Talk:Easter controversy

	Religion portal 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.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Outdated information[edit]

I just restored the template noting this article's reliance on the outdated information from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. There is an extensive body of recent historical research on the Easter controversy, which should be incorporated into this article. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away for a while and had not noted the removal of the template from this article in July. The only significant changes since I added the template involved the addition of a number of new sources to the reference list; there have been no substantive changes to the text of the article. I'm adding a new recent source and restoring the template. I hope someone will update the article using those sources. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gregorian Reform[edit]

It seems strange that the Article jumps directly from Whitby to Aleppo, with no mention of the events of 1582 to 1752. Perhaps a one-sentence section might be added to indicate the degree to which Gregory sustained/modified the basic principles? 82.163.24.100 (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

confusing[edit]

I think the article is a bit confusing, it doesn't answer the question what methods are used today and by whom... it is important to discuss the history of the controversy but the reader must get what is the situation today...

I'm no expert but at least in the middle east there is still difference between "western date" (the first sunday following the first astronomical full moon following the astronomical vernal equinox) and the "eastern date" (not sure, i think the Sunday after the Jews kept their Pesach) --Histolo2 (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All Asia = Roman Province of Asia?[edit]

A recent edit incorporated the passage "The dioceses of all Asia [meaning the Roman Province of Asia]." As the link shows, the Roman Province of Asia was smaller than that part of Asia that was within the Roman empire. Was that intended or should the new passage be revised somehow?

On a minor style manner, according to the Manual of Style shouldn't these be parentheses rather than square brackets? --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Asia" to the Romans meant the Roman Province of Asia, just as "Africa" meant the Roman Province of Africa (an African was a Carthaginian). It was only later that these words were used for the continents as a whole. The term for the Asian continent proper was "Eastern" or Orientalis, basically east of the Nile Delta, the Mediterranean Sea, the Aegean Sea, the Turkish Straits and the Black Sea. 75.14.213.104 (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, the term "All Asia" above in context might refer to Anatolia. 75.14.213.104 (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, square brackets should be used because it's an addition to the quote. 75.14.213.104 (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secularization of Easter[edit]

There is an article entitled Christmas controversy which mentions the controversies surrounding the secularization of the Christmas holiday. There are similar issues about the secularization of Easter, which is more important than Christmas from a liturgical point of view. It would be interesting if we could have some information on that too. ADM (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested merger with Computus[edit]

No Merge, different topics 75.14.213.104 (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No Merge, related but different topics FeatherPluma (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell does this mean?[edit]

"The Roman missionaries coming to Britain in the time of Pope Gregory I (590–604) found the British Christians adhering to a different system of Easter computation from that used in the Mediterranean basin. This system, on the evidence of Bede, fixed Easter to the Sunday falling in the seven-day period from the 14th to the 20th of its lunar month, according to an 84-year cycle. The limits of Nisan 14 – Nisan 20 are corroborated by Columbanus. The method used by the Roman Church was Nisan 15 – Nisan 21. The 84-year cycle, the lunar limits, and an equinox of March 25 also receive support from McCarthy's analysis of Padua, Biblioteca Antoniana, MS I.27. Any of these features alone could have led to occasional discrepancies from the date of Easter as computed by the Alexandrian method." 2A02:C7C:5149:5800:D118:8FEA:5BB6:7222 (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]