Talk:Hagia Sophia

Can anyone find source #18?

I was reading the extract in the "History"/"Church of Justinian" below. It's quite interesting to read but you can skip to the citation at the end:

"What was the reason that compelled all to flee to the Great Church? They had been listening, for many years, to some pseudo-soothsayers, who had declared that the city was destined to be handed over to the Turks, who would enter in large numbers and would massacre the Romans as far as the Column of Constantine the Great. After this an angel would descend, holding his sword. He would hand over the kingdom, together with the sword, to some insignificant, poor, and humble man who would happen to be standing by the Column. He would say to him: "Take this sword and avenge the Lord's people." Then the Turks would be turned back, would be massacred by the pursuing Romans, and would be ejected from the city and from all places in the west and the east and would be driven as far as the borders of Persia, to a place called the Lone Tree …. That was the cause for the flight into the Great Church. In one hour that famous and enormous church was filled with men and women. An innumerable crowd was everywhere: upstairs, downstairs, in the courtyards, and in every conceivable place. They closed the gates and stood there, hoping for salvation.

— Doukas, XXXIX.18"

Poor people... Anyway, I looked at resource #18, copied below, but I wasn't able to find the cited resource in the given website. It was accessed long long ago, perhaps it has been deleted? I tried looking at the web as well. Is the above extract even citing #18 or is the number 18 part of the "Doukas" citation? If so, I looked for "Doukas" as a resource and couldn't find anything that contained the above text, which "Doukas" is this? Could anyone else have a look since I'm not experienced is this? Thanks.

Resource #18: Magdalino, Paul, et al. "Istanbul: Buildings, Hagia Sophia" in Grove Art Online. Oxford Art Online. accessed 28 February 2010.

Tsioftas (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Acoustics of the Hagia Sophia

In my college lectures and readings, a lot of attention was paid to the acoustic properties of Hagia Sophia, specifically the extremely long reverberation time because of the mosaics. I found the various sources I needed to write the section, but where should I put it? Does it fit better under notable elements, or should it be in a new section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graviphantalia (talk • contribs) 21:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Under the Architecture section of course. And mention the recent virtual digital reconstructions of what the sound was actually like - you can hear samples on youtube. BTW there is not a shred of evidence, physical or textual, that the original dome (before the 558 earthquake) had pendentives. It was more likely to be a domical vault. The current pendentives are simply surviving fragments of that vault. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.223.30 (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:Christianity importance

Looking at the history of the article, it was rated as top importance for a long time before yesterday's changes by AhmadLX Uness232 and Iskandar323. I'm not going to call such changes an edit war, but I can see there is potential for one to develop. Let's not go down that route please.

I've restored top importance whilst this issue is discussed, and a consensus is reached for either a change in importance or the retention of current rating. The relevant WP will be notified. Mjroots (talk) 06:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

When the Western Roman Empire fell, the Haghia Sophia for a while essentially became the main cathedral in Christianity as the center of worship for the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, and it remains the spiritual home of that patriarchate, which itself remains the principle body in Eastern Orthodoxy. Under the Ottomans, it became the principle mosque of the Ottoman Empire after the capture of Constantinople and was the first port of call for Mehmed II when he entered the conquered city. The emotional hold of t(Beckhese events continues to this day, and it is hard to overstate the historical importance of this building. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I largely agree with @Iskandar323, but I will say that top importance is usually reserved for the most vital artect, and while this is definitely an important building, it is not a core concept of either Islam or Christianity. I'm personally leaning towards High importance on both. Uness232 (talk) 10:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the confusion here is as to what importance scale means. Let's just look at the definition of importance by respective projects.

• TOP Importance WP:Christianity: "The article is one of the core topics about Christianity. Articles in this area should be limited to those which could, reasonably, be found in any encyclopedia regarding Christianity." It further states in Reader's experience: "A reader who is not involved in the field of Christianity will have high familiarity with the subject matter and should be able to relate to the topic easily." [emphasis mine.]
• TOP Importance WP:Islam: "Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field." [emphasis mine.]

