From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Christianity (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Holidays (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Holidays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Religion (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: Why doesn't the article explain that Easter is 100% pagan because "Easter" is derived from "Ishtar"?
A: Need summary from Ishtar not debunked here, Censorship of Pagan origins, Ishtar Easter, and articles on Alexander Hyslop and The Two Babylons.

Easter's pagan roots[edit]

This article mentions that some consider Easter to have pagan roots, but doesn't discuss this it beyond that (or if it does, it does so without using the word pagan). Can someone expand on this in a dedicated paragraph? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

As above, an editor apparently had just removed those sections. Per WP:PRESERVE, hopefully they maintained those sections somewhere like origins of Easter or history of Easter—so it could be linked to from the article—rather than just deleting them. Regardless, the old format of the pages'll still be in the page's history. — LlywelynII 00:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, neither does the article mention the pagan connection to the origin of the word Easter. That is, having the Greek word Ostera or Eostre (Anglo-Saxon goddess of spring) as it's origin. Neither is there any reference to the Wiki page ( relating to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The Venerable Bede states that the name of the holiday comes from the name of the month in which the holiday usually fell. The Greek word connection is not attested to in scholarly sources, however. The scholarly consensus is that Germanic peoples such as the Germans and the Anglo-Saxons named the holiday after the name of the month they used at the time. Obviously, the Germans did not influence the Christians in Ethiopia and India. There is no scholarly backing to the claim that Easter has pagan roots. There is scholarly backing to the claim that Easter has Jewish roots. Some do consider Easter to have pagan roots. Some have the opinion that Christianity is a made up religion based on earlier pagan beliefs. Personal viewpoints are not a basis for an encyclopedia, however. (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually ... there's a fair bit of scholarly backing, some of which is or has been in the article already. Your opinion that there isn't scholarly backing isn't sufficient to ignore the topic. Rwenonah (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I came to this page to find links to academic controversies over the word and concept and content and ancient origins and antecedents and analogues of the Easter celebration. I'm annoyed they weren't here (at least at the time I visited the page). It is an extreme disservice to the reader to omit links to an important controversy merely because of what may be dogmatic religious beliefs on the part of some of the editors. (Essentialism by the way the way tends to be a marker of conservative Christian beliefs.) I view that simple censorship: it is a violation of NPOV to eliminate links to an actual academic controversy. Burressd (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

There isn't much of an academic controversy over this subject; there is a scholarly consensus. If you want to read about real controversy that actually exists in the academic world, go look at Jesus Christ in comparative mythology. Discounting fringe theories is what academics requires. It isn't religious dogma that requires us to discount them. If you disagree, write a book that doesn't contradict already established evidence and convince others. This hasn't happened yet, hence the version of the article that you see here. (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Nope. There was a relevant section containing scholarly material detailing the fairly extensive controversy that certainly does exist, but it was deleted. Don't pretend that it or the dispute never existed; both do. Rwenonah (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I can see that those people who think that there is some sort of Christian conspiracy on this page would prefer citations to the Deutsches Wörterbuch, the Oxford Classical Dictionary, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, and the Oxford Companion to World Mythology. They might not like the scholarly consensus that Ishtar and the Christian festival of Easter bear no relation, but I suppose they will just have to accept mainstream science, linguistics, comparative mythology and archaeology until next Easter when they raise another ruckus and try to push their agenda. (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
The denial of cultural bias in Wikipedia articles is infuriating, but it is inevitable. To me, the general tone of this article presumes consensus regarding facts of "the historical Jesus" that are largely matters of faith. Any expectation of rationality in such an article is fantasy. You have to stick with the encyclopaedia that you are comfortable with (EB11 - I understand it's systematic biases and can filter them with relative ease), and just accept that the silliness that is Wikipedia is "immortal under the edge of the knife". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The sources exist; just look at past talk page archives for a sampling. It may or may not deserve to be in the article, but denying the existence of the controversy with an assortment of titles proves zilch. Rwenonah (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
A recent post by the editor of the Jesuit magazine, America, provides a nice overview of the controversy over Ishtar, Easter and "The origin of the name Easter" His main contribution, besides an overview of the literature, is an introduction of the religious concept of "inculturation of the Gospel needed to make strong connections among the newly converted to beloved traditions and ways of life" to provide a motive for British Christians adopting a name related to an Anglo-Saxon feast and goddess. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
This Jesuit magazine article is a total mess. Let's stick to the scholarship here, please. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed too the lack of reference to Easter as first being a Pagan day of celebration of the spring equinox and the worship of the Pagan goddess of fertility. Too much attention given to the cover artists here, not the original artists! The oracle 2015 (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2015[edit]

