Talk:Easter/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

A lunar eclipse on Easter Sunday

Because the ecclesial tables are not fully correct it is therefore possible that there occurs a lunar eclipse op Easter Sunday. From 1583 till 3000 this happens five times, see this figures: https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCLEmap/1901-2000/LE1903-04-12P.gif , https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCLEmap/2401-2500/LE2451-04-16P.gif , https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCLEmap/2401-2500/LE2471-04-05P.gif, https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCLEmap/2901-3000/LE2908-04-08T.gif and https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCLEmap/2901-3000/LE2935-04-10N.gif — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.144.58.87 (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

"Calendar lunar month"

What is that? Is it a 'lunar calendar month', i.e. a 'synodic month'? ...and why can't we edit this article freely? I thought Wiki had employees. Have you gone all George Bush on us? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.176.244.88 (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I fixed that. It should be lunar month or lunar calendar month. I opted for the more concise term.

Anyone with a confirmed Wikipedia account may edit the article freely. It had to be protected from anonymous IP address edits due to frequent disruptive edits.

Anonymnous IP address editors are free to request specfic changes on the talk page. You can use the template {{edit semi-protected}} in the beginning of your request. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2018

"the White House hosts an annual egg roll on the lawn for children" this should be changed to an "annual egg hunt" Aktanaka00 (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: It is actually an easter egg roll, per the source [1]. RudolfRed (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2019

41.113.177.170 (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 00:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

variable, variable, date of Easter

I can't see how to investigate or fix this somewhat esoteric line in the infobox. Can someone else please fix or remove it? Scarabocchio (talk) 09:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Apparently the infobox template generates that line when nothing is specified for the date parameter. I've added that parameter with what I think is an appropriate phrase. Indyguy (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Works for me (as would removing the line completely). Thanks! Scarabocchio (talk) 02:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Removal of "Religious observance" section

Hello everyone! In this edit I removed a section titled "Religious observance". There are a couple of reasons for this removal. One is that it has been unreferenced since at least 2006 (not exactly the same text, but its predecessor). The amount of text that is entirely unreferenced may have been okay 12 years ago on Wikipedia, but by and large is heavily frowned upon in the encyclopedia today. Secondly, some of the content is cruft or else too specific for the Easter article itself, and belongs in sub articles like Easter Vigil or elsewhere. Lastly, this section was the cause for its non-appearance on the Main Page. Thanks. Killiondude (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm combing through that section and I will be removing paragraphs and referencing others.--Hazhk (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Hazhk. I don't appreciate your referencing my action as "reckless." Neither do I enjoy the reductionist take that it was only removed for lack of referencing. I look forward to your edits. Killiondude (talk) 05:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Hazhk, in the last 9 months you have not added references to the content you restored. The page should be in a state where it can be presented on the main page for its observance this calendar year. I will remove the content again if you are unwilling or unable to make time to fix what you said you would. Thank you! Killiondude (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Hazhk and Killiondude: Fair warning: Six weeks to go, and that section is still in bad shape. —howcheng {chat} 21:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh dear, I can only apologise for that promise that I haven't kept. I will support removing the content. --Hazhk (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

It's still early. If you can find time in the next six weeks, we'll be golden. —howcheng {chat} 21:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

It is not at all a reasonable idea to remove this section altogether. I agree it needs cleanup but the religious practise around Easter is central to the whole topic. Kipala (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about responding to the particular reasons I listed above? You seem to be handwaving. Thank you. Killiondude (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Why? The main topics are the celebrations and the Easter-related public holidays in several countries. Who cares about the liturgical practices of non-secular groups? This is fancruft at best: "of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question". Dimadick (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Didamick: you would not mind to bring a bit of facts and statistics for your claim of "fancruft"? I just came across a German survey of 2015 which says that 16% of the population say they want to attend a church service.(yougov.de, German text). You surely have better material. If correct, I do not think that 10% of a national population is a small section. Kipala (talk) 08:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about your question, "Why?"? I agree that keeping some of the content would be ideal, but not if it is unreferenced chunks of text (as I thought was clear in my initial post at the creation of this thread). Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility for providing citations. Killiondude (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

