![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Hello !
You have mentioned in the article and I quote 'For almost 500 years the principal mosque of Istanbul, Hagia Sophia served as a model for many of the Ottoman mosques such as the Sultan Ahmed Mosque (Blue Mosque of Istanbul), the Şehzade Mosque, the Süleymaniye Mosque, the Rüstem Pasha Mosque, and the Kılıç Ali Paşa Mosque.'
I write to question the reason for omitting the mention of Mosque in the description of Hagia Sophia!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tourniqueto ( talk • contribs) 08:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
the black-and-white photograph of the Hagia Sophia is NOT a "depiction" of the mosque in Byzantine times. There were NO PHOTOGRAPHS in the time of the Byzantine Empire. CMEHalverson ( talk) 18:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
This is absolutely true. Even if photographs were to exist, the two buttresses on the facade would not be there - they were added much later. Please delete the picture. 216.165.54.7 ( talk) 02:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems this page does not mention that Mehmed II used Hagia Sofia as a stable for his horses before it was converted to a mosque. <OT redaction> 96.246.108.168 ( talk) 21:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you reference the assertion and include it in the article with citation. Mavigogun ( talk) 02:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The article says that the cathedral was dedicated in 360AD. It goes on to say "It was the largest cathedral in the world for nearly a thousand years, until Seville Cathedral was completed in 1520." That's well over 1000 years. I note also that the article on Seville Cathedral says "At the time of its completion in the 16th century, it supplanted the Hagia Sophia as the largest cathedral in the world. Previously, the Hagia Sophia had held the title for more than a thousand years." Is there some reason this article does not agree? treesmill ( talk) 05:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I just made an edit to the page, but accidentally did not include details on the edit, so I thought I would add them here. First, thank you to all the contributors; this is an excellent and informative page. My main contribution was to add details on the structure's final time as a Church and initial time as a Mosque as part of the fall of Constantinople in 1453. This was not addressed previously in the article. In addition, I made a slight correction to the “Mosque” section. It previously stated that the church doors had fallen off. This is not really accurate, as it leaves the impression that they fell off in some passive way (for example from neglect or disrepair), while in reality they were knocked down during the siege of city. In the “Transition between Church and Mosque” section I have provided references on the doors being knocked down. I primarily used three references in researching the new section, though two were written by the same author so should not really be considered independent. I was only able to find one other author to check this information against (Ali and Spencer reference), but they covered the scene in such brevity there was not much to pull from it. I did not include any of the more fanciful aspects of the scene (such as omens involving Hagia Sophia that were interpreted as predicting the city’s fall, priests disappearing into the walls to hide sacred vessels…), even though they showed up consistently in the sources and provide insight on how the conversion of Hagia Sophia was understood by people at the time. These items seemed a bit off topic, but I am interested in other people’s opinions on this. Regards, Domichael. -- Domichael ( talk) 04:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
This is certainly a difficult section, and I appreciate the thought that the reviewers have given it. I believe it is a key point in the history of the structure and we should do our best to catalog it. Alessandro57 mentioned the story of the Sultan stopping a solider from harming the floor; my sources did not state that he killed the solider, but this basic story is corroborated by at least one of the sources I cite. In fact, as was customary at the time, the sultan held that all building structures (floors, walls, etc) were off limits because all buildings were to be his property. Unfortunately, this was left out of his initial proclomation of pilliage to the soliders, and according to those same sources, he did not enforce it until he entered Hagia Sophia itself, well after the initial pillage (1-3 days after, depending on the source). As for the doors, every source I found that discusses this event says they were broken through. I did not research the doors specifically, perhaps someone could look into it (were the doors Dinkytown saw were refurbished?)? Mavigogun's suggestion seems like a sensible one. I have done my best to present a fully sourced depiction of the scene. Unpleasant though it is, the sources are credible (cambridge university press, for example) and my reporting is true to them. Cheers, Domichael ( talk) 02:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Domichale —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domichael ( talk • contribs) 02:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Critique of relevance and content of material related to the church restoration campaign prompted my edits to reflect more appropriately the weight of the material; in doing so, the material was moved and merged in the History subjection relating to the structure's current use. At the same time, entry details were added. Mavigogun ( talk) 08:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I removed the portion of the article that claimed that the Sultan Mehmed II laid siege to the city in part to convert it to Islam. This claim was based on a book co-written by an Islamophobe, Robert Spencer, who is not an expert on medieval Turkish history. Furthermore, the Sultan allowed the Greek and other Christian churches to live peacefully in the city. The Greek patriarchate is still in Istanbul today. It was also this same sultan who allowed Armenians to establish their own church in the city, which had not been allowed before during the Byzantine times[ [1]]. Lugalbanda ( talk) 23:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm surprised at how dated this section is - by at least 100 years! Isn't it now accepted that the original 532AD dome was nothing like the 558AD dome - that it has no pendentives and was a vast, probably windowless, domical vault? The pendentives are simply the only surviving parts of the original, mathematically and aesthetically pure, domical vault. Scribblescribblescribble ( talk) 23:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
There are several contradictions in this article. The first is if the Hagia Sophia was instantly converted to a Mosque why then would there be 3 days of pillaging? It stands to reason that pillagers who would seek to defile and desecrate the Hagia Sophia then all symbols of Christianity in the building would be destroyed and/or removed.