Please make resurrection of Jesus Christ at the introduction only one blue link. Using one link for 'resurrection of' and another for 'Jesus Christ' is really exaggeration, and too many blue links only make crowd and create confusion... Thank you. -- (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2015[edit]

The official Greek name of Easter is NOT Pascha, but Lambre (Lampre) [Greek Λαμπρη] from Greek Lambros/ Λαμπρος meaning 'to shine' [the English word 'lamp' i.e. light bulb comes from the same root]. This is reflected in the English version of the word 'Easter' which originates from the proto-indo European 'Austro' also meaning 'to shine'. Additionally, the ancient Greek word 'Astro' means 'Star' and also denotes an object shining brightly. So, the name of Easter in Greek is LAMBRE. You have to research this and make the correction. Pascha is derived from Jewish customs which is NOT the correct word for Easter. Lambre is, or 'the Shining', which in the past referred to the Goddess of the Dawn Eostre and Ostara (austros), but obviously now refers to the new 'light', or shining of Jesus Christ. Another notable connection here should be written down probably, that the ancient Greek God Zeus also was called 'the Shining Father', from the old Sanskrit root 'Diau' meaning 'to shine'. Therefore, it has been common over the ages to denote Gods as shining, or owners of light, or bringing the light. This is not exception with Jesus Christ. Thank you. I am awaiting for an answer and I will check again this post. Please do consult/ contact any Greek authorized person to furnish you with the correct information about Easter, it is called Lambre officially in Greek and not the perhaps common Pascha as usually may be termed. Sincerely. (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

A brief check in a classical Greek dictionary (Liddell and Scott) and in Google Translate (for modern Greek) does not support the connection of Λαμπρη with Easter, while Google Translate does translate Easter as Πάσχα (with several other alternates all beginning with Πάσχα…). If you wish to have this change considered, please provide citations to reliable sources to support your claim. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Amortias (T)(C) 16:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Sir for your prompt answer. I think proof is the fact that the direct translation of Easter [or Eoster/ Ostara/ Austro/ aus] which means 'dawn', or 'to shine' to the Greek language is 'Lambre/ Lambros' from the Greek verb 'Lambo' [Λαμπω] meaning 'to shine'. Actually apparently is the opposite i.e. the English word Easter may be a direct translation/ association with the Greek word 'Lambre' since the Greek Christian Church is more-or-less perhaps one of the oldest Christian Churches, thus those who humbly actually kept the tradition of Jesus Christ and the Apostles, so the Greek word probably took precedence to the English equivalent word.

If you would like additional proof, then I will have to find an authorized either priest, or I contact the Greek archdiocese, or a Greek university professor who is specializing in Theology to furnish me with the relevant information. I may require some time until i prepare such a proof, so perhaps we leave this topic open, until I conclude my search. Thank you for taking your time in reviewing this topic. Sincerely, (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

'Lambre/ Lambros' is irrelevant because the name Easter itself is not original. Pascha is the name the entire undivided church used from the beginning, and which most of the world still uses and recognizes after about 2000 years. It is Easter that is a local deviation, spread mostly by means of the English language as it proliferated through the British Empire in relatively modern times. The Orthros service (Matins) of the Orthodox Church contains the words "It is the day of Resurrection, let us be radiant, O ye peoples; Pascha, the Lord's Pascha; ...". By this name the Church has celebrated the day since well before there is solid proof. But this service text has been used in Orthodoxy unchanged since the early centuries of Christianity (7th c latest), for which there is proof, and the name also pervades usage in modern churches in the west as it has since these same very early times. It's even in Scotland. It is primarily the English language that represents the naming aberration. This is what you find from the Greek Orthodox Church, and it is known not only to scholars and specialists, but very widely. Evensteven (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

wikilink to Jesus[edit]

