Talk:Helena (empress)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I would like to note , that in the other article : , it was mentioned that Emperor Constantine was exposed to Christianity through his mother Elena. Nothing is mentioned about that in this article ?/? + I am wondering if there are any accounts that do mention about the conversion of Constantine to Christianity + was there any factors that made his adoption of christianity necessary at that time (talk) 09:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


The article described the execution of Fausta and Crispus as "murder." That wording is false, in that it denotes that their executions were illegal. While historians cannot know whether their trials were fair, they were tried and convicted. In context, that wording makes Helena out to be a murderer, and implies that an unrepentant murderer has been labelled a saint by the religious hierarchies of most of Christendom. (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi let's talk![edit]

I removed the following links:

In general, the King Coel connection seems completely legendary—see the Geoffrey of Monmouth page for discussion. --Macrakis 05:57, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I removed the following link due to redirect and request for subscription in order to view content which is most likely not relevant:

Apparently Hu12 does not know how to follow a link. The links I posted to to and to are not only non-commercial, but they are relevant to the topic. Where you have ONE photograph of a coin of Helena, coinproject has 125 unique examples of coins of Helena, all of which have been VETTED by experts and verified that the attribution is correct. Coinproject has over 80% of all known types of coins which were struck in the name of Helena and several that are unpublished. My ID is going to be used to provide links to numismatic data where available for cities (for Greek and Roman cities which struck coins) and the emperors and their families as well as other figures from ancient history. I will also use this ID to correct numismatic errors in articles whenever they are found. Frankly, I chose Helena and one other page because Helena has been completed on Coinproject and has been edited and every coin verified as to accuracy. --Numismatica (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I've re-added those, as they seem ok to me. Not directly commercial. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
User Numismatica is actually the blocked account User talk:Coinproject, operating with a Confilct of interest with an open intent to spam, as stated above "My ID is going to be used to provide links to numismatic data where available". This violates SPAM, WP:COI, WP:SOCK and WP:NOT. Additionally a user-edited website like Coinproject is not a valid reliable source and not a valid external link. The link has been removed--Hu12 (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
As regards WP:EL both sites seem to me to fall under: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[3] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons" and "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources". Note that I restored the links, and I have no COI. Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Understood, however the link does fail WP:EL also. The site itself states;
"...anyone can contribute to improving the site...CoinProject was designed so that a virtually unlimited number of volunteers can share the work and contribute by submitting, approving or verifying coins..."
As a result it fails several of Wikipedia's core content policies, specifically; ” Questionable_sources” and ”Self-published sources. As such, it fails as an external link because claims it is "accurate material" or from "knowledgeable sources" is undermined. More over, as an external link, its "indirectly related" (#13), clearly "unverifiable research" (#2) nor does it truly provide a unique resource (#1) as there are plenty of other Reliable and Verifiable alternatives available. Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. However, that very openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site, as is the case with It just doesn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria.--Hu12 (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The rudeness of the original poster's tone and Hu12's valid points about WP policy not-with-standing, these are sites that classicists use to view ancient coin types that aren't always easily accessible via traditional print media. I don't know the intersection between this fact and WP policy.  davidiad.:τ 03:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think they are valid. The standards for EL's are not as high as for WP:RS in articles, & he would presumably fail the Oxford English Dictionary for the same reasons. External links, unlike references for article text, are not required to meet WP:V. What are the reliable and verifiable online alternatives supposed to be? Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Either way, fails Wikipedia's External links policy #1,#2,#4 and #13 respectivly. On another note; the image that already exists in the article (File:Follis-Helena-trier_RIC_465.jpg) is more detailed than the comparable one on here. I mention this because it would appear that CoinProject's image was simply harvested from another site, here, a site which is widely used on wikipedia already and considered a web resource per Portal:Numismatics. This gives me serious pause for potential copyvio (Linking to copyrighted works) and extremely problematic when it comes to a site( where "anyone can contribute ".--Hu12 (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I reviewed the two links in question, to and I think they are good links ... but I am interested in coins, so of course I would like them. I believe links to databases of ancient Roman images of an ancient Roman citizen would make the article better. I feel like the coins are Primary Sources, and the two links are better than the existing links to sources like the Catholic Encycolopedia. Let me ask in general, does Wikipedia want links to coin and museum databases? Can we decided that separately from the issue of links to a particular database?