You are right to ask about sources and to raise the cleanup question. Why don`t you just do it? Then you do not talk about removing the topic altogether?Kipala (talk) 08:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

If you read the link I provided you, it says the burden of finding sources is on those who wish to restore the information. Killiondude (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi howcheng, is the article in good enough shape for use on the main page in a few hours? I removed all the unsourced info from the offending section and found a couple of citations to provide at least a bit of info there. Killiondude (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Killiondude: Looks good enough for inclusion. It would be nice if we could get this to a stable point so that we don't have to do this Hokey Pokey dance next year. —howcheng {chat} 05:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Howcheng: Since we got Easter in for April 21, can we get it for April 28's OTD as well (Eastern Christianity)? BenevolentBeast (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Done. —howcheng {chat} 05:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

What about the cultural holiday

This article has been swept clean of of anything other than the christian religious celebration of easter. I get that it is primarily about a christian holiday, but even for most devout christians there is still the joy of sharing baskets of candy brought by an imaginary rabbit. There is no mention in the article of celebration by non-christians, and non-religious celebratory traditions are relegated to a single paragraph at the very end of the article. Please consider how much of this holiday celebration is left out of this article, and how someone without a knowledge of the holiday would be getting a distorted and incomplete understanding by reading this article. This article is an excellent article on the christian religious celebration of easter, but a poor article on easter.Skeptonomicon (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@Skeptonomicon: Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to). Killiondude (talk) 06:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Easter has nothing to do with Christ

Where Did the Name Easter Come From?

Easter most likely takes its name from the names of goddesses associated with spring, vernal equinox and renewal. Eostre was the Saxon mother goddess, the source of all things and the bringer of new life. Around the same time, Teutonic tribes worshiped the dawn goddess Ostara, who also represented fertility and rebirth.

pagan easter Ostara (1884) by Johannes Gehrts. Image: Public Domain. Other pagan cults and deities played a part in the formation of Easter, too. Around 200 BCE, the mystery cult of the goddess Cybele was popular in Rome and its surrounding areas. Cybele, another goddess of renewal and spring, had a lover named Attis, who was born of a virgin, and died and was reborn every spring.

The legend of Attis’ birth is also associated with other deities including Dionysius, Tammuz and Osiris – and, scholars believe, with the life and death of Jesus. As Christianity rose to prominence alongside those pagan beliefs, elements of the celebrations of Eostre, Ostara, Attis and other deities became inextricably intertwined with the Christian narrative of Jesus’ death and resurrection.

pagan easter 15th Century Painting: Lamentation at the Tomb. Artist Unknown Why Easter Falls on Different Dates

Easter doesn’t fall on the same date every year. Thus, even this aspect of the holiday is connected with pagan celebrations of the cycles of nature. The vernal equinox marks the time when night and day are of equal length. It’s also a celebration by pagan cultures to welcome the arrival of the long days of spring and summer.

For Christians in Western traditions, Easter is celebrated on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox. This is a formula set in 325 CE by the Council of Nicaea, which established many points of doctrine for the early Christian church. Eastern Orthodox Christians celebrate Easter on a different timetable though – as much as three weeks later than “standard” Easter.

What Are the Pagan Easter Symbols?

Today’s Easter is a mix of symbols from Christianity and traditions far older. Alongside the overtly religious celebration of Jesus’ death and resurrection, people of all ages and beliefs enjoy colored eggs, egg hunts, candy rabbits, and chickens. Also, the Easter baskets filled with gifts, candies and springtime colors are an important part of today’s celebration.

pagan easter An Easter postcard depicting the Easter Bunny. All of these Easter favorites clearly echo pagan beliefs. Many of those beliefs were very much in tune with nature – animal births, seasons and cycles of the moon and sun. The rabbit, symbol of fertility and agility, was sacred to Ostara. Eggs, chicks, green grass and sweets speak to the ancient celebration of new life and rebirth during warm spring days. Many ancient pagan cultures exchanged eggs as a celebration of the changing season into spring and blessing of fertility.

