Talk:Constantine the Great

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleConstantine the Great has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
September 15, 2008Good article nomineeListed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 3, 2004, July 25, 2004, July 3, 2005, July 25, 2005, July 25, 2006, July 25, 2007, July 25, 2008, July 25, 2009, July 25, 2010, and July 25, 2013.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject iconThis article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of History.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

External links modified[edit]

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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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[edit]

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[edit]

Isn't CE the accepted way of writing AD. This should be changed in this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Flying Soda (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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 (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Opening para. cluttered[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Constantine the GreatConstantine 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)

  • Rather surprisingly, Constantine redirects here, and would be far preferable, if it really is primary. Of course Constantine (disambiguation) has a long list of mostly obscure figures. An ngram would be useful. Constantine the Great may not be the most common these days, but everyone knows who it means, which probably isn't true for Constantine I. As for "consistency with, say, Justinian I", that is a very minor consideration. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Move to Constantine per Johnbod, WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME . He's far and away the most notable of that name, and any sentence that referred to him that way would be recognized by most educated people. Failing that, keep as is. We moved it here in 2010,and this is a better and more common title than including an ordinal which is rarely heard of.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. American stylebooks generally recommend Merriam-Webster spelling, which gives "Constantine I."[1]. Britannica and Columbia both follow this style. "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," per WP:COMMONNAME. Oxford, the standard for British spelling, is here. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As Johnbod says, "everyone knows who it means, which probably isn't true for Constantine I". Srnec (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Who is Constantine I? There are eleven byzantine emperors with the same name but no one compares with the first one - Constantine the great" : that is how a professor of history and political science introduced him. For the sake of order it should remain as is. I can understand many people here are not acquainted with byzantine history and East Orthodox Christianity tradition but there is where Constantine the Great is found. There is his place in history. This discussion ignores his uncontested place in byzantine history and East Orthodox Christianity. Would you rename Alexander the great? There were a few Macedonian kings with the same name. But renaming him would simply look bizarre. That is how it looks "Constantine I". Beickus (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The so-called obscure figures include Constantine III (Western Roman Emperor) (covered extensively in British legend thanks to Geoffrey of Monmouth), the religiously controversial Constantine V (the most famous among the Iconoclast emperors), the famous writer Constantine VII (a primary source on medieval history and administration, author of De Administrando Imperio), the hedonist Constantine IX Monomachos (the emperor of the East–West Schism, grandfather or kinsman of Vladimir II Monomakh, and claimed ancestor to most of the Russian nobility), and the final emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos (a King in the mountain figure with legends about him circulating for the last 6 centuries.) I doubt that Constantine I is the primary use. As for Constantine I, there is potential for confusion with Pope Constantine (among the last Popes of the Byzantine Papacy). Dimadick (talk) 05:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In the Western world, when you say "Constantine the Great", everyone knows who you mean, whether from half-remembered history classes, or from church. "Constantine I" far less so, as most people don't do regnal numbers. This is a solution in search of a problem. Constantine 07:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is his most familiar name in English, and consistency doesn't seem like a strong argument to override it; other monarchs commonly known as "the Great" are usually found under that title, rather than numerals. P Aculeius (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Ngram: [2] (Constantine I vs. Constantine the Great) — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 14:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: As the OP here, I'm happy there's a consensus on this. Even to take the comparison I'd made myself with Justinian I, I see an Ngram gives a clear preference for that format over Justinian the Great. There is perhaps still a case for moving the page to simply Constantine; as it redirects to this page anyway, questions of a confusion with Pope Constantine still arise. That said, I don't have an objection to the current title if there's a clear consensus. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Instead of followning established dictionaries, as well as other encyclopedias, we have awarded greatness by the powers vested in us as Wikipedia editors. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 00:32, 18 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)