Esnible (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Currently has 5 Helena coins, all scuzzy bronze ones, none on sale for more than 40USD. Once they sell them they will presumably go. CoinProject have 127 Helena coins, including several gold issues. I don't think I would approve of being linked to here, as the value is too little. CoinProject say (home page) they have the owners' permissions to use the photos & I don't see any prima facie reason to doubt that - the images have no real commercial value, and dealers and collectors like to show off their stuff. Coinproject is evidently intended to represent a permanent and comprehensive resource. They all use the same standard catalogues for their information. Their "anyone can contribute" in fact requires registration, and additions are then shown as red until reviewed by a moderator; no doubt there is copyright declaration at input. A very different story to Wikipedia. To answer Esnible, we certainly do want to link to good database resources. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I totaly agree with Johnbod. I don't understand why links to pages as wildwinds or coinproject shouldn't be here. I think they are great historical source and they could be useful even for non numismatics. Jan Bajer 15:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johny SYSEL (talkcontribs)

It seems that the majority agree that links to both coinproject and wildwinds meet the requirements of being acceptable external links on Wikipedia. In reviewing both sites they obtain permission from dealers and collectors and incorporate the information in what is hopefully a stable database of such material. The big difference between both sites appears to be that coinproject requires confirmation that the standard reference citations are correct before a record is considered trusted and that there is a mechanism in place for errors to be reported by users of the site.

What is the status of this? Quite some time has elapsed with no apparent resolution. It appears that the original contributor was blocked. But Johnbod restored the removed links because he felt they were acceptable and has no COI. Others commenting have also stated they felt the links were valuable. As a coin collector I use both resources regularly. I also use (currently running auctions), (also currently running auctions), (a database of coins sold at auction) and a few others. While I would not share sixbid or numisbid on Wiki because of their commercial nature I see no problem with the others as well as the original two links deleted. IMHO this seems to be an example of a heavy handed use of moderator privileges. Salsany (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Ethnic Origins of Helena of Constantinople ???[edit]

I have a question for wikipedians in regards to Saint Helena's Ethnic background, I noticed it's not mentioned in the article and was wondering if anybody on this site knew or had any sources which could confirm what her ethnicity/s were? Thankyou in regards E-mail adress 13:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

St Helena was born in the city of Drepanum in Sicily, so she was a Greek. Though the definition of a Greek at the time was not what it used to be or what it is today. Everybody was Roman, either Pagan of Christian. Colossus 16:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Read the article, this is not so clear as we wish for. She was "probably" born in Drepanum for her son renamed that city to honour her. An single Roman historian writes that she was born there. But even if this were true (and far as we know, it probably is) this does not make her atomatically a Greek. Flamarande 13:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow! The statement above is the worst English I've come across on Wikipedia yet!!

It's not Drepanum in Sicily, but Drepanum in Bithynia (which is also already in the article). As Flamarande said, only one author (Procopius, iirc, i.e. rather late) mentiones her birthplace; another hint may be that Constantine renamed the city as Helenopolis. This is all we know, and the article summarizes that very neatly. Varana 15:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia avoids to mention the ethnic origin of famous christian people of that era if they are Greek (or some other Greek people in other eras, for that matter). The list goes on of how many of the Greek Saints (St. Catherine, St. George, St. Barbara, and please don't give me the common 'Roman' label) and other prominent Greek Christians of the first centuries A.D. are deliberately not mentioned as ethnic Greeks in here, clearly as a tactic of depreciating their ethnic origins as their work firstly saved Christianity during that time of persecutions, and then made it flourish and spread throughout the world through the Greek Orthodox Church and the Byzantium Empire that lasted more than a thousand years.