Pillaging of Constantinople and it's centers of religious worship did happen but not by the Ottomans as much as we would like to believe. The holy army assembled for the 4th crusade is the group who defiled the Hagia Sophia and removed many artifacts of the church.
It is also a discourse that the 4th crusade is not mentioned since the Vatican recently apologized to the Greek Orthodox church about it's actions during the 4th crusade. Do we vilify the Ottomans while conveniently ignoring the actions of Rome during the 4th crusade?
It would also stand to reason that internationally circulated sources that are free from Greek & Turkish bias do not mention this pillaging of either Hagia Sophia and to a greater extent Constantinople (Istanbul. (2010). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved November 23, 2010, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/296962/Istanbul). AussieSkeptic82 ( talk) 04:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Hallo, as I told you, I will contact an administrator. About your change, the first part is correct (Hagia Sophia was converted after an order of the Sultan), the second not, and according to me it constitutes vandalism. Runciman can you read yourself, Müller-Wiener, which you apparently don't know, writes: "Hagia Sophia wurde von Mehmed durch ein hier abgehaltenen Gebet für dem Islamischen Kult übernommen und zur Hauptmoschee der Stadt umgewandelt", which is what Runciman writes. About your objection, a mosque is nothing more than a congregation hall where the Muslims pray together. There is nothing "magic" about the transformation. Everywhere, also in Istanbul, they exist a lot of mosques without Mihrab, Minbar, and the like. The example about the train station makes also no sense. Here we talk about history, that means, what actually happened in Constantinople, not a video game. Cheers, Alex2006 ( talk) 05:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Traslation of Müller-Wiener: "Unmittelbar nach der Einstürmung der Stadt am 29.05.1453 wird die Kirche von Sultan Mehmed durch ein hier abgehaltenes Gebet für den Islamischen Kult übernommen und zur Hauptmoschee der Stadt umgewandelt" => "Immediately after the conquest of the city on 29.05.1453 the church is taken over for the Islamic cult by Sultan Mehmed II by means of a prayer recited there and converted into the main mosque of the city"
I would cite also Franz Babinger, the maximum authority about Mehmed:...Then the sultan commanded one of these present to go up into the pulpit and proclaim the Moslem creed: La ilaha illallah: Muhammad rasulullah. "There is no God but God. Mohammed is God's Prophet" The faithful were summoned to the afternoon prayer. Mehmed himself, we are told, leaped up on the altar and performed his devotion. With this the byzantine Hagia Sophia ceased to be a Christian Church and became a Moslem Mosque, henceforth known as Aya Sofya. (Franz Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror and his time Princeton, 1978 , pg. 96) .