Although Easter has become known as a Christian holiday around the world, celebrating the sacred death and rebirth of Jesus, the true pagan Easter and its symbols is a clear testament to the historical melting pot of cultures and traditions that make Easter what is is today.

Sources: Goddess Gift.“Easter: History and Traditions.” Accessed 6 Jun 2016. Religious Tolerance.“Easter: Its Pagan Origins” Accessed 6 Jun 2016. No Beliefs.“Happy Easter: Celebration of the Spring Equinox.” Accessed 6 Jun 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:80CD:A0C0:3063:C8A9:6CCA:D36A (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This topic comes up nearly every year. Unfotunately, the Religious Tolerance site is not a reliable source on this. See previous discussion in the talk page archives at [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], and [10]. If you have something new to contribute from reliable sources, or a viewpoint not represented by previous discussions, go for it. Ben (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Note that the above comment is verbatim cut-and-paste from https://www.historicmysteries.com/pagan-easter/ Ben (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

If you want an informal, but scholarly, discussion of the "Pagan Origins of Easter" see https://blogs.loc.gov/folklife/2016/03/easter-bunny/?loclr=blogflt [11] JFLohr (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll readily admit I know very little about Easter. But the fact the article doesn't even mention Easter's pagan origins is shocking and a disgrace to Wikipedia! Dutchy45 (talk) 08:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I know Easter has pagan origins, and came here the other day to find out some more details, but found nothing. This is a massive omission. HiLo48 (talk) 08:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Verifiability of dates

@Indyguy: sorry to be in dispute with you, but it really is important to have individual citations for the dates in given years, particularly if we're using them for main page anniversaries. I don't know how the templates work, so I'm not in a position to add one for the eastern Easter, but we have one for the western Easter so I imagine that's possible? But absent that, it is better to have a hard-coded year than to have an uncited date. This article existed for years with no issues when the years rolled over, so it's not like it's a massive pressing issue, and what is important is what renders to the end reader. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, I think I've figured it out... I've added a source to Module:Calendar_date/Events which lists all the dates from 2010 to 2030 so that should cover us for a while. Hope this is OK now. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru: You're right - that's a better solution. I should have looked for a source like that and modified the template myself. Thank you. Indyguy (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2019

Easter was a holiday celebrated just for jesus and his well being

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Þjarkur (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Pagan Origins and Misc. Information

On the pagan holiday of Easter, as with most pagan holiday celebrations, there was a plethora of food to gorge on and wine to get drunk off of. They would sing, dance, and – a little vulgar but true – they would also engage in public nudity or have intercourse in the streets often with multiple people at one time.

Later on, the holiday also brought with it the Easter Egg Hunt and tales of the Hare."The earliest reference to the Easter hare (later the Easter bunny) does not appear until 1682 in Georg Franck von Franckenau’s De Ovis Paschalibus (‘Concerning Easter Eggs’). von Franckenau describes a tradition of Easter egg hunts (albeit with hens’ eggs rather than chocolate eggs) in Heidelberg and surrounding Protestant areas of Germany which is readily recognizable as the antecedent of present-day Easter egg hunts (Von Franckenau 1682). It was Jacob Grimm who then connected the Easter hare with the goddess, suggesting in his (1835) Deutsche Mythologie, that the hare was probably sacred to Ostara (a putative cognate of the Anglo-Saxon Eostre invented by Grimm)." (Lauritsen, M.) The Christian holiday of Resurrection Sunday typically starts with a church service on Good Friday – the day in which they believe Jesus was crucified with two others – and ends with a second church service that following Sunday – the day they believe Jesus was resurrected from his tomb. Christians have taken on the Egg Hunt and other festivities as a way to draw people in to their churches and also to fit in with modern times. (MDRM1998 (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC))

Somebody has apparently scrubbed most references to the pagan origins of Easter from this article. 207.215.78.126 (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Subsuming of some pagan traditions into it where they fit, more like it. Easter is *the* big Christian festival. 2A00:23C3:E284:900:C4D4:B287:D3C2:3269 (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