Now, my point is how this mosque/church is crucial and central to the fields of Islam/Christianity? How would a reader who is uninvolved in the field of Christianity have a great deal of familiarity with this topic?

I don't think it even qualifies as HIGH importance. Compare the MID importance criteria and reader familiarity with the subject:

• MID Importance WP:Christianity: "The article covers a topic that is important to at least one field within the broad field of Christianity, and that contributes relevant details regarding the subject." Reader Experiene: "Many readers will be familiar with the topic being discussed, but a larger majority of readers may have only cursory knowledge of the overall subject" [emphasis mine.]
• MID Importance WP:Islam: "Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area."

The building's importance is limited to a specific period and place in both religions. Subjects like Jesus, Paul, Christianity, Muhammad, Islam, Kaaba qualify as TOP importance and nothing remotely like this. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, as the symbolic center of the Eastern orthodox church, the Hagia Sophia is somewhat analogous to a Kaaba on that front. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

But we are not talking about importance in Eastern Orthodoxy. We are talking about importance in Christianity. How many non-Christians do you think would know about Eastern Orthodoxy let alone this church/whatever it is?--AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

How many non-Muslims will know what the Kaaba is, or even know the word? Judging the importance of religious buildings by these criteria is a terrible idea. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Bruh now you making things up. Everyone who who has heard of Islam knows of Mecca and Hajj and the Kaaba. Moreover, if this is a terrible criteria, you should suggest changes to the criteria on the respective projects, not here. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

People know the name Mecca, in part because it is used as a metaphor, fewer people know the name of the Islamic pilgrimage, even fewer the Kaaba. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

For a thousand years, the Hagia Sophia was the center of Christian worship in the Eastern Roman/Byzantine empire. Not sure how else to qualify this. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

1. It was a cathedral, not a center of worship like the Kaaba in Islam. 2. Whatever it was, it was: limited in time. 3. Whatever it was, it was for a section of Christianity: limited to a sub-field and not central to the entire field. Now compare these to the definition listed above. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

It was not A cathedral, it was THE cathedral at the center of an entire church, and it remains the spiritual and symbolic home of that church, much like the Mecca Haram is the symbolic heart of Islam. And Eastern Christianity is not some minor sub-field of Christianity: it is one of three major divisions and commands an estimated 220 million worshippers. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@AhmadLX: the importance for WP:Islam does not seem to be in dispute. This discussion is about the importance for WP:Christianity. They may be different. Mjroots (talk) 07:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

If you will note the settings, it is marked as top importance for WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy, which it most certainly is, and mid for catholicism. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The whole thrust of above editor's argument has been on importance in Eastern Orthodoxy. As mentioned before, this thread is about the topic's importance in Christianity. The criteria of the said Wikiproject are clear, as stated above, that subjects central to the field as a whole qualify as TOP importance. Those limited to one particular field qualify as MID importance. Now if the above editor has problem with these criteria, they should raise the issue on the Wikiproject's talk page and should not clutter this thread by steering the focus of the discussion away from the criteria. I've presented my arguments, and he/she has done the same. Other editors should judge this on the criteria set by the Wikiproject. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, the WikiProject Christianity entry on this page is an umbrella for two separate ratings. Unless I'm talking at cross-purposes because you don't actually understand how WikiProjects can break down into smaller sub-projects, you should be able to see that what we have here, embedded under the WikiProject Christianity entry, is both WikiProject Catholicism, which is marked as mid importance, and WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy, which is unmarked by virtue of it carrying the top importance as the overall WikiProject entry. Given that WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy exists, it is fairly obvious why the Hagia Sophia would be rated as top importance for it. And, while WikiProject Catholicism and WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy could be inserted as different WikiProject lines, all that would then happen if that were made to be the case is that some other editor that maintains these elements would come back along and re-merge them back into what we already have now. So that would be quite circuitous, and, just like this discussion, a massive waste of time. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I am in favour of a high importance: this cathedral is not used by EOrthodox, and currently it is the St. George's Cathedral, Istanbul (rated low importance) which serves as the de facto St. Peter's Basilica (a vital-level article) for the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Very few people care about Hagi Sophia when compared to other subjects in Christianity: most Christian studies are either about theology or textual criticism. To me, major independent local churches should be vital articles, e.g. the Georgian Orthodox Church, for they seem to me to be more important nowadays than the Hagia Sophia. The importance of the Hagia Sophia is closer to that of Notre-Dame de Paris in Catholicism.

