Jump to content

Talk:Constantine the Great/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

The Real-Sarcophagus of Constantine the Great

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/93/d7/f0/93d7f0eb7d16d4c9ec9d78b2010c330f.jpg in Hagia Irene Church in Istanbul Böri (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Predecessor

Wasnt his predecessor Maxentius not Constantius I? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelpsea (talk • contribs) 08:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Not really. Constantine was declared an emperor in 306, though it took him until 324 to reign without rivals or co-emperors. Maxentius was one of his rivals from 306 to 312, but his areas were limited to Italy, Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily, and Roman Africa. He never really held the areas held by Constantine in Brittania, Gaul, and Hispania. Dimadick (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Use of the word "pagan"

Whether the word is derogatory (and therefore non-NPOV) aside, it appears to be used within this article variously as (non-specific) "non-/pre-Christian polytheistic religions" and (specifically) "the state religion of the pre-Constantinian Roman Empire". If we assume the former definition, then "the traditional pagan pantheon" and "heads of the pagan priesthood" are nonsense, as there is no "the traditional non-Christian pantheon" or "the non-Christian priesthood", but Praxagoras of Athens and Libanius, both of whom were Greek and presumably practiced some form of Hellenistic paganism and not necessarily the specifically Roman imperial cult, are also referred to as "pagans" as though this were a single identifiable group.

Wouldn't it make more sense to use "non-Christian" in all or most of the places "non-/pre-Christian polytheistic religions" is intended, and "Roman imperial cult" or some such in the other places?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Not in this case as it does not reflect the sources. And Religion in ancient Rome was quite a bit more complex than simply the Imperial cult. Greco-Roman mysteries and associated cults were quite widespread. The Eleusinian Mysteries survived until being banned in 396, the Dionysian Mysteries survived until the time of Augustine of Hippo, the cult of Isis spread across the Empire and the Mysteries of Isis may have survived the 2nd century. Mithraism was still alive in the late 4th century, though it is unclear if it had worshipers outside the senatorial class which actually left surviving inscriptions. The Cybele cult was certainly active in the 4th century and actually underwent revival attempts before being banned. The cult of Sol Invictus was particularly popular with emperors of the 3rd and 4th centuries (including Constantine himself) and the last surciving inscription to the deity dates to 387. Despite suppression efforts, the cult was apparently still active in the 5th century.
It might be difficult to ascertain the individual religious beliefs of anyone in Category:Byzantine-era pagans without examining primary sources. Assuming these beliefs based on specific ethnic origin may be entirely misleading. Dimadick (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
My point exactly -- since it was quite a bit more complex, using a blanket term like "pagan" in a context where the Roman state religion is what is meant (and a lot of sources, even reliable ones, do this quite carelessly) is problematic, and when sometimes the word "pagan" is meant to refer specifically to the Imperial cult, it then becomes problematic even when what is meant is the more generic sense of "non-Christian and not Jewish", as it could be misconstrued as specifically referring to the Imperial cult. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there is a problem myself, but other terms might be used in some cases, for example "the traditional Greco-Roman pantheon", assuming that is what was meant. "The state religion of the pre-Constantinian Roman Empire" does not = the Imperial cult. Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'm not a topic expert. I know more about this stuff than the average Anglophone reader probably does, and so probably also more than the majority of editors of Wikipedia articles in this area, but still not much. I guess if the non-specific word "pagan" is used in sources, then we have no choice but to follow them until we can find a source that specifically discusses the problem of terminology, I guess. I find it a little hard to believe that there are so many sources discussing the problems with the term "gnostic" (to the point that any source not explaining that a lot of scholars see the term as problematic should probably not be taken as an RS) but no one is critical of the equally problematic term "pagan", mind you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Just what the heck is editorializing like this doing in the introduction to the article? "Readers are reminded to exercise caution when reading about Constantine, and recognise that political expediency is not a declaration of faith." Alexander1926 (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
That's called talk in article. I have removed it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Constantine the Great. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Constantine the Great. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Constantine the Great. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Constantine the Great. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Lead section notice

Greetings, I added the Lead notice because it exceeds the 4 paragraph limit per MOS. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 00:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Change AD to CE