Alex2006 ( talk) 05:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Mehmet II actualy plastered over the mosaics, so the article says. Now why would someone out to "erase all of christinanity" (said by the article) plaster over the mosaics? Surely one would simply remove the mosaics... I belive this should be added. Tugrulirmak ( talk) 06:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Imehling ( talk · contribs): could you explain the rationale behind replacing the other photo, which seemed to me clear and useful (showed "Islamic elements on the ceiling"), with the current one, which is dark and hard to make out any detail whatsoever? Elizium23 ( talk) 09:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Hallo
I removed - twice - the "artistic rendition" of Hagia Sophia in Byzantine time. It is already the third or fourth time in the last years that this image - or a similar one - is added to the article, and the reason for the removal is always the same. This is NOT an image of the building during the byzantine age. The buttresses shown there are partially ottoman, the domes in foreground too: The color of the building dates from the restoration of Fossati. That's why I named this picture a time patchwork. I really would welcome a picture which renders a faithful reconstruction of Hagia Sophia during the byzantine empire, but what is regularly inserted here is unworthy of an encyclopedia. If someone does not agree with me, we can start a discussion here. Cheers, Alex2006 ( talk) 06:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Thats only part of the story. While its true that the Hagia Sophia is still officially only a museum and therefore can not be used as a church, a part of the building is used as an islamic prayer room (officially for Muslims who work in this "museum", but is also widely used by muslim tourist fe.) and the minaretts are used in the last years again for the islamic prayer call of the muezzin.-- 77.117.22.148 ( talk) 22:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I have made various edits to the Architecture section including adding some references and clarifying some wording. The architecture/dome sections were slightly cross-polinated so i cleaned that up a bit. I cleaned up "The dome is supported by pendentives which had never been used before the building of this structure a bit. Removed "Another probable change in the design of the dome"... unnecessary. I changed "supported in part by 40 arched windows" to "resting on 40 arched windows"- any part of the structure could be said to be supporting the dome 'in part'- I just thought that was unnecessary, and also it does not describe exactly where the 40 windows are located, and while that may be easily inferable, I think "resting on" indicates more precisely their location. Let me know how this section could be further improved, because I think it still leaves a lot to be desired. Ahp378 ( talk) 20:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
According to the following, "Papa Lefteris Noufrakis officiated at this complete Divine Liturgy in Hagia Sophia in 1919, 466 years after the previous Divine Liturgy of May 29, 1453.". There seems to be more information in the following Greek article (a translation by Google can be accessed here, although it doesn't appear to be very good). I think there could be a mention somewhere in the article when the last Liturgy took place. Cody7777777 ( talk) 14:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
This peace for the mosque is full of lies you need to learn history from the Turks....It's not the Turks but crusades plundered the H.Sophia as well as the city.. Learn some history and don not deceive people please... http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/constantinople-an-empty-symbol.aspx?pageID=238&nID=14025&NewsCatID=438
Unsigned remark transferred by JoJan ( talk) 14:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Just because the crusades plundered Hagia Sophia, it did not mean that the Ottomans did not.
IceDragon64 ( talk) 00:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Really? From the year 360 until 1453? The demonym "Greek" was valid in all this time? Was Constantine(s) Greek BTW? -- E4024 ( talk) 11:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
As it stood today, when I looked at the article there was no explanation of what a "lustration urn" is or what it was used for. I have "Been Bold", and glossed lustration as "ritual purification", but please would someone who knows more about this add to, or correct, what I have written? I am not clear if we can link Lustration to Lustrum or not? It does not seem appropriate to link it to Lustration. Maybe we need a new stub article explaining what this kind of urn is and what it was used for? Thanks, Invertzoo ( talk) 14:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Needs more on minerets including pix.
IceDragon64 ( talk) 00:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
The largest eight columns are between 9 and 11 meter, the four massive piers (who are also called columns sometimes) who support the dome are between 23-25 meter in height. Here is a picture to show their part in the building. DragonTiger23 ( talk) 17:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Another info that would be worth being mentioned, but with a RS, concerns the minarets: although the status of the building did not change, since a couple of years they are used again to transmit the muezzin prayer. About two years ago I reverted an anonymous user who inserted the info, thinking that he was dreaming, but I have to admit now that he is right, since I heard it in March and again in May. Alex2006 ( talk) 10:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Hallo
,
I moved the two references about the first consecration of the church in articl's body, where it already was, although Müller-Wiener already cites these two primary sources. In the next days I will recover Janin's Geographie at the library, to check what he really says.
Alex2006 (
talk)
06:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
On the whole this is a brilliant article - however the 'mosque' section is problematic, it's not as NPOV as it could be and it uses quite emotional language. Can I rewrite it to make it more neutral? The first link [26] is from a book written by Robert Spencer, if you don't know who he is feel free to google. Hardly a neutral source! There is other things i'd like to clean up if it's OK. Oxr033 ( talk) 21:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
46.197.118.18 ( talk) 04:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)There is also the mention of the "bigger" Blue Mosque or Sultanahmet Mosque, which is not correct. The Blue Mosque encloses a smaller space as well as a smaller diameter of its dome.
