Talk:Helena, mother of Constantine I

message: I would like to note , that in the other article : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great_and_Christianity
, 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 62.84.82.3 (talk) 09:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOTE 

message: 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.  75.148.21.9 (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murder? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ethnic Origins of Helena of Constantinople ??? 

message: Here in Cyprus it is widely told that Helen was shipwrecked on her journey home in Cyprus.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.156.26 (talk) 12:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Journey Home from the Holy Land 

message: 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)
replies: text: Why is it hard for you to read? Str1977 (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

text: 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? 74.128.201.242 (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

text: 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 128.186.226.226 (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Faith, legends, facts

message: I propose this article move to Helena (empress) as we do not automatically capitalize monarchical titles. Fæ (talk) 08:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done!  Zerotalk 02:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Standard capitals 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: This interesting article discusses the concept of saintliness in Lutheran theology. Zerotalk 11:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lutheran saint? 

message: Honorifics are germane to the article per WP:COMMONNAME. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 91.233.116.79 (talk) 14:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the MoS Biographies - use of Honorific prefixes  samtar  {t} 14:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honorifics 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Helena (empress). 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.goarch.org/en/special/listen_learn_share/constantineandhelen/learn/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308064711/http://www.moplants.com/archives/vatican_gardens.php to http://www.moplants.com/archives/vatican_gardens.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081229131327/http://www.dur.ac.uk/r.h.britnell/Portrait%204.htm to http://www.dur.ac.uk/r.h.britnell/Portrait%204.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Well, another Greek saint whose ethnic background is not mentioned. Others being Saint George, Saint Barbara, Saint Catherine. Saint Nicholas is mentioned as Greek but I don't know how that slipped away from them. Yes, St. Helen was Greek from the Greek City of Drepana, from Greek Minor Asia which is the other half of Greece and whose capital is Constantinople. Simple facts that bring allergy to Anglo-Saxons, because when St. Helen lived, when she was discovering the Cross of Christ and when her son established the first christian capital of the Byzantine empire that lasted more than a thousand years.....well at that time...England did not even exist. But you see those rich Anglo-Saxons now trying to write history as they please. Learn to live with the truth little English nobodies.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ate Nike (talk • contribs) 07:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek Saint 

message: I can understand many people here are not acquainted with byzantine history and East Orthodox Christianity tradition but there is where "Helena the empress" is found. There is her place in history.
There is a discussion whether to rename Constantine the Great simply Constantine I. This discussion too 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 "Helena the empress".  
Beickus (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saint Helena is the proper name 

message: I have seen legends associating the plant Basil with the supposed discovery of the true cross; stating that its sweet smell guided Helena to the location, and it was then named ‘basil’=the royal plant.  See “The Cretan Runner”, by George Psychoundakis (Part 3, ‘Flight into Egypt’).Is this true? And if so, is there a connection between this and the use of the plant by the Orthodox to sprinkle holy water, and the placing of pots of basil in many Orthdox churches? It could be part of the cultural history of the plant, as it relates to Helena. 77.69.34.203 (talk) 05:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Basil