Isn't CE the accepted way of writing AD. This should be changed in this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Flying Soda (talk • contribs) 21:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The Manual of Style notes that either BC/AD or BCE/CE are acceptable, but that whichever is used should be done so consistently within the same article. In this article BC/AD is used throughout the text; before changing it to BCE/CE there should be a discussion to determine if it is appropriate to do so. EdwardUK (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Which it won't be. The short answer to your question is NO, The Flying Soda. See WP:ERA. In fact many people outside the US have no idea what CE/BCE mean. Johnbod (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Note about baptism of Constantine

What exactly is the sense of note 2? The article already states 'Although he lived most of his life as a pagan, he joined the Christian faith on his deathbed, being baptised by Eusebius of Nicomedia.' Furthermore, it is not necessarily a valid argument (getting baptised at the end of your live was a rather common practice, because then you wouldn't sin that much before your death - as they believed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.121.46.31 (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Opening para. cluttered

Echoing an edit summary from LouisAragon: The opening paragraph gives unncessary detail about lineage. Surely a one-para. synopsis of Constantine has more noteworthy points to make than where his parents came from! Jmacwiki (talk) 05:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Christianity as state religion of the Roman Empire

This article says that Emperor Constantine tolerated Christianity in 313 A.D., but did he not make it the official state religion of the Roman Empire in 330 A.D.?Vorbee (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't Constantine who tolerated Christianity, it was Galerius. Constantine has added to toleration restoring their properties and financing their churches. Constantine did not make Christianity the only state religion, that happened long after he was dead. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 14 September 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus is clearly against moving to Constantine I. A separate discussion is required to determine if there is consensus for moving to Constantine. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 19:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


Constantine the Great → Constantine I – For consistency with, say, Justinian I, where they or other emperors are mentioned together. While there is also Constantine I of Greece, Constantine I already redirects to Constantine the Great, and Constantine I (disambiguation) serves to distinguish them. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

You're quoting "infoplease" twice, plus a WP mirror (at "as"). See the ngram. Johnbod (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't see how you can compare the Wikipedia article and the New World article and think it is mirror. The second Infoplease link was supposed to go to The Encyclopedia of World Biography. The Infoplease material is from The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, a reference work recommended by our guidelines. American stylebooks all recommend Merriam Webster, and no copy editor would use ngram. Here is what WP:COMMONNAME says, "Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used." Nine Zulu queens (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
"New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards." - ie mainly shortening it, I think. It is certainly not a WP:RS. Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Take a look at WP:WIAN to see what a good source for style and spelling looks like. WIAN is for geography. But there are equivalent reference works for biography, several of which I have linked to above. The Chicago Manual of Style recommends Merriam-Webster's Biographical Dictionary. (NOTE: Not ngram!). Nine Zulu queens (talk) 04:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
"The Encyclopedia of World Biography" Which is itself unreliable and does not cite its references. But did you notice which books they used as their main sources? : "C. B. Coleman, Constantine the Great and Christianity (1914); G. P. Baker, Constantine the Great and the Christian Revolution (1930, repr. 1967)". Dimadick (talk) 12:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Say what? According Worldcat, EWB is held by quite a number of libraries and is popular enough to justify a second edition and supplements. I see World Encyclopedia and The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions also give "Constantine I." (Same link, lower down.) I'll throw in Oxford Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, which gives him as "Constantine I, Emperor." Nine Zulu queens (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Suitability of lead image