This is the article about the main feast in Christianity, the wikilink I suggest is the one to Jesus' place in Christianity (which is the reason for the feast). It's really pretty simple. Evensteven (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

No. Jesus is an historical figure according to the majority of relevant historians, and this festival is celebrating that figure specifically. "Jesus in Christianity" refers to how Jesus is viewed within Christianity, not to a person, and that's not what is being referred to in the article.Crumpled Fire (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Agree with @Crumpled Fire: JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh, that's rich. He's historical, so the festival celebrates him, but the festival is the most important one in Christendom, and Christianity is why anyone remembers him. And his personhood is historical, but Christianity knows nothing about this person? On the contrary, this festival exists because of this person. The festival is a Eucharistic celebration, and the Eucharist was instituted by him. His memory was preserved how? By modern historians? Absolute nonsense!! Your comments are patent nonsense. Evensteven (talk) 05:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
See WP:CONSENSUS & WP:NPA. JoeSperrazza (talk) 07:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
There is no consensus here. I did not make the change initially. There has been no resolution through discussion. I'm not claiming consensus for my argument either, but it is a false claim that there is consensus for yours. That has yet to be established. And don't play the "personal attacks" card here. There have been no personal attacks, unless you have taken the attacks upon your arguments personally. Understand: it is your position that I take to be ridiculous and nonsensical. In what way is that an attack against you? I'm sorry, but I take that comment to be eyewash, to distract from the discussion about content. And that in particular is where you have offered no useful comment, merely assertion. Oh yes, I have also asserted, but the things I have asserted are not my own opinions, but are verifiable: historical, theological, and completely backed up throughout the history of Christianity.
I think you are making claims about things you have no understanding of. You and CrumpledFire both have been around here a long time, and I'm sure you understand WP:COMPETENCE. Well, competence varies across subject areas. Surely you must possess skills enough to do competent editing, or you would not still be here. So surely you also have competency in any number of other subjects. And that also means you must have some ability to recognize where the limits are of your own knowledge. If I ridicule your statements, it is because I expect these competencies from you, as is only reasonable, and yet I do not see them.
So, what do you know about? Are you claiming history, perhaps? You and I both know that pure historians do not necessarily have any expertise in Christianity, and like you, some wouldn't recognize even the most fundamental religious principles. What I think we're seeing here is anti-Christian bias, the implicit assumption that anything religious is mere myth, assumption, or [insert dismissive tone] "faith". But that is a false assumption. It is the Church's faith that Christ rose from the dead. It is not a matter of faith that that is what Christians celebrate on Easter (and, in fact, every Sunday - there's another fact). It is through faith that the Church preserved in testimony and in writing a great many things about Jesus. It is not a matter of faith that the Church did so, for we still have many writings, Biblical and non-Biblical. I don't think there is any historian who would deny that Easter is the Christian expression of faith in Jesus, in celebration of his resurrection, and if there are some, they are WP:FRINGE. It is perfectly verifiable that the Christian faith views the Eucharist as having been instituted by Jesus at the Last Supper with his disciples just before his death. (See the New Testament.) And it is also perfectly verifiable that Easter is a Eucharistic celebration. Now those are all expressions of Christian faith, but it is verifiable and not a myth that that is how Easter came to be and that that is its content. The connection between Easter and Christianity is not a matter of faith. And yet you are asserting (without any foundation) that nevertheless, Jesus' place in the Christian faith is not the central point in its relation to Easter.
I will overturn your edit once again. And I expect to hear some real discussion here before the article is changed again, for your assertions to date have been without backing, mere personal opinion. Mine, however, should be so obvious to anyone with any knowledge of the Church, its history, or the Christian religion, that they will be aware of the libraries of sources available. This should be "the sky is blue" obvious. Evensteven (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of "real discussion": how does anything from this screed relate to the question where the wikilink should point to? No such user (talk) 06:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree with Crumpled Fire and JoeSperrazza that the link should be to the main Jesus article. The holiday commemorates: An event that one religion believes in (the Resurrection) that, ostensibly, occurred in the life of an historical person (Jesus). IMO, it's appropriate, then, to have the word "Resurrection" link to an article about that Christian belief--but to have the name "Jesus" link to the general article about Jesus. (Similarly, the article Laylat al-Qadr describes a holiday that commemorates something Muslims believe happened to Muhammad--and that article's summary links to the main Muhammad article, not to Muhammad in Islam.) As Crumpled Fire says, Jesus in Christianity is not an article about Jesus per se--it's an article about Christian beliefs about Jesus. So it's not the appropriate target for this link. I'll go ahead and restore it.
Evensteven, it seems like you're taking this a bit personally, which I'm sure isn't how it's meant. But right now, I see three editors who disagree with you. Perhaps you could see if you can find someone else who supports you before you restore your edits? — Narsil (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The Jesus in Christianity article refers not to a person, but to how a person is viewed within a religion. Jesus is obviously referred to in this article as an individual, not a collection of views, so the Jesus link is more appropriate. Rwenonah (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The Jesus in Christianity article refers not to a person? Well, that is the essence of your argument, and of those preceding you. I will say again that that is personal opinion, a bias. Both articles are about a person. One is more biographical, the other more religious. But it is all about a person. To argue as all of you are doing is simply to make a point about how religion is false and therefore that anything that it has to say has no connection to reality. I can recognize as well as the next person that that's a common perception, and a very convenient one for those who wish to adopt it. But it remains only a put-down, dismissiveness. I don't expect anyone to make any life-changing decisions here. I do expect WP to speak in an unbiased voice, per its policies. And I can also see that, to date, bias prevails. Therein lies the cause of my feistiness above, though you may have thought I was on a soapbox. I wasn't; I'm not. If you are unwilling to hear me, so be it; you are free to do so. If you think that helps WP, I remain unconvinced, having heard only opinion, but I have felt very strongly that the point needed to be made. WP is what we (together) make it. I've taken it as my responsibility to contribute my say in that. But WP is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND, not even about policy, because it can't work if it is (so what would be the point?). Evensteven (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