This has been covered extensively in talk discussions, though those get archived frequently enough that you need to go digging. See discussions at The Syncretic and the Secular, Pagan Roots, Pagan aspects, Missing history, Pagan Association, and Pagan origins for the most recent examples. If you have something to add not covered there, please make the case here. -Ben (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Dutch

Pretty sure "modern Dutch ooster" is a mountweasel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A445:EB91:1:B0F3:616E:215D:7A5F (talk) 07:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2020

This article is incomplete and misleading as to the origins of Easter and many of its traditions, please see article referenced below

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/03/easter-pagan-symbolism 2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:3C (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 17:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Fixed date

"In the 20th century, some individuals and institutions have propounded a fixed date for Easter, the most prominent proposal being the Sunday after the second Saturday in April." That would still be a variable date. --Khajidha (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Easter celebrations around the world

Currently the article says "However, in Canada Easter Sunday is a public holiday, along with Easter Monday." This is definitely not true. Ltsiemens13 (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

References

In Canada, Easter Monday is a "statutory holiday for federal employees," which is not the same as a full-blown public holiday. The text has been tweaked, with a wikilink to the relevant section of Public holidays in Canada. Piperh (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2021

Change "He identified the matzah and cup of wine as his body soon to be sacrificed and his blood soon to be shed." to " He identified the bread and cup of wine as his body, soon to be sacrificed, and his blood, soon to be shed."

Scripture never refers to matzah but uses the word bread when describing the Last Supper. Orthodox Christians do not believe the bread used at the Last Supper to be unleavened bread. The use of the word bread is neutral giving a nod to neither Eastern nor Western Christianity and not offensive to either one's understanding of the Last Supper.

Also, I added some commas since without punctuation it is awkward to read. Wolverineguy55 (talk) 06:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. "Matzah" was not sourced anyway. Volteer1 (talk) 06:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Not linked to the Jewish passover

It is wrong. Easter is not and cannot be linked to the Jewish Passover. Many Slavic languages call Easter “The Great Night”. This is the night of resurrection of Jesus Christ. In Judaism people don’t believe in Jesus Christ so Easter cannot be linked to the Jewish Passover. This sentence should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.192.104.196 (talk) 03:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• April's Fool is a week from now. Good try. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Concise Etymological Connotation of Esther by Charles O Fakiyesi. Charles O Fakiyesi (a Venerable in the Anglican Communion Church of Nigeria), writes in 2021 that Easter is possibly a derivative of the word Esther which Possibly means "star" in Persian. Alternatively, it could be a derivative of the name of the Near Eastern goddess ISHTAR. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_given_name). According to him, (Charles F)Since Christ's Resurrection connotes the victory of Christ over the power of the Grave; Victory of Life over death as well as the victory of Light over darkness; it is therefore apparent that Christ's Resurrection depicts the Star above all stars; the Light of lights; the Lord of lords and the King of kings. From these Etymological connotations, Charles opined that Easter therefore means the star of all Festivals. 2021, Charles O Fakiyesi (Ven)@Lagos Nigeria.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.89.3.253 (talk) 09:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Concise Etymological connotation of Easter

Charles O Fakiyesi (a Venerable in the Anglican Communion Church of Nigeria), writes in 2021 that Easter is possibly a derivative of the word Esther which Possibly means "star" in Persian. Alternatively, it could be a derivative of the name of the Near Eastern goddess ISHTAR. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_given_name). According to him, (Charles F)Since Christ's Resurrection connotes the victory of Christ over the power of the Grave; Victory of Life over death as well as the victory of Light over darkness; it is therefore apparent that Christ's Resurrection depicts the Star above all stars; the Light of lights; the Lord of lords and the King of kings. From these Etymological connotations, Charles opined that Easter therefore means the star of all Festivals. 2021, Charles O Fakiyesi (Ven)@Lagos Nigeria.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VenFak (talk • contribs) 09:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The word Easter has no etymological connection at all with "Esther" or "Ishtar". Usually the "Ishtar" hypothesis is advanced by people inspired by Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons (1853) to argue the Christians should not observe Easter at all -- though it does not appear Rev. Fakiyesi would support such a view. -Ben (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Undersourced?!?