I would suggest that the lead image of the article is unsuitable. While the sculpted head itself is fine the particular image is definitely not. It is the angle that the photograph was taken from that invalidates it as a lead image. Constantine, from the sum of other images was characterised by a relatively long face, the face in the photo is foreshortened, making it look quite square. Constantine had a prominent and rather hooked nose, the angle of the photo makes this undetectable. He had a very deep jaw and prominent chin, again these features are not apparent in the photo. The foreshortening robs the photograph of all the defining characteristics of the model, it does not look like Constantine I and should be replaced. Urselius (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Support: the angle makes it look more like Constans, but the Met website has other images of this bust (link) (no copyright - CCO 1.0) which could be used as the replacement. EdwardUK (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Mild support It's also very wasteful of vertical space - if kept it should be cropped. Btw the head is "colossal" - not a vague gee whiz term as many ignorant Wikipedians assume, but a technical term in art history: from Statue: "....while one more than twice life-size is a colossal statue. Refs: Collins online dictionary: Colossal "2. (in figure sculpture) approximately twice life-size."; entry in the Getty Art & Architecture Thesaurus® OnlineJohnbod (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I stand corrected, though the aspersion not merely of ignorance, but of being ignorant, is objectionable and unnecessary. Did you know that any bladed weapon with a blade length of over 9 inches is classed as a sword in archaeology? Neither did I, until I came across it in an archaeological paper. Urselius (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Apologies, though that's a subtle distinction! It is one of those terms one has constantly to defend against drive-by accusations of POV, "peacock prose" etc. Which gets annoying. I knew Bronze Age swords in Europe are typically pretty short, yes. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Rather than voting in the abstract to replace the lead image, perhaps it would be more productive to consider what are we going to replace it with?

The contemporaneous Roman busts/statues are quite formulaic, so I'd suggest one of the Colossus of Constantine, or the bronze at the Capitoline Museum. See commons:category:Colossus of Constantine and commons:category:Bronze portrait of Constantinus I in the Musei Capitolini (Rome) (Oh! Those and related categories are a terrible maze!)

Here is the current one with a couple of possible alternatives. 213.205.240.203 (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Why you erased illyrian etnicity of Constantine the Great?

Why you stupids are falsificating world history and removed the fact of illyrian belonging of Constantine the great by the article of Constantine the Great? You morrons who lie the world. Your end is near for the falsification you are making and for lies you spread to the world by talking about nonsense things like ancient greeks which by the way never existed.79.106.126.188 (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Constantine's views on the Church at that time, for which he looked to for the consolidation of his empire...

There is a need for a Paragraph on this subject as it is impossible to understand the man without understanding his aims..... I have a Historian who explored this at length; J.H. Newman 1833... MacOfJesus (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

This is the main article. Such a topic should be covered on the spin-off article Constantine the Great and Christianity. Dimadick (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC) 

 My main subject here is History.... (see the Article Page:  Athanasius....). However, the Article Page here is lost for an understanding of Constantine's modus opporandi.  It is not just Christianity that is affected but the whole Empire as he saw it.... He looked to them and the Philosophers to unite..... MacOfJesus (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC).... 

Constantine, unlike other (all) emperors acted differently in all respects, an explanation is needed..... MacOfJesus (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC).....

Catholic saint?

Source please for including him as a Catholic saint. otherwise "Catholic Church" should be removed from the list.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Done Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Filicide Tag

Considering that Constantine had his own son put to death, shouldn't he be considered a filicide, regardless of whether he did the deed himself? Plenty of other articles, such as Abbas the Great, Suleiman the Magnificent, both of whom killed multiple of their own sons, qualify for the tag. Suleiman had his men strangle his son, Mustafa, to death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoldySoup (talk • contribs) 12:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Delayed baptism

In that period, Christians got baptized on their death bed, since they believed that the smallest sin after baptism dooms one to hell. Source: Smithsonian Part Four - Constantine and the Christian Faith on YouTube. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Date formats

  • Sometimes it's AD <year>, sometimes <year> AD. And sometimes just <year> without any AD.
  • Isn't CE now preferred over AD?
  • But is any abbreviation required at all? There's no need to distinguish between AD/CE dates and BC/BCE dates, so what's the point?

