Talk:Easter Saturday

Easter Saturday "incorrect"

As I wrote in my edit summaries, Wikipedia should describe rather than prescribe usage. In reverting my edits to this article, StAnselm cites WP:WEASEL, apparently in opposition to using a qualifier instead of making broad, sweeping statement. Only two sources are cited for the statement that "this usage is incorrect". One of these is a dead link, and the other refers only to a specific organisation. Writing "this usage is considered incorrect by some" instead of "this usage is incorrect" allows us to document that a certain usage is considered incorrect, without passing judgement on it. 58.7.151.144 (talk) 09:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Both links are now fixed. I think this comes up every year, and the wording we currently have is from a couple of years ago. The ABC source is an admission of a mistake, so it certainly seems that it is a reliable source deeming it to be incorrect. StAnselm (talk) 10:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the current wording is ideal, because it suggests that Australians use 'Easter Saturday' to refer to the specific religious observance associated with the day, and that's not accurate; it's generally used to refer to 'the Saturday of the Easter long weekend' without any particular awareness of the religious context. The ABC reference confirms that it's not accurate in a religious context, which is correct, but not actually a reflection of how the term is used by most Australians most of the time. But I appreciate that what we need is a reference discussing the two conflicting meanings, not just my own opinion and experience. I'll see if one exists. Gusworld (talk) 09:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

To expand on the previous point: the text currently reads "The phrase "Easter Saturday" is often used, particularly in Australia, to refer to Holy Saturday,[2] the Holy Week observance that falls between Good Friday and Easter Sunday, but this usage is incorrect.[3][4]" The examples below show fairly clearly that Australian sources (government and otherwise) regularly use 'Easter Saturday' to identify the day but make no connection to the 'Holy Saturday' label or any specific religious association:

http://www.safework.sa.gov.au/show_page.jsp?id=2483

http://www.fairwork.gov.au/leave/public-holidays/pages/listof2012publicholidays.aspx

http://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/australia/easter-saturday

http://myregion.gov.au/event/easter-saturday

http://www.business.nsw.gov.au/live-and-work-in-nsw/education-and-training/public-and-school-holidays

http://www.centralcoastaustralia.com.au/whats-on/?evID=4646

To be clear, I think the ABC reference is relevant, but it's an overstatement (and a violation of NPOV) to use it to support the phrasing "this usage is incorrect". It could be used to support the argument "This usage has been criticised for religious inaccuracy". But all the examples I've cited either use the phrase "Easter Saturday" to refer to that date or specifically (the Fair Work citiation) identify the date in chronological terms, not with the 'Holy Saturday' label. That should be reflected in the text, which shouldn't be prescriptive. Gusworld (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think the current state of the article is far worse. The article should be about the religious observance, not about the term. To say, as the article does that "secular authorities are divided on the matter" smacks of original synthesis. Finally, "depending on whether you are applying the religious definition or the common, secular one" is poor phrasing (per MOS:YOU). StAnselm (talk) 10:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that through consensus we can achieve a better version, but I don't agree that the article can be solely about the religious observance. If 'Easter Saturday' has a widespread usage supported by references which isn't about the 'Holy Saturday' definition, the article should reflect that. A couple of sentences accurately reflecting that reality won't give undue weight; ignoring it or describing the alternative usage as 'incorrect' would give undue weight. Gusworld (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't understand the rationale for suggesting that an article on "Easter Saturday" should be solely about the religious observance. After all, the article for Easter Sunday talks about the Easter Bunny and Easter eggs (as it should). Wikipedia isn't solely intended as a religious encyclopaedia and the article should reflect all meanings and customs. Secondly, I didn't introduce the debate about the term - the previous article did by describing the alternative meaning as "incorrect". Linguistically it is not incorrect, because language is changed by common usage. Thirdly, the "secular authorities" that are divided on the matter are listed: the ABC and various Australian governments, so it's not "original synthesis". (I don't think the ABC reference is all that strong - editors know to pick their battles when they get complaints from viewers - but I left it in to try to achieve consensus). Finally, I have no problem with edits to improve my phrasing.Scrabble-elk (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I phrased it poorly - the article should be about the day. There is no debate about what to call the Saturday after Easter. There is considerable debate about what to call the Saturday between Good Friday and Easter Sunday - hence, this sort of material belongs in the Holy Saturday article. That article should certainly cover things like public holidays. (And I note that it has other names, such as the "Saturday before Easter Sunday".) StAnselm (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I've update the edits in an effort to reach a consensus position. I hear StAnselm when he/she says the article shouldn't be about Easter Saturday as a "term". I agree with Gusworld that the article does need to address the ambiguity and without taking sides, but perhaps it gave undue emphasis to lead with the statement: 'Easter Saturday is an ambiguous term'. I think the original article was problematic - it's the prescriptive v descriptive debate again - and hope my latest adjustments work for everyone. Feel free to improve on my work of course but I'm hoping it will only need minor work at this stage.Scrabble-elk (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The whole premise of this argument is ridiculous. Just because lots of people make the same ignorant mistake doesn't mean they become right. Look at Caduceus as a symbol of medicine for instance or Myth of the flat Earth. Most Australians are ignorant (I'm Australian, so I'd know); no serious debater would use their contradictory naming practices as evidence of a true alternative definition. (203.132.77.45 (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Easter Saturday. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326224453/http://www.transfigcathedral.org/faith/Bulgakov/0581.pdf to http://www.transfigcathedral.org/faith/Bulgakov/0581.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)