Talk:Hagia Sophia

Acoustics

There's been coverage (for example, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) of the acoustics of Hagia Sophia, particularly on replicating them in sound studios and augmenting choral recordings to get a sense of what liturgical music might have sounded like there when it was still a church. Is this worthy of mention in this article? Largoplazo (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

If there is something about the acoustic character of Hagia Sophia that is especially unique, then it would likely be worthy of some mention under the architecture subheading since the acoustics are presumably a consequence of its architecture. RobertsBiology (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

it is just now converted to a mosque again by court decision

Can someone edit the article? It s now a mosque. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/10/world/europe/hagia-sophia-mosque-turkey.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.70.129.53 (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Even Erdogan's courts didn't go that far; they let half the mockery be owned by Turkey's political/religious fanatic, Erdogan, who was the one declaring it a mosque, not his court. 24.212.142.86 (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Should this page be protected? Looking at the revision history there's a very clear edit war breaking out

Thoughts on protecting the page/limiting edits for a period of time? The developing situation concerning the building's status seems to have led to some edit warring.Boredintheevening (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The request has been posted one hour ago. Alex2006 (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Must be protected due to vandalism attacks Hezarfen (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

Infobox of a mosque must be religious building, not monument. Like all other mosques. Due to wrong infobox, some information cannot be added. Hezarfen (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Given the fact that according to the President of Turkey the first services will not be held until the 24th, it would probably be premature to reclassify the site as a mosque for the encyclopedia's purposes before even the first services have begun. Further, I would suggest that the notability of the site as a historical monument of almost 1500 years old would still outweigh the notability of the site as a modern mosque of not even a year old for the purposes of an informative infobox. RobertsBiology (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

According to [presidential order] hagia sophia reclassified now as a mosque. Also can you add some religious building info to this "monument" please. Like as other mosques. Minarets, Dome info, religion and affiliation info etc. Hezarfen (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I will have to agree with RobertsBiology on this. It is not only premature but also not what usually is done in Wikipedia in such cases.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

What is Grand Mosque (fyi)

In Islamo-Turkish culture and convention, the largest or monumental mosque in a city called grand mosque. (in Turkish: Ulu Cami) So Hagia Sophia is grand mosque of Istanbul. Hezarfen (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Reverts by User:Hezarfen

User:Hezarfen has removed the former name for the house of worship, the "Church of Hagia Sophia" and has also supplanted the all-encompassing term "house of worship" (which reflects is former status as an Eastern Orthodox cathedral, Roman Catholic cathedral, Ottoman mosque, and current status as a Muslim mosque) with "mosque" in the lede of the article. In doing so, he has replaced a reliable source with a link to another Wikipedia article. The same editor has omitted the term "Byzantine architecture", using the less commonly known term "Eastern Roman architecture" too. I am asking this editor to please explain his contentious edits here rather than engage in edit warring. Thank you. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

User:RobertsBiology and User:SilentResident, I appreciate that both of you have thanked me for my edits. I would be grateful if you could kindly share your comments there too. Thanks! With warm regards, Anupam^Talk

I think that the lead shouldn't undergo as many changes as it has today. Simply keeping the WP:RS in place and only make minor changes to reflect on developments (i.e. to include change from museum into mosque and the new official name used for it as a mosque) suffices. Removing any info such as being notable owning to its dome, as well as the ones pointed out by Anupam, is not productive. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments User:SilentResident. I am in complete agreement with you. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 21:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I also echo the request made for semi-protection which has already been submitted and mentioned elsewhere on the talk page. RobertsBiology (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

User:SilentResidentAnupamRobertsBiology I agree that such action is probably necessary, however because I am a new account, I won't be able to edit after protection. Given my contributions have all been positive, would there be a way to bypass this? Hellenicae (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The same information was entered repeatedly throughout the page. The first paragraph and the second paragraph are almost the same. The history section also contains the same information. X church, y church, historic church, bla bla church. Is historical information what should be in the introduction? What is the purpose of the history section? The building is a mosque but we almost can't write mosque on the page :) Hezarfen (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe that the consensus at the moment is that the Hagia Sophia is recognised throughout the world for its religious and historical significance, not just for being a mosque. As the history of it is of such relevance and importance, it is justified to have a run-down of its history in the introductory section. Additionally, it is noted that it is also called the something-or-other Mosque at the very beginning, and we do not deny it is a mosque. However, we cannot deny its foundation by the Christians and the cultural significance it has to them and the Orthodox world. Are you therefore proposing making it more explicit that it is a mosque? Hellenicae (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Hellenicae, I don't mind forgoing semi-protection; it seems that User:Hezarfen has understood the importance of discussing and gaining conensus for contentious edits here, rather than edit warring, which could land him/her at WP:AN3. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussing about what? If you want to repeat the same things over and over, this is your decision. Discussion about hagia sophia is a church or something you want or mosque. This is not something you can decide. Good luck with and best... Hezarfen (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Hezarfen:: Hagia Sophia is a building that served different purposes in the past. This has to remain unchanged in the lede, no matter if it is mosque, museum or church nowadays. @Hellenicae: I think you will be fine :-) --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I am in full agreement with User:SilentResident. User:Hezarfen, to respond to your comment, the lede of the article does currently state that the house of worship is being used as a mosque. However, per the consensus here, we're not going to allow you to remove another historic term from the lede "Church of Hagia Sophia (Church of Holy Wisdom)", which is well-sourced. The term "house of worship" reflects the building's usage as a worship space for adherents of different denominations throughout history. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@❖ SilentResident ❖ Anupam Thank you for the replies and clarity. I am new here and don't want to mess up  :) Hellenicae (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

No worries User:Hellenicae. We're happy to help you as you navigate editing here on Wikipedia. Welcome! Anupam^Talk 21:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The information at the entrance consists entirely of repetitions. This is some kind of Islamophobia. I know... But don't be so afraid of mosques. I have no problem with the information provided. But you try to make it look like it. You can write whatever you want. however, this article does not meet the definition of encyclopedic knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezarfen (talk • contribs) 21:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopedic knowledge as defined on the relevant Wikipedia page is defined as knowledge that is "vast and complete." The word "church" appears about 100 times in the article. The word "mosque" appears about 80 times in the article. The Hagia Sophia was a Christian church for just over nine centuries, while it was an Ottoman mosque for just shy of five centuries, and yes, is now being reconverted into a mosque. Including information such as as historical names during periods of both Christian and Muslim occupancy makes the article more vast and complete, and I don't see evidence of Islamophobia here as you claim, but rather a resistance to obfuscating the multicultural/multireligious significance of Hagia Sophia. Trimming redundant information can be useful but obfuscating the history of Hagia Sophia does not serve the purpose of an encyclopedia. RobertsBiology (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

"Hagia Sophia (/ˈhɑːɡiə soʊˈfiːə/; from the Greek Ἁγία Σοφία, pronounced [aˈʝia soˈfia], "Holy Wisdom"; Latin: Sancta Sophia or Sancta Sapientia (Turkish: Ayasofya-yı Kebir Cami-i Şerifi) and historically as the Church of Hagia Sophia (Church of Holy Wisdom),[2] is a historic house of worship located in Istanbul that has served as a Greek Orthodox Christian patriarchal cathedral, a Roman Catholic cathedral, an Ottoman mosque and a secular museum. As of July 2020 the site has been reclassified as a mosque by the President of Turkey.[3] Built in AD 537, during the reign of Justinian, it was the world's largest interior space and the first to employ a fully pendentive dome. It is considered the epitome of Byzantine architecture[4] and is said to have "changed the history of architecture".[5]" You say so, this is brief information about a mosque with multicultural/multireligious significance... Ok! "Museum (1935–)" this is infobox entry about a mosque without Islamophobia. Very good. Vast and complete...

Request

Please add grand mosque in template (2020-present) and it is not on the Wikipedia’s home page where the recent news shows up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.83.167 (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Request for `Reversion to mosque (2018–present)` section

Hi! The information that the adhan (prayer call) was recited after the decision is wrong. It's just a misunderstanding because the adhan has been recited since 1991. Here is the source (in Turkish): [6] Thanks! Otuzalti (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Otuzalti: Hi, I don't think it says in your source that the minarets themselves were used for adhan, just that there was a mosque established on the Hagia Sophia premises in 1991 (and I guess they did adhan too). The source says the four minarets were used "for the first time in many years". I understood the adhan comes from the Blue Mosque but is very loud! (I don't read Turkish though so this might be wrong). GPinkerton (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there is a small masjid in the building and the minarets of the museum are used for the adhan. The source says the imam was appointed "for the first time in many years" :) The adhan also comes from the Blue Mosque since it's a mosque too (and the misunderstanding starts here because you cannot understand where the adhan sound is coming from in Istanbul unless you focus on it). The source says: "While the adhan has been recited five times from the four minarets of Hagia Sophia, time prayers(I'm not sure how I can translate this) were started to be performed with the appointment of an imam. That means only Zuhr and Asr prayers were performed before the appointment. And also the source date is 20/10/2016. Otuzalti (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Otuzalti: I'm sure you're right, but the problem is that the recent BBC article phrases it like this: "Shortly after the announcement, [yesterday] the first call to prayer was recited at Hagia Sophia and was broadcast on all of Turkey's main news channels. The cultural site's social media channels have now been taken down." So it would be good to find an article that says the minarets were used for adhan even while a museum. We already have the article that says the adhan was done inside the basilica in 2016, but not a source that says the minarets have loudspeakers installed and broadcast fiver times daily etc. GPinkerton (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I think I couldn't explain myself. First of all, the source I gave has already mentioned that the minarets were used for adhan even while a museum. The other source I found: [7] "Shortly after the announcement, [yesterday] the first call to prayer was recited at Hagia Sophia and was broadcast on all of Turkey's main news channels." This part should be edited and moved to more suitable section of the article. There is nothing to do with "The cultural site's social media channels have now been taken down." sentence, it's ok. Otuzalti (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Otuzalti: Oh I see! My mistake, and thanks for pointing this out. So, just to make sure I understand correctly, the adhan has come from the Hagia Sophia minarets since 1991 when the small mosque there opened? It doesn't look like this page covers the installation of the masjid at all, so it would be good to describe that. Google translate is not helping me much, not translating the bit about the minarets and adhan properly, so can I ask if this sounds right:

"In 1991, under the authority of the Ministry of Religious Affairs [is this the correct translation?] a small mosque was opened in the Hünkar Pavilion [is this the right translation and spelling?], part of the Hagia Sophia complex built by Mahmud I for the sultans' ablutions (wuḍūʾ). The minarets began broadcasting the adhan for the Zuhr and Asr prayers held in the mosque, but until 2016 the other daily prayers were held in the Blue Mosque, from which the call to prayer was broadcast for all five prayers. In 2016 the Hünkar Pavilion mosque was opened for the prayers throughout the day, with the Hagia Sophia minarets used to broadcast the adhan five times daily."

I suppose this should be added into the section concerning the push to convert the whole building. If I have interpreted correctly, I'll add it in. GPinkerton (talk) 23:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear GPinkerton, I am grateful for your interest. I'll do proper changes after the dust has settled. After that, you or someone in charge can review my changes. It's easier way for me. Thanks! Best Otuzalti (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Adult spam inserted?

Why is there a picture of a woman performing fellatio under the pic of Hagia Sophia? Anyone know how to delete? Historian932 (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2020

Replace the second image with the actual image! Someone has put up pornography!! 199.7.157.56 (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Elizium23 (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2020

There is pornographic content uploaded for this entry. Please remove it. DenoTee (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Elizium23 (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2020

199.7.157.56 (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Elizium23 (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Ottoman name

What was the name during the Ottoman Empire? I doubt it was Ayasofya. --Error (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Error: Why? GPinkerton (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Because it would a too direct allusion to its Christian past. St Nicholas in Famagusta became Lala Mustafa Pasha Mosque, St. Sophia in Nicosia became Selimiye Mosque, Nicosia. In my limited knowledge of Islamic culture, mosques are often named after the dedicating person. Fatih Mosque is already taken, so I suppose it would be named after some other person or its location. --Error (talk) 00:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Error: How then do we explain the present Turkish name, and the Turkish name of the so-called Little Hagia Sophia? As point of fact, the Fatih Mosque was not (obviously) built when the Ottomans arrived, nor for some time afterwards. I would wager the then-cathedral was already known as Ayasofya before the Fall of 1453. After all, it was renowned throughout the world from its construction on and the Ottoman Empire completely surrounded Constantinople for a century or so before it became an Ottoman city. And while the name may be Greek-derived, it's not very Christian. The concept of divine wisdom is far from un-Islamic. At most, I suspect the title "Friday mosque", "Grand Mosque", or "Jama Masjid" of Constantinople was used. Remember the Roman/Byzantine/Christian population still existed after 1453 and still used the names they'd always used when eventually they became Turkish-speaking. GPinkerton (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: The Atatürk reforms changed the language and probably the names of many institutions. It could be very possible that the current Turkish name is a restoration of its Greek name. I don't know. That's why I asked. If "Grand Mosque" was more official or more popular than Ayasofya, the article should mention it. I checked tr:Ayasofya and nothing looked like a different name in the Ottoman era. I don't know Turkish though. An Ottoman dictionary I could find online said something like Ayasofi. --Error (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Error: Any 20th century change in language would not explain why the Küçük Ayasofya Camii, which has always been a mosque in Ottoman and Republican times, has not only not been given an "Islamic" name but had the name Ayasofya attached to it by the Turks themselves (unless this was also a Byzantine nickname translated). It should be noted also that the Hagia Sophia in modern Sofia was also called Ayasofya Camii during the Ottoman period, as was the Hagia Sophia in Nicaea (a mosque again since 2011), as was the Hagia Sophia in Thessalonica. GPinkerton (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Please don't make big claims on things you don't know. Anyways it's "Ayasofya". Otuzalti (talk) 11:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

For names on the infobox

• Ottoman variant اياصوفيه (yes unbelievable but it's Ayasofya) can be added. Here is the source if you are unsatisfied: [8]. Latin names can be added as in the beginning paragraph. Lastly, the Ancient Greek name is absolutely needed but Modern Greek isn't since it's not related to the topic. Thanks! Otuzalti (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Otuzalti The ancient and modern Greek names are exactly the same, so the differentiation isn't necessary - I think it would be more appropriate to have it labelled as (Greek) instead of (Ancient Greek) seeing as for the vast majority of its existence the Hagias Sophia was in an era where Ancient Greek was not the default dialect of the Greeks of Constantinople and, as I mentioned earlier, the name is exactly the same in all forms of the Greek language. Regards, Hellenicae (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear @Hellenicae, I found Byzantine Greek article. It might be better to mention the stage of the language in this context. What do you think? Also dear GPinkerton can you add Ottoman name to the infobox? Tbh, it's more important to mention than the Latin name lol Otuzalti (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I guess this is better (you can copy and paste): اياصوفيه (Ottoman Turkish)<br />Ayasofya (Modern Turkish) Otuzalti (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear @Otuzalti, I understand where you're coming from but seeing as the building (almost called it a church, whoops) has lived through Koine, Medieval and Modern Greek, and the name has no difference in any variant of the language, I think it would be perfectly reasonable to have it just as "Greek" - it's the common denominator of all the names haha. It's a small difference, but I feel as if labelling it as Ancient Greek could leave the reader with the false insinuation that the name is different in other ages of Greek. Therfore, I would personally reccomend it say just Greek imho. Regards, Hellenicae (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't have an Ancient Greek name; it had a Koine Greek name, but the modern Greek pronunciation is essentially identical to Turkish Aya Sofya. Ogress 19:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

And guess where that turkish pronunciation came from haha - Greek. The point is though that the word itself is the same in Koine, Medieval and current Greek. Hellenicae (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hellenicae:, @Ogress: Koine Greek is form of Ancient Greek, a kind the ancient Greeks and ancient Romans spoke. It is quite wrong (indeed bizarre) to say Hagia Sophia doesn't have an ancient Greek name. The ancient Greek name is the same as the English name. In any case there absolutely no reason for adding present-day Greek, whose pronunciation and orthography is irrelevant to the present subject. The reason we have an H at the beginning is because we use the ancient name, not the name of a more recent millennium; Greek today is different to how the ancient Romans spoke and wrote, and only one is relevant for an ancient Roman building such as Hagia Sophia.

@Otuzalti: I'd like to add the Ottoman script in the article somewhere, but I question whether there's really space in that bit of the box. The Ottoman name seems the same as the modern Turkish name, only with a different script. (Assuming Ottoman script works the same as Arabic script.) The English, Turkish, ancient Greek, and Latin names are all more or less different, but it would seem اياصوفيه is the same word as Ayasofya and in the same language (but different script), so its usefulness is limited and there's already plenty of names around. GPinkerton (talk) 01:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Koine is largely considered a separate stage of Greek from Ancient Greek proper and its largest-known body of work is arguably the Christian Bible and the works around it, although its heyday was of course Alexandria and the massive quantity of works written there. I would argue that on a Christian topic in the fifth century we're better off talking Koine Greek, not "ancient Greek". We're essentially arriving at the earliest Medieval Greek at this point and a solid argument could be made in its favor, although I think it's a hair early for my taste - late 500s for me, not 520. Remember too that Koine, largely the language of the many Diadochid empires, had a competitor in Attic Greek, which could well be described as ancient Greek, but was essentially confined to peninsular Greece proper. It maintained grammar, sound distinctions, and even archaic tonality quite late, and Koine readers had difficulty reading it just as they did reading Homer. Ogress 01:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ogress: It's an ancient building, built by an ancient civilization that spoke ancient Greek and other ancient languages. Attic Greek, as you say, is irrelevant here, but both Koine and Attic are types of Ancient Greek. If you want a type of Ancient Greek that has specifically to do with Biblical matters, that would be Patristic Greek for which there is a separate template but for which, like Koine, there is really no call on this page. There's no need to change it to Late Latin either. GPinkerton (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC) On your first point I completely disagree. It's quite wrong to claim Koine is somehow separate from Ancient Greek. Are we really to image Ancient Greek was dead language when the Roman Empire hadn't even got of the ground? Of course not. Ancient Greeks spoke Ancient Greek, whether they lived in the Archaic period of Antiquity, the Classical period, the Hellenistic period, or Late Antiquity. GPinkerton (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton:@Ogress: Most of the sound changes of Byzantine Greek were done by 500, ironically including the lose of the rough breathing, which means the archaizing English pronunciation Hagia Sophia was never in the building's existence used to refer to it. Anyway, that's a topic for another time, but I think the Koine Greek label helps to make some of these massive sound change points no?