To all those who have contributed to this page, I was pinged that this article was pulled from the main page, today, because it was "undersourced", and I was asked personally to take a look at it. Now I am wondering if this is a belated April Fool's because there are over a hundred references and the overall article looks well done to me. So now I am all "WTF?!?" please excuse my French, but can someone please tell me what's going on? Was this article really pulled, and who did so, and on what basis? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a really poorly thought out April Fool's. There are a few places which might need a citation here or there. But the requirement for being on the main page isn't being featured-article status... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian Thanx for responding. Idk what happened with this article, but I have decided to assume good faith on the part of the editor that sent me here. I have found ten 'citation needed' tags, so I guess I will go ahead and see if I can take care of those. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:Selected anniversaries. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Historical relationships between Easter and various pagan/local holidays?

I think it would be worthwhile/interesting to add information about Easter traditions of the pagan cultures after their conversion to Christianity, and also about modern secular Easter traditions, considering they come from the Christian holiday. It would be interesting to see how Easter traditions diverged across different ethnic groups. I think the History section could be expanded in this regard.

I seem to remember Christianity had a common strategy of taking the local pagan holidays, incorporating Christian iconography into them, etc. I think it would be especially interesting to know details on how this was done with Easter. I am not personally able to research it at the moment, so just bringing up the idea! --Pythagimedes (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

YES!!!! why is this stuff missing? i keep coming back expecting such a section to be added, but it never is. Is someone deleting it, the comments suggesting it, or the flags to do it? 58.165.58.78 (talk) 23:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Be bold and add it using verifiable and reliable sources. Killiondude (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Stop changing table headings

What seems like every damn year, the link to the dates table breaks because the heading is always changing. So, please, stop changing the d*** heading for: Table of the dates of Easter by Gregorian and Julian calendars, which is a m*****f***ing mouthful, so I fully understand that it will be changed yet again. ~~SirCrabbyPantz — Preceding unsigned comment added by WPGuin (talk • contribs) 21:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TT in NYU.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 October 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MDRM1998.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits

How did these changes to the lead go undetected for two weeks!? The lead was gutted. Sourced content (alternative names) was removed while the references were retained. We had references supporting use of "Pascha" and "Resurrection Day" trailing "Easter" with no mention of the former two names.

In the run up to Holy Week perhaps more attention should be given to this article. --Hazhk (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Primary Sources for Theological Significance

Response to deletion of citations to primary source text quoted inline, 16 April

Our content policy on WP:PRIMARY:

• Policy: Unless restricted by another policy,

  1. primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.
  2. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.
  3. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
  4. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; no {{AEIS}}. Instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

After notability established and interpretation given by a secondary or tertiary source, nothing in this content policy requires that primary sources be expunged from the article. On the contrary, the may be used with care. And they should be used, to make straightforward, descriptive statements about the source of church doctrines that are described here from the tertiary source given.

Wikipedia is an WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA, and an encyclopedia is a tool for study, among other things, and we shouldn't abdicate that. The claim by RandomCanadian that it is WP:NOT a bible study tool, is WP:NOTPOLICY, it is NOT even found on the WP:NOT article, and it is a pure fabrication of the editor who removed these citations without justification. And a bad fabrication at that, IMHO. Wikipedia IS a study tool for the subjects of its articles.

It is irresponsible and unscholarly to state doctrine in the article while tendentiously ignoring or suppressing the primary sources for those doctrines, while appealing merely to some church authority for interpretation. It is, unfortunately, also a notable tradition in some major churches to do so. However, we are WP:RNPOV, and under no obligation to comply with this. WP:USEPRIMARY, but no analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis Jaredscribe (talk) 06:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, when taking a direct quote from a book, any book, it is customary on wikipedia as on any other footnoted reference work or book to give a citation to the page that is quoted. If 1 Corinthians and 1 Peter is quoted in the article as sources for church doctrine, why then should you remove citations to the chapter and verse? Shouldn't we rather allow our readers to consult this for themselves? Link to the wikisource version. Jaredscribe (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

