historically well-attested events or events of questionable historicity.  If 'myth' is not being used to indicate the historicity of an event, then there should be no difference between, as you mentioned, The Twelfth and Good Friday; both articles should say 'crucifixion/battle of boyne' is an important day in Christian/Ulster protestant mythology'.  If it's obvious to the reader that myths encompass both clearly factual and legendary (but possibly non-factual) events, and if events are important for their contribution to a national or religious mythology, then all of these events should be called part of mythology.  What shouldn't be done is to tack 'myth' or 'mythology' onto only events of questionable historic fact as a way to distinguish them from other such events.  --Clay Collier (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: they will conclude that the article is saying it is a less than historical event. Yes, exactly. I believe referring to it as mythology captures this notion. CapitalElll (talk) 04:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's always helpful when a POV-pusher admits it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

text: No, it's POV-pushing. You know very well that the average reader will see "myth" as a synonym for "fairy tale". You could use a neutral synonym like "narrative" or "story", but that just wouldn't be as much fun, now would it? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopedia and this is what is used in scholarly works, so this is what should be used here. CapitalElll (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 05:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's POV-pushing masquerading as "scholarliness". And if you're so concerned about it, why don't you go to the Muhammad page and label that as "mythology" also? Or is it because it's the wrong time of year? You know very well that the number of wikipedia hits will increase on Easter-related articles this weekend. Your agenda appears to be to (1) denigrate Christianity and (2) make wikipedia look stupid. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no interest in islam. I'm willing to leave things as they are until good friday is well over. Let's get back on topic. CapitalElll (talk) 05:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To put it another way, you're only interested in denigrating Christianity, especially at a time when you know there will be a lot of hits on the article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets steer clear of discussing the motivations of editors.  Again: what is the specific reason why this event has to be characterized as mythology, when no other article about a commemorative day sees the need to provide a comparable characterization in the intro?  Saint Patrick's Day doesn't mention the ambiguity of dating the life of Saint Patrick.  Columbus Day isn't characterized in the intro as an important event in history.  I'm sure that some scholars would characterize the crucifixion as being also historical; July 4th is certainly mythical in terms of its meaning for ideas of American nationhood.  Again, this seems to be an unnecessary insertion of a discussion of historicity into the intro of an article that is not primarily about the crucifixion, but about the holiday.  The significance of the crucifixion is its role in Christian belief; the significance of Good Friday is that it's observed by Christians all over the world.  --Clay Collier (talk) 05:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Which is "nowhere". This is not a "scholarly" encyclopedia, it's an encylopedia for the masses. Using "mythology" is nothing more than an in-your-face slam at the reading public, as you well know. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is certainly not an encyclopedia of the masses: 0.999.... We do not shy away from the truth just because it conflicts with the false intuition of the masses. CapitalElll (talk) 05:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Truth"? Don't get me started. You're a Grade-A POV-pusher, nothing more. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Baseball Bugs, thank you for clear comments. As for your mention of the timing issue, please see:  vs . This article receives anywhere from 1,000 to 3,000 views per day when it is not close to Easter. Yesterday it received about 100,000 hits. Again, is it pure statistical coincidence that the debate fires rage on this page just 3 days before Easter every year? Does the mythical need for clarity "on this page only" hit some editors every year just by chance? I am just grinning, but I should not. It is Good Friday.History2007 (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What an amazing coincidence. Speaking of which, it's also Passover, which is fittingly overlapping the Christian holidays this year. I wonder why he's not over there labeling that one a myth too? Here's something I'll bet you didn't know: The real reason the women found the tomb empty that Sunday morning is that Jesus had set His alarm clock early. He didn't want to miss Easter Services. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Sorry for prematurely stating that the above-discussed lead was satisfactory to all, I mistakenly thought you had commented in support of that version above CapitalElll. That said, I agree with Padillah above. Going out of your way to insist that the word myth is included can be seen as nothing other than POV pushing. I can't imagine anyone coming to this article, reading it and because of the lack of the word myth thinking "this must be historical fact." I can see a lot of people coming to the article and reading "myth" and thinking "Wikipedia is labeling Christianity as a myth while treating other religions as if they are true, Wikipedia is biased" as evidenced by this thread. I see no need for the word myth to be included here in this article, certainly not in the lead. When a significant number of people read "myth" and think "untruth," and there is no compelling need to label the story as such, insisting on its inclusion is nothing other than POV pushing. Sorry. The Seeker 4 Talk 12:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you come up with word other than myth which expresses the fact that good friday commemorates a mythological event? CapitalElll (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the current version would satisfy everyone. CapitalElll (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That works too. Thanks for meeting in the "middle". Padillah (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you just say Thank you? Well, we should all learn to be as charitable as you are, I guess, given that it is close to Easter. History2007 (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I did put middle in Scare quotes if that's any consolation. :) That's why it's a compromise, he gave, we gave. And, for what it's worth, thank you for accepting his compromise. Padillah (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