When you massively escalate a civil discussion with rants about bias, you're the one showing WP:Battleground behaviours. Try to look past your obvious lack of neutrality on religious matters and look at the opening lines of the articles ("Christians consider Jesus" vs. "Jesus is"). We want the article about the person, not the collection of views. It's logic, not bias. Rwenonah (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually, in my view, you are the first to be uncivil here. Narsil was particularly gentle, even though he misunderstood. What you all can't seem to grasp is that Christians view Jesus as a real person, even though you are saying they don't. Not only that, but that their view of him as a real person is not itself real, which is verifiably untrue. And not only that, but that this real person is just as intimately connected with Easter theologically as is all the Christological doctrine about which Church history fills volumes. And not only that, but that Easter fundamentally is a Christian celebration, the Christian celebration above all others, and celebrating the event in Christian history that is so central that St Paul said "if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile".1 Cor 15:17 Nothing of relevance to Easter is known of Jesus outside the context of Christianity. And yet you are somehow insisting that the article directly concerned with that very thing is not real, and that this other one is. I do not seek your conversion. I seek correction of bias. You take offense at that and say I am ranting. I would ask: apart from Christianity, what is Easter to you? There are people who wish to make it about bunnies, or eggs, without any context in which to understand symbols at all. Are you one of them? If not, then what is the context you understand about Easter? And why is it that you lack the historical insight to see where Easter came from in the first place? As I said above, this should all be "the sky is blue" obvious. Why isn't it? Explain why this is not anti-Christian bias. Evensteven (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to discuss the meaning of Easter with you, since you've hand plenty of opportunity to expend paragraphs of unnecessary spleen already. There's undoubtedly more to it than your obviously Christian-centric POV will acknowledge. It's not bias (well, you're obviously biased, so I guess that's kind of untrue as a blanket statement) because this question is very simple; should a link be to an article about a person or the article about how that person is conceived by a very specific group? Let's look at the sentence in question: "Easter is a festival or holiday celebrating the resurrection of Jesus Christ". The use of Jesus here obviously refers to a person, not a collection of views about a person - so we link to an article about that person, not the article about a collection of views. Honestly, calm down and stop making random accusations; it's rude and disruptive. Rwenonah (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for calming down as well. The question is indeed about what and who is obviously biased. Calling the article "Jesus in Christianity" an article about a "collection of views" is your point of view, reflecting your bias. There's nothing random in what I'm saying. And it's not an accusation to say you have a bias. It seems you are taking that rather personally. Bias is common, and about some things, every person is going to have biases. This bias is a failure to recognize the personhood of Jesus within Christianity. Hence, the same effect for the article. I, however, recognize the "Jesus" article as also about Jesus the person. I do not have that bias. Yes, I do have a Christian-centric POV, but POV and bias are not the same thing. My POV permits me to recognize and respect our differences of belief. You are confusing Jesus' personhood with differing human perspectives of him. Your perspective is a collection of views and an interpretation of his place in history just as much as mine is. Your bias recognizes only your perspective as valid, and calls that lack of bias, perhaps because you think of that as an accusation. You also do not respect the fact that billions of persons over 2000 years share my perspective, my POV. That is not bias, but disrespect. Perhaps you have taken up an idea widespread in Protestantism that religion is all a matter of individual belief, but you should know that that idea is not common to most of Christianity. Were you aware of this? My POV about the article is mine, of course, but my POV about the connection of Easter to Jesus is not merely mine. It is verifiable and clear. You do not realize what you are saying when you are so dismissive. Evensteven (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
This isn't about some anti-Christian bias; it's about which article is more appropriate. It's that simple. I honestly don't care what you believe - my POV isn't relevant here, nor should yours be, because it's a dispute about which article is actually, factually about a person, which the Jesus in Christianity article evidently isn't. Your relentless attempts to make this discussion some kind of crisis of anti-Christian bias are getting annoying; that's not what this discussion is, no matter how much you want it to be. Since you obviously have a serious case of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT and consensus is against you, I see no reason to keep commenting. Rwenonah (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's simple. The "Jesus in Christianity" article is more appropriate. But since I long ago heard (and said) that you disagree, and the others also, and stopped reverting edits and accepted effective consensus, I hardly think I am the one who has not heard anything, and wonder why you keep coming back, except for wanting to make your soapbox argument in criticism of my unreasonableness. I'm sorry if this is a crisis for you, but I don't see any need or reason to retract what I've said. Repeating your refrain does not give it extra weight, however much you want it to. It seems to me that you won't be satisfied until you have my acquiescence to your point of view, which is going to leave you quite unfulfilled, I'm afraid. You have been quite clear that you don't care what I say, which you apparently think is a foundation for discussion, and yet you demand from me what you are so unwilling to give yourself. I have given my understanding, and have been hoping you had some to give also. I have heard nothing to make me change my mind, and have already told you I don't expect you to change yours. But since no understanding has been forthcoming from you, and since you expect me to change, I see every reason to drop what has become personal. Your lack of insight is overwhelming. May you continue to see no reason, if it will keep you from commenting. Evensteven (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Don't want to get into the weeds on this, but in the interest of clarity--Evensteven said "Narsil was particularly gentle, even though he misunderstood. What you all can't seem to grasp is that Christians view Jesus as a real person, even though you are saying they don't."