Thoughts? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 03:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC) @@JackofOz: Maybe read wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Year_numbering_systems

Double infobox

Removed here, but might be useful on an article dealing with the veneration of Constantine. buidhe 08:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources on Constantine as Saint in Latin Catholic Church

@Symmachus Auxiliarus: Can you show me the other sources? I will explain some sources such as https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm and http://faith.nd.edu/s/1210/faith/interior.aspx?sid=1210&gid=609&pgid=14724&cid=30276&ecid=30276&crid=0 say he has the title Constantine the Great not saint. An orthodox source also claims Roman Catholics don’t revere him as a saint here- https://www.oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/church-history/fourth-century/constantine. However, some Eastern Catholic Churches do honor him as a saint see http://www.stconstantine.org/OurParish/OurPatronSaint/index.php. This article may explain why https://taylormarshall.com/2012/11/constantine-great-or-not-so-great.html. If you still disagree, we can invite a third opinion.Manabimasu (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC) @Symmachus Auxiliarus: I may be bold and make changes. In stead, I will add a note with these sources on the latin church. Followup and reply.Manabimasu (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Deification of Constantine

I am surprised to see that the article makes no mention to the ritual, posthumous consecratio of Constantine as a Roman deity, as plentifully evidenced, inter alia, by Roman coinage. There should be some discussion of his subjct in the article. For the time being, I am just adding the article page to the category 'Deified Roman emperors' Abulmiskafur (talk) 13:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


Present-day place of birth of Constantine the Great

Why would you change factual information which is being updated for clarity? Do you have some ulterior motive for historical negationism? I am editing based on genuine resources, such as the actual references provided at the bottom of the wiki page. Stop reverting my edits.

The fact that he is born in Naissus, Moesia Superior, Roman Empire ( present-day Niš, Serbia) should be clearly displayed throughout the page, instead of its muddled portrayal. As well, the infobox is supposed to display present-day place of birth, according to Wikipedia rules. Therefore, Niš, Serbia must be shown. 75.156.45.126 (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC) 75.156.45.126 (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.45.126 (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The term negationism is a matter of WP:NPA and suggests WP:BATTLEGROUND. I'll let others chime in. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Anyone who is not allowing factual information to be presented more clearly is complicit in some form of negationism. Whether that was their ultimate intention or not. I am simply wondering why someone would go through such lengths as to prevent factually referenced information from being presented clearly. Doesn't sit right with me, and it shouldn't for any third-party reviewing this dispute. 75.156.45.126 (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
You got a warning for WP:NPA. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I request a third party to help with this dispute. You are in no way 'collaborating' with me by reverting my factually referenced updates to the page. 75.156.45.126 (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.45.126 (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I am not aware of any rule that says we must show present-day location in the infobox. In fact, we have been removing these notes, because they clutter up the infobox and dilute the facts. Can you point to a policy or guideline or RFC discussion establishing consensus for placing the "present-day location" in the infobox? Elizium23 (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I would like to request a legitimate Wikipedia administrator to review my dispute. Constantine the Great was born in Naissus, Moesia Superior, Roman Empire ( present-day Niš, Serbia). There should be no problem in presenting that information clearly in the article, as well as the infobox. It does not cause any sort of clutter, and is no sort of 'dilution of facts'. I am worried that someone is trying to explain it as such. 75.156.45.126 (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

So you cannot actually produce a policy or guideline. Elizium23 (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you please show me a policy that says that pertinent information that is referenced throughout a multitude of articles is now under the process of being removed due to 'clutter' and 'dilution' of facts? 75.156.45.126 (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Please reference that updated guideline so that I can review it. Thank you. 75.156.45.126 (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

He was NOT born in Serbia because it did not exist when he was born. He was born in place with a different name, and that is what we should state. It should also be noted that it corresponds to present day Serbia is correct, but that is not what you are doing you are completely removing the historical "country" of his birth. Hardyplants (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

This is one of the main reasons I stopped contributing to Wikipedia. How many people in the United States (I imagine the primary source of traffic to Wiki?) know what Moesia Superior is/was? Adding clarification to indicate where this ancient city is geographically IMPROVES the entry. I have no skin in this game- I am not Serbian, in fact, my ancestors are Indigenous, African and Spanish. 162.84.136.55 (talk) 04:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Baptized on this death bed

