Jump to content

Talk:Easter/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Edit request

{{edit semi-protected}}

The text "Some Christians celebrate this resurrection on Easter Day or Easter Sunday" should be replaced by "The vast majority of Christians celebrate this resurrection on Easter Day or Easter Sunday". Rationale: It's the truth. "Some" in English almost always means a quantity short of the majority. As any amount of research on modern Christian practices will reveal, the vast majority (indeed, probably over 90%) of Christians celebrate the resurrection of Christ on Easter. The use of "some" is blatantly dishonest.ZabiggyZoo (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done but not the way you asked. "Vast majority" is an inappropriate term. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I daresay that any Christians who disregard Easter are not really Christians. The Resurrection is central to the Christian religion. Without that, it's just a "philosophy", not a religion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Quakers believe in the Resurrection but do not celebrate Easter. Instead they celebrate the Resurrection every day of the year. — Joe Kress (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Autumn

"It occurs during the spring, in and around the month of April." Can someone please edit that? It occurs in the Autumn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.201.34.143 (talk) 05:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Easter does not occur in autumn. ZabiggyZoo (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, maybe it does if you're in Australia.... :) Do they reverse the seasons down under? ~Amatulić (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes can someone please change it to "It occurs during Northern spring". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.123.156 (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be "It occurs during the northern spring and southern autumn"? Why should the north get precedence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.92.83 (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Secular (Commercial) Easter

Don't suppose we could get a separate page or even a paragraph dedicated to easter as a children's holiday/candy holiday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.123.254 (talk) 06:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like Easter customs may be the article you want. Rwflammang (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Isnt going to church an "Easter custom", just like the Wiccan/Pagan Holiday? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.82.254 (talk) 07:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Commercial Easter in introduction?

Should we include a paragraph mentioning the commercial/secular aspect of Easter in the intro? I'm sure there was one there before, but it has disappeared. Most references to Easter heard in the media (TV commercials, programs, news, public sphere) refer to the commercial/secular aspect without once mentioning the Christian side that this article defaults with. Any opinions?. — CIS (talk | stalk) 08:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've just removed it, because it was rather poorly written, but I agree that it deserves a mentioning. No such user (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Reinstated [1]. Feel free to tweak it. No such user (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"In most European languages the feast called Easter in English is termed by the words for passover in those languages and in the older English versions of the Bible the term Easter was the term used to translate passover"

The first mention of "Passover" is correctly capitolized as a Proper Name. Further in the paragraph, it appears incorrectly uncapitolized as "passover." This should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.39.2 (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I made a few changes. Some of the lower-case "passover" seem to be direct quotes, so I left those alone. However, I'm not 100% certain about the changes I made. I'm not sure if it's the holiday name or just the word(s) "pass over" that they're referring to. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
It sounded rather convoluted, so I tried to simplify it [2]. No such user (talk) 12:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Easter Not Equivalent of Passover

In the right hand column under the picture of Jesus in the Related To section, it says "Passover, of which it is regarded the Christian equivalent". This information is wrong. What it should read, is that "Easter and the Jewish holiday, Passover fall around the same time, but are not similar related in any way", or something like that. They are completely different holidays with no similarities, except some minor modern adopted customs, such as Easter's egg hunt and Passover's traditional matzoh hunt. Since Easter mourns the crucifixion and death of Jesus and celebrates his resurrection, while Passover commemorates the Israelites' plight from Egypt and their journey through the desert to Israel. comment added by Choopchick (talk • contribs) 17:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

They aren't completely different. The computation of date of Easter is based on that of Passover. The events celebrated on Easter happened in the context of a Passover. And one interpretation common among Christians is that the death and resurrection of Jesus constitutes a "new Passover" (see Luke 9:31, "They appeared in glory and were speaking of his departure [literally exodus], which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem."). Ruckabumpkus (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Easter is a Christian continuation of Passover. Traditional Eastern Orthodox hymns (in Greek) explicitly call it "Holy Passover", for example.

Lent

Lent starts on Ash Wednesday. 40 days later is Palm Sunday, which is 7 days before Easter. The 40 days is to do with Jesus spending 40 days and nights fasting. He arrived back in Jerusulem on Palm Sunday, so that actually marks the end of Lent. Then is Holy week, and Easter Sunday is, in effect, day 47 of Lent! (Might want to correct that bit - page is locked so I can't edit it myself) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.159.9 (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

See Lent Rklawton (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Lent does not always start on Ash Wednesday. Ash Wednesday is a product of the Latin calendar. Christians of Eastern traditions, by and large, do not have an Ash Wednesday unless later introduced by Latin tradition (Roman Catholic, Protestant) sources. The Latin calendar does not count Sundays within Lent. Other calendars do, and their Lent starts on a different date.Dogface (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Multiple issues

I tagged this page multiple issues. This is because I think more needs to be said on how people celebrate Easter at home. Also I think more should be said on Easter's roots in, and current association with, celebrating Springtime. I think the Etymology section needs to be shorter. I also think the dating of easter needs to be clarified into a section entitled "Why Easter is a movable holiday." --Rhbsihvi (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Many of the issues you ask about are in the article Easter customs. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Anyhow, I think this article should not be considered finished.--Rhbsihvi (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Then "finish" it for us, and remember proper citations.Dogface (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear editors, please do not feed the troll. Dogface (talk) 06:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Pagan Association

Where are the pagan celebrations of Easter? They shouldn't be relegated to the Easter Customs page. Why does Christianity have a monopoly on knowledge about Easter? There is nothing about the origin of the holiday as a spring festival honoring a pagan God or about the practices these people did on this holiday. There should be an entire section devoted to this whether believers can stomach it or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tastybrain (talk • contribs) 18:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, go for it. Larryisgood (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The main point is that the pagan festivals and the Good Friday-->Resurrection Christian event & holiday are completely separate topics. The original location of Christ's ministry would have been - except for Roman occupying forces and administrators, and the few "Greeks" in the land for commercial purposes - totally devoid of pagan practices and worship. The superficial use of the name "Easter" during the times post-2nd Century A.D. was simply a calendar date, and the "bunny" and so forth is not part of the Christian canon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 01:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Easter did not originate as a pagan holiday. It originated from Passover.Dogface (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
There is strong evidence that Easter did, in fact, originate as an Anglo-Saxon holy event, thus the name, and that the Christian event was grafted on to it, the name relatively unchanged (i.e. minus "month"); see Eostre. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
There is no "strong evidence". The holiday was celebrated for at least century or two in the Levant and Roman Empire before any "Anglo-Saxon" type people celebrated it. The holiday was known as "Pascha" long before it was called "Easter" by a bunch of smelly northwestern barbarians who did not have the influence or power to dictate what was done in by Christians in Jeruselem, Antioch, Alexandria, or Constantinople. If you have the "strong evidence", show it. Be prepared to accept a professorship at Oxford or a university of similar prestige, since you would have come up with "strong evidence" that overturns the entire weight of legitimate, respectable, and reputable history. The holiday was celebrated by Christians for centuries before the forebears of English speakers began any association with it. I invite you to prove otherwise. I invite you to prove that "Anglo-Saxon" people were celebrating "Easter" by the name or the name "Eostre" or derivatives significantly before the writing of the Pascha Homily of from Miletos (2nd century AD). Please, be my guest.Dogface (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
What a funny response. Anyway, I'll be brief; Dogface—if I may use the language of those inferior "smelly northwestern barbarians" to respond to you (English)—you seem to be confusing introduced Judeo-Christian passover with native English tradition (Eostre-month—and broader indigenous Germanic pre-Christian culture in general?), and, as well, are perhaps ignorant of a little something called Proto-Indo-European religion, where we find numerous cognates to Eostre. This, of course, existed thousands of years before the invention of Christianity, and is the main "strong evidence" for why Bede didn't just pull it out of his hat one day. Well, despite the obvious issues with such a scenario. This Proto-Indo-European dawn goddess, for which linguistic evidence attests that Eostre most likely descended from, is also special in that her cognates are well attested.
As a side note, about that smell, well, I'm afraid that the word "soap" not only existed in Old English, but that Pliny records its use by those horrible "barbarians" earlier still... :) :bloodofox: (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
To reiterate previous, archived discussions: The Christian celebration of the resurrection of Christ arose independently of older pagan festivities that may have coincidentally occurred about the same time of year. The fact that English and German speakers name the Christian holiday with a cognate of the name of a pagan goddess does not imply any connection in its origin but is a mere accident of history and linguistics. The fact that some Christians have customs related to Easter that appear to be derived from earlier pagan customs does not mean that the festival itself is derived from paganism, but reflects the practice among Christian converts of reinterpreting former customs to fit the new faith. The "real" meaning of Easter depends entirely on which Easter you're referring to: the Christian festival of the Resurrection, or the collection of secular customs (bunnies, candy, etc.), or a neopagan reconstruction of a pre-Christian celebration of spring. This article is primarily about the Christian festival. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
"Easter", as in "Rites of Spring", is obviously pagan. Passover and the Resurrection are both associated with spring also. The Catholic Church usurped various pagan traditions and overlaid them with Christian references. Eggs, rabbits, springtime and the Resurrection all have in common the idea of "rebirth", "renewal", etc. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
May I suggest that whoever posted the article from religioustolerance.org check out the talk page archives: this has been covered, many times:[3][4][5]. Neither religioustolerance.org or easterau.com[6] have any worth as sources for this article. Ben (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Just want to point out (again!) that the holiday was not called "Easter" until the 7th century, by which time it had already existed for 600 years. And then it was only called "Easter" in English and German speaking lands. Almost the whole world calls it "Pascha" or some derivative, not Easter.
And ALL information about a goddess named "Eostre" come from Bede the Venerable, who said the name "Easter" was derived from the name of the MONTH - NOT directly from the name of a goddess - and whose cult was long dead by the time the name of the holiday adopted the name of the *month.* This is like claiming that "Good Friday" is pagan on the grounds that Friday was named for Frigga.
Enough silliness. Carlo (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Carlo, it is most unwise to comment on something without having read it. In fact, Bede states the following: "Eosturmonath has a name which is now translated "Paschal month", and which was once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month. Now they designate that Paschal season by her name, calling the joys of the new rite by the time-honoured name of the old observance" (Wallis, 1999). Bede does state that worship of Eostre had died out by the time of his writing, but it is unclear if he means within his region or what—Anglo-Saxon paganism was still going strong at the time of his writing in some areas. Comparative material does exist in Old High German, as Grimm points out (which is how he reconstructs *Ostara), and broader linguistic cognates have also been identified among other Indo-European peoples, which is how the Proto-Indo-European Dawn Goddess has been reconstructed (the evidence for which still stands even if, for some reason, one removes Eostre from the picture). :bloodofox: (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Easter/Ostern Digression

It occurs to me that the English "Easter" correspondence with German "Ostern" is likely not independent, since Germany was converted by Christian missionaries from Anglo-Saxon England who may well have already been using the name Easter to refer to the Christian holiday. Of course this is OR (or rank speculation, really), and doesn't belong in the article. -Ben (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Both would presumably stem from a Proto-Germanic form, and forms before that, reaching back to Proto-Indo-European. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Both roots stem from PGmc, but my point is that the decision to calque "Ostern" to Pascha was made by missionaries speaking Old English. The German Ostern

Eostre etymology

I humbly request you include that Eostre is the Goddess of the Dawn in your etymology section. Yes, you can get there through a link, but it's no mistake that this Goddess has given the name to the Christian festival, symbolizing as she does, REBIRTH. Credit where it's due, guys! :-)Etymology freak (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is a mistake. The only source of that information is Bede, and that's not what he said; he said the name came from the name of the month. There is also no evidence that she was a Goddess of the Dawn, beyond the assumption that the name is related to the word "East." Carlo (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning since the month of April was Eostre and Christianity is known to incorporate local traditions into it's own canon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.58.7 (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

A few comments:
  1. A mistake? Bede, in fact, did say that; see Ēostre. "Assumption"? Ēostre is generally held by modern scholars to be an Anglo-Saxon descendent of a Proto-Indo-European dawn goddess. Bede was not some sort of early medieval linguist and Anglo-Saxon paganism continued to exist during his time.
  2. The etymology is already here, in the "English and German" section, although unrepresented in the lead.
A hope that answers your questions. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
A mistake is the sense that Bede did NOT say that the name of the holiday came from the goddess - he said it came from the name of the MONTH, and the month was named for the goddess. This is similar to claiming that "Good Friday" has pagan origins because Friday was name for Frigga.
And since it wasn't called "Easter" until the 7th Century, and STILL isn't called that by most of the world, attempts to connect the holiday itself with a goddess named "Eostre" is both anachronistic and provincial. Carlo (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Isn't Bede the same person quoted as finding the roots for East and West? - why does the OED have this definition, yet this page does not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.82.254 (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what you're asking here, but for the complete Bede attestation, see Ēostre. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Carlo, in the Germanic world Easter is closely linked to this goddess. No one is trying to say that it had much of an influence on the Latin world. However, we can see why Eostre was adopted by Germanic peoples; the association with the veneration of the rising sun closely resembled practices of Christians of that time period. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Pascha equation wasn't made independently from the Easter

Pascha equation in English. Ben (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, of course, why Eostre was not replaced with the a Pascha-derived form is a mystery in both cases. But, aside from the transmission-by-way-of-missionary notion you supply, it is also possible that missionaries were also unable to dislodge a shared popular native celebration also bearing the name (or for some reason just accepted it), as both shared a commonality of being West Germanic and a then fairly recent common cultural ancestry. While the Christianization of the region was infamously brutal, numerous elements managed to survive through the cracks. I could speculate further, but I just wanted to point that out. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Article’s first picture should be of spring

St. Peter's Gardens, Wolverhampton, England, in the spring.