I don't know that it's relevant, but (a) I am a Christian, middling faithful but of a fairly traditional sort; (b) I believe Jesus was and is a real person; (c) I think it's appropriate that Wikipedia has one page about the historical person (Jesus), one page about Christian beliefs about that person (Jesus in Christianity), one about debates about whether he existed (Historicity of Jesus), etc. If he were less important, we could fit that all on one page--there's one page about King David, which covers all of those sorts of topics--but in the case of Jesus, that would make the page far too big, so it's broken up into several articles. And given that, I think the appropriate link in the opening sentence of this page is to the main article about Jesus-the-person, not the secondary article about how he is (accurately!) viewed in Christianity. — Narsil (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
At last! Many thanks for returning, Narsil. Perhaps there is now a way to characterize the differences here, at the least. I have been frustrated that I couldn't find a way to make what I am trying to say understandable, but you've presented a clearer picture of your position that is worth a response. In your case, at any rate, our basic mismatch is in how two of the articles are characterized. First, Jesus in Christianity. One of the most central of Christological doctrines is that Jesus the Son of God (in his divinity) became a man, taking our human nature into himself, and thus creating a path by which we could be saved. That man is understood by Christians to be historical, not mythical, and is identified as Jesus of Nazareth, who ministered to and taught the Jews (and some others) during a three-year ministry until about 30 AD, some 40 days after he was crucified (the day of his ascension). The Nicene Creed is testimony to this belief, and much Christian writing verifies my characterization of it here. So, the point needs to be made that an article about Christian beliefs about that person is an article about Christ as a human being, of physical presence in history, and is every bit as much about the historical person as the other article. The article "Jesus" is also about Jesus of Nazareth, but without reference to Christianity, and its material is limited to what can be derived from documentary and outside evidence, since its purpose seems to be to separate him from religion. Well, there's nothing wrong with describing that evidence, or using it in a scholarly way for what it's worth, and making that the topic of a WP article. And quite clearly there is plenty of work that has been done in that direction, and plenty of notability of that work, etc, everything requisite. The thing is, that article presents Jesus from a viewpoint that differs from that of Christianity, within which there can be no such separation. That separate viewpoint seems to be desired by those who do not accept Christianity, and who view the Christian doctrines with disbelief. Again, fine. WP knows a good and reasonable way to deal with viewpoints, and having an entire article that describes a viewpoint is also reasonable when there is so much material, as in this case.
So, the beginning of my objections here is that the article characterizations as "Jesus" is "about the historical person" and "Jesus in Christianity" is about "Christian beliefs" is quite incorrect. They are both about the historical person, but from two differing viewpoints. Those viewpoints do not clash in every particular, but they are greatly distinct, and derive from different groups of sources. Both viewpoints are notable. But it is a third kind of viewpoint to say that "Jesus" is about the historical person whereas Christian beliefs are not, and a bias against Christianity to claim that only one view is historical or that only one has verified historical bases. It is this third kind of viewpoint that is dismissive of Christian belief, and forms a part of the opinions of those who reject Christianity. And when that rejection becomes an attack (as opposed to simple non-acceptance), then its formation as a bias is most firm. I am firmly of the opinion that such biases have no place on WP, but that the two basic viewpoints of the two articles are the appropriate means by which WP can represent the divergences of opinion. And finally, I am firmly of the opinion that, since Easter is a Christian celebration, verifiably tied inextricably to Jesus' deeds within history, that "Jesus in Christianity" is the appropriate article for the Easter article to link to. I sure hope that this has at least clarified where I'm coming from. Evensteven (talk) 05:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I hope this has also made clear how my argument is not Christians vs. non-Christians either, but simply drawing the distinction of views, and correcting misinformation about the Christian view (not my view, the Christian one). The bias has not been in the article, it has only been in some of the arguments on the talk page. Evensteven (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I feel the need to comment on this one, since I've been more or less accused of bias. The two articles are qualitatively different in a way you seem unable (or unwilling) to understand. The Jesus article is written in a biographical format, in other words, as an article about a person. The Jesus in Christianity article is written as an article on a group's views about a person. I'm not saying those views are invalid, or that the other article is in any way superior - we just need to consider, in the context of the link, which is more logical. The sentence ("a festival celebrating the resurrection of Jesus Christ form the dead") clearly refers to the person Jesus, not to a group's ideas about Jesus - after all, a group of ideas cannot be resurrected.
But let's assume both articles were biographical. The one not exclusively focused on Christian ideas is still more appropriate, because Easter is no longer an exclusively Christian holiday (if, indeed, it ever was). In modern Western culture, Jesus plays little role in Easter celebrations, which are primarily secular, celebrated widely by non-Christians, and focused on the Easter bunny and painting eggs. Not only that, but many Easter customs, including the holiday's English name, have obviously pre-Christian origins. So in large part Easter is tied to other religious traditions, as well as entirely non-religious ones, making the article inappropriate. Hope this clears up all those accusations.Rwenonah (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Rwenonah, I very much appreciate your return here also in this manner, for this comment is respectful and shows no bias. For much of bias is the manner in which POV is expressed, but also in a person's inability to countenance a differing POV. We each have our POVs still, and that is surely to be expected. But you have put away bias, and that is to be commended. It's what makes WP:Civility work.

