This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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)
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)
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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk 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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk 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).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Greetings, I added the Lead notice because it exceeds the 4 paragraph limit per MOS. Regards, — JoeHebda • ( talk) 00:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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).....
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)
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)
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)
Thoughts? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 03:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC) @@ JackofOz: Maybe read wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Year_numbering_systems
Removed here, but might be useful on an article dealing with the veneration of Constantine. b uidh e 08:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
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)
negationismis a matter of WP:NPA and suggests WP:BATTLEGROUND. I'll let others chime in. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:46, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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
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)
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.
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)
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 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)
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)
(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"." 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 (???)
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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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)
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)
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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk 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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk 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).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Greetings, I added the Lead notice because it exceeds the 4 paragraph limit per MOS. Regards, — JoeHebda • ( talk) 00:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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).....
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)
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)
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)
Thoughts? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 03:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC) @@ JackofOz: Maybe read wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Year_numbering_systems
Removed here, but might be useful on an article dealing with the veneration of Constantine. b uidh e 08:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
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)
negationismis a matter of WP:NPA and suggests WP:BATTLEGROUND. I'll let others chime in. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:46, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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
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)
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.
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)
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 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)
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)
(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"." 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 (???)
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)
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)