Easter is a day in spring when baskets full of candy and colored, hard-boiled hens’ eggs are used to celebrate the season of spring. The Easter Bunny or someone puts the candy in the Easter Baskets during the night and in some cases the colored eggs as well. The eggs may usually be colored by the children before Easter. In the afternoon on Easter, the family has a fancy dinner in the dining room or possibly at a restaurant. The traditional Easter meat in celebration of surviving winter is well-baked ham, which has a different taste than Thanksgiving turkey and Christmas roast beef. A minor part of the day is attending church in the long morning. During church the story of Jesus being found alive again is retold. Not everyone goes to church, and until the evangelical movement of the late 1970’s and early 80s, Jesus being found alive again 2000 years ago was treated as less proven and far less important than candy being put in the Easter Baskets during the night. The season of spring, however, is witnessed on large parts of the Earth every year, and that season is basically what Easter got its name from, when sunrise is more directly eastward bringing warmer days than during winter. It has nothing to do with human fertility, but rather that of farm land. The first picture in this article should be of spring leaves and flowers. That would give the article a more neutral point of view, because Easter is also a secular holiday. Before CNN and so forth, Spring Break was called Easter Vacation. Also, the picture of Jesus standing by the empty tomb is not accurate. In the story, an angel spoke to the women at the tomb. Jesus was not there. --Rhbsihvi (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Easter is defined by Resurrection Day. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Rhbsihvi, your idea that "...until the evangelical movement of the late 1970’s and early 80s, Jesus being found alive again 2000 years ago was treated as less proven and far less important than candy being put in the Easter Baskets during the night" is revisionist history. Maybe Hollywood and television downplayed the Resurrection (lest they offend non-Christians), but I remember it being the main focus of the day well before that. I was taught that the tradition of ham on Easter was to celebrate the freedom of Christians from such things as Jewish dietary laws. The change of terminology from "Easter Vacation" to "Spring Break" was (in the USA) in response to objections on First Ammendment grounds. As for the picture of Jesus at the tomb, the Gospels give various accounts. In Matthew its "an angel of the Lord," in Mark it's a "young man" in a white robe, in Luke it's "two men in dazzling clothes," and John omits mention of any angel but reports that Mary Magdalene encountered Jesus at the tomb when she went back after reporting to the disciples that it was empty. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
In approximately 50 per cent of the planet, Easter occurs in Autumn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.75.84.78 (talk) 06:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and I think it is exactly 50% of the planet, assuming a spherical earth. Now about the image, I agree with Baseball Bugs that the "feast" of Easter is primarily celebrated as the feast of Resurrection, hence the image depicting that episode (regardless of people believing it or not) is most relevant. However, we can probably find a higher quality artist who depicted that, rather than that Bible card. I will look for something like that by a better known artist. History2007 (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Passover is NOT Easter

The name "Passover" has nothing to do with Easter. The words have NO etymological link. Passover refers to the Angel of Death "Mulakh haMovet" who "Passed over" the homes of the Israelites in the last of the Ten Plagues. The Passover festival is called "Pesakh" in Hebrew, and although the exact etymology is in debate, this word has no connection to "Easter" either. I am removing this section from the article Historygypsy (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS sources that support your statement? History2007 (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I have restored the paragraph to the article lede until it has been discussed. A couple of points:
  1. While the word "Pesakh" has no etymological link with the word "Easter", the article doesn't claim that such a link exists. The paragraph in question mentions that in "many European languages" there is an etymological link.
  2. Every time a celebration of Communion or the Eucharist takes place in a Christian context, it is a re-enactment of the Last Supper and is therefore linked to the Passover. At the same time in Communion the Paschal sacrifice is commemmorated. This then links the celebration called Easter in English with the Passover. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
However, the Pashca is no longer a celebration of the passover, but of Jesus' resurrection. The name in Italian and other non-Germanic languages is the only remaining link to the passover. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I posted one link recently here at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter but now it is removed by Wikipedia what would be the reason. link was to this website http://www.fundootimes.com/festivals/easter.html with title Happy Easter, kindly suggest me how to link this site to this article.

This question is crossposted at Wikipedia:Help_desk#External_link_problem. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 08:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

History

The article should also have a history section, showing the original (pagan, Norse, etc.) influences regarding Easter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thangalin (talk • contribs) 02:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

See also: http://homecooking.about.com/od/foodhistory/a/easteregghistry.htm

Thangalin (talk) 02:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

We've been over this numerous times before. This article is about the Christian festival. Look on the Easter_(disambiguation) page. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Missing history

There is a great deal of missing history. Easter was originally the worship of a number of goddesses associated with fertility, rebirth, and death long before the Christanic cult came along. Fertility festivals and death and rebirth rites which ritually took place long before Christianity were usurped by the upstart cult as a means of political and economic control of subjugated, oppressed, and occupied people under the thumb of the Occupational Armies of Rome, so much so that Christianity is considered a "resentment cult" complete with Mithratic rebirth after a Roman execution despite previous Jewish versions which had The Bull mythos hung from a living tree in the Jewish tradition rather than crucified in the Roman tradition. Are Christanics removing actual history from this Wiki entry trying to pretend otherwise, perhaps? Damotclese (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

There is probably need for some history, given that there is none. Of course, it would all be speculation as to how things co-occur, but there are probably various theories. I have not researched them, so can not respond now. But I do not recall anyone deleting them. But also see the message of Ruckabumpkus just above who said this has been discussed before.
And given the lovely tone of your paragraph above, welcome, love and kisses to you too. And a reading of WP:CALM and WP:NPOV may also be suggested. Best wishes and love as always - in the spirit of Easter. History2007 (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Please take a look at the talk archives -- the article has often considered alternative theories about the origins of Easter, ranging from Alexander Hyslop's 19th-century Ishtar polemics, to neo-Pagan restoration hypotheses, to fundamentalist Christian etymologies asserting "Easter" derives from "Jesus", to repeated cut-and-pastings of the poorly-sourced garble at religioustolererance.org. The word "Easter" has a history, the holiday Easter has a history, various religious and secular traditions associated with Easter have histories, and each of those (often independent) histories have been explained as much as valid sources will support. Ben (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
So to avoid the same questions again, how about changing the section "In the early church" title to something like "origins in early Christianity" "or History of the feast" or something like that to cut back on "why is there no history" questions like the 2 above. And a comment needs to be left there, advising people to read the archives. History2007 (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Would it be useful to provide an index to archived discussions here? Something like:
  • Easter is 100% Pagan because "Easter" derives from "Ishtar"
  • Easter is 100% Christian because "Easter" derives from "Iesus"
  • Easter is 100% Christian because "Easter" derives from "Auferstehen"
  • Easter is 100% Pagan because "Easter" derives from "Eostre"
with links to the corresponding archive page sections? Ben (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Useful, yes, but permanent, is doubtful, for this page will also get archived. So some method needs to be found to say it very briefly somewhere not on a talk page. I am not sure how. History2007 (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that you can pass directives to Miszabot and tell it not to archive a section. I'll take a look at it sometime this week. Ben (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe there could be a separate article about "History-of-Easter controversies"? Ruckabumpkus (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Please tell me that someone here is not proposing that the etymology of the word Easter—as handled by historical linguists and academic Indo-Europeanists—is to be put on equal footing with Christian claims of Ishtar and Jesus and is being taken seriously. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
So which one gets the lower footing? History2007 (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not proposing anything of the sort. We've all been involved in these arguments with newbies to the subject whose enthusiasm outstrips their research. Wouldn't it be nice to have a sort of directory of arguments which have already been shot down as being unacceptable for Wikipedia, so that we can point folks who want to cut-and-paste the shoddily-sourced religioustolerance.org article or the even worse easterau article thither? Ben (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Ben. Put links to them at the top of the talk page so we do not have to repeat them again in 9 months. History2007 (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
While I would also love to snuff out the nonsensical Ishtar-business, I think that all we need to do is tell them that Wikipedia is not a bulletin board, point them to the etymology section, and tell them to take it as they will. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Missing history

From looking at the supposed consensus, this is a battle that will need to be fought, and once won, guarded against. Subjects like this are far too vulnerable to cries of religious tolerance and "sensitivities", which the religious will trot out to try to defend their claimed high ground. Christians employ many tactics of obfuscation to try to paper over the cracks in their dogma - WP is no place for it. We should not allow them to shout down the relevant, sourced, and neutral history that is applicable.
Additionally Easter is no longer principally a Christian holiday in much of the English speaking world, and the secular side of it must eventually be brought to equal footing in this article. The Easter bunny and chocolate eggs are of far more interest to many children who will eagerly type "easter" into Google: let's not let WP be a tool of Christian indoctrination. All the ecclesiastical info must by all means remain, but it must be pulled back into line with the other side of the coin. Please, no deflection mentioning the disambiguation pages: the other articles are completely inadequate as they are titled and organized. This is the "Easter" article.
I encourage all editors to follow their sentiments to the degree they agree with the above. The religious will howl and edit war to the best of their abilities, but I urge you to be confident to fight that fight. You will find the sources, references, and facts are with you.
bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 07:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Go ahead then, what do you think needs inserting into the article? -Ben (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Judging from the article's history and the topic's obvious risk of controversy, I think it would be best to build some consensus first. bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 06:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
While that was rather rudely put, I agree with badmonkey. While the Christian Easter (i.e., that recorded in the Bible) is indeed spiritual, the Easter that the average American (I can't speak for other countries) does have some pagan elements, albeit not explicitly. Most celebrators of Easter don't view eggs as a symbol of Ishtar or whatever (I'm a Christian myself, so forgive me if I got that wrong), the symbolism of eggs---and many other things--at Easter precedes Christianity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.58.9.64 (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the use eggs at Easter is of pagan origin. Eggs are rather obvious as a symbol of new life, and many cultures have arrived at them as a symbol independently. 207.237.211.236 (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
This applies to all English speaking cultures. America is without doubt the most religious of all English countries now.
I would suggest a distinction between "pagan" and "secular". The former is vaguely deprecatory, while it does apply obviously to pre-Christian history. Modern day culture such as the Bunny and eggs is the "secular" side of Easter.
bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 06:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
This is nowhere near as cut-and-dry of an issue as it might appear to be; holidays are constantly evolving and changing their meaning and are thus extremely difficult and controversial to define... but as Wikipedians all we can do is go by what reliable sources indicate, not by what we as individuals might feel Easter represents in the 21st century. Go see the Talk:Christmas discussion from last fall just to get an idea of how much argumentation and consensus-building it takes for the community to even attempt building some sort of agreeable introduction alone. Easter is actually a much more difficult subject to tackle than Christmas. For Christmas, we have plenty of reputable sources indicating that non-Christians are increasingly celebrating Christmas. Christmas, like the Christian calendar, seems to be an aspect of Christian (and preceding Roman/Norse/other European pagan religious) culture that is spreading worldwide. Innumerable Non-Christian Japanese and Indians celebrate Christmas, but very few or none of those populations celebrate Easter.
The whole matter is all so convoluted, as Easter is named for a month that was named for a pagan goddess, but is today more "religiously Christian" than Christmas, which is named for Christ's Mass. It's the opposite of what you'd hope to expect, but alas that's the way of our culture and history. Wikipedia's current set up has Easter's purported namesake Eostre at its own article (which is mentioned and linked to as a hatnote here), and this article describes the Christian festival. That leaves us with arguably pagan-originating secular aspects of Easter like bunnies, chocolate, etc. Even without looking to sources, I think we can all agree that the secular side of Easter is of far less cultural importance than the secular side of Christmas. That brings WP:UNDUE into the situation. I think our current introductory paragraphs perfectly represent reliable sources' consensus on the definition of Easter. Go find me any reliable source that defines Easter primarily as anything other than a Christian festival celebrating the resurrection of Jesus, then we can talk about incorporating that into the forefront of the introduction. Our current intro. with the secular elements acknowledged in the last paragraph is fine as it is. Granted you have no objection to my conclusions on the introduction, what are some suggestions for change in the body of the article that you want to bring to the table? — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 06:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Can we have some method measuring whether something is "principally" a Christian holiday? Personally, I don't know ANY Jewish families that celebrate Easter. That seems odd if it's principally a secular holiday. And should we also do that with pretty much every holiday in existence on the grounds that some people have a different take on it? Should we treat Purim as a non-religious holiday because some Jewish children think of it as an opportunity to play dress up? Since some organizations use the 4th of July as an opportunity to criticize the United States, should the Independence Day article give equal weight to its being an "anti-patriotic" holiday? Or act as though the fireworks have nothing to do with a celebration of the American revolution?
No offense, dude, but you wanting to eat chocolate even though you hate religion doesn't make a religious holiday secular. 207.237.211.236 (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
[The religious will howl] Ah, the claim of bias comes from an objective person, I see.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.211.236 (talk • contribs)