@Piledhighandeep: Hagia Sophia was given its name in the 3rd or 4th century. The rough breathing in Greek was not abolished until 1976. Please sign your comments. GPinkerton (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: So, I think there's a misunderstanding, the rough breathing mark was abolished in 1976, but the rough breathing pronunciation (an "H" representation in English) was lost before the building referred to on this page as Hagia Sophia (but never pronounced as other than Agia Sophia) was built. That was all I was pointing out, but that's a topic for another day.

@Piledhighandeep: Yes there's misunderstanding: the church had the name Hagia Sophia long before Justinian was twinkle in his parents' eyes. And yes, Justinian is on the list. The list of List of Roman emperors! There is no specific convention on this, not least on Wikipedia. Justinian was a Latin-speaking Roman from the Western part of the empire which ruled Rome ... GPinkerton (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Ok, I'm not sure what your point is, but at no point in the existence of any of the churches named Hagia Sophia was the rough breathing pronounced, so none of those churches, including the one in this article, were ever pronounced with an English H like sound. All were pronounced as Agia Sophia. The H is a convention in English from early historians who were at the time not yet familiar with when sound changes occurred. I think the most misleading result of this comes when the modern Greek name is spelled Agia Sophia, but the original name is spelled Hagia Sophia, suggesting there was a sound change, which there was not. The name has never changed its pronunciation. Anyway, we are stuck with the convention I suppose, but I think it is worth pointing out that this is a much more koine/byzantine pronunciation than classical Greek and maybe a link to koine greek would help some diligent reader learn about this? Piledhighandeep (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: I continue to think this is ridiculous. Ancient Greek by your definition covers a period from after Mycenean Greek until about 600 CE, that's 1500 years. Is there really some reason you are so opposed to marking this Koine? Koine is specifically the kind of Greek associated with the Hellenistic world and with early Christianity. Ancient Greek is typically used straight out for the colonial period, not late antiquity, which is Koine and very early Medieval Greek. (Also, MOS says your latest edit is wrong about capitalising the era name in this article.) It's just unusual to me that you are sticking hard to this classificatory situation "It's an ancient building, built by an ancient civilization that spoke ancient Greek and other ancient languages" - Koine is the ancient language they were speaking in question, so why are you saying this like Koine is a slight or incorrect? It's more precise. Ogress 02:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Piledhighandeep: I can't see where your getting this idea from. It's always been spelt with a rough breathing (I have on my desk de Caerimoniis by the 10th-century emperor Constantine VII and he spelled it with a rough breathing ...). In the church's early centuries, the rough breathing was certainly pronounced, although I'm not sure why this matters because the page is to be seen and not heard.

@Ogress: It's unnecesarily fussy. As I say, we don't need to be precise about Late Latin over Latin, so why pick one form of Ancient Greek and present it as though the Koine spelling is somehow different from the rest of Ancient Greek, which is the language they spoke and wrote in. Koine is a dialect, an idiolect, or a periodization of Greek. Greeks and Romans didn't change their words the minute Alexander died. They spoke Ancient Greek throughout. GPinkerton (talk) 02:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Oh and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Proper_names_versus_generic_terms suggests I am very much not wrong. GPinkerton (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Much linguistic research has gone into this, and the H was never pronounced in the name of this building. As English speakers know orthography has little to do with pronunciation. Night was once pronounced with a common root as German Nacht, but the gh is now silent etc. The Alexandrian grammarians invented the accent marks precisely because many people no longer pronounced Greek with pitches, and so it had to be indicated. In any case, if you had stood in Constantinople in 537 when the building was opened and pronounced the word Hagia, no one would have had any clue what you were talking about. They didn't even know the H had been "lost." They didn't know it had ever been there. I think this is a point worth knowing, because when arguments get made, and they do, about the degradation of the modern Greek language from its classical glory, I think at least the facts should be straight. It is anachronistic to think that the builders of this monument were speaking some unadulterated classical language, which has little connection to the modern Greek language. Piledhighandeep (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Piledhighandeep: if you had stood in Constantinople in 537 and pronounced the word Hagia no one would have any clue what you were talking about actually this is quite wrong. Any educated person would know immediately what it meant. In any case fully 100 years beforehand a university was set up in the old Temple of the Divine Constantine to study Classical Greek and ensure Byzantines had access to the best Attic rhetoric, etc. Your contention that They didn't even know the H had been "lost." is quite wrong, and numerous Classical, Hellenistic, and Late Antique writers commented on their observation of exactly this. And in any case it is besides the point. The cathedral of Constantinople was called Hagia Sophia centuries before 537, and the spelling has remained constant since. GPinkerton (talk) 02:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: We know a bit about this from the errors that scribes made at the time. Educated scribes knew the spelling, but did not pronounce the words this way, which is why they made certain mistakes. Greeks today and 100 years ago and in 537 knew classical Greek, and where to put accents, but that is a different thing from using the Erasmian pronunciation of Ancient Greek (see Pronunciation of Ancient Greek in teaching), which was invented in northern Europe by classicists in the 16th century. I suspect you are familiar with that 16th century northern European invention/reconstruction. In any case that reconstruction was not how educated people spoke in the 6th century. Whether an expert grammarian knew that it was once pronounced, does not change the fact that it still wasn't pronounced, just as I and other educated English speakers do not pronounce the 'gh' in night (cf. German nacht) or light (cf. German licht). I know the 'gh' was once pronounced, but I still don't pronounce it, even in educated rhetoric. Piledhighandeep (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Piledhighandeep: Please don't make assumptions about the kinds of Greek with which I'm familiar! It is ludicrous to suppose that Hagia Sophia, which received its name in the late 3rd century at latest, was a name unknown to citizens of the city in which it stood in the 6th; after all, the English of 500 years ago is perfectly intelligible today. GPinkerton (talk) 03:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Sound changes occur at different rates. English 500 years ago is intelligible. English of just 150 years before that (Chaucer) is much, much harder for most English speakers. Anyway, these things about the lack of pronunciation of the H at the time are accepted in linguistics. As another example of different rates of change of a language, classical Greek is not intelligible to modern Greek speakers, but much of Koine Greek is, and that is very related to this H sound change point (and tonal accents). Natives of the city in 537 and today would have understood much of each others' Greek, but not so for classical Byzantium. Piledhighandeep (talk) 03:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: I direct you to the actual article on late antiquity, which in accordance with MOS is lowercase. I would also remind you that while my argument is not that of other editors, the death of Alexander the Great was over 800 years before the Cathedral was even begun. Your insistence on referring to this language as "ancient Greek" perplexes the hell out of me. We're right into the earliest spoken Medieval Greek. This is why we periodise languages in sections and not as "ANCIENT - MODERN". This isn't Simple English Wikipedia, we're allowed to show some degree of nuance here. It's not like Koine is some obscure language - it's the first language of Christianity, for heaven's sake. It's the cornerstone of the religion. Nobody goes to get their theology degree and learns Homer; they learn Koine. (I should know, I took classes at Harvard Div.) Ogress 03:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Piledhighandeep: This discussion is about the relative merits of including or not including the rough breathing, which Byzantine writers did. Anyway, I don't see what's so hard about lines like: "For hym was levere have at his beddes heed / Twenty bookes, clad in blak or reed, / Of Aristotle and his philosophie, / Than robes riche, or fithele, or gay sautrie." If anything it's the eccentric spelling that obscures the meaning, not the pronunciation. There's only one word there that isn't in current use today, and as we know, the word ἁγιος is no extinct word. GPinkerton (talk) 03:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Ah, the discussion I was having was whether the rough breathing (H) was pronounced, not whether it was written, and I was using that as an aside in the discussion about whether the language is Koine or something more classical (pre-vowel shift / pitch accent loss). I agree that English orthography, like Greek, is conservative. As I said we still spell knight as such. This makes reading of Chaucer possible, but the question is whether, when Chaucer is read with the Middle English pronunciation pronouncing the k and the gh in knight, it can be understood, and for most English speakers the answer is not very well. Piledhighandeep (talk) 03:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ogress: I should know, and better. I have more than one degree in this very subject from an older and better university than that, and not limited to the cramped world of theology either. I direct you to the article Late Greek. As for the unreasonable capitalization of Late Antiquity, this is basically an oversight and ought to be changed. GPinkerton (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is not correct to claim the death of Alexander the Great was over 800 years before the Cathedral was even begun. Hagia Sophia was inaugurated in 360. GPinkerton (talk) 04:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

This is disingenuous; the Magna Ecclesia/Megale Ekklesia burnt to the ground and nothing remained; this happened to the second church built on the site in 415, which is the first time we see the name "Hagia Sophia" attached to it. The current cathedral was a de novo building built on that same spot. So 700 years, then. Nonetheless, a very large span. Also, why are you dick-waving universities, I was discussing the importance of Koine in re Christianity. My point was evidence about what highly-rated divinity schools teach their students. I am not Christian, I am Muslim, and I am a linguist and a specialist on the ANE and late antiquity, not showing off. If you think Late Greek is a better choice, then let's go with Late Greek, because Ancient Greek isn't specific enough for this article. It's 520 CE, the Chinese are using gunpowder for god's sake. Ogress 04:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ogress: The point is that the death of Alexander is the arbitrary starting point for the periodization of Koine yet it is plain people were speaking ancient Greek either side of that date and for centuries beyond in either direction. Late (Ancient) Greek isn't a great place for the user to land on since it's so slim an article, which is why I'd prefer the main link to go to Ancient Greek. What evidence is there that the present basilica is somehow not built on the foundations of the old one? What relevance do divinity schools have? And It's 520 CE, the Chinese are using gunpowder is something I'd like to see reliably sourced on the Gunpowder, the History of gunpowder, and Timeline of the gunpowder age which presently state that gunpowder was not discovered until well into the Tang period ... GPinkerton (talk) 05:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Whether a building built after the fall of Rome should be labeled with the variety of Greek (Koine Greek) spoken before even the rise of Rome seems tenuous already, and I'd say using the Byzantine Greek could be more appropriate, but what is actually being debated in this thread is whether we should label using a variety of Greek spoken prior even to Koine Greek. Piledhighandeep (talk) 07:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Piledhighandeep: As I have repeatedly said, Koine is a type or periodization of Ancient Greek. (For some reason) We don't have an article on Byzantine Greek. It redirects to Medieval Greek. But Hagia Sophia is emphatically not a medieval building and not a medieval name. GPinkerton (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Would اياصوفيه be suitable for all the Ayasofya Mosques? Since you took the effort to provide it, I may try to add it to the individual articles. --Error (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Error: There also is the Ottoman template, which is probably better than the modern Latin-script Turkish one. It comes out like this: Ottoman Turkish: اياصوفيه, romanized: Ayasofya. (Interesting irony the "romanization" term introduces in this case!) GPinkerton (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Good idea. Can you confirm that the Ottoman spelling is suitable for those mosques or are there diachronical or regional variations of spelling? --Error (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Error: Sorry, not my area. I'm not sure it's proper to go adding it as a blanket name to all Ottoman-era Hagia Sophias without adequate sourcing in any case. GPinkerton (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Political parties claim

The article says that "All the parties in Turkey supported the Erdogan's decision" to turn it into a mosque. The source is a statement by a Turkish government spokesman who claimed: "There is overwhelming support and consensus on this issue if you look at the political parties, the opposition parties, the republican party; they all supported this issue." That to me doesn't seem to be an unbiased opinion. In fact, some parties didn't support the decision like HDP. Can you change that claim to "The decision was supported by the nationalist MHP and IYI Party, and opposed by the pro-Kurdish HDP.[1][2][3] The republican CHP was largely neutral, though its leader, Kemal Kilicdaroglu, said they wouldn't object if such a measure was introduced.[4]"? Mmersault (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 15:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Deleted Information

On the timeline this information was included:

• 1919 – The Divine Service in Hagia Sophia, which had been interrupted after the Salvation in 1453, was continued and completed by a Greek military priest.

I think this is a detail of interest and should be added to a relevant section of the article.

Regards, Hellenicae (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Stability of the dome of Hagia Sophia

This sentence is not correct: The weight of the dome remained a problem for most of the building's existence. The last time the dome of Hagia Sophia suffered from earthquakes was mid 14th century. 700 years have passed by now. So the last time the dome was damage happend before most big domed churches in Europe were even begun to be build. A PhD Thesis by Duppel on the constructive security of St. Sophia stated that the building is not in danger and from constructive security will endure, unlike other structrues build in later epochs in Europe. The dome was reworked three times in the 6th, 11th and 14th century, which leaves 700 years without any concern to its stability. The cited thesis: Christoph Duppel 2010: Ingenieurwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen an der Hauptkuppel und den Hauptpfeilern der Hagia Sophia in Istanbul. Dissertation der Fakultät für Architektur der Universität Karlsruhe (KIT). (PDF)Orjen (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Comparison of the dome to other domed structures of historical buildings

Church of Saint Sava compared to Saint Paul's Cathedral

Derived geometries of the Chruch of St Sava and the Hagia Sophia

Overlay of the floorplans of St Sava an Hagia Sophia

Main supporting elements of a dome build after the Hagia Sophia. The vaults build in reinforced concrete of St Sava span 24 m which is 7 m less than was achiebed in the main vaults of Hagia Sophia

When comparing the dome of St Sophia to other domed structrures one is often missing the point. Late roman architecture was all in constructing vaults. The four main vaults of St Sophia span 31 m, the vaults of the Aula regia (Domus flavia) spanned 30 m and the Basilica ulpia (Forum Trajanum) 27 m. So St Sophia is the maximum that roman architecture achieved in vaulting structures. It is close to the technical maximum achievable in masonary. Now if we compare the vaults of Roman architecture to those of Renaissance and Baroque, 25 m is the span between the eight piers under the dome of Saint Peter (27 m is the span of the nave at the entrance). St. Peter thus has a span which is 6 m less than the span that Arthemios and Isidorus achieved for St. Sophia, which also has only four piers compared to eight (double) in St. Peter. From a constructive point, St Sophia is something which was never again mastered in masonary building. It surpasses technical difficulties of all the historical church buildings in Europe. Compare it to St Paul's, she has a smaller diameter (30,8 m) and vaults spanning only 19,8 m compared to 31 m in St Sophia. And be clear, the vaults are the main supports to pendentif domes. They carry all the main weight of the building. It's not without cause that none of the great historical European domes was build with four piers, they have all eight! Orjen (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Orjen: Frederik's Church in Copenhagen is 31 metres. The figure you quote for the diameter of St Paul's in London is wrong; St Paul's dome is 34 metres across on the interior, 3 m wider than Hagia Sophia's span. Saint Blaise Abbey in the Black Forest is 36 metres. The Rotunda of Mosta is 37 metres. The figure you quote for the diameter of St Peter's in Rome is wrong; St Peter's dome is 41.5 metres across on the interior, 9m wider than Hagia Sophia's span. Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence is 45.52 metres.. Hagia Sophia's four piers make it less stable than eight, not more. This is probably why the roof fell in on multiple occasions and why later domed buildings, much larger than Hagia Sophia, have more piers. Hagia Sophia was never even the largest dome in Europe. The vault of the Pantheon in Rome is 43.4 metres across. It has no piers at all and it is the maximum Roman architecture achieved in vaulting spaces. The dome of the caldarium in the Baths of Caracalla in Rome was also a larger span than Hagia Sophia's and, like the Pantheon, built centuries earlier. It's not clear what you are proposing to change. GPinkerton (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Gpinkerton. The original span of St. Sophia is 33 m (Svenshon et al. 2010). St Paul's is actually 30.8 m (inner diameter). I checked this from construction sketches. You also compare Rutundas to buildings on piers. Kopenhaben. Panhteon and Sain Blaise are all Rotundas, they have no vault supporting pendetifs. So its a diffrent type of building which is not comparable to a dome on only four support. Santa Maria del Fiore has 8 piers with vaults spanning 19 m. The dome is also not rounded but an octogon. You didn't get the point. It's the vault between the piers which counts, and no church ever made it to 31 m.Orjen (talk) 04:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Orjen: I don't think you understand; the vault of the dome is the important part. What comes underneath is not relevant to the size of the vault, the dome is the vault, and the vaults of the buildings I listed are all bigger than the vault of Hagia Sophia. GPinkerton (talk) 04:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Explain what you mean, if you double the piers you reduce the technical complexity. Four piers are a minimum for constructing a dome. This was done at St. Sopie. All your mentioned structures avoid this difficulty. The vault is the main constructive task.

@Orjen: Correct. This reduction in technical complexity is an advancement that allows the vaults of St Paul's (32.6 m), St Peter's (41.5 m), and Florence Cathedral (45.5 m), among others, to be larger than is Hagia Sophia's vault, which as you say, is only 31 m. You don't need any piers to construct a dome, as the Pantheon proves. GPinkerton (talk) 06:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Orjen: The image at right shows St Paul's dome as 32.6 metres across, larger than the 30.8 you have claimed to have checked! GPinkerton (talk) 05:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

No it is not the inner diameter I am talking is only 30.8 m and it has 8 piers. St. Sophia is constrocted at 33 m with 4 piers. You have the double count of piers in St Paul's and a smaller inner diameter. The construction is not comparable to St. Sophia.