According to Bart Ehrman, Christians believed at that time that if you commit a sin after baptism you go to hell. That's why all Christians from that time got baptized on their deathbed, so that they could not commit any sin between baptism and death. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, that's patently, provably, and laughably untrue. Did Ehrman actually say that, because he is more ignorant about Christianity than I ever imagined.
In the days of the early Church, penance was difficult, arduous, and long. If you committed a grave sin, you could expect to spend 10-20 years in penance for just that sin. Yes, you would be absolved right away, but it's the satisfaction that was daunting. It was because of this reason that people typically gambled and deferred baptism until late in life, or death.
And this is the same reason, among others, that the Church began conceding great indulgences to the faithful. With indulgences, satisfaction is remitted and time in purgatory is reduced. A plenary indulgence suffices for all penance that would have normally been carried out over 20 years in those days. Elizium23 (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, there are traces of it in the Bible:
  • First, those baptized in the Bible were manifestly having the Holy Spirit, which prevented them from committing any sin;
  • Second, there is the weird remark For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, since on their own they are crucifying again the Son of God and are holding him up to contempt.
So, I would not say that Ehrman is completely off-track. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu you have a complete misunderstanding of how Christians understand those Bible verses and if Bart Ehrman really said what you claim he did, then he has a misunderstanding of history on this point which is not surprising because he has been wrong on a number of other issues. But what really matters here is "what does this have to do with making this article better"?. Hardyplants (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
It was about [3]: no, it wasn't unusual/suspect for Constantine to get baptized on his deathbed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for the clarification, I could not determine the purpose of the comment from the talk page thread. Hardyplants (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu, that's a bizarre passage because one "becomes a Christian" by baptism. There is no other way of membership in Christianity. What sources do you have that say he was Christian prior to his baptism? Elizium23 (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't see what's so weird about it: in the end Ehrman supports the orthodox view that Constantine converted to Christianity long before his deathbed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
That is the majority viewpoint, Constantine even had his first son tutored by a Christian and made many Christian favorable laws. Elizium23 your point below is a very sectarian one based on a specififc theologiacl argment that not all Christians have maintained. So that would need a ref and counter argument Catechumens were Christians even though they had not yet been baptized and were not full members of the earthy church.Hardyplants (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Hardyplants, it wasn't sectarian at all in 337. It wasn't sectarian in 1054. It wasn't sectarian at all in 1517. Everyone, EVERYONE knew that to be a Christian you must be baptized. Full stop. Catechumens can be treated with some of the privileges of Christians such as a funeral and burial, but nobody has ever considered them part of the Body of Christ. Elizium23 (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu, [citation needed]
Constantine may have been a follower of Christ and a convert and a lover of Christians, but he was no Christian without baptism. That is the orthodox and Orthodox view. Elizium23 (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
You're splitting hairs over a detail lacking importance. The source is Smithsonian Part Four - Constantine and the Christian Faith on YouTube.

so so yeah some critics um sometimes you may have noticed sometimes Christians do bad things and he did some bad things the deathbed conversion is the least convincing of the arguments to begin with because many people didn't get baptized until they were on their deathbeds the reason is because the New Testament says that if you if you convert and become a follower of Christ but then lapse into sin later you're in danger of losing your salvation Hebrews six the book of Hebrews chapter six verses four through six actually says that you will lose your salvation if you revert to sin well you know if if hell's toupee literally you don't want to do that so you wait to your deathbed so you there's no more chance to sin and that's that's that's what that's what people did