The common excuse of this kind of Wikipedia authors of such articles is: "no significant evidence". No evidence would be good enough for them anyway that can even be provided in our days for them or any of their fellow citizens, even by paper. Would you like a DNA test? It is the sickening tactic of hiding behind false political correctness and suspicious intentions. So what we have is people who had Greek names, born in Greek cities in various greater Greek regions (whether that be Greek mainland or ancient Greek colonies that had remained Greek for hundreds of years), whose parents bore Greek names, who spoke Greek and had Greek education and who wrote in Greek, are not mentioned as Greeks in wikipedia. They are something vague. Maybe they are Chinese, or English, as someone said of St. Helen in this article.

Things are becoming ridiculous and disrespectful. This Wikipedia-author considered it important that a romantic fool's nonsense about the Greek St. Helen being English (something about blond hair was his argument) was worth mentioning in the article. May I remind you that England did not even exist during St. Helen's lifetime or even a century after. I understand that the English, drunk by their accomplished imperial plutocratic world, and while lacking this kind of historic heritage, are resorting to romantic dreams and are flying in high clouds, which includes other poems about Jesus having walked on England and so on. The same ideas the Scottish have for St. Andrew. I am afraid their descent from the clouds will be meet the earth roughly.

The English should always remember that their flag bears the cross of the Greek Saint George. And whatever distaste the English may have for this fact is not due their own assertions but due to those who have been ruling the English for hundreds of years now, and have infected the English with their mentality and obscure ill-intentioned tactics (but that's a different subject; at least let it be known I am not attacking the English). But for the English of today to know that their flag is of a Greek Saint may struck as odd or unacceptable, but why?. This is how far they have gone in manipulating and misinforming the English minds for many decades now.

So it goes that the Greeks St Catherine, St George, St Barbara, St Helen and many other great Greek Christians of that troubled age that shaped Christianity, fail to be mentioned as Greek by illiterate internet authors. Kassos (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Contradictory dates[edit]

The text says she lived between 248-329, but in the saint template it says 250-330. Which is it? Odedee 00:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Odedee,
Your point is valid. The first website in the external links section supports the dates in the text and the Catholic Encyclopedia supports the dates in the infobox (the year of death, at least). The Catholic Forum Saints Index explicitly states the years of death and birth as the ones in the infobox. More research needs to be done and a consensus reached. Hope this will happen soon. Thanks for pointing out this discrepancy.
Savio mit electronics 13:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

We have no primary source for what year she was born. The closest we get is when we see that she was "about 80" on her return from Palestine. We cannot use that to pin an exact year of birth on her. So I've modified the infobox and the inline text to reflect that looseness. And I've removed the Cat "Birth in 250" since she wasn't, or at least we don't have any evidence that she was. Wjhonson (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Journey Home from the Holy Land[edit]

Here in Cyprus it is widely told that Helen was shipwrecked on her journey home in Cyprus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Faith, legends, facts[edit]

Some parts of this subject have been written with much objectivity, encyclopedic, like: "She is traditionally credited with finding the relics of the True Cross." IMHO such a statement doesn't even need a reference, the christian tradition is littered with such credits. Other parts of the text seem to be written by someone who seems to place his/her personal believes and the legends over facts:

when she touched the third and final cross she suddenly recovered

She also found the nails of the crucifixion.

part of Jesus Christ's tunic, pieces of the holy cross and the world's only pieces of the rope to which Jesus was tied with on the Cross.