You have not read nor understood the comment I left on your talk page. The irony of quoting an essay which says "Don't cite essays or proposals as if they were policy" is rather obvious, even more so when you go on to quote two more essays on that. The claim that "not a bible study tool" is an invention again shows a deep-misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. WP:BADIDEA states, quite explicitly, Wikipedia is not a lot of other things as well. We cannot anticipate every bad idea that someone might have. [...] In general, "that is a terrible idea" is always sufficient grounds to avoid doing something, provided there is a good reason that the idea is terrible. The good reason why we shouldn't be citing primary sources in a topic like religion is that those primary sources are open to interpretation and many of those interpretations (often of the same textual passage) don't agree with each other. And, as you quote, WP:PRIMARY explicitly forbids any interpretation of primary sources - any interpretation must come from secondary sources. And selecting which passages of a primary source are adequate to support a claim of dogma (which, according to whom you ask, may vary very much) is in itself interpretation - one of many possible ones. Nowhere else on Wikipedia is there such a prevalence of primary sources as high as on Christian religion articles: this seems entirely obvious (because, of course, more of our readers and therefore more of our writers come from such a background) and yet also very counter-intuitive since one would expect that there would indeed be more secondary sources available about this (due to good old WP:BIAS issues), and that we could cite those instead. Those same secondary sources which Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of (Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources.). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

This editor has initiated a deletion of citations that have been in this article, with presumed consensus, for at least a year, in my check of the history, and possibly much longer. They are presumed to have consensus for inclusion from myself and everyone who has edited since then. They are consistent with wikipedia's content policy on WP:PRIMARY, they do not make analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis, and are included based on having been quoted by the tertiary source that is cited for their inclusion. the editor has made no effort to understand this policy, and is non-responsive on this point. this content policy is a good idea, not a bad idea. Jaredscribe (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

PNow I will respond to the allegation that I am "ironic". there is nothing ironic about the argument against deletion that i've given above, twice now, straight from wikipedia's core content policy. what @RandomCanadian wrote on my user talk page is irrelevant. he ought to be willing to conduct a content dispute in plain view of everybody, unless he is trying bamboozle me with WP:WTF, in which case please explain right here. if you want to waste everyone's time explaining why i'm being 'ironic' and explaining why that is against wikipedia policy, feel free to do so. Jaredscribe (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Now I will respond to the allegation that wikipedia as a "study tool" is a "bad idea", for the subject matter of its articles. Its not a bad idea. an encylopedia is a study tool. There may be lots of bad ideas, but that is not one of them. And if you wish to argue that it is, please edit the essay on what Wikipedia is WP:NOT, and get consensus for your view before quoting to me, by saying, as you did in an edit summary, that "Wikipedia is not a bible study tool" WP:WTF? That is demonstrably WP:NOTPOLICY. Quoting it as if it were policy is a dishonest form of WP:Wikilawyering. Jaredscribe (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