I see nothing wrong with the 'bias'

I nearly laughed when I read that this page may have "a strong bias in favor of Christianity." It's a page about Easter! A day of the year marking the belief that Jesus rose from the dead is in itself biased in favor of Christianity. My fear here is that the people who tagged the page may themselves be biased against Christianity in such a way that the Easter page, if they had their way, would be full of nonsensical and fringe viewpoints about the most important Christian day of the year. KBurchfiel (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The perception of bias is understandable, though. There are widely held views, whether right or wrong, that Easter was originally a non-Christian celebration that got co-opted and adapted to Christianity as it spread. Lunar-based spring-time celebrations around the time of Easter pre-dated Christianity, after all. Those who hold the viewpoint that Easter is simply an evolution of a more ancient celebration might consider a Christianity-centric article on the subject to be biased. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
See my comment above for my view on the matter. I've reshifted some things around and added old material to /Archive6 to lessen confusion about the current objection by User:badmonkey. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 23:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I have never seen a theory of Easter being originally a non-Christian celebration that wasn't conspiracy stuff, usually based on false information and not taken seriously by scholars. This objection isn't about a goddess named "Eostre," I hope? 207.237.211.236 (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
As I wrote above, such celebrations pre-dated Christianity. Therein lies the perception of bias, which is understandable even without resorting to conspiracy theories. For instance, it's hardly a conspiracy that folks would adapt an existing custom to a spreading religion and call it "Easter". It's also understandable that the Church might approve such adaptations as a means to increase the Church's influence; again, not a conspiracy, just strategy. Right or wrong, the bias perceived by some isn't likely to go away unless the article devotes a few sentences to such celebrations in general, rather than focusing only on the earliest known Christian celebrations. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
However, there is no evidence of any celebrations of a goddess named "Eostre" - just the name of a month. And the holiday wasn't called "Easter" until it had been in existence for about 600 years, and then only in English or Germanic speaking lands. Almost the whole world calls it "Pascha" (or some cognate) not "Easter." It didn't originate in England or Germany. Carlo (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
No evidence? Have you actually read the Ēostre article? The point of those who perceive bias, I think, is the implication that the Easter celebration was invented out of thin air by Christians when it actually has roots that pre-date Christianity. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I think he is saying there's no evidence for a particular celebration (i.e. holiday) celebrating Eostre that Easter was in turn directly based on or continued from. As far as evidence goes, it at best only suggests that Easter was named for the Anglo-Saxon month Eosturmonath that was in turn named for the goddess Eostre. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 17:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Also the fact that the word "Easter" for the holiday doesn't appear until centuries after the holiday itself was established. It's a Germanic word and (possibly) a Celtic goddess. Pascha did not originate in England or Germany. The Quartodecimans were arguing about the date of Easter in the second century, in Rome and Turkey. Carlo (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I need to point out that Eostre is Old English, and that both Old English and modern English are Germanic languages, not Celtic languages. As for the goddess for which the month was described and wherefrom both English Easter and German Ostern descend, major Indo-Europeanists generally view the name as a simple extension of a Proto-Germanic dawn goddess that in turn descends from a Proto-Indo-European dawn goddess. Of all of the PIE deities, this dawn goddess is currently the most reconstructable. Indeed, it would appear that the holiday has evident, deep pre-Christian roots in Germanic Europe. As discussed before, there are therefore three "Easters" in the modern Anglosphere; the historical, indigenous Germanic polytheistic events involving the goddess Eostre during Eostre-month, the Christian holiday layered on top of it (and influenced by the heathen event), and, finally, the modern secular event, likely influenced by both (eggs, hares, etc.). :bloodofox: (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
But again: The ONLY mention of a goddess named "Eostre" is Bede, and Christian Feast of the Resurrection was not called that until the Feast had existed for 600 years, and it is still only called that in English and German speaking countries. And even Bede does not say that the holiday was named for the goddess, but for the month that it fell in. Arguments about the date of Easter appear in the second century, and have nothing to do with "Eostre." Carlo (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like I need to quote Bede. Here goes (my bold):

"Eosturmonath has a name which is now translated "Paschal month", and which was once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month. Now they designate that Paschal season by her name, calling the joys of the new rite by the time-honoured name of the old observance." (Wallis 1999)

Bede outright says that they just took the name from the month wherein celebrations of Eostre were held; i.e. they took the element containing her name from Eustormonath; i.e. "Month of Eostre". They were obviously aware of this fact, perhaps pointing to initial syncretism or some element of the Christianization strategy. Whatever the case, writing only in all caps doesn't matter; by way of historical linguistics, the goddess would have been reconstructed in Old English even without Bede's attestations—there's plentiful evidence in other Indo-European branches from Vedic Sanskrit to Archaic Greek to Lithuanian. It just so happens that we have Bede to confirm the Germanic branch of the PIE goddess during the Old English period. Further, this article is about Easter, not specifically the Christian holiday, but all of the things that make up the history and events of this day in the modern Anglosphere; i.e. where the term Easter is used. As a result, Easter was only a Christian holiday (to the extent that one could say it is a Christian holiday) upon its arrival in Germanic Europe. Keep in mind that the Proto-Indo-Europeans are generally held to have entered Europe in the middle to late Neolithic. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Bloodofox, you usually have no brief for conspiracy theories, so I'm a bit confused here. Apart from whether or not it's OR, I'm sincerely curious: how does your theory account for observance of Easter in Mediterranean Christianity before Augustine of Canterbury? Are you arguing that, independent of the Germanic Eostre, a PIE dawn goddess festival was the substrate for Pascha in the early church? In Alexandria and Jerusalem as well as Rome and Constantinople? How do you account for the etymology of "pascha"? I'm not asking to poke fun at you--though of course the temptation is there--but most of the pagan-origin theories of Easter assert continuity between Pascha and some Semitic goddess like Asherah or (Egyptian) Isis. I haven't heard your version before. What gives? -Ben (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Ben, you seem to have misunderstood something I've said; I'm talking about Germanic Europe and the importation of Pascha into the region and the merging of Eostre-month with Pascha, not the introduction of Pascha into Southern Europe. Sure, it's possible that, like the Germanic peoples, other Indo-European peoples had similarly seasonal Dawn Goddess events comparable to Eostre-month at some point held around the same time, but I have not read any survey on that, and thus am not able to comment further on it. Of course, neither Eostre nor Easter have anything to do with Near Eastern goddesses such as Isis or Astarte, a notion stemming from anti-Catholic 19th century works by Alexander Hislop. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification -- I'll read your comment more carefully, but I think we're on the same page again. -Ben (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
This is absolutely a digression, but have you read Gregory's Epistola ad Mellitum, which is also quoted in Bede? It's quite explicit about the approach to be taken regarding syncretizing with Anglo-Saxon paganism. Ben (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I have, yep. One could argue that essentially the same thing happened with Yule-Christmas that happened with Easter-Pascha; the heavy synthesis survives to this day. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This is one of craziest articles on Wikipedia. This is an article, supposedly about Easter, in which Easter, as most normal people define it, is not even mentioned at all, and when I say not mentioned, I mean literally not even mentioned at all. I was in high school, the very first time I ever heard of the idea that there was some connection between Easter and Christianity. I remember sitting on the couch, talking to my mom, and I was saying, "You know, there is a Christian aspect to Christmas but there is no Christian aspect to Easter", and that when my mom told me that Christians say that Easter was when Jesus was killed and magically came back to life after he was dead. I'm sure most people living in the United States are unaware that the holiday has anything to do with Jesus. If you look at Christmas decorations, you see pictures of the baby Jesus but if you look at Easter decorations, you never see any picture of the dead adult Jesus hanging on a cross. Easter is a huge holiday in the United States. You entire week off from school. There's no holiday other than Christmas and Easter where you get a week off from school. People take their kids to the mall to have their picture taken with the Easter Bunny. Nobody takes their kid to the mall on Thanksgiving to have their picture taken with a guy wearing a pilgrim costume, or on Valentine's Day to have their picture taken with a guy wearing a cupid costume, or on St. Patrick's Day, to have their picture taken with a guy wearing a leprechaun costume. Easter is the only holiday other Christmas for which there are Rankin & Bass specials. Notice also that some of the Rankin & Bass Christmas specials mention Jesus but there is no Rankin and Bass Easter special that mentions the dead adult Jesus. Easter is a huge holiday in the United States, but Easter, as normal people define it, is not mentioned in this article. I remember when I was a kids coloring the eggs. I remember the smell of the vinegar. I would hold the egg half way in one color and then hold the other half in the other color to create an egg with two colors. Also, sometime we would put cooking oil in a pan and mix it with food coloring, and roll eggs around in it to create splotched designs on the egg. I remember in first grade creating a hollow egg by blowing out the inside of the egg, and we put bunny ears and put a face on the egg. I remember leaving out the eggs the night before Easter, and then in the morning running to the kitchen, and the eggs would be gone, and we would get Easter baskets, with large chocolate rabbits. We would hunt for eggs in our living room. We would exchange gifts, and we would hide the gifts for the other family members who would have to hunt for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefferywinkler (talk • contribs) 20:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


"I'm sure most people living in the United States are unaware that the holiday has anything to do with Jesus." Uhhh...no. You're just more ignorant than most people. Carlo (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Your first and only contribution is this rant post? I really hope you're not a sockpuppet of another user involved in this discussion... — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 22:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason for this rant post is outrage over the fact that despite the fact that Easter is the second biggest holiday in the United States, Easter, as celebrated by 90% of Americans, is not even mentioned anywhere in the Wikipedia article on Easter. Just for an indication of what most people think Easter is, just look at the Pinterest entries on Easter.

http://pinterest.com/search/?q=Easter

The problem is religious people have hijacked this article, and they are oblivious to the fact that they represent a tiny sliver of the population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefferywinkler (talk • contribs) 23:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Isn't "hijacked" a bit of a strong term for an article that devoted 90% of its content to the (mostly religious) history and (mostly religious) practice of Easter ten years ago? -Ben (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Full moon question

The reference full moon is incorrect. At this time of the year around the middle east they have the new moon. Check it out with Wikipedia the definitions of both. Not sure if this changes timings etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.30.133 (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The full moon reference is correct. A full moon is only 14 days after a new moon regardless of longitude. So, yes, there is new moon at about the same time of year as the Easter full moon. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Introduction

Article has "Easter marks the end of Lent". That is very badly put. Easter marks the Crucifixion and nothing else, and Lent is a mere preamble. Subsection "Western Christianity" likewise.