text: That's a good point. Grab a diff (like this one for instance) and save it in a comment on your user page or someplace convenient (<no wiki></nowiki> in tags like this). I wouldn't recommend here since there's every liklyhood that this page will get archived between now and then and the diff will get lost as well as the discussion. Make sure you make notes so you can remember what it is and why. Then next time you need it you can cite the diff and, hopfully, skip some of the more obvious arguments. Some editor may very well suggest that "WP has changed since then" but it'll be of use nonetheless. See you in 360 days. Padillah (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, Thanks. Based on that I made a "record of the last part of the discussion and the conclusion that myth does not belong on the page" for the future. Others interested in preserving the life of their keyboards can save it too. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 06:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Along with that, keep this page on your watch list so you can see it start to happen again next year - and not just this page, but the several other pages where Capital L tried to insert the "mythology" stuff. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the page has been on my watch list for over a year. But Capital was here just this year, next year there will probably be another player.... Until then... History2007 (talk) 08:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Another way

message: ..."observed primarily by adherents to Christianity". Oh. Who are those others we were thinking of? Or perhaps this was "primarily" inserted just in case... of what?--Wetman (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I know of atheists in Germany who stick to traditions like eating fish on Good Friday. It isn't as secularized a holiday as Christmas, but you don't have to be a practicing Christian to observe Good Friday in little ways. —Angr 07:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Public schools in many states in the U.S. have traditionally been closed on Good Friday and the week after Easter.  This form of "observation" would be an example of non-adherents. HokieRNB 12:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Adherence can be, at an extreme, extended to those who adhere only involuntarily, like Jews or Muslims who adhere to the holiday because the school they work at or attend is closed because of the holiday. John Carter (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Observed primarily... 

message: Please see Capital L's debate and its end above. Then please revert similar edits on Crucifixion of Jesus which have started by him again today. Based on the precedence above they need to be reverted. I have just reverted him once. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 06:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's one thing to call Noah's Ark a myth. Calling the Crucifixion a myth is deliberate POV-pushing. And I doubt he would have the guts to call Islam a myth. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Please see the discussion above on myth and [[Crucifixion of Jesus]]

message: A prediction that I hope will not come true. About 10 days before Easter some debate or sudden edits with agitating consequences may flare up either on this page or Crucifixion of Jesus. It may be advisable for these two pages to be semiprotected for 20 days around Good Friday just to minimize that issue. History2007 (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Friday is approaching

message: 87% of Ireland is Roman Catholic.  This qualifies as "predominantly." Rklawton (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that mean in the Republic of Ireland, in Northern Ireland which is part of the UK, or in the entire island of Ireland? 94.30.84.71 (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Ireland

message: The account states that "Pilate has Jesus flogged and then brings him out to the crowd to release him."
Most Roman Catholics know this as "The Scourging at the Pillar", one of the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Holy Rosary.  Scourging implies either metal hooks or sharp stones were affixed to the ends of the straps in order to tear the skin.  Flogging implies merely whipping (if there is such a thing as merely whipping).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.166.38.40 (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a wikilink to Flagellation of Christ. StAnselm (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biblical Account 