This editor is conducting a WP:Tendentious WP:Edit War, after having deleted WP:Encyclopedia content with no justification, which the WP:ONUS for deletion is upon him to provide. Moreover, he is using dishonest argumentation in the aftermath. If I have misunderstood the content policy, I am open to education on the matter, but the editor here is non-responsive to the content policy given, which provides for the limited use of WP:PRIMARY sources as they appear to be cited here, with the synthetic arrangement and selective quotation provided from a tertiary source, as it should be. Jaredscribe (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I will revert his deletion, now for the third time, and ask him to desist from editing this article any further, and defer to editors from wikiproject christianity, who are known to have subject matter competence consistent with wikipedia content policies, or I will escalate this dispute. Jaredscribe (talk) 06:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is you who's misunderstanding or misinterpreting a number of policies. First, the "references" RandomCanadian removed were all added by yourself in this batch, and they were all {{bibleverse}} quotes, therefore WP:PRIMARY sources. WP:PSTS is rather explicit that Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. The section in question had been already cited to secondary sources, supporting and interpreting the statements. Your additional Bible quotes are thus generally unnecessary and arguably WP:OR: why should we believe that e.g. Corinthians 15:12–20 support the statement Easter celebrates Jesus' supernatural resurrection from the dead, which is one of the chief tenets of the Christian faith? Unless we're using the religious scriptures for direct quotations (for which {{bibleverse}} is expressly designed: ... be aware that the Bible may be considered a primary source, which should be used with care in sourcing Wikipedia articles), we always rely on secondary sources for their interpretation and analysis. Out of 135 entries in Reference section, I can't see barely any directly quoting the scriptures. Why do you feel those should be needed to explain Theological significance? No such user (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello No such user, the batch I of citations which I restored on 4/18, which you diffed above, was a response to this deletion of citations to primary source text quoted inline, 16 April by RandomCanadian, who initiated this content dispute, not me. ONUS is on him to show why it should be deleted. Having two citations, one secondary and one primary, is adequate. It is more encyclopedic than citing the secondary source alone, for many reasons already stated in my first argument above, and nothing in wikipedia policy forbids this.Jaredscribe (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello @No such user, I concur with you that in the case you mention, the primary citation should probably be taken out, unless arguably that was cited by the secondary. but I'll stipulate on that for now.

As earlier stated, the citations to chapter and verse should be preserved where the 1 corinthians and 1 Peter are quoted inline in the article:

For those who trust in Jesus's death and resurrection, "death is swallowed up in victory." The First Epistle of Peter declares that God has given believers "a new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead".

Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 03:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC) Jaredscribe (talk) 03:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Who doesn't love circular reasoning... "Its not a bad idea" because "that is not one of them"... Ignoring the rest of the personal attacks, the slow(ish)-motion-edit-warring-to-include-disputed-material and claims that I have no clue (which are tantamount to personal attacks); that doesn't leave much else to the comment, so I don't have nor wish nor need to write a reply to that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I criticize RandomCanadians, conduct, not his person, because his conduct in this content dispute is blameworthy, IMHO. His or her ethnicity, gender, shape, size, etc. are irrelevant to this dispute. personal attacks are forbidden by wikipedia WP:Civility policy, and rightly so. This is not a personal attack, but RandomCanadian in accusing me of it, once again seems to be dishonest tactics, perhaps as a red herring to distract from the underlying content dispute and question of how to apply policy on primary sources. Jaredscribe (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

My reasoning is straightforward: study tools are a good idea. that wikipedia is a study tool is a good idea. the essay on "what wikipedia is not", DOES NOT include the proposition that "wikipedia is not a bible study tool", which I maintain is itself would be bad idea, insofar as study a good one, and thats probably why its not on the list. If you think otherwise, than persuade the editors to include it on the list, and if you can't, then please don't fabricate that as if it were policy and then it lay down authoritatively as if you WP:OWN the encyclopedia: you don't. I'm not sure if your argument is circular, or if its merely WP:WTF, but in either case, it is unsound. Jaredscribe (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Ignoring, again, the accusations of using "dishonest tactics", the silly invocation of WP:OWN - when I in fact barely even edited this article before (and then the misguided link to WP:WTF, which doesn't say what you think it says), your argument is still circular. Your argument sums up as "Study tools are a good idea." and "Wikipedia [being] a study tool is a good idea." When asked "why is it a good idea", your only argument seems to be "because I think so". You ignoring my counter-arguments does not make such an unsupported opinion any more convincing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a summary of knowledge based on secondary sources written by, preferably, competent experts. The Bible is neither a secondary source, nor written by competent experts, and which passages to cite from it is a matter of interpretation (something which we are absolutely forbidden to do with primary sources, per WP:PRIMARY). Given that, on top of that, we have whole articles about the relevant passages (First Epistle of Peter; First Epistle to the Corinthians; etc), citations to isolated verses would be entirely superfluous and redundant, even if they were not already unacceptable interpretations of primary sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the removal of the Bible as a source is justified here: in this case, the Bible, a primary source, is used not to state what it literally states, but interpretations and extrapolations of it. The section "The First Epistle of Peter declares that God has given believers 'a new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead'." may be undue since it relies on a primary source for its existence (who says this verse is important on this subject because it mentions it?). Veverve (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2022

please add a section about its pagan origins 78.86.165.35 (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2023

223.191.35.145 (talk) 11:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Supposed resurrection from the dead

The article states as fact that Easter celebrates Jesus's resurrection from the dead. It is a known fact that death is final and therefore the statement is untrue by all reasonable objective measures of truth. For the purposes of accuracy and truth, therefore, the wording needs changing to "Jesus's SUPPOSED resurrection from the dead..."