— Bart Ehrman
Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu, do you have a timecode or shall I watch all 75 minutes? Elizium23 (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu, hell's toupee? The more I find out about Ehrman the more clueless and foolish he seems.
Nobody believed that in Constantine's time. Ehrman can dissect the Bible all he wants and cherry-pick some quotes, but God forgives, and every Christian knows that there is forgiveness after baptism. Like I said, it was a matter of penance and satisfaction that was arduous after conversion. Also, Constantine had many political considerations to think about. Nobody actually knows why Constantine waited so long. It is not recorded. It is all speculation. Elizium23 (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
It's an automatic YouTube transcript. 46:00 or so. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I listened to the YouTube recording. Ehrman loses all his credibility by not admitting the Sacrament of Penance. Yes, it took many forms over the millennia, but it has always been there.
Ehrman doesn't say that "if you sin after baptism you go to Hell." You misquoted that drastically and critically. Ehrman correctly identifies Bible passages that say "If you lapse into sin, you're in danger of losing your salvation". Nothing wrong with that. But he conveniently leaves out that someone always has recourse to Penance. In the Early Church, Penance was often once-in-a-lifetime, and arduous as I'd said. So no, people did not relish approaching Penance rather than deferring baptism until the last possible moment. That is also true.
Ehrman is not a Christian, and while he knows what the Bible says as well as any Protestant, he is not able to interpret it like a Christian, and so should not be a credible source for the kind of assertions in question. Elizium23 (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
So... Protestants aren't Christians, that's what you say? Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
What does that have to do with the facts at issue? Elizium23 (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The morals is that you ain't gonna win a talk page debate through calling names and childish tantrums. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Early Christians, for example Tertullian (whose quotes i can't be bothered to look up) believed that political administrators often needed to commit various un-Christian acts, especially killing people, and therefore could/should not be baptised Christians. This may account for the death-bed baptisms of figures such as Constantine and Junius Bassus, but was not expected of ordinary people at all. Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Undid revision 1035607976 by Discospinster (talk) There are literally EIGHT photos of ancient coins of Constantine used in this page. His coinage is relevant to his history and we learn a LOT about Constantine from his coinage.

How in the world can you guys state that Constantine's coinage is not relevant to this page? I am not even linking to a general page. I linked directly to his coinage. Where we can see the progression of the iconography, etc.

I think the numismatics are very interesting, and it would great to see it used more extensively on Wikipedia, as it’s a very direct, if one sided (excuse the pun) source of information on many ancient figures. But this source is simply descriptive. It doesn’t explain the progression of iconography, or give context to why it’s important. To someone who knows nothing about coinage that link is just going to look like a loads of old coins.Pipsally (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Family tree

Trying to be bold by updating the family trees in the article I have replaced two images with a tree chart version.

The first was in the Early life section and most of the people named are not mentioned in that part of the article, the second was displayed as a multiple image and too small to read without clicking onto it. A tree chart enables the names to be linked and I have renamed some people to match their articles. I have placed the trees together as it makes it easier to see the marriage connections within the dynasty, but have tried to maintain the same general appearance rather than a) placing all siblings on one level as this would create a very wide chart, b) merging the two trees as this would make them more complicated to follow. EdwardUK (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Error in article

A StackExchange discussion [4] has pointed out that the claim that Constantine enforced the decision of the Council of Nicaea that the Lord's Supper should not be observed on the day before the Passover is wrong. 156.61.250.251 (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

This section needs rewording/editing

This passage is clearly lifted straight from a source:

His military skill and building projects, however, soon gave the panegyrist the opportunity to comment favourably on the similarities between father and son...

I had to research that word panegyrist, and discovered it was a specific positive commentator. However, the "panegyrist" in question isn't mentioned; there is a Eusebius quoted directly below, perhaps it is him? Without having the text in front of you, one wouldn't know. At any rate this should be clarified before throwing something at the reader mid-thought from another book.

I have no problem with citing sources and quoting, but it's not even an offset quote in the text. Maybe a recording for simplification or editorial adjustment can be made, instead, or at least a preparatory sentence and then an offset quote? Deliusfan (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Alleged Ancient Greek origin of the mother

The supposed ancient Greek origin of Constanine's mother is very poorly sourced and not certain. Furthermore, the wiki-link to her origins should either be "Ancient Greece" or no wiki-link at all. As we all know there is no continuity between ancient Greeks and the modern ones, so putting the wiki-link of modern Greeks is absurd and fringe. Ahmet Q. (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Could you please keep your balkanic nationalistic rhetoric out of WP? We do not need it for certain since we need to build an encyclopaedia instead of conspiracy theories. The obvious connection between Greeks and Ancient Greeks is the language and the customs. Since you cannot understand that there is a continuity in the language throughout the eons, for sure you are an editor of limited capability. Apart from that, the article Greeks deals with The people who self identified as Greeks or Hellenes or called as such from the ancient times to the modern ones, it is not about Greeks of modern times. I would strongly advise to read the article first and then make assumptions. BestOthon I (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
You are outdoing yourself with the personal attacks, great job. There is no continuity between the populations, this is common knowledge. The notion of Greek continuity since ancient times is ridiculous and probably one of the most absurd Greek nationalist rhetorics that exist. Saying that Constantine's mother was a modern Greek women is equivalent of saying that Julius Caesar was Italian or that Tutankhamun was a modern Egyptian. It is not going to happen. Ethnicity has nothing to do with language, again this is common knowledge. The fact that I even have to write this says a lot about your knowledge of the topic. Ahmet Q. (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
"as we all know"??!!? You'd have to totally ignore the vast majority of historical scholarship to go off on that crazy candy ... -HammerFilmFan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.34.67 (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