message: In my Roman Catholic Church, the roles are divided as follows:
* The presiding priest takes on the role of Jesus
* The reader takes on the role of the narrator, and
* Everyone else, including the congregation, takes on the roles of the other speakers.
That's right. The laity are encouraged to participate in the Passion by reading out the lines attributed to the other speakers. How about your churches? Do they encourage you to actively participate?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cindybubbles (talk • contribs) 15:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the normal practice in at least the United States.  I revised the entry which previously said nothing of this practice. To ignore or delete this reality is a violation of NPOV. Delmlsfan (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Passion according to John 

message: I added the words 'Christians believe' in the sentence describing the Resurrection. This should not be interpreted as flaming towards Christians; I am a practising Lutheran myself. However, due to the supernatural nature of the Resurrection, I feel that, in an objective encyclopaedia, this event--a divine miracle or a myth, whatever you believe--should be presented as a belief. AxelWN (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A good edit actually. The historicity of the Crucifixion is well attested, and supported in scholarly sources, but the Resurrection is not considered a historical event in scholarly sources. History2007 (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's a good edit myself. It's under the heading "Biblical accounts" so it's clearly implied that "according to the biblical account, Jesus rose from the dead on the third day." If we're going to add that qualifier, we would logically to add it to every sentence in the section. StAnselm (talk) 09:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I will get out of the middle and let you two guys discuss it yourselves. History2007 (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a valid point: while you can argue the nature of the resurrection, you cannot disagree with the fact the gospels say it occured. I should, of course, have thought of that myself. I thought the phrase 'Jesus arose from the dead' looked a bit strange in an encyclopaedia, though you're right. I'll undo the edit. AxelWN (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resurrection 

message: In the introduction paragraph it states that Good Friday is also known as Black Friday which is not true.  Black Friday is the day after Thanksgiving.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelStarbuck (talk • contribs) 16:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And obviously two different events can't have the same name? Anyway I've added some citations about that. LjL (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Friday not the same thing as Black Friday 

message: ===Grenada===
In Grenada, Kites are flown and there are kite flying competitions. They are often handmade with bamboo or the thin frames of dried banana leave, colorful tissue paper, glue or green sapodilla substitute, and string or twine. The shape of the kite and the use of wood is meant to symbolize the cross that Jesus died on. Also, the kite flying in the sky symbolizes his ascension to heaven. In church kids paint eggs and egg shells with pictures of Jesus and the like. Leroneb (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, perhaps a shorter item like that, but you will need a WP:RS source that says that. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 9 April 2012 

message: In Grenada, Kites are flown and there are kite flying competitions. They are often handmade with bamboo or the thin frames of dried banana leave, colorful tissue paper, glue or green sapodilla substitute, and string or twine. The shape of the kite and the use of wood is meant to symbolize the cross that Jesus died on. Also, the kite flying in the sky symbolizes his ascension to heaven. In church kids paint eggs and egg shells with pictures of Jesus and the like. Leroneb (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, perhaps a shorter item like that, but you will need a WP:RS source that says that. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Grenada

message: Was it marked as also being called Black Friday because of a literal translation of a term in another language or is there actually some attested source referring to the day in English as “Black Friday?”  (And if the former, do we really need to calque everything that's a compound in other languages to say it's also called X in English?  If the latter, it seems Wiktionary would be a better place to list putative synonyms and even for providing that definition for that term.) mcornelius (talk) 10:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That source provided is enough to withdraw my earlier objection but it still doesn't meet the standards of WP:SOURCES and another source ought to be found for that claim instead. (In particular, that book doesn't even have a bibliography so not just is it unverified, it's unverifiable.) mcornelius (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, this issue's been resolved (although “Black Friday” is still a weird term for Good Friday :þ). mcornelius (talk) 11:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: In Uk 'Good Friday' is a religious holiday, like Christmas Day, not a Bank Holiday
2.27.216.157 (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  The current source at Bank Holiday says it is a bank holiday.   https://www.gov.uk/bank-holidays.  RudolfRed (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