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Helena (empress). 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081014122028/http://www.martyrsandsaints.org/main/era_of_martyrdom/04th_century/Saint_Helen.htm to http://www.martyrsandsaints.org/main/era_of_martyrdom/04th_century/Saint_Helen.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509195201/http://www.sainteleanor.org/STEleanor.htm to http://www.sainteleanor.org/STEleanor.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have serious concerns about the phrasing of a number of sentences which imply that events/ actions have been factually established. Specifically "She was responsible for the construction or beautification of two churches, the Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem, and the Church of the Pater Noster|Church of Eleona]] on the [[Mount of Olives, sites of Christ's birth and ascension, respectively"; and "Emperor Hadrian had built during the 130s a temple over the site of Jesus's tomb near Calvary, and renamed the city Aelia Capitolina"; and "Local tradition holds that she imported hundreds of cats from Egypt or Palestine in the fourth century to rid a monastery of snakes." My problem is that is not a fact that the churches referred to were built on the site of Christ's birth and ascension. She may have believed that they were - and later tradition may hold that to be the case - but there is no evidence to suggest categorically that such buildings were in fact located in the right places (and since no human can "ascend" to Heaven the latter is manifestly a nonsense. I have suggested using the word "supposed" or "believed" as a compromise. Likewise we don't know that Hadrian built a temple over the site of Jesus's tomb - maybe that's the belief but again no categorical evidence. Finally ridding monasteries of snakes by using cats is a miracle and not a scientific fact.  Contaldo80 (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sir, you have to understand, that what we do is quote sources. We already say "According to tradition"... Adding the words "allegedly" or changing the word "tradition" to folk-tale is not how we usually write these articles. Helena, ACCORDING to tradition, rid city of snakes. The use of allegedly is not necessary anymore, since all of the phrases are understood to be ACCORDING TO TRADITION. Hope that clarifies the issue. And please, remember, this is how we write all religious articles. Picking on Christians alone is not constructive. God bless --SleeplessNight12 (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Where in the talk above have I mentioned changing "tradition" to "folk-tale"? My point has been that reference to "tradition" is simply not accurate enough - it may be a tradition that Helena got rid of all the snakes in a monastery but it's doubtful as a verifiable action. Religious articles must abide by the same guidance as all other articles - there isn't a special way to write them. I won't dignify the comment about "picking on Christians". People are free to believe what they want but religiously-motivated editors must be careful to observe editing behaviours in line with a secular encyclopaedia. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sir, once again listen to what I am saying. This encyclopedia already indicates that much of the information comes from Christian tradition. It's like saying "According to the Bible, Jesus cured a leper"... You might not believe he did, but saying "According to the Bible, Jesus allegedly healed a leper" is already redundant. Since, according to the Bible Jesus absolutely did it. Now whether the Biblical account is historical is another discussion, but what Wikipedia does, is present what these sources say. If the sources say Helena found the true cross, we should indicate that Saint Helena found the True Cross ACCORDING to the source. The reliability of the source should be discussed separately. At least, that is my perspective. I am open for a compromise, but I think changing the word "tradition" to "folk-tale" is unnecessary denigration of Christian beliefs. Hope that helps. --SleeplessNight12 (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You have no understanding of how to use sources for historical analysis. The likelihood of Helena finding three crosses over 300 years after the death of the Nazarene preacher, Jesus of Nazareth, is extremely unlikely. But we are fine to say that a source indicated that she had found what she thought were the crosses and other odd paraphernalia. We can't say that she did as a fact. Particularly as the Bible didn't even exist as a work of literature at this stage! Contaldo80 (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Once again, you referring to a Byzantine Orthodox tradition as "folk-tale" is unnecessary and uncalled for, that is not how we usually write these articles. I will let others decide. It is clear you do not want to listen to what I am saying so let other people decide. --SleeplessNight12 (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this goes beyond this article. If we apply the same methodology as suggested by the OP to every religious article, then we have to flood every religious article with "claims", "supposeds", "folk tales" etc.. I don't think this is a viable proposition. But what I think ultimately doesn't matter. What I do believe however is that the community must decide either through a centralised discussion or perhaps starting with an RfC here. Dr. K. 02:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree. We would need to change every time Muhammad is referred to as a "prophet" to "alleged prophet". Or when a prophet's grave is mentioned we would need to call it "alleged grave." It is unfair to pick on this one article. All our religious articles are written the same way this one is. --SleeplessNight12 (talk) 03:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid you just don't understand the point. Muhammad can be referred to as a "prophet" as that is an individual regarded as being in touch with the Divine. It is not acceptable to mix miracles and hagiography up with history and facts. I don't care how offended religious editors get this is not what we should expect of Wikipedia. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