Such sentences in christian subjects make it very hard to read for non-christians. Please keep that in mind when your adding/editing christian subjects. And please rewrite such phrases to meet with Wiki standards if you see them. I'm not very well capable of doing that myself because of my limited knowledge of the English language.Maggy Rond (talk) 11:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is it hard for you to read? Str1977 (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it's hard to read because it's a total failure of Wikipedia's quality standards, having no empirical or documentary evidence mentioned whatsoever for it, not to mention the sheer unlikelihood of these things having happened? (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Most likely this is not a question of legibility coherency, more a point of received tradition being printed as fact. Primary and secondary (Butler et al.) sources, in general, seem scant in this section, let alone the fact that there is minimal referencing through endnote citation. I suggest that this section be rewritten using these, particularly period writings. Note should be made of the discrepancies in timelines from these sources, such as Eusebius, Jerome, &c., and possibly mentioning that the main source of the elevation of the cross is the pet scribe and biographer of Constantine; this fact automatically introduces bias. If the statements are rewritten to indicate that they are the beliefs of the various Catholic/Orthodox sects, preferably including a compare/contrast of differing traditions, then that should clarify the information for non-Christian readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Standard capitals[edit]

I propose this article move to Helena (empress) as we do not automatically capitalize monarchical titles. (talk) 08:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Done! Zerotalk 02:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be sensible to move her to Empress Helena instead? Lots of sources call her "Empress Helena", no sources call her "Helena (empress)", and natural disambiguation is obviously preferable to parenthetical. bobrayner (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure about that last on two counts. One is that Empress Helena is by no means the most common way of referring to her - mostly she is known as St Helen(a), so the issue is by no means straightforward if we refer to WP:COMMONNAME. The second may be considered more esoteric, but her title was actually that of Augusta and the tendency in modern academic circles seems to be to call her Helena Augusta when referring to he historical figure. We do not have a contemporary equivalent to Augusta and so it has come to be translated as empress, but I am not at all sure that Imperatrix and Augusta are really the same thing. 'Empress' seems to me rather misleading as a title. That is by no means underplaying her contemporary political status; Eusabius describes her journey to the Holy Land very much in terms of an imperial progress but the sources do not really tell us enough about context. I am no specialist and I know the naming of articles for Roman historical figures is problematic. --AJHingston (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Lutheran saint?[edit]

The article states that "She is revered as a saint by [...] the Lutheran, and the Anglican churches."

I am a Lutheran, and to the best of my knowledge we do not revere any saints at all.--Oz1cz (talk) 10:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Some Lutherans do, see this and this. However I don't see any source provided in our article for this assertion. It either has to be sourced or removed. Zerotalk 11:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
This interesting article discusses the concept of saintliness in Lutheran theology. Zerotalk 11:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


Honorifics are germane to the article per WP:COMMONNAME. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

We don't use honorifics here per WP:NPOV.. If you want to add honorifics here, then you should firstly go and add honorifics in articles like Muhammad, Ali, and Umar — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Please read the MoS Biographies - use of Honorific prefixes Face-smile.svg samtar {t} 14:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

"Scholars," "Idolatry," and Jesus-Is-Lord.Com[edit]

"Helena's search for Christian relics and the official establishment of these icons are viewed by some scholars to be the introduction of idolatry into the Church.[1] "

Took this line out of the Relic Discoveries section. If you look up the source online, (just Google "Milller 1967 Church History"), you get links to and Stempublishing. This does not fully discount it as a source, but it does lend it some dubiousness. When you look deeper into said source, you find the language of conspiracy theorists and fundamentalists who think that even the traditional Protestant Churches are too corrupted by Rome to be true Christians; not the language of a serious scholar. There are theories about how the opening chapters of Revelation are about the rise of "Popery" and Protestants who were not true believers (and more wacky weirdness.) If someone wishes to put the phrase back in the work, it should be specified that it is "Helena's search for Christian relics and the official establishment of these icons are viewed by one fundamentalist 'scholar' and a few nuts to be the introduction of idolatry into the Church."

  1. ^ Miller, Andrew (1967). Miller's Church History. Finecastle. pp. 288–295.