I suggest replacing "Easter marks the end of Lent, a forty-day period of fasting, prayer, and penance. The last week of the Lent" with "Lent, a forty-day period of fasting, prayer, and penance, precedes Easter. The last week of Lent" (that last "the" was ungrammatical in English). Note that Lent starts 46 days before Easter Sunday. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree that this is not well expressed and have amended both lede and the subsection to say "Easter is preceded by Lent, ...". With respect to the 40 days vs 46 days: the six Sundays in Lent are not counted in the 40-day period. This is because Sunday is a celebration of the Resurrection. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"(even though the equinox occurs, astronomically speaking, on March 20 in most years)" - that cannot be generally true, as the Equinox in American Samoa is now always a day later, on the local calendar, than it is in Samoa proper. Currently, using GMT, March 20 is commonest; but to get reasonably a correct mean date one must average over the whole 400 years of the Gregorian secular calendar repeat cycle. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is worth worrying about. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


I totally disagree. Easter is NOT a christian holiday or celebreation as its true roots stem from pagan practices. An early eighteenth-century Catholic scholar, a Benedictine monk, in a work that may well be said to have been the forerunner of the modern Bible dictionary: “Easter is a word of Saxon origin; and imports a goddess of the Saxons, or rather, of the East, Estera, in honor of whom sacrifices being annually offered about the passover time of the year (spring), the name became attached by association of ideas to the Christian festival of the resurrection which happened at the time of passover; hence we say Easter-Day or Easter Sunday, but very improperly; as we by no means refer to the festival then kept to the goddess of the ancient Saxons.” -Dictionary of the Bible—Calmet, p. 363. it would be more realistic to say " it is A celebration SOME Christians feel may be correct to practice. ---- VB1972 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vb1972 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Easter is not followed by fifty days of celebration, these and Easter Sunday are all Easter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.21.183 (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


Reform of the date

Re the last two paragraphs : It would be better, I think, to choose the Sunday of ISO 8601 Week 15. That gives a similar range of dates to those already in the paragraphs. For businesses using ISO Week Numbering (world-wide, a considerable proportion) it gives fixed dates for the Easter holidays). 94.30.84.71 (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ishtar not debunked here

Why don't we mention the claimed Ishtar connection? We know that it's false, but it's sufficiently old and well known that it really needs to be mentioned here with proof of its falsehood. Nyttend (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I have yet to see a recent scholarly work even mentioning this, but if we could find one it would be helpful. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Why do we need a recent scholarly work that directly addresses the Ishtar non-connection? We could easily add something such as the following, except better wording (especially peacock fixed) and properly referenced:

Many people have claimed that "Easter" is derived from the name of the Mesopotamian goddess Ishtar,<ref>one of many sources that surely covers this topic</ref> but the name is derived from the Old English...<ref>a scholarly source discussing this; OED is an example</ref>

When you have a clear origin for the word, it's not original research to say that therefore it didn't have a different origin; it's really no different from saying "Some people say that Joe Bloggs grew up in Edinburgh, but reliable sources show that he never left Greater London until he was thirty years old". I'm about to leave for a funeral, but if you have time, you could run searches for <hislop and easter> or <hislop and ishtar> and likely find relevant things. Nyttend (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Repeated Removal of Ēostre Explanation from the Lead

Alright, exactly why is the summary of the etymology section being repeatedly reverted from the lead? There's already a pretty strong claim of bias here on the talk page, and this is doing nothing but making that bias particularly clear. This holiday has a significant history that far predates its Christianization, and attempting to sweep it under the rug is simply unacceptable. All of the article sections need to be summarized in the lead, and that includes the English name of the event; an unqualified link without explanation reeks of censorship. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright, now a red-named user has removed the references citing both the Anglo-Saxon pagan veneration of Ēostre during this month and the academic reference explicitly stating Germanic Neopagans venerating Ēostre on modern Easter. I'm also out of reverts. Seriously, is there anyone out there not content with censoring anything that isn't Christian in this article? Note also the almost total lack of mention of secular celebration of the holiday. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)What you'd added to the third intro paragraph was undue weight for etymology, which is sufficiently covered by the Old English template reference at the very beginning of the article. Now what you are adding to the infobox is incorrect information, as "Easter" is a modern English term that developed entirely independent of any Germanic pagan influence or celebration. We are delving into semantics here; what the Anglo-Saxon pagans celebrated in honor of Eostre was not called "Easter". — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 19:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
No, an internal link without any explanation dropped next to article title explains nothing. You are intentionally attempting to keep a summary of the etymology section out. And, again, quite flatly, the references make it clear that modern Christian Easter descends from Anglo-Saxon pagan Eostre, and is continued by certain Germanic Neopagan groups. The scent of censorship in this room just went to a heavy stench. Note also the almost complete and total ignoring of all things secular in this article—for many people Easter is an egg hunt, a basket, and a chocolate bunny. I guess that's not Easter either? :bloodofox: (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Please try to assume a little good faith here, I have no wish to "censor" anything regarding the secular or pagan elements of Easter, in fact I added secular content the other day. The internal link at the beginning of the article links to the article for Eostre, which is perfectly sufficient and prominent. I'd be fine with elaborating to a degree within those parentheses about the connection to the goddess or to Eostur-monath. I am not trying to keep anything about etymology out of the article at all, I merely view your additions to the introductory paragraph as giving undue weight to one particular aspect of the English term's etymology. To your second point: whether the modern "Christian Easter" descends from the Anglo-Saxon pagan Eostur-monath celebrations is irrelevant to the fact that the specific word "Easter" is a modern English term that is defined in all reliable sources as the Christian celebration of the resurrection only. The sources you provide do not indicate that Easter is/was celebrated by pagans or neopagans, just that a celebration of the goddess Eostre is/was. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 19:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
The internal link placement makes no sense whatsoever. It doesn't say if it derives from it, it doesn't say what relation it has, it's simply there. It's simply next to the title with brackets around it. And here you say that "you'd be fine with elaborating to a degree within those parentheses", yet you've wholesale repeatedly removed my additions doing exactly that. If you want assumption of good faith, you could have simply reduced the addition. This article covers Easter, including its history, and attempts to block the telling thereof is justifiably viewed as censorship. The sources I've added do exactly that; they show the roots of the holiday's name and likely various elements thereof (similarly to the current Yule-Christmas situation in the Anglosphere), and it is also notable to this article that celebration that was Christianized during Christianization has been revived. Further, we have basically nothing on this article about the secular aspect of the event, which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus, and everything to do with bunnies, eggs, baskets, and selling candy. Exactly why is this? :bloodofox: (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
The internal link placement makes perfect sense, it's how etymology is referenced in the introductions of most Wikipedia articles, which is then elaborated in the Etymology section if there is one. I am fine with elaborating within the parentheses, for example (Old English: Ēostre, a Germanic pagan goddess), but I feel that the elaboration you'd done in the third paragraph was undue. You say that the "celebration that was Christianized has been revived", do you have reliable sources that cite the term Easter as being the notable name for the neopagan celebrations? While neopagans may have revived the pagan vernal equinox celebrations, they do not call these celebrations "Easter". As for the modern secular commercial aspects, they are mentioned in the closing introductory paragraph, and in the section "Easter celebrations around the world". If you wish to elaborate on these commercial aspects or have ideas on how to do so, please present them. But we must be sure to maintain balance and NPOV, and the fact remains that the primary definition of Easter per notable sources is the Christian celebration of the resurrection. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 20:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
This gets more and more ridiculous. This is not how things are usually handled on Wikipedia, and etymologies that require summarized explanations in the lead, like anything else, are explained. And, as I've now said a few times on this thread, I have indeed provided (and attempted to add to the article) an academic source discussing that Eostre and thus, obviously, a re-paganized Easter (simple the modern English form of Eostre (!), -monath or not) have come to be venerated once again by some Germanic Neopagans, a fact notable to this article given its history any way you slice it; i.e. Paschal season absorbed Eostre, yet heathen Eostre has been resurrected. But apparently we can't have this, as it's not about Jesus? Is there no one out there watching who recognizes a secular aspect to modern Easter and a history to Easter/Eostre prior to its absorption by Christian paschal month? I guess this is the downside to editing some of these articles; one may sometimes find themselves surrounded and ganged up on by ideologues who will snuff out any attempts at bringing the article into any sort of logical order over their preferred ideology. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep discussion to the subject matter, stop making unsubstantiated personal accusations about what you perceive other editors' intentions, biases or motives as being. I've provided justification for my position and expressed clearly to you with evidence that I fully understand the secular and pagan historical and modern aspects of Easter, and that I am not trying to "censor" anything from this article. This discussion is clearly getting out of hand and I think an RFC is in order, I will request one shortly. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 22:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, but I have the right to call ideologic bias when I see it; both yourself and Jordanson have made it clear that you will now allow the addition of non-Christian material to the article, responding with reversions and excuses. A Jesus-only agenda does not reflect the reality of the history and/or celebration of modern Easter, and this article will not withstand that approach over time. A real solution would be to get a series of academic works together to rewrite large portions of this poor quality article. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

See Godwin's law as it applies to the 'censorship'. The first mention wins a prize. Span (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Ctrl (or command) + f "abuse" in the same article. When a section summary is denied and bias is evidently the only given reason (as there exists no summary as is), censorship is a perfectly valid claim. In the future, you would do well to start a conversation with me without the drive-by snide remark, thanks. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I removed it because "Easter" and the native Anglo-Saxon celebration are not the same thing, and contemporary pagans definitely do not celebrate the Christian commemoration of their messiah rising from the dead. Which is what "Easter" is defined as in the lede. The Christian Easter (Pascha) is attested long before Baeda's work, and is not "descended" from the traditional English/Germanic celebration. Jordanson72 (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be ignorant of the history of Paschal season in Germanic Europe. Eostre-month predates the event in at least among the West Germanic peoples, and, indeed, the goddess descends from at least the late to middle Neolithic. I suggest you read both the etymology section here and the Ēostre article. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Easter, which is defined in the lede and elsewhere as the Christian commemoration of Jesus' supposed rise from the dead, is attested before the Eostre-month. To claim that Easter and the Eostre-month are the same thing is inaccurate. Whatever the prechristian Germanic Europeans celebrated, it wasn't Easter as described here. Unless you wish to redefine it. Jordanson72 (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
You are now speaking total nonsense. The paschal season extends from Southern Europe during Christianization, whereas Eostre-month and Eostre existed well previous. What is now Easter simply took its name, and likely various other elements, from the pre-Christian Germanic event. In English speaking areas and likely also German, the two became synthesized, and therefore are connected; Easter encompasses both. Again, I direct you to the same places I did before. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd been to those places before your suggestion, and the Ēostre-month is not attested until Baeda makes reference to it. The Christian commemoration of Jesus' resurrection, which is what Easter is defined as, predates this. The prechristian Anglo-Saxons and modern pagans do not commemorate Jesus' resurrection, period. If you want to work against established definitions, fine, but don't be surprised if you encounter resistance. Jordanson72 (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
So, you're claiming that Easter has no history prior to Christianization? Or that said history deserves no mention or has nothing to do with this article? Who needs history anyway, right? :bloodofox: (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Easter is defined as the Christian festival that commemorates Jesus' rising from the dead as written in their holy book. This celebration is attested early in Christian history. In England, it became known as, among other things, Ēostre, which originally referred to a native goddess. According to Baeda, the Anglo-Saxons honored this lady during the Ēostre-month, but this had apparently stopped being the case by the time he was referencing it. Which wraps up the history lesson nicely. If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask. Jordanson72 (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Please refrain from the sassy bullshit—if you're going to waste my time, you may as well do so with the pretense of maturity. I'm obviously aware, as I am the primary author of not only our etymology section here, but also the Eostre article. Again, you're dancing around the question; are you attempting to claim that Eostre is not related and thus deserves no mention here, and therefore the Neopagan veneration does not? If so—and that certainly seems to be what you're saying—that's flatly ridiculous. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
It's amusing to see you talk about sassy bullshit after you've accused me of talking "total nonsense" and called me "ignorant". There's that "rigid support" for WP:CIV coming into play once again. And I did not dance around the question: the prechristian Anglo-Saxons and contemporary pagans do not celebrate Easter. Hence, information relating to their celebrations regarding the OE goddess Ēostre should be located at Ēostre. Easter is well defined. You don't like that definition, which is absolutely fine. Unfortunately we can't tailor an encyclopedia to what you favor or disfavor. Jordanson72 (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Telling another user that they need to brush up on their material—otherwise known as ignorance—is hardly an insult but an observation. Further, I've been perfectly civil with you until you decided to take a parroting approach. Easter simply isn't a matter of Jesus, but also encompasses secular aspects such as chocolate rabbits, baskets, egg hunts, and, yes, a pre-Christian Old English past. Easter is simply the modern English form of Old English Eostre, obviously—a term flatly derived from the name of an Old English goddess. All of these things make up what is now Easter; attempting to sweep these things under the carpet and restrict this article to Christian only related materials is ridiculous and extremely biased. Let's be clear here; you're arguing that this article must be Christian only. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I expected something like that. "I called you ignorant because I just want you to learn more!" Awesome. Moving on from your inability to adhere to your apparently "rigid" support for civil discussion, I actually had to tone down the Christian bias that existed in the article's very opening sentence, a bias that somehow escaped everyone's notice. I'm all for including the secular aspects of modern Easter celebration like chocolate/decorated eggs and rabbits and so on, but your claim is that the prechristian Anglo-Saxons and contemporary pagans celebrate(d) Easter, which is consistently and clearly defined as a Christian festival commemorating the supposed resurrection of Jesus. You are arguing against reliable sources and definitions, linking the English name of an early Christian feast to the celebrations of the prechristian and contemporary pagans in a way that suggests that they "commemorate" or "celebrate" Easter. That is synthesis. They didn't/don't celebrate Easter. They did/do honor Ēostre, who lends her name to the Christian feast in the English language, but they do not celebrate the resurrection of Jesus. You don't like the definition that most of the world adheres to. Shame. But deal with it without the accusations that "ideologues" are "ganging up" on you. Jordanson72 (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
This response is a smoke screen as there still exists extreme bias here, which you're supporting. Obviously, modern English Easter is simply a modern version of Old English Eostre, which is exactly what it was called in Old English. Yes, even after Christianization, derived from the pagan goddess name; it wasn't suddenly Easter. Again, Old English Christian Easter = Eostre, Old English goddess name = Eostre. Same nouns. What would the goddess name be in modern English? Easter. There is no escaping this fact; the two are deeply connected, and there's a significant blur. Again, this is not a cut and dry Jesus-only holiday; Eostre lurks in its past, and even now some Germanic Neopagan sects have revived veneration in its namesake goddess—which I have provided a solid academic reference for. Then there's the matter of the completely secular Easter that has zero to do with Jesus but everything to do with bunnies and chocolate. Finally, I couldn't be bothered if you "want to learn more"—I'm far more interested in correcting Wikipedia articles than I am you. I tend to view talk page exchanges like this as little more than a speed bump in getting the articles in order; it can be a messy process, but it eventually happens. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
It's not a smoke screen. I'm sticking to the definition of "Easter" and pointing out accurately which groups don't come under that definition. That's about as far away from a smoke screen as it gets. Your synthesis, while amusing (for a while), has no place in an encyclopedia. If you're not going to prove that the prechristian Anglo-Saxons and contemporary pagans celebrate(d) Easter as defined by reliable sources then you don't have anything more to contribute. Sh** or get off the pot already. That the English name for the ancient Christian feast is derived from the name of a native goddess does not demonstrate a link between that feast and the celebrations of those who worshiped that goddess. That information should be at Eostre, because venerating the OE goddess Eostre and celebrating Easter as defined by reliable sources are two different things. It is nobody else's fault that you can't see your own synthesis at work, and those that can see it are not necessarily ideologues. Jordanson72 (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Scratch that, brother (or sister)! I have seen the error of my ways, and I apologize for any tears you may have shed on my part—I am now your ally in the fight for a Jesus-only-Wikipedia-Easter-entry! Let us keep the scourge at bay together; see my plan below! :bloodofox: (talk) 03:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't support a Jesus-only-Wikipedia-Easter-entry, and have said precisely the opposite and tried to tone down the Christian bias. Good to see you got off the pot, whatever happens. Jordanson72 (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment regarding NPOV, UNDUE, NOR, IRS and possibly other issues relating to balance of Christian/pagan/secular elements of holiday