@Orjen: Where is your source for this claim of 30.8 metres, refuted as it is by the diagrams you have shown here? The interior diameter of St Paul's is 32. 6, metres: look at the diagram! St Peter's, Sta Maria del Fiore, the Pantheon, and the Baths of Caracalla were all larger than Hagia Sophia. GPinkerton (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: - It here(On the Structure of the Roman Pantheon Robert Mark and Paul Hutchinson The Art Bulletin, Vol. 68, No. 1 (Mar., 1986), pp. 24-34 (11 pages)) Indeed, the brick, 0.46-meter-thick hemispher ical dome used by Christopher Wren to enclose the 30.8 meter-span interior crossing of St. Paul's Cathedral is a structure that is valid to compare with the Pantheon dome. The ratio of thickness to span of Wren's dome, 1:67, if applied to the 43.3-meter-span of the Pantheon, gives an equivalent thickness of 0.65 meters instead of the actual 1.5 meters. The outward thrust of the thinner brick dome would thus be similar to that of the actual lightweight con crete dome, and although compressive stresses in the brick dome itself would be somewhat greater, they would still be well within an acceptable range.Orjen (talk) 07:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Orjen: See: Petroski, Henry. “Engineering: Arches and Domes.” American Scientist, vol. 99, no. 2, 2011, pp. 113, where the Pantheon's span is quoted as 142 feet, Sta Maria del Fiore's as 140 feet, St Peter's as 137 feet, St Paul's as 112 feet, and Hagia Sophia's as only 105 feet. Of the Pantheon, it says "but among the domes built prior to the 20th century, it remains the largest". GPinkerton (talk) 08:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The correct inner circle in St Paul's is 30.8 m, the one you refer to is the one including the whispering gallery. The minimal diameter in St Paul is therfore 30.8 m, St Sophia is 33 m as it was before the later reconstructions.Orjen (talk) 09:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

If this discussion is to be finished we have to summarize the outcome. No roman sturcture is comparable to the dome of Hagia Sophia as it wass build over only four piers and the supporting vaults are the widest which have ever been accomplished in the Imperium Romanum. No dome on only four piers ever surpassed Hagia Sophia, as all later builders didn't manage to build a structure with such wide main vaults. There is also one important reference for this. It is late Slobodan Curcic from Princton University his citing is in: Architecture in the Balkans from Diocletian to Süleyman the Magnificent, New Haven, Conn., Yale University Press 2010, The reference is on page 195.Orjen (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Orjen: Is what you're trying to say that "the pendentives are bigger than other Roman pendentives"? This suggestion that Hagia Sophia's vault is the biggest in the Roman world is simply not true, as demonstrated by the examples at Rome. GPinkerton (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: It is true, as the biggest vault wall to wall in Rome is Aula regia with 30 m and in Constanntinopolis wall to wall is St Sophia with 31 m. You suggested rotundas which are circular edifices. I'am referring to basilica structrues for which St Sophia is an example. You have to keep the category straight. No basilica in Rom spaned 31 m. None. An I gave the reference in Curcic in his seminal book from 2010 which spans from Diokletian to Süleyman. And the technical difficulty in domed structures arises when you put them on a square, not when you build them on a circle as in rotundas. The work of Arthemios and Isidorus is concerned with mathematical problems of geometry which rotundas are not. You span your circle and lay your bricks. A circle on a squre requires the fullfilment of two irregular numbers in the integration of the constructive layout: ${\sqrt {2}}$ of the square and $\pi$ of your circle. The numbers that possibly fullfill the law of commensurabilty suggested by Heron of Alexandria had to be carefully chosen. An this numbers came from the Pell numbers for which Theon of Smyrna has given a classical source ("Theon's ladder"). This was done in a masterly way by the two mathematicians, which surpassed anything previously used in calculating geomety in engineering domed structures with or without pendentifs. My knowledge comes from the exhibition in the Bundeskunsthalle 2010 in Bonn in which Stichel and Svenshon released their media installation for the mathematical model in the constructive idea behind St Sophia. If this is of interest to you, the media installtaion with the mathematical solution of the german research group is here (Mathematischer Raum als Bühne des Kaisers - a mathematical space as stage for the emperor - https://lisa.gerda-henkel-stiftung.de/die_hagia_sophia_justinians_mathematischer_raum_als_buehne_des_kaisers?nav_id=3486. Orjen (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Orjen: So what you're saying is that: "though not the largest dome built in the Roman world, Hagia Sophia's is the largest dome on pendentives and four piers and a basilica plan built out of bricks in Europe"? (Thank you for that interesting paper.) GPinkerton (talk) 01:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC):

@GPinkerton: I think this is appropriate. The more as many basilica buildings had flat wooden roofings, as was the case also with the Jupiter temple in Rome. This was a tremendous revolution in building achiement - the vaulting structures of the St Sophia covered a space as huge as a soccer field, and all was done in brick.Orjen (talk) 07:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The design of Hagia Sophia's dome was not "revolutionary": it has been inspired by the so called Temple of Minerva Medica in Rome. Alex2006 (talk) 09:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Again a Rotunda. Chritianity knows only for three important Rotundas - Ravenna (San Vitale), Aachen (Kaiserdom) and first and for all Jeruslem (Holy Sepulchre) after which all other are modelled. But it is not a revolutionary church, it is symbol of the most holy place and therefore ist of utmost importance to christianity. The most revolutionary edifice of christian sacral architecture is Hagia Sophia, which was not used as reliquiary nor was conected to any of the christian holynesses. It became a holy place through itself. See - Jörg Lauster 2012: Warum gibt es Kirchen? Rom – Jerusalem – Konstantinopel. In: Thomas Erne 2012 (edt.): Kirchenbau. 23–33, Vanderoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen. ISBN 978-3-525-56852-1, pp. 30–31Orjen (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Lauster, who is a protestant theologican and professor for theology at the LMU Munich, stated in the cited book on church architecture (H.S.) gilt in ihrer architektonischen Einzigartigkeit oft als eine Kirche ohne Vorbilder und ohne Nachahmung - you translate it to (H.S.) is in its architectural uniqueness often seen as a church without models and without imitation. It is probably the most revolutionary sacral design that even led to her admiration in great parts of the islamic sphere.
Not to least mention russian knjaz Vladimir the Great who took on orthodoxy after his envoys had visited H.S. It is a singular situation that you change religion in face of an architectural building ("We no longer knew whether we were in heaven or on earth", they reported, describing a majestic Divine Liturgy in Hagia Sophia, "nor such beauty, and we know not how to tell of it." Vladimir was impressed by this account of his envoys. cited from here Vladimir_the_Great#Christianization_of_the_Kievan_Rus).Orjen (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

And now why it is so revolutionary, Hagia Sophia's domed sturcture is the epitome of church, as we understand it today. A church might be in form of the basilica (Romanesque and Gothic or the classical Roman basilicas) but from Renaissance on, the domed church predominates, which took its classical impetus from the H.S. After her, church architecture changed for good, with the domed sacral building never again abondened. It was not copied as the structure is not copiable from the missing documentation how it was done, but her doeme was an inspiration that took the parth from Constantinople to Venice, the Balkans, Russia, Cologne, France and eventually renaissance Italy.Orjen (talk) 10:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The Italian architects of the Renaissance took inspirations for their domes from Rome (especially Pantheon): this is well known and attested, as in the case of Brunelleschi.Alex2006 (talk) 11:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Pantheon is not a square/circle problem, Hagia Sophia is. Brunelleschi is close to Hagia Sophia and far from Pantheon. The othe point is, greek emigré culture is partly responsible for the Italian renaissance, they coined a word for it pittores greci even if they weren't greek like Cimabue. Now the point is that Hagia Sophia was a major cathedral known to everyone and images of it were present in italian maps since Venice and Genoa had their seperate quarters in Constantinople. The Pantheon is surley sizewise a major inspiration, but its the techincal solution in Hagia Sophia that is the base to Brunelleschii. We don't talk about rotundas but domes with pendentifs which the Pantheon is not. Therefor it is not the main inspiration. The main inspiration has to be drawn from a dome on piers with windows in its tambour. The Pantheon has an oculus and no windows in its tambour. Hagia Sophia is the first major dome showing 42 windows in the base of the dome. There is much modernism to it that Pantheon misses. And the square/circle problem is the one which required revolution in construction.Orjen (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

By the way Byzantine architecture from the 6th to the 15th century build exclusivly domed churches. These were well known from Venice to Novgorod. The pendentif is clearly a solution from the greek east not originiating in Rome. None of the great imperial domed buildings in Rome had piers, all the imperial domed buildings in Constantinople are/had been dome's with piers. It is an obivious conclusion that the origin is not the West but in the East with its epitome is the H.S. which underlies any domed church with a basilica floorplan or a centrally planned nave wihtout beiing a rotunda.Orjen (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry to contradict you, but the temple of Minerva Medica has also a dome on piers with 10 windows opened in its drum, and at the time of Brunelleschi it was still almost intact. It is attested that Brunelleschi studied the temple during his sojourns in Rome, and this is considered the main source of inspiration for Santa Maria del Fiore. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 13:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

What make you believe that Minerva Medica is a revolutionary building? It is still not a dome on a square, as it is a rotunda. There is no elaborate synthesis found between the two most principle spaces circle and square. You miss the point by insisting to it. It might be an important building, but not a revolutionary one. It is by the way a completely symmetrical building as are all the eyrly domed structures. You might count Nero's spinning dining room, or the Caldarium of the Carcalla thermes as eyuivalent structures, or even the Tower of the Winds in Athens which was possibly build 50 BC. They fall in the category of symmetrical octagons or decagons. They are nice structures, but what's the revolutionary idea to build a vault on this structure. You dont need a pendentif to fullfill the task of building them.Orjen (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Orjen: I have to to contradict your claim that "Byzantine architecture from the 6th to the 15th century build exclusivly domed churches". This isn't true at all. Actually domes churches rather fell out of fashion for large buildings in the 9th century and there was a renaissance in basilica-building of the classic 4/5th century type. Moreover, the quincunx or tetraconch form was far more common than a basilica plan for Byzantine churches of the Middle and Late Byzantine period. It's quite fanciful to describe Hagia Sophia as "modern". The Pantheon is much closer to modern concrete and other domes than is the brick dome of Hagia Sophia. As for the claim that Hg. Sophia is the first dome with windows in the drum, that's so far from true it's funny. It's not even the first dome with windows built by Justinian in Constantinople! GPinkerton (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Not sure on that. We have the Epoch of Justinian, where basilika were still activly build in Ephesos and other parts of the Roman Orient. With iconoclasm activity in church building ceased. And from the 9th century the Nea Ekklesia or simply Nea revolutionized Byzantine archtitecture. During the Macedonian dynasty the greek cross with five domes had thus become a standard. The Komnenians and Palaiologes did nothing but build domed structrues. Nea was build 876-880 and is the first Cross-in-square with five domes.Orjen (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Also Thou Pahrou, the Holy shrine of Bycance and an important palladium with the main reliquiaries toChristianity in the Great Palace - the Church of the Virgin of the Pharos - inspiration to Saint Chapelle in Paris, was a domed structure build in 864 by Michael III. If we leave out the 8th century, were church building ceased nearly completly, from 9th century on, domed churches evolved in a masterly sequence. Like Nea, Thou Pharou is known from Eulogies, and appearences are well documented through imitations or litarary source, even from Western crussader and prilgrim letters, but not the slightest phsical traces nor even foundations were ever recovered. If we had them, not so much of Byzantine architecture would be left missing. Orjen (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

"Byzantine architecture from the 6th to the 15th century build exclusivly domed churches"
— User:Orjen

The 10th-century not-domed basilica church of the island of St Achillieos in Small Prespa Lake.

@Orjen: You may not be sure, but let me illuminate: Justinian commissioned the Church of Saints Sergius and Bacchus in Constantinople. It is a basilica-planned domed church with windows in the drum. It was dedicated a year before Constantinople's Hagia Sophia. Your claim that With iconoclasm activity in church building ceased is simply wrong and irrelevant. This claim of yours about "Nea ... is the first Cross-in-square with five domes" is also completely wrong. Constantius II built the Church of the Holy Apostles as a cross in square with five domes in the middle 4th century.

The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium clearly states: "Although not as common after the 6th C., basilicas continued to be built. Beginning in the 9th C., a major revival of the basilica occurred, represented in Greece and the Balkans at Pliska and the Anargyroi at Kastoria as well as in Asia Minor (Hagia Sophia at Nicaea), though apparently not in Constantinople. Small-scale basilicas, however, constitute the most common church type until the 15th C." The Justinianic Nea Ecclesia in Jerusalem was a wooden-roofed basilica, as is the Justinianic basilica at St Catherine's, Sinai. You can see the ruins of a 10th century Byzantine basilica at right. GPinkerton (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Please, look at the floorplan of Church of Holy Apostles, this is not cross in square, you have no square in it, but cross with side arms, which is Greek cross type. Sergius and Bacchus again is no basilica but an octogon. A cross in square with five domes was realized in Nea, this is common knowledge to Byzantine art history (a cross in squre differs obviously from greek cross). For reference take the catalogue accomanying the Met Exhibition Faith and Power from 2004. In Byzantium Faith and Power (Helen C. Evean, edt.), The Met Museum, New York, 2004. A consize article of Slobodan Curcic is included: Religious Settings of the Late Byzantine Sphrere, pp 65-77. I was confronted with suggestions that rotundas are same buildings as domed structrues with pendentifs, now that Holy Apostles is cross in square type and now the church of Sergius and Bacchus is a basilica. All this assumpitions are false. After Svenshon Sergius and Bacchus was presumably build by the master builders of Hagia Sophia. For the last a new media installation at Lisa Gerda Stiftung has been created. It showsthe mathematical model to Sergios and Bacchos. Don't poison it as a basilica type, it is an octogonal sturcture with tremendous mathematical efforts which Svenshon is showing in a great manner. It is a tremendous video about how it was done and what effort the mathematicians put into designing this structure - one of the most consequently geometrically constructed structures. With its refinment of planning, it must have been done by some ot the leading mathematicians of her time: (The Beauty of mathematics - architecture and geometry of the small Hagia Sophia in Istanbul.Orjen (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Orjen:

a basilica with a dome

Don't be ridiculous! Sergius and Bacchus is clearly a basilica in exactly the same way as is Hagia Sophia. It has aisles. It has internal colonnades. That's all that's required. San Vitale, Ravenna is a basilica and is octagonal. Sergius and Bacchus has pendentives and a dome over a basilica.I don't know what your native language is, but in English the Pantheon and other rotundas have domes as their vaults, just like Hagia Sophia. This idea of yours that the Pantheon does not have a dome, or that rotundas cannot have domes, is absolutely bizarre! The idea that a five-dome cruciform church started in the 9th century is utterly wrong. The basilica of St John at Ephesus had five pendentive domes arranged in a cross and with four central piers, just like the Church of the Holy Apostles. Please read the publication The Holy Apostles: A Lost Monument, a Forgotten Project, and the Presentness of the Past edited by Margaret Mullett and Robert Ousterhout. You are saying Hagia Sophia is unique because its vault is bigger than all the other vaults, but this is false. You then say Hagia Sophia is unique because its vault is the biggest in Europe made of bricks, but this too is false. Then you say Hagia Sophia is unique because it is the first to have pendentives, or the biggest, but this again is false. Then you say Hagia Sophia is unique because it has its pendentives supported by only four piers and is made of bricks and is a basilica. OK. So it's like Hagia Irene but bigger. Next you claim octagonal buildings cannot be basilicas, but you are wrong. Next you say the Byzantines stopped building basilicas and built exclusively cross-in-square churches, but this isn't so much wrong as laughable! You go on from that weak idea to assert that no churches were built during Iconoclasm, which is yet more absurd and shows only that you are ignorant of the existence of, say, the Hagia Sophia, Thessaloniki or the Church of the Assumption, Nicaea. Your next conjuration is that the Nea Ecclesia was the first cross-in-square church, but this simply shows ignorance. Throughout, you have been unable to express what, if anything, you want the article here to actually say. Instead I have to wring it out like squeezing blood from a stone and all that comes out is wild claims making even wilder generalizations! I have been, as you say, confronted by an increasingly bizarre series of statements hoping to identify Hagia Sophia as unique for all manner of reasons, but it turns out that its unique in being the only Byzantine cathedral built by Justinian on the Byzantine peninsula, which is already known to all. As you rightly intimate, "without knowledge of relevant literature to Byzantine art no evolvment [sic] in discussion is possible"! GPinkerton (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• left five domed cross in square - right five domed greek cross
• 
• 

@GPinkerton: You didn't even watch Svenshon, it's explaind there. You seem also to mesh up basilca (floorplan) with basilica (title). The aisles in Ravenna as in Sergius and Bacchus are "Umlaufgänge". A basilica is a structure with three or five aisles. It's not in the octogonal structure of Sergius and Bacchus. And sorry you don't know what is cross in square. Look it up from above Gracanica which is the most refined example, the domes are in the corners. It's an edifice build by King Milutin when in celbration of esposing Simonida, daughter of emperor Andriocos III. A cross in square is not same to greek cross, which you try to sell. There is no five domed cross in square from 6th century, and no cross in square, as this came only much later from the 9th century onwards. And its masterpiece is Gracanica.Orjen (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC) And sorry you came up with rotunda, and mesh it up now with a rather difficult knowledg in basic principles of byzantine art. Actually it's not your field of deeper knowledge, which is evident from the manny false statements that started head on.Orjen (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Orjen: Look, if you want to accuse someone else of ignorance, at least try to get your facts straight. Basilica is a type of building, not a type of floor-plan. The number of aisles is irrelevant, and your claim that there must be three or five is wrong; basilica of St Epiphanius on Cyprus had seven aisles. Firstly, you claimed St Sophia is the maximum that roman architecture achieved in vaulting structures. Not true. The Pantheon has a much bigger vault. St. Peter thus has a span which is 6 m less than the span that Arthemios and Isidorus achieved for St. Sophia Not true; the vault of St Peter's is much larger than that of Hagia Sophia. Then you alleged "Byzantine architecture from the 6th to the 15th century build exclusivly domed churches" [sic] which shows as clear as day that this is not your field at all. After that, you made and some claims about church types and "refinement". For S. Vitale, please see the dedicatory inscription the Romans themselves installed. It reads: "B(eati) martiris Vitalis basilica / mandate Eclesio v(iro) b(eato) episcopo / a fundamentis Iulianus argentarius / (a)edificavit ornavit atque dedicavit / consecrante v(iro) r(eferendo) Maximiano episcopo / sub die XIII [3] sexies p(ost) c(onsulatum) Basilii iunioris". You haven't looked at the floor plan of St John, Ephesus which you have adduced, which shows that it is a Latin cross shape added in later centuries to the original design of Greek cross. All this talk of crosses-in-squares and basilicas is irrelevant to the Hagia Sophia, and despite multiple requests, you are unable to express what you want to change about the article. What is it you want it to say? GPinkerton (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Sorry, you don't proof to be sure in the topic of this subject. It started with a ridiculous quarrel about the diameter of St. Paul's for which you presumably didn't now that there is a lowest diameter to 33m wich is at 30.8, but insisted notoriously to the numer which you claimed, but which obviously is not the minimum diameter. Than you mix up floorplan and type of building which are connected categories, and sincerly you were in no relevant byzantine church to have first hand knowledge, otherwise than showing images. Ridiculous to go into any of your arguments, which have been simply unconvincing.Orjen (talk) 07:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2020

Unfortunately it seems we have some very one-sided contributors to this entry.