(unindent) I don't want to spend too much time on this, but the following needs to be clarified.

  • All the sources I've seen describe her as a "Greek woman", and none describe her as "ancient Greek".
  • There is good reason for this: The qualifier "ancient" is generally reserved for the Hellenistic period and earlier (maybe the early Roman period, but that's stretching it), no one uses it for the Late Roman period. At that point we are in the transition to the medieval period and no one uses "ancient" anymore.
  • All the other stuff is irrelevant. Long term edit-warring and refusing to get the point are disruptive and the article is covered by the Balkan discretionary sanctions. Re-igniting disputes and edit-warring repeatedly over a period of months is considered especially disruptive and frowned upon. Khirurg (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
"At that point we are in the transition to the medieval period and no one uses "ancient" anymore." Are you excluding late antiquity from ancient history? Dimadick (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
@Dimadick, it looks like that is exactly what Khirurg is doing. @Khirurg: "All the sources I've seen describe her as a "Greek woman", and none describe her as "ancient Greek"." The qualifier "ancient" isn't even always used in bibliography for Greek figures in the Hellenistic period, let alone for a woman whose ethnicity is unknown. That does not imply in any shape or form that they are referring to modern Greeks (???)
Also, even the sources you provided for the supposed ancient Greek origin are already quite weak:
  • The first source comes from a book named In His Footsteps: The Early Followers of Jesus which is written by lawyers and has no historical value whatsoever [5].
  • The second source Cultural Sociology of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa: An Encyclopedia [6] is an encyclopedia and should not be used in another encyclopedia per WP:TERTIARY.
  • Your last source Lives Between The Lines: A Journey in Search of the Lost Levant [7] is written by Michael Vatikiotis who is not an academic and whose work is thus not considered reliable for this subject.
Also all your "sources" don't even discuss Helena as the main subject of their work, they consist of one sentence-long content.
Jan Willem Drijvers is the only author who is actually an academic and who has made an extensive work about Helena, Helena Augusta [8]. In his work there is no mention of a Greek origin. Which is normal because her origins are not known. Ahmet Q. (talk) 10:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Drijvers many pages (9-20) on the subject make it clear that he endorses the early sources saying she came from Bithynia making her Greek in the terms of the period. Johnbod (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I am pretty sure Drijvers nowhere made the conclusion that she was Greek. Coming from Bithynia doesn't mean you were automatically Greek, there were of course other populations living in that region in those times. Ahmet Q. (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Ahmet Q. in that calling Constantine’s mother a modern Greek (if she was even Ancient Greek at all) is the equivalent of calling Julius Caesar an Italian. That’s a fantastic point. In fact, if we continue to link his mother as a modern Greek, why not follow this knowledge and link his father as a modern Albanian? Linking her to Ancient Greeks is much more suitable - the whole continuity discussion is not so relevant to the topic at hand, although it must be said when a state absorbs large populations of Albanians/Vlachs/Slavs etc, can continuity really go that far beyond cultural and linguistic aspects so much so as to say Ancient Greeks = Modern Greeks? Ancient Greeks is a far more suitable link than modern Greeks. I also encourage all users to look at the non-credible sources used to label his mother as a Greek in the first place, they surely cannot count as RS. As Ahmet stated, Drijvers does not liken her to modern Greeks at all. Any resistance to the removal of the label of “Greek” for Constantine’s mother is at this point simply degrading to WP rules and expected standards. If sources do not meet RS especially for the topic at hand, which requires more specialist sources, why use them at all? POV pushing using poor sources only ruins this site and gives it a terrible reputation. Botushali (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