It is normal, as time goes on, to reevaluate the importance of some articles, because some topics once considered important can be overshadowed by others, or lose their importance, for a long period of time.

It is always quite difficult to juge the importance of such a topic when compared to the large array of topics in Christianity, because there is no clear, objective way of measuring or comparing such things. Veverve (talk) 06:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Lighting

Hagia Sophia is illuminated from sunrise to sunset sunset to sunrise. The dome is illuminated by eight spotlights mounted on the minaret walkways. A total of 300 LED wallwashers have been installed on the roofs. Currently, the article lacks any information on lighting, neither inside nor outside; would you support adding some details about that? Please be aware that my company (Beckhoff Automation) has developed the controls for the lighting system, so I definitely have a conflict of interest. Also, there are not much good, reliable and independent sources on lighting of the Hagia Sophia. --62.159.14.27 (talk) 09:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Why is it only illuminated while the sun is shining? That seems like a waste. Elizium23 (talk) 10:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Elizium23: Sorry, you're right. Lighting up in daylight is not very useful. Here is a source for the topic itself. It is a primary source, but maybe it explains my suggestion better? --SP at BA (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I've seen that Elizium23 has been blocked, so I am formally submitting a new edit request. --SP at BA (talk) 11:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

What specific edit would you like to see made? (What text would you like to see added to mention this and where in the article?) Are there any other additional sources for this information besides the self-published source? I am marking this request as addressed; to re-open it, remove the "|A" in the {{request edit}} template above. Spencer^T•C 04:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Spencer, for reviewing this request. I suggest to add the following wording:

Hagia Sophia is illuminated from sunset to sunrise. The dome is illuminated by eight spotlights mounted on the minaret walkways. A total of around 300 LED wallwashers have been installed on the roofs. Light and color dimmers ensure a constant light pattern depending on the time of day and the seasons.

Unfortunately, there are no other sources. If the information from PC-Control is not permitted, the fact could be included without a source, since it is trivial information, right? I really appreciate your feedback. Thanks, SP at BA (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, per Wikipedia's Verifiability policy, "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, or experiences. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." (See also Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth.) I am going to close this request for now, but if a reliable third-party source exists, then please go ahead and re-open the request. Spencer^T•C 18:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, User:Spencer. I really appreciate your help. I'm going to double check for other sources, and may come back here. Regards, SP at BA (talk) 12:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Construction of the dome, ca. 535

Witold Rybczynski, in his 2022 history of architecture, mentions that Justinian's architects, to reduce the weight of the dome, used (as was Byzantine practice then) thin bricks layered and set in very thick mortar mixed with brick dust. "Long iron tie-bars below the springing of the arches and vaults countered the horizontal thrust" of the weight of the flat dome.

I wonder if this is the first recorded instance of the use of iron-reinforced masonry. Anyone? Pete Tillman (talk) 03:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that would reduce the weight of the dome. However, brick dust is a pozolan, and converts lime mortar into hydraulic cement. Using crushed bricks instead of volcanic ash (pozolano) is an ancient Roman technique described by Vitruvius.

John Romer also mentions that a lot of iron was used in Byzantine buildings. He claims the “Little Hagia Sophia” (Sts Sergius & Bacchus) has a tension ring created by using iron staples to link together the marble blocks of the cornice. It's doubtful the first story cornice in St. Sergius and Bacchus would meaningfully counteract that thrust of the dome, which is much higher up. Romer and others imply a similar system was repeated at the Hagia Sophia, but I can't find any sources that verify the use of a tension ring on the main dome.

There are a lot of iron bars spanning across arches and vaults throughout the lower portions of Hagia Sophia. These would counteract the thrust of those particular spans. However, these wouldn't counteract the thrust of the main dome, which is much higher up.

The first version of the dome also collapsed, so whatever they did wasn't very effective. Livius Plinius (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)