Remove the line "It is also an important example of the Islamic practice of converting non-Islamic places of worship into mosques, which has led to conflicts and religious strife in several parts of the world." Uncorroborated. How is this any different from any other incidents carried out by other religious groups in history (i.e. The Alhambra, Seville Cathedral, St. Basilica, Ram Lalla Temple. Singling out "Islam" is religious-bias. Furthermore "Islam" and "Muslim" are different.

This paragraph is very problematic, and should be deleted until an impartial alternative can be written. "In accordance with the traditional custom at the time, Sultan Mehmet II allowed his troops and his entourage three full days of unbridled pillage and looting in the city shortly after it was captured. Once the three days passed, he would then claim its remaining contents for himself.[45][46] Hagia Sophia was not exempted from the pillage and looting and specifically became its focal point as the invaders believed it to contain the greatest treasures and valuables of the city.[47] Shortly after Constantinople's defenses collapsed and the Ottoman troops entered the city victoriously, the pillagers and looters made their way to the Hagia Sophia and battered down its doors before storming in.[48] All throughout the period of the siege of Constantinople, the trapped worshippers of the city participated in the Divine Liturgy and the Prayer of the Hours at the Hagia Sophia and the church formed a safe-haven and a refuge for many of those who were unable to contribute to the city's defense, which comprised women, children, the elderly and the sick and the wounded.[49][50] Being hopelessly trapped in the church, the many congregants and yet more refugees inside became spoils-of-war to be divided amongst the triumphant invaders. The building was significantly desecrated and looted to a large extent, with the helpless occupants who sought shelter within the church being enslaved.[47] While most of the elderly and the infirm/wounded and sick were killed, and the remainder (mainly teenage males and young boys) were chained up and sold off into slavery.[48] The church's priests and religious personnel continued to perform Christian rites, prayers and ceremonies until finally being forced to stop by the invaders."

There are varying sources on what happened, and to pass it off as a fact is reprehensible. Numerous sources state the exact opposite, in that Hagia Sophia and it's worshippers were safe, and that there was no destruction of property, but rather relics were draped over with cloth, etc. See sources such as Southern Europe International Dictionary of Historic Places (2013) By Noelle Watson and Paul Schellinger and Turkey: The Traveller's Guide (1989) by Michael Müller. Officedepot00 (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Officedepot00: Tourist travel information books from last century does not invalidate the long-standing historical consensus, which all contemporary sources relate, that Constantinople was sacked for several days and that there was a massacre in and around Hagia Sophia. See for instance the accounts in The Siege and the Fall of Constantinople in 1453: Historiography, Topography, and Military Studies from 2011. GPinkerton (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton Thank you for your response. Please address my first request, i.e. Remove the line "It is also an important example of the Islamic practice of converting non-Islamic places of worship into mosques, which has led to conflicts and religious strife in several parts of the world." Uncorroborated. How is this any different from any other incidents carried out by other religious groups in history (i.e. The Alhambra, Seville Cathedral, St. Basilica, Ram Lalla Temple. Singling out "Islam" is religious-bias. Furthermore "Islam" and "Muslim" are different.

Regarding my second request, I will provide a much more extensive list of sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Officedepot00 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Western history version was based on novel writers

Muslims did not allow the killing of inhabitants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:627D:7200:78C6:4D46:3441:9D18 (talk) 02:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. All accounts agree. There was a massacre in Hagia Sophia. Accounts differ on whether Mehmet raped a girl on the altar of Hagia Sophia. GPinkerton (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Ugly disturbing rumors were needed thoughout western history to deceive the people into accepting the killing of muslims ( i.e Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:627D:7200:B1DC:48F2:A561:177C (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

This is pointless. If you want the article to say no-one died in the Fall of Constantinople you can go ahead and prove it with reliable sources. When you consult the sources, you will find that you are wrong. GPinkerton (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality

I feel like this is a common generalization against Islam and reflects the opinion of the editor rather than fact. There are many cases where mosques are being converted to non-islamic places as well. So, can someone remove this opinion?

"It is also an important example of the Islamic practice of converting non-Islamic places of worship into mosques, which has led to conflicts and religious strife in several parts of the world.[6][7][8]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:A460:79C0:8D05:D09B:A28C:3D2C (talk) 11:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there something you want changed? The sentence has multiple citations. Other religions' conversions of religious buildings are not relevant to Hagia Sophia: because this article is about Hagia Sophia and Hagia Sophia was built as a church and converted into a mosque, it is relevant to mention the practice here. GPinkerton (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request_ Hagia Sofia

Hi Team,

I would like to put this in your attention that in first paragraph of this article writes - " It is also an important example of the Islamic practice of converting non-Islamic places of worship into mosques, which has led to conflicts and religious strife in several parts of the world."'

Which does not show just a deliberate and intentional action but also shows a biased viewpoint towards a particular religion. We all know that historically people from almost all religion more or less have done similar activities then why to target only Islam or Muslims.

This could really offend many readers as well as giving completely a negative perception towards a particular community. This is also not a right place to discuss this, which can be discussed in any other article.

My request is to remove this sentence on priority and please check other similar sentences which have been put in here deliberately to target any particular community.

Please accept my apology for any harsh word I have used in my request. That is not intentional at all.

Please note, I cannot upload a file because this is a protected article.

If you have any question kindly let me know.

Thanking you in advance, Zarrar Bin Shaukat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarrar Bin Shaukat (talk • contribs) 12:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Zarrar Bin Shaukat: Is there something you want changed? The sentence has multiple citations. It is moreover, a fact. Other religions' conversions of religious buildings are not relevant to Hagia Sophia: because this article is about Hagia Sophia and Hagia Sophia was built as a church and converted into a mosque, it is relevant to mention the practice here. If the fact upsets anyone, Muslim or otherwise, I'm afraid that can't be helped. GPinkerton (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton Once again, where is your evidence this is an "Islamic practice"? Because some rulers who happened to be Muslim did it (as did Christians, Hindus, etc)? Where is this listed as a source in Islamic creed? Do provide your sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Officedepot00 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Zarrar Bin Shaukat: I would have though it is self evident: it is a practice practised by Muslims for self-evidently Islamic purpose. Just how many churches in Constantinople were not Islamicized: i.e. became used for Islamic practices? Whether or not other religions happen to practise the same practice does not make the Islamic practice less Islamic. Prayer is considered a Muslim practice, but it is also considered a Christian practice. So too the Islamic custom of converting places of worship into Islamic places of worship. (again.) We could also say it was recent Turkish practice; there are number of examples in recent decades in that country. GPinkerton (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• This is a highly POV statement, that is mostly not even relevant to this article. What does "which has led to conflicts and religious strife in several parts of the world" has to do with Hagia Sophia? And its inclusion so prominently in the lead is definitely WP:UNDUE. I'm removing it, and if someone disagrees, they should answer the questions above.VR _talk 14:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The two sources used are problematic. This source doesn't seem to say what it was being used to say, and this source doesn't seem like a reliable source on first glance.VR _talk 14:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The statement literally says that "Hagia sophia is an important example of the islamic practice of converting non Islamic places of worship into mosques". I don't know why this factual statement requires any sources. Futhermore, User:Vice regent saying that "highly POV statement, that is mostly not even relevant to this article" is actually his own POV considering the global controversy over Hagia Sophia's conversion into a mosque that everyone knows about. Regards. Balolay (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

All statements on wikipedia require sources per WP:V. Also putting it so prominently in the lead is WP:UNDUE. The Hagia Sophia has seen many conversions: Orthodox to Catholic, Catholic to Orthodox, Orthodox to Islamic, Islamic to secular and secular to Islamic. So why should only one of those conversions be given such prominence?VR _talk 15:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@User:Vice regent thanks for responding to my comment. Firstly, when the statement was reported here on the talk page it read like this: It is also an important example of the Islamic practice of converting non-Islamic places of worship into mosques, which has led to conflicts and religious strife in several parts of the world. This issue has already been addressed in this [9] making your claim that This is a highly POV statement, that is mostly not even relevant to this article. What does "which has led to conflicts and religious strife in several parts of the world" has to do with Hagia Sophia? entirely redundant and removes any reason behind this [10] you made.

Secondly, your claim that All statements on wikipedia require sources per WP:V is like saying "earth revolving around the sun" needs sources too. It is an established fact that Hagia sophia was converted into a Mosque and is an example of the Islamic practice of converting non islamic places of worship into mosque. I don't know what makes this statement non-factual. Nevertheless, I will add relevant sources. Regards. Balolay (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The bigger issue is violation of WP:UNDUE, which is a violation of WP:NPOV. The lead already says before being converted into an Ottoman mosque, so why do we need to state this twice in the same paragraph? It seems the purpose of the redundancy is to push a particular POV.VR _talk 15:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Unless I was living under a rock, I am fully aware of the fact that the Hagia Sophia's reconversion into a Mosque has caused so much global controversy, especially in the Christian world. This makes the statement entirely relevant. Therefore, your claim that it is WP:UNDUE is a POV in itself and seems like a last attempt to remove the statement, considering that your other allegations were disapproved. Regards Balolay (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore the statement says "it is an example of the islamic practice of converting non-Islamic places of worship into mosques" so nothing is repeated. Therefore, don't misrepresent the statement by claiming that The lead already says before being converted into an Ottoman mosque, so why do we need to state this twice in the same paragraph? in order to remove it. You already did it before by adding which has led to conflicts and religious strife in several parts of the world in the statement yourself, despite the fact that it was already removed. Balolay (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The Hagia Sophia's conversion to a mosque from church happened 500 years ago. The current controversy is about its conversion from a museum to a mosque. Secondly, it is repeated twice, and I want to know why you think it deserves to be repeated twice? Why are the other conversions not repeated? Finally, the point about you using unreliable sources and misrepresenting sources completely stands. This source says nothing about the Hagia Sophia, yet you re-instated it anyway.VR _talk 19:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@User:Balolay In addition, why do you state "Islamic practice" in "It is also an important example of the Islamic practice of converting non-Islamic places of worship into mosques." Actions performed by Muslims do not necessarily make it "Islamic." If you are going to use the word "Islamic" provide primary sources within Islamic creed itself validating this point. Where are your sources for this?

Balolay is indefinitely blocked so presumably won't be responding. I'm removing this material.VR _talk 19:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2020

Website link is broken or removed, Online source is https://muze.gen.tr/muze-detay/ayasofya which maintaining and updating daily bases.Regards. Cem Akat cemakat@muze.gen.tr Cemakat (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Will add that website too. Funandtrvl (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Source on purchase

GPinkerton removed content with the edit summary Not true and not in source; source not in any case reliable. The content removed included:

The 1934 decision was seen as illegal under both Turkish and Ottoman Law as it violated the will of it's endower Mehmed The Conqueror.

The source says:

The conversion of the Hagia Sophia Mosque into a museum was unlawful as it violated the will of its endower, Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror, a Turkish court said in its ruling on the UNESCO World Heritage site.

How is this not in the source? And Daily Sabah is a reliable source for Turkish news.VR _talk 19:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Other news sources say similar things:

It was concluded that the settlement deed allocated it as a mosque and its use outside this character is not possible legally...The cabinet decision in 1934 that ended its use as a mosque and defined it as a museum did not comply with laws.

CNBC News

The group that brought the case to court had contested the legality of the 1934 decision by the modern Turkish republic’s secular government ministers, arguing the building was the personal property of Ottoman Sultan Mehmet II, who conquered Istanbul in 1453.

New York Times

VR _talk 19:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Neither of these quotations prove the idea that Mehmet bought the church, which isn't true. Neither says anything of the kind. In any case source cannot be reliable if their English is so poor. GPinkerton (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Two sources were given for the purchase that were conveniently ignored by GPinkerton

"Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror bought the building after opening Istanbul and transformed it into a mosque, and added 4 cylindrical minarets in the Ottoman style"

as well as this arabic language source which provides images of the deed of purchase from the Ottoman Imperial Archives

Here is an additional source confirming the same FullMetal234 (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)FullMetal234

@Vice regent: I have not ignored them, I have addressed why these execrable sources are are not good enough. You have ignored that fact and presented them again. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. These unreliable news sources, written only after Erdogan's seizure of the building, prove nothing except a desire to prove the place was never not a mosque. Try and find something in a scholarly work, not some badly-written propaganda with mobile phone screengrabs for illustrations! GPinkerton (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton Just to confirm, which of the sources presented do you believe are unreliable: Daily Sabah, New York Times or CNBC?VR _talk 21:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• I have clarified that the proponents of the decision believe Hagia Sophia to be the property of Mehmed. I hope this wording will be acceptable.VR _talk 21:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yes that's much better. There should not be any suggestion that he bought it (i.e. that Mehmet paid for it). He owned it because he was a sultan and that's the sort of thing you get to own when you're the sultan. Neither the NYT nor Daily Sabah say he "bought it". They say the court says that Mehmet owned it. Not that he paid for it, purchased it, or bought it. GPinkerton (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm happy to see that we're finally starting to resolve this. Though if Turkey claims he purchased it, it would be fair to say "Ottoman sources state the Mehmed purchased the Hagia Sofiya…." Per NPOV, we present all significant viewpoints.VR _talk 14:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @Vice regent: I don't think Turkey does say that. They say he owned it, and gave it to a waqf. You don't have to purchase something to own it. GPinkerton (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

References

British Encyclopedia

The following citation is from the British Encyclopedia Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Mehmed II and his army were remarkably restrained in their handling of affairs after the fall of Constantinople. They largely refrained from slaughtering commoners and nobility, instead choosing to ransom them to their home states and primarily executing only those who fought after the surrender. Mehmed repopulated the city with people from a multitude of backgrounds and faiths"

Source: https://www.britannica.com/event/Fall-of-Constantinople-1453#:~:text=Fall%20of%20Constantinople%2C%20(May%2029,the%20city%20for%2055%20days.

1.) Encyclopaedia Britannica is an American encyclopaedia, not a British one. 2.) "largely refrained from slaughtering" is another way of saying "there was a slaughter". It's not clear what you want to happen ... GPinkerton (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

In the "see also" section

Please add a link in the "see also" section to the Mosque of Cordoba, which was illegally converted from mosque to church in the 13th century (it wasn't purchased legally).

There is already a more relevant article about that at Conversion of mosques into non-Islamic places of worship. Funandtrvl (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2020

Change "After the Fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Empire in 1453,[13] it was converted to a mosque by Mehmed the Conqueror after he purchased it from the local christians"

to

"After the Fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Empire in 1453,[13] it was converted to a mosque by Mehmed the Conqueror. Though it is believed Mehmed purchased it from the local christians after he conquered the city, there are concerns how historically correct this is considering the whole city was plundered beforehand." Canadian300 (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2020

Dear editors, Hagia Sophia converted to a mosque and renovations will be done at 24th of July. You can review official announcement here, https://www.iletisim.gov.tr/english/haberler/detay/presidential-decree-on-the-opening-of-hagia-sophia-to-worship-promulgated-on-the-official-gazette-of-the-republic-of-turkey , the name should be Hagia Sophia Mosque. For turkish wikipedia web address should be either https://www.diyanet.gov.tr/ or https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/ayasofya ,,(fatih.gov.tr is a borrough website (Fatih ilçesi))..For english web address should be https://muze.gen.tr/muze-detay/ayasofya which is in English, for references you can check major search engines like google,bing,yandex. or location services like tripadvisor foursqure, trip.com etc. Also for turkish page name should be Ayasofya-i Kebir Camii. Thank you. Cem Akat (Mr.) Senior I.T. officer of Directorate of Istanbul Tourism And Culture Department. Address: Alemdar, Bab-ı Ali Cd. No:28, 34110 Fatih/İstanbul/TURKEY cemakat@muze.gen.tr cemakat@muze.gov.tr cemakat@pm.me P:+90212 518 10 21 M:+90552217143 Cemakat (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Cemakat: We use the common name in English and as used by reliable sources, which overwhelmingly use "Hagia Sophia". There's no need to add more words to the name. Thanks for the links. GPinkerton (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Conversion sentence deleted?

Is it irrelevant? No, it is relevant. Does it lack sources? Not it has sources. Is the conversion not part of the big phenomena in which Muslim power converts other religious sites into Islam? It is.