We can accept of course that some people, in spite of all the scientific proof of the contrary, believe that Jesus rose from the dead. That does not mean that it is incumbent upon people to reaffirm that delusion. 217.41.40.231 (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps just moving "described in the New Testament " to earlier in the sentence and, perhaps, adding a few words, would be more appropriate. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Paschal Candles

This article does say that candles are lit at church services on Easter Sunday. Should it also say that these candles are called "Paschal candles"? YTKJ (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Given the context in which "candles" are currently mentioned in the article it seems that they don't refer to the Paschal candle, which is the candle lit by the priest or minister during Easter Vigil. In the article, the "candles" refer to the candles held by the people attending the ceremony, which are not usually called paschal candles. SanctumRosarium (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Importance to WIKIPEDIA: WIKIPROJECT FESTIVALS

Why has this article only been rated as "Low Importance" by Wikipedia: WikiProject Festivals? Since Easter is, along with Christmas, one of the two most important festivals in the Christian calendar, shouldn't it be rated as "Top Importance"? YTKJ (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2023

Change: The resurrection established Jesus as the Son of God and is cited as proof that God will righteously judge the world.

To: The resurrection established Jesus as the Son of God and is cited as the manifestation of God's fulfillment of His promise to bring salvation to the world through His own righteous hand.

Reference Isaiah 59:16

Justification: to refer to the resurrection of Jesus as proof that God will judge the world is unbiblical and nonsensical to Christians, and appears to be a biased edit. Jesus's death and resurrection is God's display of ultimate love and sacrifice to the world to offer himself (his son) as an acceptable sacrifice purely to save humanity. Fightcommunism80s (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

That's right the statement was false and not supported by the associated source. Now the sentence is deleted. However, to add your revised version you'll have to provide a reliable source supporting this statement. SanctumRosarium (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

If you do, please don't use archaic language from 400 years ago. And note that the Bible is not a reliable source. HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

This article may generate controversy

Looking at some of the above comments, should this talk page be headed a notice saying that this topic may generate controversy, or at least remind potential editors of WP: PROMOTION? YTKJ (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is about a religious feast and there is nothing controversial in describing the rituals and traditions associated with this feast. Comments related to other topics, for example discussing the resurrection of Jesus, are irrelevant and should be deleted. SanctumRosarium (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Passover and Easter are not related

The Jewish holiday of Passover (in Hebrew, Pesach) commemorates the exodus of the Jews from slavery in Egypt. The holiday originated in the Torah, where the word pesach refers to the ancient Passover sacrifice (known as the Paschal Lamb); it is also said to refer to the idea that God “passed over” (pasach) the houses of the Jews during the 10th plague on the Egyptians, the slaying of the first born. The holiday is ultimately a celebration of freedom, and the story of the exodus from Egypt is a powerful metaphor that is appreciated not only by Jews, but by people of other faiths as well. 62.157.102.5 (talk) 05:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The Last Supper described in the Bible is believed to be the celebration of Passover by Jesus and his diciples.

109.43.48.236 (talk) 09:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect information not matching source

The first sentence of the fourth paragraph says “The English term is derived from the Saxon spring festival Ēostre”, but it should say Anglo-Saxon, not Saxon. The reference for that sentence says Anglo-Saxon, and Anglo-Saxons are quite different from Saxons, who were and still are only established in Continental Europe and whose language is very different from English. Please correct this sentence. 2600:100A:B1E7:8F28:9CA2:E921:1AA2:4E52 (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)