text: I certainly don't get the impression that the article reads like a "hagiography". That is gross exaggeration and simply not credible. "Alleged" is inappropriate for something that occurred 17 centuries ago. "According to tradition" does the job far better and makes "allegedly" redundant. I also agree with Dr.K. that personalizing the discussion and casting aspersions is unconstructive and should be avoided. Khirurg (talk) 02:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an ongoing investigation into SleeplessNight12 so I don't propose to discuss my interactions with them here. However, I do have an important point to make. I came to this article about Helena to improve my historical understanding of her. She is primarily a historical figure and notable in being the mother of the Roman Emperor Constantine and may have influenced his conversion to Christianity. I was genuinely interested in her visit to Palestine and what she was said to have found. I was keen to extract historical fact from legend as far as possible. This is interesting because it can help shed light on the early days of Christianity. I am conscious that Christians also revere here from a religious perspective. I am content for the article to note that. I am not content, however, to have the article present her as a religious figure first and a historical one second. And to use the vagueness of historical sources and legend to make non-historical claims. We know with some certainty that Helena existed as a real person. We know less for sure that the Nazarene preacher Jesus existed; although I think on balance this is quite likely. We can therefore assume he died in the way that believers indicated (crucified) but we know he did not rise from the dead (which is scientifically impossible). Therefore the language needs to reflect the ambiguity between historical fact and religious legend. Listing stories about cats is amusing but really more on the legend or folktake sideContaldo80 (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, your anti-Catholicism should not influence how we write religious articles. Keep your atheism away from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. This article is written in the same way we write other religious articles. And again, the consensus is against you! --SleeplessNight12 (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

text: The consensus is definitely against Contaldo80. I will add that given his history of repeatedly vandalizing Christian articles, we should watch him more closely. --SleeplessNight12 (talk) 03:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: SleeplessNight12 you are a new editor and you can be excused for a few things in the beginning, since you are learning the ropes, so to speak. But one thing we are not supposed to do is call other editors vandals. We must always assume good faith. Dr. K. 03:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. I am new. Sorry if I did something wrong.SleeplessNight12 (talk) 04:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Hagiography versus biography

message: Any reason why we can't call this article by her actual name - Flavia Iulia Helena Augusta? Of course re-directing searches such as Saint Helena or Empress Helena? I guess people will respond by arguing that when references to her are made in English history books she generally is not referred to with her proper name - but I can't help thinking that an article about a person should use the name of that person, even if it's not widely used. Contaldo80 (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Flavia Iulia Helena Augusta would be a perfectly sensible article title.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to rename page 

message: Among them are items believed to be part of Jesus Christ's tunic, pieces of the holy cross, and pieces of the rope with which Jesus was tied on the Cross. 
So that's scientific consensus today ("believed to be")? And no sourcing. Good work.94.191.152.206 (talk) 11:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relics and Wikipedia 

message: Since the sources that claim that Helena was Greek are only some insignificant in-line references about her, and considering that the author Drijvers who wrote an important work about her clearly states that her origins are unknown, I find it misleading to claim that she was of Greek origin. Ahmet Q. (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Apart from the fact that multiple sources claim that she had Greek origins e.g. Phelan and Stanton etc., what does ancient Greek origins mean? Should we create an article change the wiki link to Albanian individuals to "Medieval Albania"? Please use some common sense... There is an article that covers Greeks from all eras, just in case you did not notice... Othon I (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helena's supposed ancient greek origins  

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Helena (empress) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 16#Helena (empress) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  ★Trekker (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Helena (empress)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Empress Helena and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 17#Empress Helena until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Regards, SONIC678 00:01, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Empress Helena" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Could someone with more knowledge in language than me please help out with the explanation for the variant name Aelena that has been found at times. These sources 1, 2, 3 discuss it but I don't really understand what they're talking about. ★Trekker (talk) 09:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aelena as name variant