The sentence deserves to be back in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.204.125 (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I don’t understand why this was removed, either. Is it disputed that it was converted from a church into a mosque? No. Is it disputed that it is a significant example? No. Per MOS the lead does not need citations for information discussed and cited in body. If the sources were unreliable they could have been removed and the text kept. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 16:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

There was a discussion on this at Talk:Hagia_Sophia#Edit_Request_Hagia_Sofia. Basically, the Hagia Sophia is an example of a church converted to a mosque, an Orthodox church converted to Catholic church, a Catholic church converted to an Orthodox church, a mosque converted to a museum and a museum converted to a mosque. Why is one singled out over all others? Also, all of these facts are mentioned already in a neutral way

Built in 537 as the patriarchal cathedral of the imperial capital of Constantinople, it remained the largest church of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire, except from 1204 to 1261 when it was converted to a Roman Catholic cathedral. In 1453, it was converted into an Ottoman mosque upon the fall of the city. In 1935 it became a secular museum, and in 2020 will re-open as a mosque.

VR _talk 13:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't seem a terribly conclusive discussion, especially as one editor for against inclusion turned out to be a banned sockpuppet. It is obviously highly topical, and the previous period of 480-odd years as a mosque, ending fairly recently, is obvuiously more significant than 57 years as a Catholic church in the 13th century. It should be worked back into the article in a way that avoids repetition. Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

especially as one editor against inclusion turned out to be a banned sockpuppet. Do you mean one editor in favor of inclusion turned out to be a banned sockpuppet?

Remember, the content itself was added for the first time by a banned sockpuppet, whose sockmaster then defended the addition on the talk page. Also, the recent conversion into a mosque from museum has generated controversy and that is mentioned in the lead, as it should.VR _talk 14:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, for - doesn't change the other points. Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

What exactly is "highly topical"? The conversion of "non-Islamic places of worship into mosques" or the conversion of a church into a mosque or the change of status of a heritage site? Because different parties have different opinions on the matter. UNESCO, for example, has been merely concerned about change of status of a heritage site, not the specific of which religion it is going from and to which religion.VR _talk 15:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: It's "highly topical" for a UNESCO member state to unilaterally change a museum into a religious site without any consultation at all and for wholly political/Islamist reasons. The conversion of "non-Islamic places of worship into mosques" is a habit of Erdogan's government, and judging by the ruination of the Hagia Sophia, Iznik, which he ordered, things will not end well for human history and the common heritage of mankind. Everyone can see this. GPinkerton (talk) 04:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

What Erdogan is doing is converting museums to mosques as opposed to converting "non-Islamic places of worship" to mosques. And what UNESCO was most concerned about was the unilateral change in status, not whether the unilateral change in status resulted in the place becoming a mosque. These are all different criticisms, and we shouldn't be confusing them.VR _talk 08:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: No, UNESCO is concerned about human heritage being destroyed by becoming a mosque. If Erdogan were changing it to a church they would be less concerned because that would not entail the destruction or modification of large parts of the interior, etc., just as happened at Hagia Sophia in Iznik. Hagia Sophia is unquestionably built as a non-Islamic place of worship and is unquestionably becoming a Islamic place of worship at Erdogan's caprice. GPinkerton (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hagia Sophia was a museum, not a church, before the recent status change. The change from church to mosque was done by Sultan Mehmed, not Edogan, and it is not the subject of UNESCO's complaint. Can you provide a source or statement from UNESCO to substantiate If Erdogan were changing it to a church they would be less concerned...VR _talk 17:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hagia Sophia was a church before the recent status change. 1453 is before 1934. The building is an important example of a church-turned-mosque. Whether the mosquification happens in the 15th or the 21st centuries makes no difference; the church (building) is still there and is being converted by today's sultan. Both are controversial. Both are important. Both are examples in 1.) conversion of non-Islamic places of worship into mosques & 2.) Erdogan's desire to turn former churches (museums or no) into mosques. GPinkerton (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think UNESCO is protesting against the 1453 conversion by Sultan Mehmed., and if you think that, you should quote their statement.VR _talk 21:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The main issue here is that there are 4 controversial events in the history of Hagia Sophia that have provoked great outrage:

• 1204 sack of Constantinople by Catholics has been described by reliable sources in very controversial terms: It "entailed shattering of a civilization...the desecration of the St. Sophia Cathedral was symbolic of the empire's effective demise." It "long burned hot in the historic memory of Orthodox Christians" and "radically changed the dynamic of relationship between Byzantine (Orthodox) East and European (Catholic) West".
• The 1453 fall of Constantinople and conversion of Hagia Sophia into a mosque has been obviously very controversial.
• The 1934 conversion to a museum has been a long time grievance of Muslims.
• The 2020 conversion back to a mosque is obviously controversial as well.

Al four should be covered neutrally in the lead, not just one.VR _talk 21:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

All four of those yes. Of those four, only two involve deliberate changes to the fabric of the building to modify it for worship. Those same two verify the statement "Hagia Sophia is an important example of the Islamic practice of converting non-Islamic places of worship into mosques." GPinkerton (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I feel like we're going in circles. The 2020 conversion happened from a museum to a mosque, not a church to a mosque. And the 1453 conversion happened from a "church to a mosque" not a vague "non-Islamic places of worship into mosque". Finally, you do acknowledge the conversion from a mosque to a museum was also controversial, as was the looting of an Orthodox church by Catholic crusaders?VR _talk 22:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Hagia Sophia was built as a church. Erdogan's 2020 conversion into a mosque is the conversion of an ancient Roman church building into a mosque, regardless of how that Roman church building functioned before 1931 or before 2020. That is the controversy. That is the important example of the Islamic practice of converting non-Islamic places of worship into mosques. The looting in 1204 has got absolutely nothing to do with anything and did nothing to change the function or structure of the building. GPinkerton (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

That is the controversy. The conversion to a mosque is indeed controversial. But the 1204 sacking (and massacre) has also been controversial for 800 years. I have provided scholarly sources that attest to that. The conversion from a mosque to museum has also been controversial. Elevating one controversy above all others is WP:UNDUE. In any case, the lead has already covered the controversy surrounding the recent conversion. Finally, is there anyone who is calling it "an example of the Islamic converting non-Islamic places of worship into mosques"? If not, you are misrepresenting the criticism against the recent move by Erdogan. I read the statement by UNESCO and the letter by the World Council of Churches and they don't say that.VR _talk 02:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: You are still missing the point. There are two sides to this. 1.) Hagia Sophia is an important example of the Islamic practice of converting non-Islamic places of worship into mosques. It's been done twice now 500 years apart. 2.) Converting Hagia Sophia into a mosque (again) is controversial (again) and has been criticized by (almost) everyone except those responsible for it (just like Erdogan's seizure of Hagia Sophia, Iznik and his attempted seizure of Hagia Sophia, Trabzon). These statements are related but they are not dependent on one another. Alleged massacres and sackings have nothing to do with anything. GPinkerton (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: you seem to be synthesizing. Can you provide sources that condemn the conversion and call it an "an important example of the Islamic practice of converting non-Islamic places of worship into mosques"? I definitely agree that people are condemning the move, but I disagree that they are saying what you think they're saying.

Alleged massacres and sackings have nothing to do with anything. They're not "alleged". Reliable sources attest to their occurrence in 1204. And reliable sources also attest to their profound historical impact as I showed above.VR _talk 02:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Really? What reliable sources attest a massacre in Hagia Sophia in 1204? What sources allege that? Even Niketas Choniates, who wrote an account of the Sack of Constantinople, mentions no such thing, although of course, he wasn't actually there. In any case, what does the 1204 Sack have to do with the Islamic practice of converting non-Islamic places of worship into mosques? Nothing. As for your strange desire to question whether the sky is blue, you can read this paper, which says: "Converting churches into mosques became a customary practice during the Ottoman period, as symbols of conquest and Islamic domination, with Hagia Sophia in Istanbul among the best known". GPinkerton (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is the source about the massacre. It is a scholarly source that quotes a 13th century historian. The source you presented talks about "Converting churches into mosques" but not "Islamic practice of converting non-Islamic places of worship into mosques". In any case, it also predates the 2020 controversy and using two different sources to advance a narrative that neither mentions is WP:SYNTH. I tried to include the material neutrally but you reverted me. Oh well.VR _talk 03:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why you need to be told such basic facts: "churches" is a category of "non-Islamic places of worship". Converting churches into mosques is converting non-Islamic places of worship into mosques. GPinkerton (talk) 03:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Attribution not necessary

The 1204 sack of Hagia Sophia is attested to by many reliable sources as fact. It is not necessary to attribute this and we can use wikipedia's voice for this because it is widely treated as fact. I'm referring to my edit here.VR _talk 03:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I have undone your edit because this claim is reliant on a single primary source and it is quite reasonable to attribute this claim to its source. Naturally I'm still waiting for the source for a "massacre" in Hagia Sophia in 1204 ... GPinkerton (talk) 03:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

You are engaged in an edit-war. I will not engage with you, but if you continue, you might find yourself blocked. The sources I presented treat this as fact, so we are expected to do so here as well.VR _talk 03:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

No, the reliable sources attribute the claim to Niketas Choniates, where it originates. If you could be bothered to read the source then you might know that. Moreover, one of the (weak, POV) sources you adduced as evidence for the "fact" is merely quoting the judgement of Greek historian (and labelled as such) who is effectively quoting Niketas. Next you'll be telling me Mehemd "purchased" the mosque again, a clear mark of someone who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. GPinkerton (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Please don't make personal attacks ("a clear mark of someone who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about"). That makes it very difficult to have a discussion.VR _talk 03:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

You have made blatant POV edits to this very page before and I make no apology for calling you out on that. GPinkerton (talk) 03:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Is there still anyone who thinks that attribution is necessary? Because I don't. If someone disagrees, I will ping the last few users who commented on this page or file an RfC.VR _talk 13:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Analysis

The present argument appears to be over this, so let us compare the versions. Both versions start:

According to the Greek historian Niketas Choniates, in 1203 during the Fourth Crusade, the emperors Isaac II Angelos and Alexios IV Angelos stripped Hagia Sophia of all the gold ornaments and all the silver oil-lamps in order to pay off the Crusaders who had ousted Alexios III Angelos and helped Isaac return to the throne.

So 100% agreement there.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent

GPinkerton

In the 1204 Sack of Constantinople, the church was ransacked and desecrated by the Crusaders. Hagia Sophia was stripped of its remaining metal ornaments, its altar was smashed into pieces, its holy books destroyed, and a prostitute ("woman laden with sins") placed on the throne of the Patriarch of Constantinople by Latin soldiers. Mules and donkeys were brought into the cathedral's sanctuary, to carry away the gilded silver plating of the bema, the ambo, and the doors and other furnishings, and that one of these slipped on the marble floor and was accidentally disembowelled, further contaminating the place. The account is described by Greek historian Niketas Choniates at the Empire of Nicaea, though he did not witness the events in person. Much of the interior was damaged and would not be repaired until its return to Orthodox control in 1261. The sack of Hagia Sophia, and Constantinople in general, remained a sore point in Catholic–Eastern Orthodox relations.

Upon the subsequent Sack of Constantinople in 1204, the church was further ransacked and desecrated by the Crusaders, as described by Niketas, though he did not witness the events in person. According to his account, composed at the court of the rump Empire of Nicaea, Hagia Sophia was stripped of its remaining metal ornaments, its altar was smashed into pieces, and a "woman laden with sins" sang and danced on the synthronon. He adds that mules and donkeys were brought into the cathedral's sanctuary to carry away the gilded silver plating of the bema, the ambo, and the doors and other furnishings, and that one of these slipped on the marble floor and was accidentally disembowelled, further contaminating the place. Much of the interior was damaged and would not be repaired until its return to Orthodox control in 1261. The sack of Hagia Sophia, and Constantinople in general, remained a sore point in Catholic–Eastern Orthodox relations.

Questions

@Vice regent: Do you have a reliable source that explicitly says that a "woman laden with sins" means a prostitute?-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

It probably does mean prostitute (though that, or where she is supposed to have come from, is not stated); Niketas says: "Moreover, a certain silly woman laden with sins, an attendant of the Erinyes, the handmaid of demons, the workshop of unspeakable spells and reprehensible charms, waxing wanton against Christ, sat upon the synthronon and intoned a song, and then whirled about and kicked up her heels in dance." At least part of this is a quote from 1 Timothy 5.11: "but the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry". So "woman laden with sins" might mean prostitute, but it might also refer to the claim that she was 1.) a witch, 2.) in league with demons, 3.) working for the Furies of Greek myth, and 4.) "silly". GPinkerton (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

We have to abide by Wikipedia:No original research. So unless we have a source for an interpretation, the article should show that interpretation.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Very true, and in this instance a great number of (not-specialist) sources say something like "the crusaders placed a prostitute in the patriarch's throne" which shows why we should use Niketas's text and not the popular rehearsal of the story: he doesn't say "prostitute", though he implies it with his "wanton" quotation, and he doesn't say "patriarch's throne", since the patriarch did not have such a thing, and Niketas's text says "the synthronon", which is not the same thing as a "throne" as usually understood. I'm still curious as to why this story and ibn al-Athir's are considered more worthy of inclusion than the similarly partisan and non-reliable but historically significant accounts of 1453's sack. GPinkerton (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

This source says "a prostitute straddled the patriarch's throne".VR _talk 20:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Do you have a source that explicitly says that Niketas did not witness the events in person?-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Niketas himself says he lived near the church but fled the city as the Crusaders arrived with the help of an Italian friend. He says of what happened in Hagia Sophia that "The report of the impious acts perpetrated in the Great Church are unwelcome to the ears." He never claims to have been there. He wasn't in Constantinople when the pack-mule was disembowelled in the sanctuary. GPinkerton (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton's version says that the detail in the rest of the paragraph comes from Niketas Choniates, who was relying on what he had heard, on on documents that he had seen. Does anyone dispute this?-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

We need the attribution because Niketas Choniates says one thing and ibn al-Athir says another. Neither corroborates what the other says, neither was there. Incidentally, none of the Latin authors mention any of these events, even though they were general very critical of the entire campaign and its poor attendance, its hijacking by the Venetians, its attack on Hungarian-held Dyrrachium, its failure to attack the Muslims, and so on. GPinkerton (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

My main issue is giving attribution when no conflict in reliable sources is presented. GPinkerton are there any reliable sources that do the analysis you're doing? If not, what you're doing is WP:NOR. Even if yes, if most reliable sources accept the accounts as valid and only a minority question it, then we should mention the debate but still present the events as fact. Only when there's significant debate should we not present the events as fact.VR _talk 20:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Toddy1, GPinkerton I can probably present a dozen sources that present the events as fact. But doing so is time consuming and tedious. So I'd rather GPinkerton first present at least a single reliable source that doubts the authenticity of events. Without even a single reliable source, the claims are GPinkterton's OR at this stage.VR _talk 20:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Not all reliable sources that mention the events attribute them to Niketas Choniates. Some don't attribute them to anyone in particular (which doesn't make them any less reliable). But several attribute the 1204 sacking to contemporary sources other than Niketas Choniates:
  • Constantine Stilbes:

    Constantine Stilbes ended his catalogue of charges against the Latin Church with a series of indictments arising from the sack of Constantinople. He presented them in a way that confirmed his portrayal of the Latin faith as one perverted by its espousal and promotion of war. The crusaders had desecrated the churches of Constantinople and had profaned the cathedral of St Sophia; they slaughtered Orthodox Christians in the churches where they had sought sanctuary; knights rode their horses into St Sophia; they burnt or trampled under foot the sacred images; their priests and bishops were supposed to have desecrated the holy images while celebrating the liturgy.

    • So no mention of a prostitute, disembowelled animals, or the destruction of books. Moreover Constantine Stilbes was not present in Constantinople during 1204, instead being bishop of Cyzicus, hundreds of miles away. GPinkerton (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • A 1231 delegation of Byzantines:

    The crusaders had desecrated the churches of Constantinople and had profaned St Sophia itself...Some years later in 1231 when there was talk of a compromise with the Latin authorities on the island of Cyprus, the orthodox clergy and people of Constantinople sent a delegation to Nicaea. They protested that this was to ignore their sufferings at the hands of the Latins: they had been imprisoned; they had had their beards pulled out. Any deal with the Latins would mean ‘a betrayal of the faith handed down from their fathers’. The members of the delegation insisted that an obsession with war had driven the Latins ‘raving mad’, priests and laity alike.

    • So no mention of a prostitute, disembowelled animals, or the destruction of books. GPinkerton (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Ibn al-Athir, who I've mentioned in another section.
    • Who also makes no mention whatever of a prostitute, disembowelled animals, or the destruction of books. GPinkerton (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

VR _talk21:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Vice regent: Thanks for helping my argument so much! You've proved beyond doubt that not one of these accounts corroborates Niketas Choniates account, and many of them are written with strong biases and at a distance of hundreds of miles, or decades, or both. GPinkerton (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Since we now all agree this account is due only to Niketas Choniates, we need to give attribution, as Wikipedia usually does for medieval historians, and should. The same naturally applies to other notable non-witnesses, like those of the sack of 1453. GPinkerton (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

If you're going to deliberately mischaracterize my argument, then this discussion will again derail (last time it derailed due to your personal attacks). As I said there are many reliable sources that discuss this without attributing it to Choniates, like this one.VR _talk 22:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

You are mischaracterizing the source material. Whether you're doing it deliberately or in error is hard to say. The book you are quoting is quoting another book to show how Choniates was used to make political points in a pop. history book from 1967. That book has not footnotes whatsoever and attempts to cover the entire span of the Byzantine empire in less than 200 pages. Surely you can find a better source for your POV than that? Are you really denying that these details come from Niketas? GPinkerton (talk) 23:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Also notable is the observation that the book you have adduced as evidence for your arguments not only is merely quoting a 1960s pop-history, but isn't even written by a historian. The author is psychologist. GPinkerton (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear you're talking about this source, which is published by Routledge, which is an academic publisher. Once you confirm you think this book is unreliable, I can take this to WP:RSN.VR _talk 21:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Friendly pinging to @GPinkerton:.VR _talk 03:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you still arguing that we need to use the 1967 200-page history of Byzantium for the general reader as absolute and incontrovertible truth? I'm interested in why you haven't been arguing to include such details as:

After three days of horrible pillaging Muhammed entered Hagia Sophia, mounted the pulpit accompanied by an imam, and the Friday prayer was recited. The Sultan then entered the Christian sanctuary where he personally destroyed the altar, an act which symbolized the end of a thousand years of history.