Debate and disagreement regarding Christian/pagan/secular issues relating the subject cannot be resolved and the community at large is asked to please contribute to discussion. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 22:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

This article has shown a long pattern of rejecting material not specifically handling Jesus or Christianity. Note that it almost entirely avoids any mention of secular Easter in favor of a strictly Christian interpretation. Users policing the holiday have recently rejected a cited, scholarly reference to the revival of veneration of Ēostre among some Germanic neopagan groups. Let's be clear: Ēostre, Paschal season (which combined with Ēostre-month to produce Old English Christian Ēostre—yes, the same noun as the goddess name—leading to a series of linguistic changes that became modern Easter), and modern secular celebrations are what make up modern Easter, it is not solely a Christian celebration with no earlier history. Indeed, it appears that this desire to keep this article solely about the Christian event is not unintentional, as the talk page makes clear, and a summary of the etymology section that I've tried to add to the lead has been repeatedly reverted (with the reasoning that an unqualified internal link is enough). I suspect a strong ideologic bias at work here. Again, for many Easter consists of little more than chocolate rabbits, grassy baskets, and an egg hunt. This article does not reflect this reality. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Wait, wait, scratch that! Because I've also gotten the nothing-but-Jesus-in-my-Wikipedia-Easter-article fever! But between you and me there's some stuff we should be concerned about, so keep this stuff under wraps, will you? Well, see, there's these articles on Easter-related customs from Watts's Encyclopedia of American Folklore discussing those cursed secular components of Easter with some comments about pre-Christian origins of certain customs, which we have thus far fortunately managed to nearly completely bar from the article:
Here is another reliable source discussing the wretched fact that Easter is actually a dualistic holiday celebrated by both Christians and the secular; "[Easter] is also a secular event in which the children of Christian and non-Christian families participate in Easter egg hunts and receive baskets of candy from the Easter Bunny. Often, non-Christians also spend the day with their family by sharing a meal."
The source then goes on to discuss the Easter Bunny and Easter egg hunt, argh! Curse those pesky non-Christian customs sneaking up on our Jesus-filled Wikipedia article!
And wouldn't you know it! Those damned pagans are at it again, reviving filthy veneration in that pesky goddess we thought we stamped out so long ago. And some scholar went and wrote about it! Now, maybe we can make an argument that Ēostre is somehow different and Easter. Hopefully nobody will notice that the Old English Christian celebration was in fact also spelled Ēostre, ha-ha-ha! That way we could keep it off the article, by golly!
  • Cusack, Carole M. (2008). "The Return of the Goddess: Mythology, Witchcraft and Feminist Spirituality" as published in Pizza, Murphy. Lewis, James R. (Editors). Handbook of Contemporary Paganism. Brill Publishers. ISBN 9004163735
And I'm sure there's piles more out there to be listed here. I fear that it's only a matter of time before this article gives into the evils of secularism and modern neopaganism! But don't you fret, we can keep making excuses for barring every non-Christian thing that comes along from this article over some it not being the real Easter, no matter what relation it might have. Why, if we keep playing our cards right, we might finally be able to compete with that wellspring of right information, Conservapedia! :bloodofox: (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I think there's been overreaction on the part of some folks to a time a few years back when there was a spate of "Easter isn't AT ALL Christian" noise flying around. There have been many attempts made over the years to "prove" that there is nothing at all Christian about Easter. I would say the article, to be encyclopedic, does need to mention all aspects of the holiday as it is currently celebrated. It just does not need to go into unsubstantiable claims about "real meanings" or "real origins" that are only believed by fringe groups and not accepted to reputable historigraphers and historians. Of course, don't let me be a voice of reason, if that sort of thing is no longer sufficiently popular and ill-tempered displays of hurt feelings are now deemed a better way to conduct oneself.Dogface (talk) 03:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the sensible parts of bloodofox's comments: the article should work to incorporate secular traditions. Since nobody has a problem with that, let's get on it! Jordanson72 (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Per RfC Wow, some real strange contortions going on here to try to claim that a Christian holy day is actually a pagen holiday. The English (and for that matter German) etymology has no bearing on the historical basis of the holy day which was established by people who spoke Ancient Greek and Aramaic. The article is seriously burying the lede by making the etymology section the most important section of the article. The most important aspect of Easter is that it is the principle holy day of one of the world's major religions. The second most important aspect is it's celebration by non-Christians. A very distant third is the etymology of the English term and speculation that etymology means people from 1st century Judea co-opted Germanic tribes' pagan celebrations. Eastshire (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

"Speculation that etymology means people from 1st century Judea co-opted Germanic tribes' pagan celebrations"—where on Earth did you find this? This is the sort of pure nonsense from thin air that we need to keep this article free of anything but Jesus! Bravo! :bloodofox: (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
It's implicit in your argument, with its assertions that Easter is somehow a "Christianised" Germanic festival. If the celebration had begun in Germanic countries and then spread elsewhere, you might have had a case, but the opposite is true, as you well know. Paul B (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Comrades in keeping this article Jesus-only, I must show you the light. For, as you know, Christianization in Anglo-Saxon England did not occur in 1 CE, and it was not done by "Judae". Indeed, my friends, England did not yet come to exist until half a millennia later. Therefore comments such as "speculation that etymology means people from 1st century Judea co-opted Germanic tribes' pagan celebrations" simply cannot be ridiculed, for they simply cannot be made in the first place. Oh woe! :bloodofox: (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Your witless sarcasm is utterly unfunny. I am not a Christian, so I have no interest in 'keeping' this page Christian. It just so happens that Easter is a Christian festival. It also just so happens that an Anglo-Saxon month name was adopted in English. "Good Friday" is taken from an Anglo-Saxon day-name, but I don't see even you claiming that Good Friday originated from a festival dedicated to Frigg. This article, like all articles on a global topic, should be global in its coverage. Easter was not invented by the English. It is international, and only the English name links to Ostara. Your comments about when "England" came to exist are irrelevant and frankly silly. Ist century Judea is where the events took place that defined the date. Paul B (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Now, now, Paul, surely you've got some humor in there somewhere. And what isn't there to laugh about comments such as "speculation that etymology means people from 1st century Judea co-opted Germanic tribes' pagan celebrations"? Indeed, comparisons to Friday are invalid totally invalid in the light that various scholars have discussed the level of synthesis that occurred with Paschal season and Easter. It's the same situation as with Yule and Christmas. Of course, this article is to be "global", but it's also clear that both Easter and Ostern are special cases that this article also covers; they have unique histories all of their own, and encompass both pre-Christian Eostre/Eostre-month and the importation of Paschal season. In other words, this article is going to necessarily be different than other Paschal-season articles. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The focus of the article on the Christian holiday is appropriate. The tone is consistent with NPOV. What folklorists call "calendar customs" associated with this festival can be the subject matter of other pages.Mockingbird0 (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment It seems to me that a case has been made for secular observation of the Easter season in the USA. While there are many claims to Easter having its antecedents in other traditions, it needs to be noted that it has a lunar form of dating for celebration date, as do many other religious festivals in other faith traditions. It seems there is a reasonable case to link to another article entitled, Easter as observed in other traditions and countries or a title to this effect. This battleground will then lose its raison d'etre. Whiteguru (talk) 00:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


Seriously, this has to take place now??

You realize that Easter is this Sunday, right? And that with the big {{NPOV}} tag on the article, we are going to have to omit it from Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/April 8 and thus it's not going to be listed on the Main Page. Do any of you realize what a huge embarrassment that will be for Wikipedia?? Please sort this out as soon as humanly possible. Thank you for your cooperation. —howcheng {chat} 04:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the NPOV tag. It was added by one editor who has made very recent, fairly controversial changes to the article - the fact that one editor has a problem with POV on this article does not require a tag. What if a Christian editor started making WP:UNDUE changes to the article Beltane on April 30th? Would we let them slap an NPOV tag there? I think not. I will ask the editor in question to stay away from this article until after Easter and then restart the discussion in a more measured way. Full disclosure: I am a neopagan Wiccan priest and admin with no interest in inter-religious point scoring.) Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
If there's any sort of neutrality discussion on the talk page with any kind of merit—such as the ongoing discussion about exactly why any discussion of the secular on this article has been so far stonewalled and/or ignored, and to what extent the article needs to include the pre-Christian precursor and modern revivals of veneration thereof—then that tag needs to be on the article page notifying users as such. Assumptions of people waiting around until right before Easter to do these things and thus "gaming the system" rather than assuming that people are reminded of Easter by seeing chocolate bunnies and pastel colors everywhere and have thus decided to check out how this article is doing—and therefore spotted the flaws—assumes bad faith. It's also wrong, in my case. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
This article does need to include more information on the secular aspects of Easter celebrations and their prechristian origins if applicable, but modern revivals of Eostre commemoration should be outlined at Eostre. Any examples of contemporary pagans worshiping Eostre do not constitute celebrations of Easter, which is the subject of this article. Presenting information that implies that "modern revivals of [Eostre] veneration" and "Easter" are the same thing is, as you surely know by now, synthesis. Your attempt to use this as a source for "celebrates the goddess Ēostre [in] (Germanic neopaganism)" in the significance section of the infobox is an example of this. The source does not say that modern pagans celebrate Easter in commemoration of Eostre, and in fact describes Easter as a "Christian festival". Jordanson72 (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
The source I provided states that event that pre-Christian Ēostre, as in the goddess, as come to be again venerated, and expressly links it to the modern holiday name. As is the case with Christmas and Yule, Christian Ēostre and heathen Ēostre intrinsically linked. As a result, it is worth noting on this article that pre-Christian veneration has been revived and was therefore not entirely snuffed out with Christianization and syncretism. This is not WP:SYNTH. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
An express link to the English name of the holiday does not justify it's inclusion in the significance section of the infobox under "celebrates the goddess Ēostre [in] (Germanic neopaganism)". The source simply does not say that modern pagans celebrate Easter (which is described in the source as a "Christian festival") as part of their worship of Eostre. Hence its inclusion in the infobox falls under WP:SYNTH. Jordanson72 (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
So, you're stating that the inherent, direct relation isn't enough and that both were synonymous in English isn't enough, but the source must explicitly state that the event occurs on modern Easter. Alright. Well, let's see what we can find. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Either the source matches the claim or it does not. In your case, it doesn't. If you find sources that actually back up the claim (directly, as WP:OR requires), then add it. I don't have a problem with the information, provided it is accurate. I have a problem with your attempts at inserting WP:SYNTH-breaching material and hoping that nobody notices. What the source "must say" is that modern pagans celebrate "Easter" in commemoration of the goddess Eostre. Anything not directly attesting to that fact violates WP:SYNTH, period. Jordanson72 (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, why not debate what Easter is on Easter?

Coming here from a Google search to explain to my children the history, etymology, anthropology, and archeology related to Easter was a huge waste of time. I (much) later learned more from bizarre and unreputable sources like: http://www.lasttrumpetministries.org/tracts/tract1.html http://www.theholidayspot.com/easter and http://www.religioustolerance.org/easter.htm

The last has an introduction that seems more balanced to me (I'm a U.S. "None" -- not a Germanic Neopagan): "Modern-day Easter is derived from two ancient traditions: one Judeo-Christian and the other Pagan. Both Christians and Pagans have celebrated death and resurrection themes following the Spring Equinox for millennia." Maybe you can find common ground by working on re-writing this article to accurately describe the cultural complexity that is "Modern-day Easter" and then branch to: Easter as a Christian feast; Eostre as a Neo/Pagan goddess; as well as the other topics listed under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_%28disambiguation%29 and Easter bunny and Easter egg hunt. I'd also suggest checking the Wikipedia analytics to see if the latter two dominate your traffic, or not.