Let's dispose of peripheral matters first. The English name "Easter" is a naming anomaly peculiar to our language, and its connections to paganism do not remotely affect the holiday. There's no harm in a secular or nonreligious holiday that uses bunnies or egg painting, and for all I care, it can be called Easter too. And I'm not in denial about present-day western culture and its disinterest in religion generally. But that's current demographics only.

The origin of Pascha (the foundational name) derives from Hebrew and is Christian. The holiday has always been a Christian one, and still is just as much as it used to be. Secular society has co-opted the name Easter (that's ok) and some celebrations (like egg hunts) and celebrates a secular holiday. That one is not the same as the religious holiday, which remains religious. And some people in the west celebrate both, so there's quite a bit of cross-celebration. But that doesn't negate the religion in the religious festival. What you do see is that there are also many people who do not take their religion very much to heart, and so everything they do treats religious matters lightly. And I grant how widespread that is. It still does not separate the Christian holiday from its religious base, neither its religious origins nor its current religious celebration. Many secular persons consciously shut out religion and its celebrations from their lives, preferring not to see them, but that does not mean they aren't there, nor does it mean that the religious celebrations are considered to be highly important to those who observe them, well, religiously. So the argument that Easter has virtually changed somehow isn't true. What has changed is peoples' behavior - but not all people. I think there are some biased anti-Christian advocates who wish to maintain the idea that religious Easter has disappeared, but that is a bias designed to dismiss those who don't share their POV. Don't be put off by my use of "bias". But understand that Orthodox Christianity has undergone repeated persecutions across most of its 2000-year history, as well as other less brutual contentiousness. The most serious it has ever known occurred in Soviet Russia under the Communists. It knows and recognizes all the gradations of disrespect from experience. That is, perhaps, one reason why eastern Christianity generally is so much more alert in its religious practice than western.