I'm afraid you're trying to cherry-pick from this source when there are dozens of more reliable works. GPinkerton (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Alleged Rape at the Altar

I have removed the references to a story that states Sultan Mehmed raped a girl at the altar of the church. I did this because the source that was cited "The Siege and the Fall of Constantinople in 1453: Histography, Topography and Military Studied" Has placed this story in a section titled "Myths, Legends and Tales". The chapter within this section is all about how some contemporary and later Greek writers invented parallels between the taking of Constantinople with that of Troy. On page 202 of the source text it is stated

"Yet historical reality was raped; facts were twisted to recreate the old story of Troy."

On page 207 it states "The humanists who had observed a parallel in the sack of Troy to the contemporary sack of Constantinople also sought to isolate an echo of the incident involving Cassandra. The problem, of course, was that there had been no Cassandra in 1453. After all, Constantine XI did not have a daughter. The echo had to be invented. Consequently, a qualtrocento Cassandra made her entrance into the records of the period. The earliest notice of her is encountered in a German source.Two refugees from the sack of 1453 gave a relazione of the event. Their names were apparently Thomas Eparkhos and Joseph Diplovatazes, as we may restore the actual Greek names behind the transmitted and corrupted forms in the conclusion of the document. The two refugees report a tale involving a fictitious daughter of the emperor."

The source also states about the original story "Da Rimini links the carnage of 1453 to the sack of Troy and views it as an act of revenge. In order to create an exact parallel to the ancient tale, da Rimini's anonymous virgin had to be transformed into the daughter of the emperor; after all, Cassandra was King Priam's daughter. The only problem with this parallelism was that Constantine XI did not have any daughters. Da Rimini most probably was aware of this fact and went no further."

The line "Da Rimini most probably was aware of this fact and went no further." implies that he was totally fabricating the story Filippo da Rimini was also not a eyewitness account as stated by the source text. The text goes on to say that all the other accounts of this supposed event were derivatives of Da Rimini's but since we have already shown that the source itself implied Da Rimini was falsifying this story that is enough to establish this story as false . FullMetal234 (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@FullMetal234: What you imagine the implications of what da Rimini wrote is WP:OR and irrelevant. The fact is the story exists and was repeated throughout Europe. It's inclusion in reliable sources that suggests it should be included here. The fictional component is that of connecting Mehmed's victim with the emperor's family, and the article says so. The is no reason to doubt the rape happened any more than to doubt Mehmed's killing a Turk for trying to damage the floor, or Mehmed's demand that it be converted into a mosque. GPinkerton (talk) 03:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Lol what are you talking about "Da Rimini most probably was aware of this fact and went no further." page 208 of the source text. That implies that the author of the source thought this story was fake. If the author of the ONLY source cited for this incident thinks its fake then either you get a better source that proves your claim or you don't interfere with rightful edits. Also I'd appreciate it if you didn't strawman me and accuse me of violating rules when all I did was relate what the source that was cited actually said.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FullMetal234 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@FullMetal234: Can you read? The source lists numerous accounts apart from da Rimini's. Nowhere does the source say the incident didn't happen. It says the emperor didn't have a daughter. As for your claim "That implies that the author of the source thought this story was fake" that is complete OR and not at all based on the scholarly work in question. GPinkerton (talk) 04:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Bring citations from the text to prove your claim. Any honest onlooker will see that that quote in that context implies that Da Rimini (who even if what you say is true is NOT an eye witness "The same tale is also taken into account in a letter composed a few months after the

sack by Filippo da Rimini, who was the Venetian chancellor on the island of Corfu. At the end of 1453, da Rimini wrote a short account of the fall to a friend in Italy." page 208) fabricated the entire story. All other accounts in the source mention it being the emperor's daughter and the source implies they are derivative from da Rimini's "The only problem with this parallelism was that Constantine XI did not have any daughters. Da Rimini most probably was aware of this fact and went no further. Yet other humanists in the west had no qualms about inventing, consciously or unconsciously, an imperial princess. Soon after the sack, Matthieu d'Escouchy, probably following up on rumors that escalated through Eparkhos' relazione, reports that the Turks committed numerous atrocities and that Sultan Mehmed II raped the daughter of Constantine XI." page 208.

If you discount Da Rimini's account then all other accounts mentioned contain a known fabrication within them that you just admitted to so how can they be trusted? FullMetal234 (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@FullMetal234: Who said anything about trusting them? The fact is that they wrote the accounts and scholarly sources treat the accounts. That is enough. This page deals with Hagia Sophia, and this is an important part of the place's history. The account, if you would simply read the text you have copied, is based on eyewitness accounts, but that is beside the point. The point is that this is what was believed at the time. That is history, and reliably sourced at that. If you want to prove you claims that it never happened, you produce the sources that back your claims. DO NOT delete reliably sourced information simply because it doesn't fit your worldview. GPinkerton (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: You're desperately trying to tie this to my "worldview" when its not relevant (though I'm not even sure you know what it is) and is in bad faith and thus is a violation of WP guidelines. The source cited for this supposed incident itself says all these accounts are untrue fabrications and only exist to push a narrative and I have provided numerous quotes from the source for my claims while you have provided exactly zero, that's really all there is to it. I'm sure you would not be behaving this way if the edits in question were about an Ottoman myth regarding the conquest or the capture of the city. FullMetal234 (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@FullMetal234: The source says nothing of the kind; that is merely your opinion, which you are demonstrating repeatedly here. The quotes you furnish back my position and disprove yours. The scholarly sources state that these writers wrote these things. That's all. Whether or not you believe they happened is completely immaterial and irrelevant OR. GPinkerton (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: I have provided several quotes, you have provided zero. It is for onlookers to decide who is correct. I will stop engaging with you now as you are clearly acting in bad faith by citing my "worldview" as the reason for these edits, that is a clear violation of Wikipedia guidelines.

@FullMetal234: What are you talking about? The quotes you provided are from the source I cited. Nothing you have quoted conflicts what the article says at present. Why did you delete the text? GPinkerton (talk) 05:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Without wanting to spoil everyone's fun; may I suggest that we should recognise that the subject of the article is Hagia Sophia; not Filippo da Rimini. Current notable scholarship - as I understand it from the cited source - maintains that Filippo da Rimini fabricated a story of the seizure of Hagia Sophia involving an act of rape; and that this account was then repeated by contemporary commentators. It is not in dispute that this story was circulating; but if the cited authority is considered notable; then circulation of the fabricated account of rape is proper to an article Filippo da Rimini; it has no place here. Any more than the article on William Wallace discusses the plotline of the film Braveheart TomHennell (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@TomHennell: Am I free to remove it from the article without being considered edit warring? FullMetal234 (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Since Margaret Meserve explicitly states her opinion that the rape is a false story, inserted by da Filippo; then it is for GPinkerton to support the alternative view that there is a historical basis for this account in current published scholarship. If no notable scholarship supports the story s fact, then it might perhaps be removed to a footnote - cited to Meserve. What do you think? TomHennell (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@TomHennell: Meserve does not say Mehmed didn't rape anyone, the facts of which are irrelevant here. She supports the view that historians of the 15th century recorded the incident and falsely claimed Mehmed had claimed it was because of Cassandra's rape in the Temple of Athena. Meserve does not say da Rimini invented the story, which isn't true, and neither does she attribute the fictitious elements to him, since da Rimini, unlike the other historians and writers, does not include the necessary (and bogus) detail of it being the king's daughter, as would be necessary for any comparison with Cassandra. GPinkerton (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@TomHennell: for comparison, the page Allied-occupied Germany deals with the supposed Werwolf plan and the Alpenfestung idea, even though these were both fictious and never happened. Likewise the article Black Death deals with the reports of Italian chroniclers that Mongols were responsible for spreading the plague deliberately to Kaffa in the Crimea, even though again, this idea is spurious (and medically near-impossible). GPinkerton (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

exactly so; published current scholarship on the fall of Nazi Germany does indeed discuss Goebbels leaking of plans for Werwolf and the Alpenfestung; and rightly so, as they fooled the Western Allies into charging off into southern Germany on a wild-goose chase. But I find no published scholarship here. Where is the scholarship that supports your proposal that there could be a factual basis to the story of rape in Hagia Sophia? What you need is a straight statement to that effect in a recent published work. Please. TomHennell (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@TomHennell: Where have I said that there could be factual basis?! That's not suggested in the wording I propose (and which has since been unilaterally removed). The source you quoted and the source to which I cited the information both agree that the story existed. Two scholarly works, one of which devotes many pages to the subject, are surely enough to prove that this idea is an important part of the historiography of Hagia Sophia then and now and had a long-term impact of the historiography of the event in East and West. As with Niketas Choniates fable about the sinful woman possessed by the Furies on the synthronon in 1204, or the one about Mehmed striking down a Turk who was looting, the factual accuracy of the story is completely irrelevant. The contemporary accounts are what is worth reporting. GPinkerton (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@TomHennell: No, please read the citation. This does not have to do with da Rimini, who did not invent the story. Da Rimini, and numerous other accounts both earlier and later repeat the claims made by two Greek refugees. The is no suggestion da Rimini invented the story and his version is in fact the one which the cited source says does not contradict the facts. This is all perfectly well explained in the article text. The story is a highly important part of how Christendom saw the events of 1453 and its relevance to this article's subject is plain. GPinkerton (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

the cited source describes the story as 'fictitious', 'invented'; and amongst the 'tales, legends and myths' of the Fall of Constantinople. I think that is pretty decisive.

you should also consider Margaret Meserve 'Empires of Islam in Renaissance Historical Thought'. page 37 (HUP 2008). "He also inserted into his report the (false) story that after entering the city, the Sultan raped a Greek woman sheltering inside the church of Hagia Sophia in revenge for the rape of Cassandra by the Locrian Ajax". It cannot be doubted that notable current scholarship represents this as a fiction. There may well be scope for an article on the 'Reception of the Fall of Constantinople within Christendom' where this would find a place. But since notable current scholarship is that the story itself was false, it has no place here. TomHennell (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see that current scholarship regarding it as fiction means it has no place here. Niketas Choniates account of a "sinful woman" getting drunk on the synthronon is also considered fictitious but it is still a notable part of the historiography of the building and fondly repeated throughout the popular media. The proposal to create a POV fork is not appropriate, and these narratives are specifically about Hagia Sophia. A final point would be that while Meserve treats the idea that the rape was "in revenge for the rape of Cassandra by the Locrian Ajax", she does not say the sultan did not rape anyone, just points out the inherent unlikelihood that he quoted Homeric precedent while doing so. GPinkerton (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I am afraid you are exactly wrong; there should be nothing in a Wikipedia article that is not supported by current published scholarship on the subject of the article. Fictions about the subject of an article do not go into that article itself - though there may be a case for a separate section or article on 'xxxx in fiction and legend'. There is no POV fork here, unless there is a POV in current scholarship other than that proposed by Meserve. It would be very helpful if you could identify such a source, rather than nit-picking about how the contrary opinions of notable scholars might be re-interpreted to say something other than their plain meaning? Otherwise, you cannot object to my removing the entire paragraph into a footnote. TomHennell (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course I can object! See my comments above about Werwolf, Ibn al-Athir and Niketas Choniates's account of 1204. These are fictions! We are dealing with late medieval history, and all pre-modern history is littered with inaccuracy and fabrication. Elsewhere in this article it says that Justinian exclaimed "Solomon I have outdone thee" on completion of the church. All modern historians agree this is fictitious, dating from about three centuries after the alleged event, but the desperately flawed and biased accounts of medieval people is all we have to go on. To exclude reliably sourced information on the basis that the primary sources contain inaccuracies is to erase all medieval history and all medieval historians' accounts. GPinkerton (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

About the two refugees the source states "The humanists who had observed a parallel in the sack of Troy to the contemporary sack of Constantinople also sought to isolate an echo of the incident involving Cassandra. The problem, of course, was that there had been no Cassandra in 1453. After all, Constantine XI did not have a daughter. The echo had to be invented. Consequently, a qualtrocento Cassandra made her entrance into the records of the period. The earliest notice of her is encountered in a German source. Two refugees from the sack of 1453 gave a relazione of the event. Their names were apparently Thomas Eparkhos and Joseph Diplovatazes, as we may restore the actual Greek names behind the transmitted and corrupted forms in the conclusion of the document. The two refugees report a tale involving a fictitious daughter of the emperor." page 207

and a translation of their account from the source states "Item: When now he [Constantine XI], who had been the emperor of Constantinople, was killed, he [sc. Mehmed II] then took the grand duchess of the imperial state who was with child, a son of the crown, to whom the title was given. Afterward, he [sc. Mehmed II] took his daughter, a very beautiful [girl], led her on to the high altar of Hagia Sophia and before a crucifix married her and lived with her unchastely." 208

Regarding the first quote the source calls the story a tale and highlights how the daughter was fictitious since this puts doubt into the entire story, the onus is on you to demonstrate how scholars view the rape part legitimate but discount the daughter part because the source you cited does no such thing and it can be reasonably assumed based on his condemnation of Da Rimini's narrative that the entire story is fabricated in the author's view. The second quote which is a direct translation of the account of the two refugees doesn't even mention a rape and since this "very beautiful girl" never existed this marriage never happened. If this story is so widespread and important to how Europe views the conquest (again I dont think thats relevant to an article about the building) then shouldn't it be easy to find a source that clearly states your view point? After all isn't it so ubiquitous? FullMetal234 (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@FullMetal234: The source your have quoted does very clearly state my viewpoint and very well, which is why I have cited this information in the article to that scholarly work. The facts are as follows: ubiquitous accounts of the Fall of Constantinople including Matthias Döring's chronicle, Leonardo Benvoglienti's letter, Filippo da Rimini's letter, and Mathieu d'Escouchy's letter all include the detail that Mehmed raped a girl in Hagia Sophia. None of these writers invented the story, and were dependent on the accounts of two Byzantine eyewitnesses. Various invented details appear in these accounts which the scholars rightly say are fabricated. The scholarly source's authors are absolutely silent on whether or not Mehmed actually performed the act, and that is irrelevant. The fact is that numerous historians, rightly or wrongly, claim he did. That in itself is notable and worth including in Wikipedia's article, as it it presently is. FullMetal234, why aren't you objecting to the inclusion of Niketas Choniates tale about the smashed altar and the sinful woman on the synthronon? Unlike the account of 1453 narrated by variously by Eparkhos, Diplovatazes, da Rimini, Döring, Benvoglienti, and d'Escouchy, Niketas Choniates account of 1204 is explicitly not based on eye-witness accounts - Niketas attributes the stories to rumour and says they're "hard to hear" - so according to your reasoning his account too should be left out as "fabricated", as should Ibn al-Athir's account of a massacre of clerics in 1204 - since that historian never even claimed to have set foot in Constantinople, let alone in Hagia Sophia. This is not about whether the incident happened, it's about its importance in 15th-century historiography. Why not object also to to the report of Nestor-Iskander on St Elmo's fire? His supposedly eyewitness account may itself be made up, but that does not affect the fact that the alleged omen was recorded for posterity and was read widely in Europe. It's a part of the historiography of the building and of its role in the Fall of the city. GPinkerton (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Another few sources

• Wheatcroft, Andrew (1995). The Ottomans: Dissolving Images. Penguin. p. 22. The Turks battered down the doors, and enslaved those at prayer. The very young and very old were killed on the spot, because they had no value in the slave market. Men were roped together, and many of the younger women were knotted in groups of two or three by their long hair, or with their girdles. Byzantine eyewitnesses told how young girls and boys were raped on altar tables, and the great church echoed with their screams
• Bisaha, Nancy (1997). Renaissance Humanists and the Ottoman Turks. Cornell University. p. 82. about Mehmed II openly raping members of the royal family on the high altar of Hagia Sophia is certainly apocryphal
• Bisaha, Nancy (2017). "Reactions to the Fall of Constantinople and the Concept of Human Rights". In Housley, Norman (ed.). Reconfiguring the Fifteenth-Century Crusade. Palgrave Macmillan UK. pp. 300–301. ISBN 978-1-137-46280-0. In a letter of September 25, 1453 to Leonardo Benvoglienti, Aeneas adds further embellishment: "What utter slaughter in the imperial city would I relate, virgins prostituted, boys made to submit as women, nuns raped, and all sorts of monks and women treated wickedly?" He even goes on to relate an apocryphal story about Mehmed raping a girl and a boy of "royal blood" on the high altar of Hagia Sophia and ordering them killed; the emperor was, in fact, childless.