Given that (as of ~2008) there's 10x as many Christians as Nones in the U.S. and 2x as many on the planet, I can see why some editors would start this article "Easter is a Christian feast." But after reading the discussion, it seems that Christians didn't coin the word "Easter" (like they did Christmas?). The None growth rate in the U.S. is 20x the Christian one and their respective populations are already equal in France, so the trends suggest that some day the truth about bias that Bloodofox first patiently and then sarcastically articulated will manifest as a more balanced article. I'll check back in 20 years. Scottveirs (talk) 09:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to compare the colloquial name of another holiday to the Easter vs. Eostre issue here. Independence Day (US) is commonly referred to as the "Fourth of July", which is acknowledged as a secondary title in the article. Since July is named for Julius Caesar, does that mean that the term "Fourth of July" is somehow honoring or celebrating Julius Caesar? Clearly not, so the same can be said for "Easter", which is the colloquial Germanic-language word for the Christian festival celebrating the resurrection of Jesus that was used because the resurrection was believed to have occurred during Eostur-monath, the month named after Eostre (vs. 4th of July celebrated in month named for Julius Caesar).
Crass comparison or not, it works to show why Eostre, Eostur-monath and the modern form Easter are totally separate and why this article should only focus on (1) the Christian festival, (2) the etymology behind the word Easter (in the appropriate section) and (3) the modern secular aspects (Easter Bunny, eggs, etc). I agree that the latter point is poorly represented and needs work in this article, and would welcome added information regarding the growing modern secular commercial aspect of Easter. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 10:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Fox, comparing July to Julius Caesar and Easter to Eostre is a false analogy; there's a lot of scholarly work out there discussing levels of potential synthesis between today's Christian Easter and yesterday's heathen Eostre-monath/Eostre-celeberations out there. Indeed, the fact that the name is used points to synthesis on par with Yule and Christmas. The two are to some extent combined, and there's plenty of commentary on this. Further, Easter is not the "colloquial Germanic-language word for the Christian festival", but appears only in German and English, both specifically West Germanic branches. Of course, all roads here point to Proto-Indo-European, but presenting it as a "colloquial Germanic-language word" is inaccurate. We have no North Germanic or East Germanic attestations of it. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
The comparison is entirely accurate. I've seen no evidence whatever that there is a "lot of scholarly work work out there discussing levels of potential synthesis between today's Christian Easter and yesterday's heathen Eostre-monath". How many times does it have to be repeated to you? The festival of Easter does not derive from "Eostre month". It derives from Passover. It's named after Passover in almost every language except English. The English do not have a separate festival from everyone else. It's the same international Christian festival. This is purely a quick of English naming conventions. Paul B (talk) 09:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Paul, I guess you're not doing a lot of reading about Easter customs then, are you? Try some digging around about this whole egg, hare, easter-fire, and, well, extra-Biblical Easter customs in general business outside of Christian, non-academic sources. There is and has been obviously much discussion about these customs :bloodofox: (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
The secular aspects of the festival should certainly be covered, but the fact that the event has been secularised is pretty much par-for-the-course for all religious festivals. It's nothing to do with its origins. The fact is that Easter is the same as the Christianised "Passover". Yes, it coincides with the coming of spring in Western Europe, so much of the "death and resurrection" imagery overlaps with "rebirth of the land" imagery. That's what all the eggs and rabbits are about. But it would be very disingenuous to pretend that neo-pagan obsessions with nature imagery represents a survival of some Germanic pagan festival that has been somehow "Christianised". The Biblical source for the date of the crucifixion is absolutely clear and has nothing to do with paganism. Paul B (talk) 11:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Paul, much has been discussed about these customs and imagery in scholarly circles, and denigrating them to "neo-pagan obsessions" is inappropriate and unhelpful. While images such as hares, eggs, and whatnot may naturally, independently occur, there are numerous customs picked up on by Grimm and others that appear to be entirely extra-biblical and may quite logically be simply be a continuation of earlier, pre-Christian customs. This is hardly unique; this very evident with Yule and Christmas, for example. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Your empty pomposity just masks an inability to parse. I was saying that modern neo-pagans are preoccupied by the idea that "nature" is somehow linked to "paganism" (of course this is truer of the Wiccan-related traditions than of all forms of neo-paganism). But this is essentially confused. There is no inconsistency between Christian belief and celebration of nature, since in Christian thought the cycle of nature is part of God's plan. Secular and fetility aspects of celebrations do not contradict Christian aspects - indeed they are entirely consistent with them. What you are doing is in fact the opposite of "balance". You are suggesting that a worldwide festival should be interpreted through the lens of some parochial north European traditions and that speculation about their origins, for which there is zero evidence, should be given a central role in the article. Paul B (talk) 09:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, Paul, I can assure you that my "pomposity" is hardly empty, and my "ability to parse" is well sharpened. But it definitely sounds to me like it's best that you leave it to the scholars to debate what may and may not be a pre-Christian practice. On top of that, I highly suggest you leave it to the neopagans to decide what they do and do not want to believe. It certainly seems that you're giving Christians a free pass. Exactly what makes you think you can come to a talk page and write things about "neo-pagan obsessions with nature"? Seriously, try to show some basic respect for other belief systems, if just for Wikipedia. Regarding "you are suggesting that a worldwide festival should be intwerpreted through the lens of some parochial north European traditions and that speculation about their origins, for which there is zero evidence, ashould be given a central role in the article" is simply wrong; this article is about Easter, and it will necessarily have information about what came together to make Easter in the Anglosphere, i.e. Eoster-monath + paschal season. Then there's the huge, entirely secular element to the article involving easter baskets, egg hunts, and chocolate bunnies that this article does an impressive job of ignoring, but for which we're not allowed to tag as NPOV due to the threat of at least one administrator. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Scott, while you may not have to wait 20 years, it seems that you are unfortunately going to need to wait until after Easter. It has been decided here that any attempts at adding a {{NPOV}} tag to this article until after Easter is over will result in a block until after Easter is over. Given that there are few users on this talk page that have not come around to agreeing that this article does not reflect the secular aspects of the holiday—and is therefore not neutral—you can probably see the level of absurdity that is going on here. This is evidently being done so that the article can meet some technical requirement to appear on the main page on Easter Sunday, and I have now been threatened with a ban from two users if I edit the article before Easter Sunday is over. One of said users already wasted a lot of my time banning me, although the ban was swiftly overturned. Of course, any such future bans are likely to again be overturned fairly swiftly, but it requires a lot of time wasted on my part to bother with them. If you want to see some of my handiwork and to the level I'd like to see this article developed to (i.e. to WP:GA level), see my user page for a list of articles I've rewritten. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Such a "ban" on an WP:NPOV tag would seem to allow others to add even more mostly off-topic sentences to the first paragraph and to crowd out any attempt at balance.--JimWae (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Off-topic, unreferenced or unencyclopaedic material that has been added without discussion can always be removed per WP:BOLD, as far as I'm concerned. I don't regard that as disruptive - on the contrary, it's expressly encouraged by policy. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Note that Kim here is one of said two users threatening a ban for the addition of a {{NPOV}} tag to the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
A block, not a ban. But yes, that's me. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, and as I note that you're an involved administrator, are you somehow denying that there is not only a long history of editors claiming a bias in this article and/or a widespread agreement here that this article is not neutral in that it does not reflect the secular aspects of the holiday? :bloodofox: (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
No. And I don't regard myself as WP:INVOLVED; my only edits here have been in an administrative capacity. I have no editorial history or interest here - the content of the article is for you folks to sort out here on the talk page.Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
After your attempted ban on my account, another user cited your involvement, which I agree with. Further, you have not answered my other questions. Please do so. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Once again, I didn't ban you, I blocked you. And I answered your questions. They were: "are you somehow denying that there is not only a long history of editors claiming a bias in this article and/or a widespread agreement here that this article is not neutral in that it does not reflect the secular aspects of the holiday? ", and my answer was "No". WP:INVOLVED states: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'." That's exactly my role this far. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Ahem, let's be clear; you attempted to block me, but that was pretty quickly rescinded. But, more importantly, in your own words, what is your reasoning for threatening a block or any user who adds {{npov}} to the article, as you agree that there is widespread consensus that the article is not neutral? :bloodofox: (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I did block you, and the block was correctly lifted by another editor because you had not been warned properly by the editor who first took this discussion to AN/I. I'd point out that in lifting the block, the editor concerned strongly suggested that you should "limit yourself to talk page discussion about Easter for the next day or so, " - which I'm pleased to see you are doing. My reasoning for saying I will block a user who restores the NPOV tag is because the disagreement has been going on for a long time, but adding the tag this close to the date of Easter seemed needlessly pointy. Now I'm going to leave you folks to the content discussion here, this process bickering is not particularly constructive. Bloodofox if you have further questions, please come to my talk page. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
No, you blocked me under false pretenses, and then another editor came along and stated that it was inappropriate as you had not followed process. Their suggestion probably has something to do with the possibility of you trying to do it again. Just maybe. Anyway, that tag needs to go on this article—there are numerous issues being brought up by a variety of users, and you're the one being disruptive at this point. Quit trying to hide the neutrality problem. Seriously, Kim, get out of the way of this article's progress; you're not helping and you're wasting not only my time but the time of others. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, yet I've got not one but two editors threatening me with exactly that and for exactly the reasons I've stated. Try adding the tag to the article and see how it goes for you. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I submit that sentences 2 & 3 are not sufficiently about Easter to be in the first paragraph--JimWae (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
These sentences are indeed relevant, as they discuss the days of the Easter Triduum, connecting Jesus' resurrection, with His Passion and Death. Cheers, AnupamTalk 20:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
That Easter is a culimination of something (Lent) is truly part of what Easter IS, but Easter also IS a celebration that includes fertility observances. Right now, sentences 2 & 3 are more a wall of text that crowds out mention of anything that is not religious - they go far beyond information central to what Easter is. The crucifixion is already mentioned in sentence 1--JimWae (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
There are so many blue links in there that I need to correct myself. Sentences 2, 3 AND 4 need to be made more relevant & concise - and room needs to be made for the pagan aspects (Easter bunny, eggs, perhaps women parading their fashions). Right now, those 3 sentences in paragraph 1 are more a recitation of Christian observances than an explication of what Easter means to people who celebrate it. The overwhelming theme in newspaper articles about the day includes eggs, rabbits, and candy. The lede does not reflect any balance regarding the culture of Easter. ---JimWae (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Balance meansd giving a worldwide perspective. It does not mean treating British and US popular culture as an international norm. That should be one of the fundamentals of an article such as this. Paul B (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor responding to RfC... The disambiguation notice makes the content of this article clear:

This article is about the Christian festival. For other uses, see Easter (disambiguation).

