Talk:Easter (disambiguation)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hi, I propose that this disambiguation article be moved to "Easter", and the current Easter article, which itself proclaims to be an article on only the Christian aspects of Easter be moved to "Easter (Christianity)" (or something like that). Having the main "Easter" article discuss only the Christian aspects of Easter gives (IMHO) undue weight. The majority of people I know living in the UK and in Germany, and various other parts of Europe, Easter is very much based around Easter Eggs, which get very little, if no mention in the current "Easter" article. Many thanks, --Rebroad 10:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

[edit] Survey - in support of the move

1. Support per nom. --Rebroad 10:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Support Kljenni 15:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Support Most of the Easter traditions (decorated eggs, the movable date, etc.) are pagan in origin --Eamonnca1 17:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Support as per above.--Michig 17:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Oppose Whatever people do at Easter, the bottom line is that Easter is a Christian feast first and foremost. All the other stuff is secondary. Dave 18:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose Where one meaning is predominant, it gets the unmodified name. In this instance, none of the other pages' subjects comes close to Easter in prominence. That said, however, the secular aspects of modern Easter need much more prominent coverage in that page than they currently have. Doops | talk 19:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Is this a joke? All other meanings are derivative and of secondary importance. —  AjaxSmack  19:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Strongly oppose. The Christian festival is the primary meaning of Easter; the Easter bunny and the goddess Eostre should get see alsos; but I don't feel like trimming the section they get between them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Strongly oppose. Easter is a Christian holiday. Only pseudo-scholarship claims that Easter is of pagan origin. "Easter" as a name in a minority of languages (most use "Pascha" or some derivative) is no more an indication to the German goddess Eostre than the American Fouth of July celebration has anything to do with Julius Caesar. The vast majority of even secular scholarship recognizes Easter's origins in the Jewish Passover. 71.245.4.129 02:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
   • The word Easter is of pagan origin, unless Bede is a pseudo-scholar. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
     • The word Easter being of pagan origin (which is debateable, though I have no doubt Bede was using the best sources of his time) has nothing to do with the origin of the feast of the Resurrection of Christ. Easter and its cognates are used only in a small minority of languages, none of which are anywhere near where the actual festival was begun. 71.241.79.69 14:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Christian festival is the primary meaning. Noel S McFerran 03:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose per above. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose. Easter is largely about bunny eggs, and Christmas is about Santa, even in the comparatively ultra-Christian United States. But I see no reason to extend that commercial spirit to Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, and we should strive to keep its articles as scholarly as we can reasonably do. Per Dave, "Easter is the Christian observance of..." makes a better encyclopedia article than "Easter is an annual spike in chocolatiers' profits...". If people want to find out about the Easter bunny, they can surf to the Easter bunny article. If they want to read about Easter, we should make sure they can do so at the Easter article. The dab page is fine where it is. --Quuxplusone 02:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose. The primary meaning and the significance of the holiday stem from the Christian tradition. Even were that not the case, the Easter (disambiguation) page requires serious cleanup as far as WP:MOS-DAB is concerned; the Easter eggs you mention shouldn't even appear (except in a "See also" section) because an Easter egg is never referred to as "an Easter". Dekimasuよ! 05:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Because the Catholic Encyclopedia has no problem making it known that Easter and its customs are of Pagan origin I don't see a problem with it here.

All the CE article shows is that the term Easter is possibly derived from a pre-Christian term and that some places contain customs which may have a pagan origin. The holiday itself, though, is clearly a Christian holiday derived from a Jewish one. This is a perennial red herring that comes up in the Easter article and has been dealt with repeatedly. It's honestly something of a joke to try to push these theories, which are generally put forward only by certain small sectors of anti-Christian ideology. The overwhelming number of secular historians, however, agree with their Christian counterparts regarding the facts of Easter's historical origins. 71.245.4.129 02:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That Easter symbolism might derive from pagan, animist, monist, or any other non-Christian traditions is irrelelvant. The primary meaning is still the holiday and other terms (e.g., Easter bunny, Easter egg) are secondary and derive their name and significance from the holiday whether or not they have pre-Christian origins. —  AjaxSmack  02:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the current concensus is that the Easter article remain where it is. It also appears that concensus is that the Easter article need not be regarding only the Christian aspects, and therefore it follows that the sentence at the top regarding it being an article on the Christian aspects should be removed, and perhaps additional text added regarding Easter eggs and bunnies (possibly with images) be permitted to be added to the article. Would everyone be in agreement with this assessment of the concensus? --Rebroad 08:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a real problem with this. I agree that all the other (non-christian) aspects of easter have a place in Wikipedia. However I strongly feel that the article entitled Easter should be an article on the Christian festival. Have a section at the end called "Other meanings of Easter" or something. Dave 12:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that for editing content within the Easter article, discussions on Easter (disambiguation) are not all that useful. It is like discussing the content of George W. Bush on the Bush disambiguation page. Neier 12:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.