GPinkerton (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

apocryphal adjective

apoc·​ry·​phal | \ ə-ˈpä-krə-fəl \ Definition of apocryphal 1: of doubtful authenticity : SPURIOUS an apocryphal story about George Washington

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apocryphal FullMetal234 (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton the source you quote itself calls the allegations "apocryphal", which would seem to imply that reliable sources don't consider it true. And the first source doesn't seem reliable (the author is not an expert in history) nor does it mention Mehmed.VR _talk 21:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I know perfectly well what apocryphal means. Wikipedia has an article on the Biblical Apocrypha, which suggests apocryphal texts are no less important than others. GPinkerton (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The sources footnotes cite one another. You are clutching at straws! GPinkerton (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

thanks for the Nancy Bisaha citation; I agree that looks notable; and backs up removal of this passage. Bisaha is not saying that this is a story from the Biblical Apocrypha; she is saying that the story is unfounded and spurious. TomHennell (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. The issue is covered in multiple scholarly accounts and should be reflected in the Wikipedia article. No one doubts the story is 1.) in existence 2.) widely believed at the time, and 3.) important in the history of Hagia Sophia and its historiography. The article Josef Mengele contains numerous references to spurious sighting of him after his actual death - would you propose to remove them since they're "unfounded"? I ask again, do you propose also to delete the spurious rumour reported by Niketas Choniates? GPinkerton (talk) 05:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Sunni mosque

THERE IS NO SUCH REFERENCE FOR THIS CHANGE, THERE ARE NO DIFFERENCES IN SUNNI AND SHIA MOSQUES. STOP VANDALIZING THE PAGE THIS WAY, I WARNED USERS DOZENS OF TIMES YET THEY KEEP REVERTING. SOURCES: http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/religion-miscellaneous/difference-between-shia-and-sunni-mosques/
ArtyomSokolov (talk) 10:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@ArtyomSokolov: There are significant differences between the architecturl traditions of Sunnis and Shi'as. Apart from that, the Hagia Sophia was a mosque of a Sunni caliphate and was very much a mosque in which Sunnism was preached. In other words, a Sunni Muslim place of worship. GPinkerton (talk) 10:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Unreferenced non-sense. There are absolute no differences in Sunni or Shia mosque structures, See link above. Furthermore the structure was built in 537. Before Islam. Its structure its neither Ottoman - Arabic or Persian but Byzantine. ArtyomSokolov (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Furthermore! Ottoman Empire was not a SUNNI CALIPHATE, yet another unreferenced NON SENSE. Millions of Christians Sunnis are Shias lived in Ottoman Empire, particularly Shia of East Anatolia, Levant and Iraq. Do not make non sense unreferenced claims like this again. ArtyomSokolov (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@ArtyomSokolov: - the Ottoman Empire article has two book references that say Sunni Islam was its religion. Are you saying these are incorrect? Or does that not fit your WP:AGENDA? Be warned, you are extremely close to being blocked. You have had your final warning and I suspect you may already be into edit war territory. Stop the SHOUTING please, it isn't clever and does not make you look big. Mjroots (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I too find the term "Sunni mosque" odd. I know that Sunni Islam was the state religion of the Ottoman empire, but I think simply "mosque" would be more accurate. How do reliable sources describe it?VR _talk 20:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Artyom has been indeffed as an editor who is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Agree with Viceregent that we go with reliable sources. That said, there are two book sources in the Ottoman Empire article which state that Sunni Islam was the religion of the empire, so it is not overtly wrong to call it a "Sunni mosque" - we distinguish between Roman Catholic and Anglican churches, do we not? Mjroots (talk) 05:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, pertinently. If the khutbah is read in the name of Sunni caliph, it's a Sunni mosque by definition. We don't have sources right now, to my knowledge, for the exact governance of the place since Friday/the abolition of the caliphate altogether, but I'm much in favour of clarifying that the place was a Sunni mosque under a long dynasty of Sunni caliphs. GPinkerton (talk) 05:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Mjroots What might apply in Christianity won't necessarily apply to Islam. For now, lets leave it as "mosque" until it can be shown that more reliable sources use the term "sunni mosque" than just "mosque".VR _talk 05:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

This is not my area of expertise, so am happy to defer to those who are more familiar with the issue. We can all agree that it is a mosque though. Mjroots (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• The Conversation refers to the importance of specifically Sunni Islam in its article on the subject. Contrary to the claims above, the minarets typically indicate a Sunni place of worship; Shi'as traditionally took the instruction of Muhammad that Bilal should give the adhan "from the roof" literally. GPinkerton (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  That assertion that is contradicted by looking at pictures of Shia mosques: Imam Ali Mosque, Al Husayn Mosque, Imam Reza Shrine, Jamkaran Mosque.VR _talk 01:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  In fact, the assertion is strengthened by looking at such mosques. Not only does every one of them state the affiliation with Shiism in the infobox, to which VR has been opposed here on the grounds that "What might apply in Christianity won't necessarily apply to Islam", but all of them have their minarets either side of pishtaq, nothing like Hagia Sophia's detached towers. Furthermore, in Iran, the minarets were not traditionally used for adhan, as I have said and as can be seen, for instance, by looking at the Shah Mosque or by consulting the sources: Hattstein, Markus; Delius, Peter (2013) [2000]. Islam: Art and Architecture. Innovative Logistics Llc. p. 513. ISBN 978-3-8480-0380-8. GPinkerton (talk) 02:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  Do you have any reliable sources that back up your claim that Hagia Sophia's detached minarets are a distinctly Sunni thing? This was not in the source you cited. And even so, that is an aesthetic attribute, not a religious one. Finally, the common term used by scholarly sources is that Hagia Sophia was transformed into a "mosque" as opposed to "Sunni mosque".VR _talk 04:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  even so, that is an aesthetic attribute, not a religious one Is that so? Is aesthetics the justification for alterations made to the building. We don't need reliable sources to say the WP:SKY is blue. We already know the Ottomans were a Sunni dynasty and their caliphate was a Sunni caliphate and their caliphal mosque was a Sunni mosque. I'm curious as to whether you'd like the "Religious Affiliation" in the infobox of the Sultan Ahmed Mosque to be changed. There are no reliable sources cited. Or the Imam Ali Mosque, the Al Husayn Mosque, the Imam Reza Shrine, or the Jamkaran Mosque, all of which you yourself called Shia mosques. Are you really proposing that there is no such thing as a Shia mosque when you yourself refer to them as such, or are you proposing that the Blue Mosque is somehow less Sunni than the Ottoman caliphate's mosque only a few hundred metres away? This is special pleading, without question. GPinkerton (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also there should be a policy that users are allowed to have less precise language on the talk page of an article than the article itself. In fact, when you linked to WP:SKY, I think what you meant is WP:SKYBLUE. And I'm not disputing whether the Ottomans were Sunnis, they clearly were. But is the description of it as a "Sunni mosque" really WP:DUE when almost all sources describe it simply as a "mosque"? In fact, in the recent controversy, I don't recall a single news article describing its new status as a "Sunni mosque". A google books search doesn't give much of a connection between Hagia Sophia and the Sunni branch. If you find a source that says the Ottoman additions followed a distinctly Sunni style, that would actually be useful information to describe at Hagia_Sophia#Mosque_(1453–1935).VR _talk 11:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Your position is not tenable. Reliable sources overwhelmingly refer to Hagia Sophia as a church. Does that mean we should refer to it as such? The recent change is not very important (though it is a fact that the Diyanet is a Sunni organization) but it is very odd to insist on excluding the obvious fact that it was a Sunni mosque for many centuries. GPinkerton (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources that refer to Hagia Sophia as an "Orthodox Church" or "Orthodox Cathedral".

And since the Ottoman Empire leaned towards the Hanafi maddhab, would you also call the mosque a "Sunni Hanafi mosque"? And if it can be shown that the Ottomans followed Ash'ari theology, would you add that to the name too? VR _talk 03:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy to refer to it as an orthodox church throughout the article, but I suspect you'd object (possibly with actual reasoning this time). And no, there's no reason to insert any irrelevant details on law or theology. The identity of the controlling sect is plenty. You don't see the words Nicene Chalcedonian Homoosian Dyophysite anywhere, do you? Neither have you explained why you think it's alright for the Blue Mosque and the Shah Mosque to be described as "Sunni" and "Shia" respectively, but you're somehow getting upset if another mosque is described in exactly the same way for exactly the same reasons. GPinkerton (talk) 04:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2020

Ottoman Turkish: آياصوفيۀ كبير جامع شريفى

Tahmet (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Turkish already included, Arabic script not needed here. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tahmet: I see that you changed answered back to no at 14:19 25 July 2020 (UTC).[11] Please could you explain your reasoning.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I have made several other request about the issue however there is no answers for a long time. The reply in this answer states that there is no need for the Arabic script. The problem is that the requested text includes the name of the building in Ottoman Turkish script which is the source for the modern spelling. Therefore it is not redundant. --Tahmet (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add the Ottoman Turkish name since the modern official Turkish name is transcribed via the Ottoman original.Tahmet (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2020

(Template:Lang-tr) Tahmet (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Please change the name in modern Turkish as shown above since the official and grammatically correct name of the building is represented with long vowels and hyphen as in the label on the yard wall of the building.

The long vowels are not part of the Turkish alphabet and need not be marked. Sources overwhelmingly write the Turkish name without the use of them. GPinkerton (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: do not make duplicate requests. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

OP blocked from this page for making duplicate requests and reactivating them after being declined. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Myths and legend

Greetings Axxxion, What do you mean "it's not of importance". It's good at highlighting the political importance of the structure in history. Also what do you mean with "Not in English" which you added to your edit summary. --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• I said it is "not relevant to the section", which is "History". The latter is chronologically arranged, therefore the subsection you propose destroys it as it is neither chronological nor is it history in fact.Axxxion (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

That's why I added it to the end of the History section as to not destroy the chronological order of the rest, because those Myths and Legends are part of History. Or do you propose to move it somewhere else? --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest the myths and legends do not warrant a separate section. Instead the myths and legends should be inserted into the "history" section in the correct chronological place, relative to the time in which they were believed and written down. There is a common misconception that "history" = "what happened". In fact, "history" = "what is written down [about the past]". GPinkerton (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it should be added to the History section. I added a separate paragraph to showcase the difference in Legends and Myths but adding them chronologically under Byzantine or Ottoman history I have no problem with. --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem with that either as long as it is relevant to the narration and context. Methinks, some legends are in fact in there already.Axxxion (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and we already list several things which are very probably untrue in the history section, but it's still worth mentioning as part of its history because it shows what was believed and how it affected culture, which is also history. GPinkerton (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

hagian sofia is a prime example of structure conversion from other religons to Islam

It is not like a simple church that has been converted to mosque. It used to be the biggest church for a very long time and it used to be the most important church in the orthodox Christianity. So in that regard, I think it symbolised the phenomena of Muslim converting other religious houses of worshiping and it should be mention in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.102.238.124 (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

--- go ahead if you can reference a valid and notable opinion, reliably sourced.Axxxion (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you implying only Muslims converted religious sites? Christian Empires and Kingdoms also converted many religious sites into churches too. Not just Muslims. For example the Byzantine Empire converted many holy Pagan sites into churches. This was a common practice to adopt the sacred places of other traditions when power relations changed. For example the Parthenon on the Athenian Acropolis, that ancient temple was transformed into a church in the 6th century. Or the Pantheon in Rome turned into a church at the beginning of the 7th century. Last but not least the Cathedral of Cordoba, which was a former grand mosque. Cheers --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

That's irrelevant, no one is implying that. Islamizing buildings is a practice noteworthy in itself and we have an article devoted to the subject. We have articles on both the Muslim and the Christian phenomena, and on Interpretatio Graeca. Hagia Sophia is unquestionably the most important, as well as probably the largest, church ever turned into a mosque. (Also we have a whole article on the period in which the Dome of the Rock was a Christian church and also the Parthenon was also made a mosque by the Ottomans.) GPinkerton (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Alright thanks for clarifying that. --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

So can we put back the sentence "It is also an important example of the Islamic practice of converting non-Islamic places of worship into mosques.[6][7][8]"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.102.238.124 (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Certainly if you have a valid and notable opinion by a scholar. --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Aykaç, Pınar (2018-05-04). "Contesting the Byzantine Past: Four Hagia Sophias as Ideological Battlegrounds of Architectural Conservation in Turkey". Heritage & Society. 11 (2): 151–178. doi:10.1080/2159032X.2019.1670502. ISSN 2159-032X. GPinkerton (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Then be my guest. Cheers --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

This was added in a neutral way here, but then inexplicably removed by GPinkerton.VR _talk 05:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

It was added in a way that obscured the point entirely. GPinkerton (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

1931-1935?

No description has been entered for the condition of the building between 1931-1935 in the information box. What can be written? Could it be a "Secularized mosque" or "Mosque (in renovation)"? - Aybeg (talk) 09:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Neither. It was closed, so wasn't functioning as either mosque or museum (or church). GPinkerton (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Grammatical error

Regarding the section "from 1204 to 1261, when it became the Roman Catholic cathedral": unless this building was the only cathedral in the Roman Catholic church from 1204 to 1261, "the Roman Catholic cathedral" should be changed to "a Roman Catholic cathedral".

 Already done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, this should be changed back and I will do so. It became the Roman Catholic cathedral. There was not more than one cathedral in Constantinople. GPinkerton (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Carpet sentence is not NPOV

It doesn't matter if its "reliably sourced" this sentence is not NPOV in the slightest "On 22 July, despite claims the fabric of the building would not be changed, the ancient marble floor was permanently obscured by a turquoise-coloured carpet;"

- It's not permanently obscured, it's literally a carpet you can pick it up and remove it (like they did when it was converted into a museum from a mosque.) Mosques change carpets all the time for cleaning and such.

-Nobody in their right mind thinks laying down a carpet is changing the fabric of the building.

-Were you expecting Muslims to bang their heads against a hard marble floor when going into prostration?

-Making a huge fuss about a carpet stinks of anti turkish sentiment

-No sentence is present in the entire source that sounds anything like this, makes any claims about it obscuring the building or ties this story back to the claims of the turkish government that they would not change the fabric of the building. All the article says is that there was a carpet installed so even your "reliably sourced information" isn't really reliably sourced at all.

Direct quote from the article the only one mentioning the carpet "A turquoise carpet had been laid on the floor to prepare for prayers and Christian relics were covered up with white drapes or obscured by lighting." FullMetal234 (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Good point. I changed it some. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Changed it up slightly to reflect the original article a bit better. Thank you! FullMetal234 (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

If it's not permanently obscured, when will this important part of the building be on display and publicly accessible again? If you don't think the floor of Hagia Sophia is an integral part of the ancient fabric of the building, you don't know much about the ancient fabric of the building ...

Furthermore, Hagia Sophia did not have a carpet for the first four decades of its use as a mosque, so are we expected to believe the Ottomans had more resilient foreheads than their modern descendents, or it it more a case of carpets not really being necessary when people are quite capable of carrying prayer mats? GPinkerton (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter, this is an inappropriate POV for an encyclopedia. We document what reliable sources say, not personal opinions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The Khatib didn't "brandish" the sword

Definition of brandish transitive verb

1: to shake or wave (something, such as a weapon) menacingly brandished a knife at them 2: to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner brandishing her intellect

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brandish#:~:text=Most%20of%20the%20time%20when,can%20brandish%20things%20other%20than

He simply had it with him while he was delivering the sermon no menacing shaking or waving can be observed from the livestream nor does the source article say he brandished the sword. Holding a sword/leaning on one while delivering the sermon is in accordance with the hanafi school of jurisprudence for establishing the friday prayer in any conquered city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FullMetal234 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

How does his action not fit the definition of"brandish" as "exhibit in an ostentatious manner". How much ostentatious can you be? When you hold a sword for the purpose of public display, you are brandishing it. GPinkerton (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

He was following the Hanafi school of jurisprudence, can you say for certain his reasoning was to brandish the sword and not to simply follow religious teachings? And the article you cite does not use the word brandish, thats a word you inserted which removes it from NPOV into POV territory. FullMetal234 (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

What his reasoning or lack of it was is entirely irrelevant. He brandished the sword. Whether he did it for religious reasons is completely unstated by the source. I have changed it back to idiomatic English. GPinkerton (talk) 04:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton's "armed" with a sword is OR. There's no evidence that sword was to be used as a weapon and the source indicates it may have been ceremonial. In any case, what is the point of including this? This is hardly encyclopedic material.VR _talk 16:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

How is it OR? A sword is a weapon and it is undeniable he delivered the sermon armed. He had a sword. That is being armed. A ceremonial weapon is still a weapon. GPinkerton (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

What's your evidence that it was done Ostentatiously can you judge a man's intentions? All we can say for certain in an NPOV way is he had a sword during the khutbah FullMetal234 (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

All we can say for certain in an NPOV way is he had a sword during the khutbah Yes. We can say he was armed.

can you judge a man's intentions? You don't need to know intent to qualify for description using that adverb. In any case, it was self-evidently "ostentatiously". He did it while publicly speaking to many people on an historic occasion, notable for its ostentation at an act event notable for its ostentation. What he intended is irrelevant, I don't know why you're bringing it in. Furthermore, not all English language usage is covered by your one abridged online American dictionary. No-one is required to prove to you that words Wikipedia uses fit your favoured definitions. GPinkerton (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

"No-one is required to prove to you that words Wikipedia uses fit your favoured definitions." yes you are especially when you are violating NPOV. FullMetal234 (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. He did not brandish the sword, just held it for the sermon. It's a common tradition for Friday sermons; some imams use swords, in some other countries they use canes or other long objects. If the imam had "brandished" the sword, he would have waved it around. That's the definition of "brandish", which is clearly not the case here (plus the word carries loaded connotations). Yekshemesh (talk) 07:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2020

Remove secular from lede, we not need this. Peacetowikied (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: appears as though this would be controversial. Please discuss and establish consensus for the proposed edit before proposing it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2020

I find it very strange that facts that cannot be confirmed are added in the main sections of the post. See below which section I reference.