In English, we say Easter instead of Pascha. Contributions regarding Spring, goddess, fertility and other festivals have articles. This article is not the place.--cregil (talk) 06:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:POVFORK :"The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion."--JimWae (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I can make no sense of this reply. Easter is a Christian festival. In some countries, like Christmas, it has become largely secularised. But that has very little to do with goddesses and fertility and almost everything to do with chocolate. Popular culture traditions around the world associated with the date should, of course, be included. No-one has ever said they shouldn't. Paul B (talk) 10:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I am replying to the person (directly above that comment) who was content to have this entire article be about the Christian festival. I did not want anyone to interpret that as being good support for focussing ONLY on the Christian aspects of the festival. WP policy is that articles (including this article) should cover all the aspects of the topic - and this Easter article is only now barely beginning to acknowledge any aspects that are not confined to Xn aspects. --JimWae (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Cregil said no such thing. He said "contributions regarding Spring, goddess, fertility and other festivals have articles. This article is not the place." He was quite right. this article is about Easter - that includes popular culture aspects, which in fact are already represented, if relatively poorly. No-one disputes that so there is no issue. The "argument" is about an attempt to appropriate the topic for a neo-paganist agenda, something quite quite different. Paul B (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I did not say he "said" that - I wanted to be pre-empt it being interpreted as support for that.--JimWae (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
JimWae-- this is not forking-- those articles already exist and the disambiguation page lists those articles. They are very different articles and happily co-exist, side by side, neither crowding another.
The breadth and depth of any one article may overwhelm-- as would be the case in this one-- and thus require multiple articles for the different meanings-- not due to a disagreement, but due to context. That is NOT the same as "forking." The various usages of Easter are not in conflict-- there are simply different meanings from context.
As has been pointed out-- none of the pagan or cultural traditions exist in the context of the Judeo-Christian religious one, neither do they share a common root; but only share the term (and, now, the method of dating). Likewise the pasha article links to a disambiguation page listing Easter, Passover and others. They are not all on the same article there, nor should they be here.
Forking is "No! It is not!" whereas disambiguation is "Yes, it is both/all/either/any"--cregil (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
1> Room needs to be made on this article for parts of the Easter festival that are not necessarily Xn. This would not "overwhelm" this article. It has been difficult to get any mention in this article of the Easter festival being celebrated by anyone other then Xns. The process has had a minor beginning & needs to continue. Forking all nonXn aspects to other articles is POV-forking - - but it does differ in that it makes the main article POV rather than the forks. 2> 3 of the 5 sentences in the 1st paragraph still are not centrally about what Easter IS, but about other things connected to Easter. There can be room made in the 1st paragraph to include typical ways the day is celebrated- whether they be Xn or not. 3> Whether we agree it is forking does not change the policy that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. This has not been achieved yet. --JimWae (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
No, this festival is about the celebration of Easter globally, not just about its secularization in the United States. Certain aspects of the festival that are practiced in the USA are not practiced in India, the Philippines, etc. However, across the world, Easter IS recognized as the Christian celebration of the Resurrection of Jesus. The lede paragraph does appropriately mention some secular aspects like Easter parades, the Easter Bunny, etc. However, it also appropriately gives the main emphasis on the Resurrection, which is why the celebration is so widely known and celebrated in the first place. Thanks, AnupamTalk 20:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC Comment - I certainly would have no objection to an article in Easter in the United States, or for that matter articles on significant, notable variations on the celebration of Easter in any locations. I seem to remember that in Japan, for instance, Christmas has been reported to be more or less an occasion for sexually-oriented hotel stays by younger people. I also note that there are several reference books which relate to the different ways that various holidays are celebrated around the world, and see no reason why if they are notable similar articles should not exist here. But all that is rather a separate matter from what should be the main content of the main article on the subject itself. Perhaps another separate article on Proposed pagan precursors to Easter could also be created. But, in general, I do think that WP:WEIGHT and the content of this article should be very much weighted toward the specifically Christian elements. John Carter (talk) 00:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Got RfC invite. You do realize that the etymology of the Anglo-Germanic "Easter" isn't appropriate in the lead (WP:WEIGHT), and the Christian holiday's original name is actually Pascha, and is a Christianized Jewish feast, not a Christianized pagan feast? Just as "Halloween" was "All Hallows' Eve", and "Christmas" was "Christ's Mass" (yes, as in a Roman Catholic Mass, of all things, not a Satanic Black Mass)? Many of these comments (especially bloodfox's) remind me so much of that old legendary, unhistorical myth of the "suppressed underground pagan tradition of ye olde wytche-crafte" that Gerald Gardner was the magical heir to? Coincidentally, I support and lend my voice to everything Paul B said. Mention secular aspects like one would do with any other holy-day-cum-holiday - that Christmas happens to coincide with the day of Sol Invictus, that it has turned in to a massive orgy of consumerism, etc. while observing WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, which means, "not in the lead". St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 05:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Uninvolved editor.
I agree with the above from St John Chrysostom.
I am having difficulty imagining a reader consulting the article to find out about the Christian festival of Easter and NOT walking away with a general "understanding" that the Christians began celebrating the Resurrection of Christ Jesus as a derivative of the pagan festival. We mislead the reader.
The etymology section is HUGE, and irrelevant to the article; yet it is the first section and includes a sub-section, called "origin of Easter" which is not at all about the origin of Easter-- but only of the word. The entire etymology section may be easily reduced to one sentence, "The term Easter is taken from the archaic name of the month used in a medieval Germanic calendar." Beyond that, the linguistic study is off topic and is covered in the Ēostre article already linked in the lede (and from the disambiguation page).
The Fourth of July analogy, above, was excellent-- in that no one expects to read about Julius Caesar in regard to that celebration-- not even a single summarizing sentence such as I have proposed here.
A centering question: What does an understanding of the name of a month on an archaic calendar have to to with the Christian festival of Easter? The answer ("Not at all") is clear, and so does not support the etymolgy section's primary placement with five sub-sections and fifteen paragraphs. --cregil (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Etymologies are usually front and center for good reason; terminology is crucial when approaching a subject. With English Easter it's a particular mess. As for attempts to hoist the etymology off of the article, I suppose this would help certain ideology bents, but it doesn't help the reader. No discussion of Easter—yes, Easter, not simply Paschal season— in an academic context will avoid discussing the syncretism by way of at the very least the celebration name. It's a huge topic on the subject. Currently the article remains a mess that totally sidesteps the major secular element of the holiday (which any academic approach will discuss side by side with the Christian element), and that still needs to be addressed. In addition, the lead is a summary of the body, and therefore all sections should receive concise mention in the lead section.
As to John, I'm willing to accept your apology for comparing my argument to the Gardner's when you're ready to make it. After you've taken the time to read up on what I'm discussing, you'll find that that I've based my comments entirely on modern scholarship. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
So as not to repeat myself, :bloodofox:, I ask you to read the statements I made immediately prior to asking the question. Such reading may render your answer moot. Intended or not, the etymology section obfuscates the subject addressed by the article-- it does not clarify. --cregil (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I think it's very clear. It just so happens that in the English speaking world and in the German speaking world, this holiday was placed on a heathen foundation, and the name of the deity was intentionally taken from the month name and used for the event. As I said, there's been plenty of scholarly ink spilled about this, and even plenty of discussion about "secular" elements stemming from this same syncretic process. As a result, exactly why we use Easter rather than the terminology common everywhere else (but German) requires a prominent explanation; this is is the English Wikipedia, after all, and we're using English terminology. As "international" as the article may be, we're still using English, thus making the history of our branch of the "paschal season" a special case requiring explanation. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
The main article on the etymology, Ēostre does not state what you are claiming, and that your attempts to include such information into this article's lede and not that one is telling, I think.
Your point being that the calendar did not use Jedeo-Christian names for the months is equivocal to the holiday being placed on a heathen foundation... is a hard argument to follow and I believe it is unsupportable. Neither this article, nor the main article say that, but you make my point-- because of the amount of material beginning the etymology section, it appears to suggest that the goddess and the Christian celebration are related in anyway beyond a relation if the festival were called "April." A typical reader may well be expected to assume that the discussion of the goddess is necessary to understand the Christian Easter when it clearly is not.
Are you suggesting that the Church in Germanic-based languages had different faith and practice than the rest of the Church? At no time and in no place did the Church acknowledge the existence, much less honor, the goddess, Ēostre. I'll not prove the negative, so you will need to to prove otherwise.
The entire sub-section may be reduced to "The term Easter is taken from the archaic name of the month used in a medieval Germanic calendar in which the feast fell." That one statement is accurate, clear, concise, and meets your expectations for clarity regarding etymology, does it not?
I take you at your word that "much scholarly ink" has been spent on the synchornicity-- but that does not change the fact (fact, mind you) that this article is not about the etymology or about synchonicity -- another article exists in which the etymology discussion is contained. I can think of no other encyclopedia article which gives space for equivocal terms in all other languages.
As for your claim: "Etymologies are usually front and center ..." Well, No. They are not. In fact etymologies are found in any good dictionary following the definition and easily understood without requiring fifteen paragraphs in five sections. I am aware of no comparable encyclopedic entry which even includes-- much less begins with-- and essay on the etymology of the title word. In the English speaking world, "Happy Easter" and "Easter Day" are not confusing and so do not beg for clarification.
Concerning your statement that "the name of the deity was intentionally taken from the month name and used for the event." To the contrary, Grimm uses the words "the christian teachers tolerated the name, and applied it to one of their own grandest anniversaries." Toleration is one thing and your use of "intentionally" connotes a very different other. If your intention is to claim that because the month name is "heathen" the Christian Holiday is also heathen, that would be a non sequitur. If your intention is to declare that the Church chose the name to honor the goddess from which the month's name is derived, then I point out that the fuller Ēostre article does not make that claim.
If I understand you correctly, it is not the etymology which is of central importance to you in this article but the synchronicity of cultural artifacts from non-Christian Spring rites which have remained. If I am correct, then perhaps you may immediately see the POV problem you have faced with beginning an article about the Christian Festival with a discussion of the accretion of non-Christian observances?
Your words:
And wouldn't you know it! Those damned pagans are at it again, reviving filthy veneration in that pesky goddess we thought we stamped out so long ago. And some scholar went and wrote about it! Now, maybe we can make an argument that Ēostre is somehow different and Easter. Hopefully nobody will notice that the Old English Christian celebration was in fact also spelled Ēostre, ha-ha-ha! That way we could keep it off the article, by golly!
That you place those words in the mouths of your opponents is very far out of bounds, and betrays personal intent to disparage Christians and Christianity-- and attempting to silence others who you consider to be an opponent by diluting an article and so obfuscating the subject of that article is not going to be tolerated, and I cannot imagine why you expect it to be. --cregil (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally I'm quite fond of the etymology section as it stands now. The reason that we need an extensive etymology section is precisely due to these sectarian arguments about origins. A section which is absent ignores origins altogether and opens the article up for Hyslop-type conspiracy theories. A short etymology section makes Easter look clearly (Germmanic) pagan. A longer one is necessary to convey the complexity of the situation. -Ben (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC) (Who thinks the origins of the parts of Easter he cares about are Jewish.)

Crews, I suggest you re-read Ēostre (of which I am the primary author). Indeed, the modern English and modern German worlds are in a unique situation due to the placement of a goddess name over what is considered the most major of Christian holidays. The reasons for this have been much debated, but are obviously related to the observances associated with the goddess prior to the placement of the imported Christian event over it ("Now they designate that Paschal season by her name..."). We also have a very strong, extra-biblical series of customs that live on in the "secular world" recorded from an early date. Much discussion has occurred about this. And I'm talking about scholarly circles here. As I'm responsible for the addition of the Grimm passage in question, it seems that you could use some clarification; Grimm is here speculating on exactly why the church would allow the application of the name of the goddess this crucially important Christian holiday, his idea being that the population wouldn't give up their previous customs so easily, and so either the population (or, less likely, the church) intentionally applied the name to this new event (i.e., "whose worship was so fully rooted") and that the church tolerated it (i.e., were not able to or decided against trying to stamp it out). The result would therefore be syncretism; a Christian event with the name of a native goddess. We can only guess to what level this syncretism extended at the time, but there has been a fair amount of discussion of absorption of Christian deities (Jesus, Yahweh, etc.) into the Anglo-Saxon pantheon during the Christianization process for a period. Anyway, Grimm additionally has much to say about Easter customs having essentially nothing to do with anything biblical, some of which continue today.
Further, on Wikipedia etymologies are usually front and center, particularly in confusing situations such as this. As with confusion over terminology relating to the Sun or the Moon, it's inevitable that someone immediately asks why we are using Easter rather than Paschal season in English the English language. Of course, there's a lot more to it than the vague passage you're suggesting, which requires clarification to the reader. I agree with Ben here.
As for my sarcastic response that you quote above, given your suggestion to shorten any discussion of the origins of the word Ēostre on this article to the extremely vague "The term Easter is taken from the archaic name of the month used in a medieval Germanic calendar in which the feast fell", I must point you to the rest of the similar sarcastic comments attached to it. Or I can just sum it up with "all secular and non-Christian elements must be purged from this page—or, if that fails, minimized as much at possible—at all cost!", an approach I've now seen more than a few times here. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

"Vague passage?"-- Them's fightin' words! You want to engage me, because you enjoy the discussion? Okay. Let's discuss.

I had read before that you had stated you had responsibility for much of the Ēostre article, and so am surprised to find you seeking to go beyond your own scholarly work on this article. In reading that fuller article with Grimm's comments summarized and quoted, it seems to me that if there was any celebration of the Goddess, it is unknown what that celebration included, unknown as to how any associated customs and rituals developed and how, why, and when they fell out of favor. It is mere speculation.

From that article-- well written by the way, and thank you-- what we have is speculation. What we do not seem to have is documents or archeology contemporary to any goddess festivals of the distant past. Example:

Bonfires were lighted at Easter... ...Maidens clothed in white, who at Easter, at the season of returning spring, show themselves in clefts of the rock and on mountains, are suggestive of the ancient goddess.

Grimm appears to write of anciently attested Christian custom of the catechumens dressed in white on Easter morning, for their Baptisms for which they prepared during Lent. Grimm speculates that this (and along with sunrise bonfires) might be syncretism-- the Church taking on customs of the goddess rites. He is wrong.

Here is why he is wrong: The dressing in white is a Christian symbol lifted straight from Christian Scriptural imagery ("washed in the blood of the Lamb" and others). The Bonfires at dawn are much more easily attributed to the non-synchenistic Christian liturgical custom of "New Fire" used by Anglican, Roman and Orthodox Easter Vigil rites.