So now we're ready to head back towards my previous comment: the Christian faith (that's faith singular, as in the whole Church together) is 2000 years old, and is very much alive and present today. One foundation of that faith is in Jesus, the Christ, a single person who is both God the Son (in his divinity) and the Son of Man (in his humanity), and who in his humanity lived on earth from around 3-4 BC to around AD 30. The article "Jesus in Christianity" is about that person. There is no article about "Christian ideas" because the only idea ever maintained throughout Christianity is that Jesus is a person, and a most exceptional person. Do I have an idea you are a person? Yes. But so what? Do I say you are a person. Yes. And that's what matters, because otherwise I'd just be talking to my own idea. You need to understand that Christianity in its entirety is not a "collection of ideas". That would merely be a philosophy. It is also not a "collection of beliefs". That would be a collage. It is a faith, a religious faith, a single thing, but a thing shared among people, and not just people still living, but people long dead. I couldn't give a hoot about anybody's idea about even a historical person, or a resurrection, or any other miracle, and consider that my religion, and neither have other Christians. To bring it up again, St Paul said "if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile",1 Cor 15:17 and Christians have shared that faith. And as you have said, an idea cannot be resurrected (well, maybe, but that's actually a different subject). The manner in which you are viewing these two WP articles makes no sense in term of Christianity. If what you say is really how Wikipedians want to characterize them, then the result is that there is no actual article about "Jesus in Christianity" at all. It would need to be retitled (if you want accuracy) to "Christian ideas about Jesus" (or some such).

All of which gets us back to how Easter (Pascha, really) is tied to Jesus, for the tie is through the religious festival in Christianity, and an article called "Jesus in Christianity" must be talking about the person who is Jesus. Biography is a wonderfully wide type of literature, by the way, and our modern approaches are not the only valid ones. But biography itself is also not the only way to talk about a person. Evensteven (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree. Rwenonah (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I was afraid we would. But thanks for coming back to talk, anyway. Evensteven (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)