In an apocryphal story described by Matthias Döring, Leonardo Benvoglienti, Filippo da Rimini, and Mathieu d'Escouchy, Mehmed perpetrated the rape of a girl inside the church.[90] Two Greek refugees, Thomas Eparkhos and Joseph Diplovatazes, appear to be the source of the narrative; their accounts were translated into German and Italian.[90] According to Filippo da Rimini, who compared the girl's fate to that of Cassandra at the Fall of Troy, Mehmed claimed it was his revenge for Cassandra's rape by Ajax the Lesser in Troy's Temple of Athena.[90] In the account to Mathieu d'Escouchy, the victim was a daughter of Constantine XI whom Mehmed had tried to convert to Islam, decapitating her and sending her head to her uncle when she refused.[90] As told by Matthias Döring, Mehmed raped the girl on the church's altar, while her father and brother were made to watch, and then dismembered them all the following day.[90] Leonardo Benvoglienti added that her brother was raped as well, before father, daughter and son were all killed on the altar itself.[90] The claim of the girl being the emperor's daughter is fictitious; Constantine XI did not have a daughter, and this detail was apparently invented to closer match the tragic fate of the Trojan king Priam and his daughter Cassandra.[90]

Surely this can be added in a separate section? I bet 99% of readers do not even know what apocryphal even means. Luqies (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Several people have already called out GPinkerton on this edit, at the very least he's added apocryphal even though I don't see what it has to do with the structure itself and why a random myth about sometime they allegedly happened inside the building is relevant to a general article about the building. FullMetal234 (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done, we need to establish consensus about this first. The story doesn't seem out of place to me, and whether readers understand the word "apocryphal" is not of much concern here. I would support trimming down the section though. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

This has already been debated extensively on the "Alleged rape at the altar" section please visit the discussion there FullMetal234 (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• That apocryphal and overlong story, which barely mentions the subject of this article and then only as a location, is totally out of place and I removed it. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Drmies FullMetal234 (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. The incident is vital to understanding the history of the place. @Drmies: The location of the incident is integral to its notability and long-standing impact on civilization. GPinkerton (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I would include the story, with its apocryphal status made absolutely clear. Its status as a widespread tale about what happened when the church was made into a mosque makes it relevant, and we should not contribute to the silence around rape that promotes denialism. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• I am sure you are not accusing me of silencing a rape--never mind that the story is apocryphal. There is actually nothing in the current text that says anything at all about some relation between the alleged rape and the church having become a mosque--not a thing. That, as GPinkerton claims, the story is "vital to the understanding of the place" is prima facie belied by the complete absence of any such discussion.

  But it's more interesting than that. If this content is to be in there, it shouldn't start with an alleged rape and pile on a bunch of awful detail about what a swinish rapist this guy was--especially not if it is a FALSE story, as (p. 38), a reading confirmed by Noel Malcolm in Useful Empires (p. 26). To put it another way, you can reintroduce this content if you make clear that this was a false story, an anti-Muslim lie used to incite Christian hatred against the "infidels" out of resentment over the fall of Constantinople, which was allegorically presented as a repetition of the fall of Troy. The way the content was presented here merely perpetrates that lie; it is not until the last sentence that we find out there was no daughter, and the only allegorical link made here is between Priam and Constantine. But the cited source, The Siege and the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, is quite clear in what the intent of the false story was--the chapter is called "Myths, Legends, and Tales", and leaving out the propagandistic purpose (carefully outlined over dozens of pages by Philippides and Hanak) while lifting just the one story, with the one single adjective "apocryphal", is deceptive at the very least. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

  • @Drmies: There is no evidence in the source you cited for the incidence being "FALSE", or it being a "anti-Muslim lie used to incite Christian hatred against the "infidels" out of resentment over the fall of Constantinople. The association of the Turks with Teucer and the association of the victim with Cassandra via Priam/Constantine were false and part of pre-existing narrative into which the Fall fitted, as Norman explains, and which as Norman points out, was not exclusively anti-Turkish. There is certainly no evidence of the entire report of rape in Hagia Sophia being deliberate propaganda from the start. Whether or not Mehmed personally participated in the (undeniable) mass rape that did take place is impossible to know, and for the article to suggest otherwise is very wrong, as it is to suggest that the whole idea should be be hidden from the Wikipedia reader's eyes despite its voluminous coverage then and now. Neither source you have cited says the whole story is untrue. In one the word "false" is applied to the sentence including "in revenge for the rape of Cassandra" while the other says "spurious" in relation to text that alleged the rape was "in order to revenge the rape of Cassandra". I do not understand how the association between Hagia Sophia and the Temple of Athena in Homeric literature could be considered not notable and not worthy of inclusion in the article. There is no way of escaping its importance in Europe and the Mediterranean. One of the main proponents was pope for crying out loud! What I think is deceptive at best is the idea that simply ignoring this entire department of human history and deleting the idea en masse simply because sympathetic readers might prefer to believe the conflicting falsehoods attached to the account of 29 May 1453 than the apparently more acceptable falsehoods of 1182, of 1204, and of 21 May 1453. No-one has tried to suggest alternative wording, so surely the term "whitewashing" is apt, given that no retouching, repainting, or rework of any kind has been so much as attempted. GPinkerton (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
    • "He (that is, Filippo da Rimini, --Drmies) also inserted into his report a (false) story that after entering the city, the sultan raped a Greek woman sheltering inside the church of Hagia Sophia". Seems pretty clear to me. "False" is quite different from "apocryphal". If you are claiming that the historian is saying "the rape was real but it was not some Trojan revenge", that's ridiculous. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
      • @Drmies: A clear case of selective quotation, since what Norman actually says is "He also inserted into his report a (false) story that after entering the city, the sultan raped a Greek woman sheltering inside the church of Hagia Sophia in revenge for the rape of Cassandra by Locrian Ajax". It emphatically does not say anything whatever about whether the rape(s) happened or whether or not Mehmed was responsible. GPinkerton (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
        • That's not Norman, that's Margaret Meserve, and your contention is indeed that "false" applies not to "story", which immediately follows it, but rather ONLY to the latter part of the sentence. That is ridiculous. It says the story is false. For you to say "oh it's only part of the story that's false", yeah. You might as well say "Meserve is arguing that they're thinking it was the other Ajax, not Ajax the Lesser". Come on now. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
          • My contention is no such thing. I am saying only what the the reliable sources say: two claimed eyewitnesses reported the incident, and more erudite Latinate sources mythologized it with reference to the Epic Cycle. Where is the problem in discussing the whole issue with reference to who said what about what Mehmed did to whom when? Even if your apparent argument that the source is saying Mehmed never raped anyone were correct, other sources treat the event as rather more historical than "false" - see:

Wheatcroft, Andrew (1995). The Ottomans: Dissolving Images. Penguin. p. 22. The Turks battered down the doors, and enslaved those at prayer. The very young and very old were killed on the spot, because they had no value in the slave market. Men were roped together, and many of the younger women were knotted in groups of two or three by their long hair, or with their girdles. Byzantine eyewitnesses told how young girls and boys were raped on altar tables, and the great church echoed with their screams

• • • • • • What is beyond dispute is that the stories attached to this building about the events of 1453 are highly notable and simply deleting them as though they were spam is not the right course, and neither is dreaming up pearl-clutching syntheses like "anti-Muslim lie". GPinkerton (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
            • I can't tell if with "pearl-clutching" you're trying to make a racist or sexist innuendo or not. The fun part is that you are arguing that people were raped and killed according to eyewitnesses, yet the article content we're discussing is only about one single false story. Your source actually doesn't mention the sultan raping anyone, so saying that "other sources treat the event as rather more historical" is just a lie": your source doesn't treat "the event" (the rape of Constantine's daughter by the sultan) at all. All it says is that Byzantine chroniclers report "young girls and boys" being raped on the altars--but that is quite another thing. (And it doesn't explain why the particular location is important, or why the event is important to the location.)

              So yes, that story is anti-Muslim propaganda. I'm sorry if that hits your sensitivity button, but it is what it is. If you want to insert some contextualized information about atrocities committed by the invaders, be my guest; that shouldn't be hard to do. But hanging on to this, that is not the way to go, and it makes one wonder about what is going on here: is this an attempt to claim that the Muslim "occupation" of the place was, from the beginning, some sort of atrocity perpetrated on Christianity? Drmies (talk) 03:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

              • @Drmies: Why should I be making any innuendo? You aspersions are unbecoming and I won't dignify them with any retort. Pearl-clutching is a perfectly normal expression, see: the dictionary. What exactly is your objection to the way the material was contextualized already? Why don't you suggest an alternative? The article content we're discussing in fact details four separate, but related, stories given by four different Renaissance authors, not one of whom invented the story, in widely dispersed parts of contemporary Europe. Furthermore, the source I quoted above does not, contrary to your claim, say anything about Byzantine chroniclers, but rather refers to the two purported eyewitnesses named in the article before the content was removed and from whom the west derived the story. You can read all about it in the sources cited. What is going on here? Not one of the sources uses the phrase "anti-Muslim lie" and it would not be in accordance with policy to use in the article, not least because the sources speak for many pages about it being directed at the Renaissance Turks as descendants of Teucer not Muslims per se. As for your question: is this an attempt to claim that the Muslim "occupation" of the place was, from the beginning, some sort of atrocity perpetrated on Christianity? the answer is yes, of course. This is very obviously a notable collection of instances of contemporary Europe's pre-occupation with exactly that narrative concerning that most famous of buildings and its laboured literary association with the Troy Cycle. From the beginning this is why it should be included and why I have been mystified as to 1.) this article is not already discuss this, and 2.) why it has been removed wholesale while thoroughly sourced. GPinkerton (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
                • GPinkerton, I have the feeling that you are confusing yourself with contemporary Christian commentators. They may have claimed this atrocity was characteristic of the Turks/Muslims/Easterners, but you needn't do so. I see now that earlier, when User:TomHennell objected to this bit, you also claimed (incorrectly) that Meserve's "false" applies not to the word "story" but to some part of the sentence that you determined to be the right target of the adjective. There also you tenaciously held on to the thought that this "apocryphal" story should be in here. No, the sources I pointed at don't say "anti-Muslim lie"--literally. They don't need to, and either way I am not proposing that phrase be placed in the article. But you also talk, here, about the Troy association, as if that is an important part of the article--it is not. None of it is mentioned in the article, except for in the section you keep edit-warring over, so the argument that your paragraph should be in there because Troy matters so much is specious. Besides, it's not the building that matters there; it's the Turks/Teucers, and the city/empire as a whole, not this building. And of course these are not "separate, but related" stories: they're all the same story, with differing details. Finally, you keep saying "thoroughly sourced"--well, it seems to me that Meserve is the greatest authority on the matter, and it also seems to me that you did not actually listen to TomHennell's comments, above. I agree in particular with this one claim, that you are "nit-picking about how the contrary opinions of notable scholars might be re-interpreted to say something other than their plain meaning".

                  So here is my proposal: right now nothing in your paragraph adds anything to our understanding of the Haga Sophia. Moreover, the language is tendentious. (And sloppy--your four commentators don't "describe" a story, they "relate" one.) It is overloaded with salacious (invented) detail, and I wonder why you wouldn't have replaced "apocryphal" with "false". Your source, Philippides and Hanak, doesn't use the word, so I am puzzled why you didn't update the section after the last discussion, with Bisaha as a source. No, all of it sounds hollow, and to call my objection "pearl-clutching", when you misinterpret the sources and hang on to all this salacious detail when you know it's false and over the objection of three editors, that's just rich. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

                  • "They may have claimed this atrocity was characteristic of the Turks/Muslims/Easterners, but you needn't do so." Please assume good faith and do not make personal attacks. Nothing in the article or anything I have said suggests anything remotely like that. "you also claimed (incorrectly) that Meserve's "false" applies not to the word "story" but to some part of the sentence that you determined to be the right target of the adjective" This is simply your opinion but it does not reflect my position. Meserve says the story as recounted by da Rimini is "false". There is silence on the story of the two refugees, which as is discussed at length in Philippides and Hanak, is not the same as da Rimini's. "There also you tenaciously held on to the thought that this "apocryphal" story should be in here." Yes, because the article is filled with apocrypha which have over the years accreted into the cultural understanding of Hagia Sophia. Others include: 1.) the claim of Hesychius that the first church was on the site of former pagan temples (uncorroborated by earlier sources and disproven archaeologically) 2.) the claim that Justinian said "Solomon I have outdone thee" when the third church was finished (a story which appears for the first time in a collection of fables some five centuries after the purported event) 3.) the claim that Gregory Thaumaturgus "appeared" (this is actually said in Wikivoice) at the sweating column in the aisle in the north-eastern corner of the basilica, after near a millennium of being dead and buried (obvious pious fraud) 4.) the claim that during the pillage of 1204 a draught animal was disembowelled in the struggle to remove the silver plate of the chancel barrier and that a woman literally possessed by devils was installed on the synthronon as the altar was smashed (prima facie bizarre, uncorroborated by anyone and only claimed by a Byzantine refugee who in quick succession had lost: his friend the erstwhile emperor, his job as a senator under the new emperor, his grace-and-favour palace that went with his old job, his second home, and his home city while not being an eyewitness to any of what he describes about Hagia Sophia) 5.) the flight of white hawk that according to the very same author was an omen of an emperor's demise (whose emperor's reign had not yet even begun), 6.) the account of the holy ghost visibly leaving the building a week before the 1453 sack, 7.) the utter myth concerning Theophilus and the doors - need I go on? There is no reason not to include things which are not "true": their historical importance is what is relevant. The page Reichstag fire contains a number of certainly false claims, yet it is not purged of them, because the people who made the claims are notable and their claims were historically consequential. Ultimately, historians are so remote from the events that deciding whether something is absolutely true or absolutely false is not possible (without archaeology). "I am not proposing that phrase be placed in the article." Good, because I read your statement "you can reintroduce this content if you make clear that this was a false story, an anti-Muslim lie used to incite Christian hatred" as implying that. On the issue of the association with Troy, I am not misinterpreting the sources! It's quite wrong to say "the city/empire as a whole, not this building" - the Renaissance's narrative is more subtle than you suppose (did you read Philippides and Hanak?): in Homer the rape of Cassandra happens in the Temple of Athena in Troy, which is a crucial turning point of the plot of the subsequent Cycle. In the Humanists' works, this was elided - to increase the tragoedic effect - with a different Homeric scene in a different temple where Priam is killed, so that father is witness to the rape of the daughter and daughter witness to the death of the father. To embellish the narrative of rape as set down in translation from the Greek accounts of the refugees, the Renaissance authors incorporated some of these tropes but never all, because they don't fit the facts. The claim "four commentators don't "describe" a story, they "relate" one"" is not correct. "Describe" means "write down". All four commentators wrote down their stories: so describing it. I wonder why you wouldn't have replaced "apocryphal" with "false". Your source, Philippides and Hanak, doesn't use the word, so I am puzzled why you didn't update the section after the last discussion, with Bisaha as a source. Sources (that question the accounts) overwhelmingly describe the accounts as "apocryphal", not "false". I would be quite happy to cite Bisaha as source in the article, just as I did in the discussion above. As you know, there is no reason for censorship on Wikipedia, and the removal of apocrypha which might be deemed salacious by the censorious is not justified by policy. (No comment on the drunken prostitute on the patriarch's throne in 1204?) GPinkerton (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Full protection

It seems that an edit war has broken out. Therefore I've fully protected the article at Admin level and the "wrong version" ^TM When the dispute has been thrashed out and a consensus reached, I intend to permanently semi-protect the article. Mjroots (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Damn. This blocked an important edit I was making. GPinkerton (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton:, you'll have to put in an edit request then. Mjroots (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Please add the following text as the first heading under "Architecture":

Floor

The stone floor of Hagia Sophia dates from the 6th century. After the first collapse of the vault, the broken dome was left in situ on the original Justinianic floor and a new floor laid above the rubble when the dome was rebuilt in 558. From the installation of this second Justinianic floor, the floor became part of the liturgy, with significant locations and spaces demarcated in various ways with different coloured stones and marbles.

The floor is predominantly of Proconnesian marble, quarried on Proconnesus (Marmara Island) in the Propontis (Sea of Marmara). This was the main white marble used in Constantinople's monuments. Other parts of the floor were quarried in Thessaly in Roman Greece: the Thessalian verd antique "marble". The Thessalian verd antique bands across the nave floor were often likened to rivers.

The floor was praised by numerous authors and repeatedly compared to a sea. The Justinianic poet Paul the Silentiary compared the ambo and the solea connecting it with the sanctuary to an island in a sea, with the sanctuary itself a harbour. The 9th-century Narratio as "like the sea or the flowing waters of a river". Michael the Deacon in the 12th century also described the floor as a sea in which the ambo and other liturgical furniture stood as islands. In the 15th century conquest of Constantinople, the Ottoman caliph Mehmed is said to have ascended to the dome and the galleries in order to admire the floor, which according to Tursun Beg resembled "a sea in a storm" or a "petrified sea". Other Ottoman-era authors also praised the floor; Tâcîzâde Cafer Çelebi compared it to waves of marble. The floor was hidden beneath a carpet on 22 July 2020.

GPinkerton (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done - GPinkerton - I think I've got it in the right place now. Let me know if it's not. Mjroots (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Edit request, 25 Aug

@Mjroots: Could a hyphen be added to "15th century" per MOS:HYPHEN? Thanks, 207.161.86.162 (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Mjroots (talk) 05:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 September 2020

Please change {{pp-full}} to {{pp-dispute}} ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Unprotected

Following discussion at WP:AN, I've unprotected the article. This does not give editor carte blanche to resume their edit war. I will not hesitate to block individual editors from this page if the disruption continues. I have this page watchlisted, so consider yourselves warned. Mjroots (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Originally I asked that the page be semi-protected, since the politics of the subject are intractable and unresolved and will likely attract more unwelcome attention in future. GPinkerton (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Armed or holding?

This is the exact wording of the source: During a sermon, Turkey's religious affairs agency president, Ali Erbas, held up a sword in an apparent reference to Ottoman traditions. It does not use the word 'armed'. The word isn't necessarily wrong, but it's unnecessary and has the potential to imply something which isn't in the source - 'holding' is fine. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 14:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)