text: marking this as closed again... if there's a requested change, it needs to be clear. Preferably in the form of "Change X to Y". EvergreenFir (talk) Please  19:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 29 March 2013 

message: The image of Ku Klux Klan (KKK) has to be removed. It has little to nothing to do with Resurrection or first fruits holiday.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuelled (talk • contribs) 06:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove the Ku Klux Klan (KKK)image

message: Has : "Easter falls on the first Sunday following the Paschal Full Moon, the full moon on or after 21 March, taken to be the date of the vernal equinox."
Better? : "Easter falls on the first Sunday following the Paschal Full Moon, which represents the date of the full moon on or after 21 March, taken to represent the date of the vernal equinox."
I imagine that it must at all relevant times have been known both that the actual Equinox was not always and everywhere on Match 21st and also that the Paschal Full Moon would not agree exactly with the actual Full Moon.
94.30.84.71 (talk) 10:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section 'Calculating the date' 

message: User:Crumpled Fire reverted my edits saying "rv massive removal of information from intro without reason". This is not true.  I stated my reason. I said, "removed 2nd para re dates more suitable for crucifixion of Jesus article. This about the holiday as practice."  
Crumpled Fire needs to be more careful and considerate before reverting changes, by at the very least, checking what was included the edit summaries.  If Crumpled Fire disagrees with my WP:Bold edits then he can of course revert them and add a comment to this Talk page, but that requires showing editors the respect they deserve by taking the time to check and read the edit summaries.
Further, I stand by my judgement that the second paragraph is (a) not suitable for the intro and (b) not suitable for this artcile.  The discussion of the date, year and day of Jesus crucifixion does not fit this article which is about the religious holiday as currently practed, not about the event. Thoughts? Let's reach a WP:Consensus. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 06:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Since User:Crumpled Fire has not commented, nor have other commented, I will follow WP:silence and presume WP:consensus and remove the paragraph. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason WAS stated for removing excessive information from intro 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Good Friday. 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 https://web.archive.org/20080330184414/http://www.reflector.com:80/local/content/news/stories/2008/03/21/GoodFriday.html to http://www.reflector.com/local/content/news/stories/2008/03/21/GoodFriday.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150403084951/http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/19941.html to http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/19941.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140414081148/http://www.co.rock.wi.us/current-news/1195-spring-holiday-office-closing-friday-april-18 to http://www.co.rock.wi.us/current-news/1195-spring-holiday-office-closing-friday-april-18
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is just a small forum for any errors that may arise.
Also, why is there Greek at the bit about the cross in the nave (at the end)?162.104.12.143 (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error forum 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Good Friday. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140812031528/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_08051928_miserentissimus-redemptor_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_08051928_miserentissimus-redemptor_en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080502234831/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/2000/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_20001021_riparatrici_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/2000/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_20001021_riparatrici_en.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/19941.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am a new editor and cannot find a source to back my knowledge of prostration being linked to the new ordination of priests. Dejavuici (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prostration significance 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Good Friday. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202113002/http://law2.onecle.com/florida/commercial-relations/683.01.html to http://law2.onecle.com/florida/commercial-relations/683.01.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Good Friday. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201220849/http://doa.louisiana.gov/osp/aboutus/holidays.htm to http://doa.louisiana.gov/osp/aboutus/holidays.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Good Friday. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090418010828/http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=4758.3049.102.0 to http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=4758.3049.102.0
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Good Friday. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130529191633/http://www.tn.gov/state-holidays.html to http://www.tn.gov/state-holidays.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The section of this article dealing with the trial and crucifixion of Jesus could mention that the seven last words of Jesus on the Cross were "Into thy hands I commit my Spirit". Vorbee (talk) 11:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Seven  last words of Jesus on the Cross