Grimm is looking at known Christian customs contemporary to himself, and seeking to glean hints of goddess customs to be assigned to syncretism-- but it is far removed from what can be known now-- and could have been known by Grimm two hundred years ago-- but he didn't seem to know it.

Why that has not been discussed is, apparently that the details of the argument have not been brought forth by you or others in this present discussion.

Let me, let that hang there for a moment, in light of the other major (and more explicit) prong of the discussion:

Again and again, even before the RfC, your connecting the etymology and assuming synchretism (not to mention assuming nefarious intent of the Church) has been well met with the point that the etymology of the term does not bear the weight of an assumption of synchretism.

Many of us have read the Ēostre article and others on the topic (some verbatim from the Wiki or visa-verse, by the way) and since you wrote much of it, it is telling that we do not read the connection which you imply is made in it.

Grimm's work is speculation-- it is an attempt to assume syncretism SO THAT, something of the goddess ritual practice, IF ANY, may be speculated upon. It is all he had to go on. It is not that we do not "get it" it is that we do get that it is assumptions for the sake of speculation. Fun and intellectually stimulating, but not encyclopedic-- except as the thin and ONLY framework for imagining anything about hypothesized goddess customs. That is what Grim wanted to do, but he did it in a vacuum of evidence.

Grimm suggests what we might look for as regards this long-lost and, except for Bede, forgotten goddess; but so far, it has yet to be found. Or so the article has me believe.

Grimm admits that the etymology of the word may be a reference to the rising of the sun:

Grimm details that the Old High German adverb ôstar 'expresses movement towards the rising sun',

but stops short of making the connection of that to the equinox, when the sun's "power" overcomes that of darkness (in primal thinking and symbolism-- but Grimm had not been able to read Carl G.Jung!), instead preferring to speculate on the one and only hint to go on, which is that Bede claimed the month was named after a goddess. No other evidence exists.

Let me make that clear. The only evidence that there is even a goddess named Ēostre is because Bede wrote that the month was named after a goddess. Nothing else (zero, zed, zilch!) exists.

So, going even beyond that tenuous (spurious?) theory, your desires for this article seem to be heading toward an "original research" violation (specifically, that Christian practices derived from goddess worship) and stepping to, but not crossing the line, the reader is to be led to jump to that conclusion. It has no place on this article.

You are free to jump to that unproven and presently unprovable (more likely, easily deniable) conclusion, but endeavoring to lead the reader to it is a POV violation-- and especially so on this article-- inexcusably so, in the lede and in the first main section.

Now back, as promised, to Grimm: The study which Grimm lacks in his speculation, is liturgical. He needed to step back and take into account global Christian custom and rites, and point to those which might only have developed in and when any goddess worship was contemporary to that development. He had not done this. It ought to be done, but his failure to do it places his speculation on a foundation of clay. That may have been excusable, because he may not have intended such weight to be placed upon is modest speculation.

Note, for example, that Grimm provides no evidence for goddess worshipers wearing ritual garments, or lighting ritual bonfires-- only that he knows the Christians were doing these things. But evidence that Christians have long done so (at least by the earliest part of the fourth century and THAT attestation to the Easter Vigil practice in Jerusalem)-- throughout Christianity (not just in regions of Germanic root language) abounds. Talking about hiding evidence and scholarship, were you? Let me see you put that in the Ēostre article, and I'll give you due credit for both objectivity and scholarship.

Finally, your implicit concept that no Christian believes in the faith of the Church except by having more organic beliefs "stamped out" is not going to do you any good as a starting place for your edits-- it is a dead end, historically unlikely, personally false, and a token common to that of a closed mind-- not to mention a POV violation.

POV checking time:

Mind you, the Christian faith and practice was horribly persecuted for its first 300 years-- everywhere-- and pretty much by all, probably including at the hands of goddess worshipers. Welcome to the real world where we are not surprised that people acted like people whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, pagan, atheist, pantheist, panentheist, animist or anything else-- so you can stop your demonizing-- beginning with taking back your statement that what I write is "vague." I am vague in my writing like a two-by-four to the side of the head is subtle.

In this case, "Easter" is wholly equivocal to "Pascha." Why the term Easter is used in English and not Pascha is an etymological footnote, nothing more than a reference to the calendar in use at one time; but has nothing at all to do with the faith and practice-- or even the meaning of the word in English. No change in custom, creed, dating, observance, ritual, or prayer, of the Christian Festival has been (or can be, it would seem) linked to any goddess worship. The whole discussion begins and ends there.

If I began editing articles so that those on Muslim rites and practices were led by a discussion of Christian rites and practices-- do you not think I would find my edits reverted? I have, in fact, read scholarly speculation that Muslim faith and practice borrows largely from a syncretism of animist and Christian thought to which Mohammed was exposed, and yet rejecting both-- so I have a valid point, but know it is not appropriate to use such speculation to derail the main content of the article for something which cannot be proved to begin with. What is the difference?

Hear that sound? That was the thud of a two-by-four. --cregil (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Crews, you've only made it further clear that you're in dire need of basic research on this subject. You haven't absorbed much of the Ēostre article. First of all, Grimm's work has been picked up on and expanded on by numerous scholars since (which the article makes perfectly clear). An example of this is linguist Philip A. Shaw's recent work on the subject (Shaw, Philip A. (2011). Pagan Goddesses in the Early Germanic Goddess: Eostre, Hreda and the Cult of Matrons. Bristol Classical Press. ISBN 978-0-7156-3797-5), where he discusses further evidence that has come to light since Grimm's time, such as the matronae Austriahenea (discovered in 1958), toponyms, personal names, etc., all further "evidence" for the goddess beyond Bede's attestation and beyond Grimm's reconstructions. Then there's the strong Indo-European dawn goddess reconstruction that continues to be developed. Essentially the Anglo-Saxon extension could be reconstructed without Bede's attestation at this point. Please get a basic grip on this material before continuing.
As you do so, you need to understand that Grimm was both a polyglot and by most definitions a polymath; he knew his material extremely well and made major innovations in his field(s). He has been repeatedly compared to Darwin for good reason. Before producing a rambling original research essay, you need to go back and figure out why he said rather than run with my quotes. Grimm very frequently cites extremely obscure church records in numerous languages, and was by no means ignorant of church custom or history. The man knew his material perhaps better than anyone alive today, and his records are frequently referred back to in their respective fields. While his research has in many areas been built on since, he remains vital. On the other hand, you've clearly got a long way to go yet.
As for your personal rant about Christianity and paganism, I'm not interested in getting in to that with you (or anyone else on Wikipedia). :bloodofox: (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Your quick answers along the lines of "you are in dire need of more research" and "you haven't absorbed much" lack any force. Instead, you may have responding to the analysis of the scholarship-- which I took the trouble to provide. (I am an uninvolved editor-- why am I the one doing this?)
1) In your..., well, rant, you provided two orts:
(a) Grimm's work has been picked up on and expanded on by numerous scholars since
Expanding on speculation is irrelevant without conclusions. Perhaps you simply forgot to mention the necessary part where we learn of the specific rites and customs of Ēostre worshipers which were adopted by the Church as syncretism? I am all ears.
(b) Philip A. Shaw... discusses further evidence.. such as such as the matronae Austriahenea, toponyms, personal names, etc.
And how does any of that tell us of the rites and customs of the goddess named Ēostre?
2) From that recently updated section in the Ēostre article:
A cluster of place names in England contain and a variety of English and continental Germanic names include the element*ēoster, an early Old English word reconstructed by linguists and potentially an earlier form of the goddess name Ēostre. These locations include Eastry (Eastrgena, 788 CE) in Kent, Eastrea (Estrey, 966 CE) in Cambridgeshire, and Eastrington (Eastringatun, 959 CE) in East Riding of Yorkshire.'
I hate use the term, yet again, but that is a non sequitur. Look at map. All the places mentioned are on the eastern edge of England-- EASTERN. How many places names in England are named after the also forgotten goddesses of Middle, South, North, and the evil twin of Ēostre, known as "West"? What allows me to see the data without forcing an interpretation is called "objectivity" -- it is not unfamiliarity, it is not ignorance.
3) The facts and the analysis I provided previous to this post are accurate and you have not provided a contrary argument other than empty contradictions and insults. What you provided (i.e., matronae Austriahenea) is no evidence of the rites and customs involving the goddess Ēostre.
Here is how the analysis goes:
* We have a word which primarily etymology is related to "the direction of the rising sun" also known as the common word "East." Exactly the same usage as calling a storm from the north-east a "Nor-Easter." (Ēostre: "Grimm details that the Old High German adverb ôstar "expresses movement towards the rising sun")
* We have, 400 years ago, the Venerable Bede writing that the equivalent to April was once called by a variant of that word. (Ēostre: "whose role as a goddess is attested solely by Bede")
* We have Bede write that the month was named after a long forgotten goddess in whose honor, feasts were once held.-- he tell us nothing more. (Bede: "once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month.")
* We have mythology scholars search for, but fail to find ("...solely by Bede"), any lore referring to such a goddess, therefore...
* We have a scholarly debate ensue drawing Bede's accuracy into question (Ēostre: "...have debated whether or not Eostre is an invention of Bede's"); suggesting he was merely mistaken or confused-- perhaps assuming a goddess by an ASSUMED etymology rather than a more obvious etymological model that the name of the month refers to the direction rising of the sun-- perhaps due to the equinox, and more to the point-- the word "East."
* We have, 200 years later, Grimm and others defending Bede with SPECULATION-- but no evidence. Nature abhors a vacuum... so does scholarship. (Ēostre: "Grimm additionally speculates on the nature of the goddess and surviving folk customs that may have been ")
4) The debate concerning syncretism -- and thus, ANY connection to the Christian festival-- is at an impasse for lack of specific evidence one way or the other.
So, it is a dawn on or about the six hundred years ago somewhere in Europe and Ēostre goddess worshipers have gathered for a feast. What were they doing? and How do we know?
Unless we can answer that, the syncretism theory rests in a logical reverse presumption; that is, in attempting to discover what Ēostre worshipers might have done by what the Christians were doing at the time. That is extraordinarily presumptive, don't you think?
5) Also, this entire discussion of the Ēostre article belongs on that articles talk page-- underscoring, I think, the misplacement of your edits on this article. An example of that, is that to respond to my part in this discussion, you first had to go add material to the other article.

--cregil (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I went and added the Shaw references, which was cited throughout the article. I had added the material previous to this discussion. What's your point? Anyway, like I said before, you clearly have a poor grip on what we're talking about; as Shaw (2011) discusses at length, comparative linguistics, personal names, a cluster of toponyms, and the discovery of earlier matronae all provide evidence for the goddess that must be considered. These are all factors in the discussion. And, as I said before, due to the well attested Indo-European cognates (Ushas, Eos, Aurora, etc., etc.), Eostre could likely be reconstructed without any of that evidence. You're going to great lengths to produce original research here ("you may have responding to the analysis of the scholarship-- which I took the trouble to provide") to defend your position, when what you should be doing is finding scholarship backing your position. Good luck with that. In the mean time, I'm not interested in reading your (or anyone else's) confused original research on Wikipedia, whether or not you want to call it an "analysis of the scholarship". :bloodofox: (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
What is my point?
And you accuse me (well, most everyone, really) of having a poor grasp of what I/we read?
The point was that this discussion belongs on the Ēostre article. I must have had made that too vague for you when I used the words,"Also, this entire discussion of the Ēostre article belongs on that articles talk page."
Good grief!
Anyway, like I said before, you clearly have a poor grip on what we're talking about
You have used that and similar slaps to so many in this discussion. You realize that indicates a character flaw, right? It is also a violation.
There have been several opportunities to respond to known facts and objections counter to your argument, but insults is the best you have managed-- insults followed by merely repeating your original non sequitur as if repeating it will suddenly make your conclusion logical. It won't.
BECAUSE the name of several towns can be traced to the root word for "shine"
THEREFORE IT FOLLOWS THAT
Christians named their practices from Bede's Ēostre goddess worship.
NO! It does not follow. No matter how many times you write it or how you word it-- no matter what scholar you have making such a statement-- you cannot fix the broken logic. What about "No!" do you not understand?
As for your claim of my "original research" I have provided no original research. I simply read with comprehension, and because you claimed "original research" last time I paraphrased your own arguments, this most recent time I cited your own article after paraphrasing what you wrote-- directly quoting.
I don't blame you for not wishing to have your own words used to cut the legs out from under your own argument-- but you cannot call quoting your edits and looking at a map "original research"-- in my world-- that is called simple reasoning.--cregil (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, after "BECAUSE the name of several towns can be traced to the root word for "shine" THEREFORE IT FOLLOWS THAT Christians named their practices from Bede's Ēostre goddess worship. NO! It does not follow. No matter how many times you write it or how you word it-- no matter what scholar you have making such a statement-- you cannot fix the broken logic. What about "No!" do you not understand?", I do not think I need to respond further. This statement, with its head-scratching inaccuracies combined with an open disdain for scholarship, says it all. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Easter/Archive_6&oldid=1249250813"