No one is referring her as a "modern Greek". That is a straw man. She is simply referred to as a "Greek" plain and simple by the sources (not "ancient", not "modern") because she lived in the transition period between antiquity and the medieval period. The sources presented are all top notch, from publishers that meet the requirement for "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" as stipulated by WP:RS. And they do not concern themselves with this distinction between "ancient" and "modern", because that's of no interest to anyone outside of Balkan politics. Btw Michael Vatikiotis has a Ph.D. from the University of Oxford. Khirurg (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Please see Ahmet’s comment above as to why these sources are inappropriate here. Furthermore, Vatikiotis has a Ph. D. in philosophy based on Southeast Asian history and languages, not a topic relevant to the article at hand. I could have a Ph. D. in molecular science at Harvard, it will not give me credibility to write about Constantine’s mother. Like I said, if we can link her to modern Greeks (which we shouldn’t since these sources are poor), then so should we link his father to Albanians. Botushali (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
All sources meet the criteria for WP:RS. If you don't think so, you are welcome to post at WP:RSN for an advisory opinion. Also read Johnbod's point about Drijvers and Bithynia. Have a nice day. Khirurg (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
None of them are qualified to make such statements though, they are not historians as already explained. The only historian mentioned is Drijvers and he makes no such conclusion. Ahmet Q. (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Indeed - if they are not qualified to speak on the matter and they make claims that are not actually backed up by sources these views shouldn’t be expressed in the article. Botushali (talk) 05:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
"why not follow this knowledge and link his father as a modern Albanian" A strawman argument, since no source claims that. Constantius Chlorus may have been Illyro-Roman in origin, but the sources state that his birthplace was in Dacia Ripensis. Dimadick (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
No source claims Constantine's mother has a relation to modern Greeks, either. Besides, the sources that claim her origin to be Greek are not even suitable to be used here. Indeed, Constantius Chlorus was born in Naissus, a Dardano-Illyrian settlement, not sure what relevance that has here... Botushali (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
It is clear that the artice of Greeks covers greek identity from antiquity until modern times. It does not solely focus on modern greeks. Piccco (talk) 10:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
The current article contains information from the Ancient Greeks article. That can easily be changed. Furthermore, there is no continuity in Greek identity from the ancient times until now, so I am not really sure what you are talking about. Ahmet Q. (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Identity is a cultural concept. Having 'greek identity' means speaking the greek language and following greek customs. What makes modern greeks 'greeks' is the fact that they continue to speak the same language. Emphasizing the "lack of continuity" between modern and older greeks is POV and irrelevant for wikipedia. Piccco (talk) 11:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Your invented definition of Greek identity didn't exist in antiquity, moreover ancient Greek customs have nothing to do with modern Greek customs. "Emphasizing the "lack of continuity" between modern and older greeks is POV": no, it is called historical accuracy. Ahmet Q. (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
The identity of a nation is their culture and this was, of course, always true, especially in areas of big multi-national empires. Also, when I said customs, I didn't refer to ancient polytheistic customs, but the Greco-byzantine culture that survives in all Orthodox countries, including Greece, where they also kept the language. To be honest, I feel like this whole debate is useless right now. Piccco (talk) 11:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
You're right, the whole continuity topic is somewhat irrelevant since the sources claiming that she is Greek in the first place are not even suitable. These sources should be removed and the statement retracted. Are we all in agreement? Botushali (talk) 02:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
None is in agreement, only you and Ahmet are who continue demonstrating your ignorance on the topic and of course, ignoring what the previous editors stated. The sources are fine and I do not see any reason to remove them. Othon I (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Nice way to ignore what has been written, it is not the first time you do this. Saying that the sources are "fine" even though they are not is not an argument. Not a single RS source for the supposed ancient Greek origin of Helena has been provided. Per Wikipedia's guideline, an extraordinary claim should be backed by extraordinary sources, if this is not done the claim will be removed. Ahmet Q. (talk) 07:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Constantine_the_Great/Archive_3&oldid=1216439370"