message: This section should be a history of the holiday. , but it doesn't look encyclopedic to me, nor is it referenced. I reverted, please discuss. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: I reverted what was in the main a change by  followed by 7 fix edits to that.  Their change deleted text with cites replacing it with prose without such, added repetition of the Easter date discussion found in Easter, and in general did not seem an improvement. I'd left a notice of my concerns on their talk page. If anyone feels differently and can find useful text from the change please modify in accordance. Shenme (talk) 04:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh dear, it would seem that s revert above and mine have a similarity - the Univ of Maryland. See user pages User:UMD Edit and User:Abenson1 and   I'll be dropping a query on each of User talk:Rebekahvalentine50, User talk:Sraj97, and User talk:Musicofasianamerica just be thoroughly disagreeable. Shenme (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't understand. I saw that something was added to the history section, which was not about the history of the holiday, so reverted. Twice already, I think. It should be discussed here, not entered again and again, per WP:BRD. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review revert SVP 

message: Jehovah's Witnesses apparently don't celebrate holidays, but they do have a memorial for Jesus' death on Nisan 14. What about Mormons, SDA and/or some other Restorationist type Christians? We shouldn't ignore them. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about Good Friday, which is a specific holiday rather than a generic reference to all celebrations/memorials of the death of Jesus. Observation of Jesus' death by Jehovah's Witnesses (and some other restorationist groups) is Quartodecimanism and is out of scope here. As I understand it, SDAs and Mormons recognise the timing of traditional Christian Easter celebrations, but do not place specific significance on Good Friday—that might be worthy of a mention if accurate and properly sourced.--06:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Too complicated for me Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Your (thankfully reverted) edit claiming that Good Friday is the same thing as Nisan 14 is simply wrong. Do not reinstate it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mormons? Seventh-day Adventists? Jehovah's Witnesses? 

message: The Jehovahites of Empire of Jehovah commemorate the death of Jesus Christ on Nissan 14, which sometimes coincides with Christendom's "Good Friday", and very often is on the same week as it. Empire of Jehovah memorializes Jesus' death in harmony with the scripture "as often as you eat this loaf and drink this cup, you keep proclaiming the death of the Lord, until he arrives." (1st Corinthians 11:26).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by KadGeb (talk • contribs) 17:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empire of Jehovah 

message: Was reading on article looking for explanation of term "Good" for Friday of Passion as am used to scandinavian term "Long". Stumbled upon term Royal Soldiers, quote "According to the accounts in the Gospels, the royal soldiers...". I did not check the sources, do understand that the main conflict was Jesus claim on being the King of Jews versus mundane kings, as in Render Onto Caesar parable, but physically doubted the term Royal used here, as jews were a colony having an appointed governor with royal lineage being interrupted, while Romans who were doing the arrest mentioned in wiki quote were rather Caesarian, a Ceasar is a tradition drastically different from a Roi giving adverb Royal, in spite of use of related latin verb Regio for "to rule" with slightly overlapping meanings absent in noun.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.46.190 (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Noun

message: Unless I'm missing something, this sentence is an ungrammatical sentence fragment and something seems to be missing from the start of it:
: 
(The aside it contains about Preparation Day is also malformed, being started by a dash but closed by a comma.) It seems like it's meant to say something like:
: 
-sche (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence fragment 

message: “Good Friday is a widely instituted legal holiday around the world, including in most Western countries and 12 U.S. states.” Is from Harpers New Monthly, 1868. is this still a relevant source for this information? 158.36.62.47 (talk) 09:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations and Relevancy: Good Friday as a Holliday 

message: Throughout the entire English Wikipedia, someone of a particularly high church orientation in the United Methodist Church has systematically added entries on Methodism about ritual and practice that are not remotely common among Methodists. The author asserts that Methodists churches routinely use the crucifix and commonly engage in practices associated with Roman Catholicism and the Anglo-Catholic variant of Anglicanism that are extremely rare in Methodist practice worldwide. It is close to vandalism, inaccurate, and needs to stop. IACOBVS (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Methodist High Church Editor