Hagia Sophia is a landmark of Istanbul (Turkey). So, consistently with all the naming of landmarks worldwide, the name of the country when it now stands is the first. This of course does not imply that it has been built by Turks. Alex2006 ( talk) 11:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I gave two: Zeyrek Mosque, Bodrum Mosque. Both have infobox, and no Greek name there. About the three that you give, Hagia Irene has only the common name, the Monastery of Stoudios is an article about the monastery, not the church building, has no info box, and -moreover - the church building has been converted again into a mosque last month. Pammakaristos has no infobox and the article deals mainly with the parekklesion. Inconsistency in the lead of Hagia Sophia has been previously addressed: derives from the etymology. About your main arguments, you brought already a couple in the discussion, and each time that I confute one, you abandon it and look for another. I think that it is now slowly coming the time for you to drop the stick :-). Alex2006 ( talk) 10:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
You write that "most scholars, books, and sources refer to the Hagia Sophia by its Greek name" This is not true, since the most important works which describe the building in its whole history (Müller-Wiener, Eyice, Mamboury, and, among the guides, Freely), either do not cite the greek name at all, or, when they do it, as in Müller-Wiener, cite it after the turkish one. About what you write at the end, it just shows that you don't know how wikipedia works. Any attempt to change an article without reaching a consensus on the part of someone who wants to change it, will result in the opening of an incident against this person. Listen to me and ask for a third opinion. Bye, Alex2006 ( talk) 07:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again. -- ` ( talk) 08:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Correct. It is Chora (a small inattention for someone interested in the City :-)), and there we have the turkish name (Kariye) as only one in the lead list. Chora is not a "special case": the problem is that, being Chora - as Hagia Sophia - a very well known building, the article has been written very soon in wikipedia, and the lead has never been harmonised with the others. In other words, there has never been a pattern in the case of Museums of Istanbul and, as a matter of fact, as far as I know no general work which deals with the complete history of the byzantine buildings in Istanbul makes a difference in nomenclature among mosques, ex-mosques, museums, and so on. All these building, known as Kilise-Camiler, follow the same pattern. In their wikipedia articles we use the common name in english (which is mostly the turkish one) as the article's name, and then as alternate names in the lead the turkish name. You can check it, following the links given in this template:
. So, if we want to harmonise Hagia Sophia and the other 2-3 buildings to this rule, the only way is putting the turkish name as first in the list of the alternate names in the lead. As I said before, this is what the most eminent scholars and divulgators do in their general works. Alex2006 ( talk) 10:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Viriditas ( talk · contribs) 02:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
WP:NOTAFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The English name is Ayasofya. Please stop calling the greatest Chalcedon Orthodox Church a "Hag" named Sophie. Rome was Jealous of the design of Notre-Dame. So jealous that when it leaked who was designing and building it, the Pope in Vatican started the Inquisitions in 1184 AD to hunt down and kill the Hahraahm Abis Architects designing and building Notre Dame, and then mobilize Crusades to invade Turkey, Lebonon, Syria, and destroy the Cathedral Buttressed Mosques the architects were building there. This destruction causes Mosques to go back to dome shaped roofs. And the period needed for the erasing of Arabic Cathedrals is the reason it took several hundred years, multiple intentionally spread plagues, for the Catholics to resume and complete Notre Dame in France to remove Turkic and other races claims. "Roman" architecture was not revived by Gothics, Gothics tortured trained with and then genocided Turkic and Moorish peoples for the sake of Catholic Rome to falsely claim and uninterrupted transmission of Stone Masonry that was completely Aramaika, Turkic, Arabic, and then through Culture cleansing stolen and claimed as Roman even though everything in Rome existed in Turkey Egypt Lebonon Syria Jordan long before it was copied into one "Small World" Exhibit called Rome. Steal the Gods, then Steal their arts, then destroy their names, until they are lost in history. If you care at all about history, tourism, or travel and do not support the destruction of foreign cultures. Then please use an English name and spelling. "Ayasofya" is how the name is spelled in English. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng--WLT0Xjc ~ Hagia Sofia/Sancta Sophia is Catholic Anti-Tourism toward nations and landmarks they want to corrupt as their own creations and namings. ~ Look up "Latin" sometime. It has nothing to do with language roots, and everything to do with the clever replacement of European alphabets with the limited accent system of Rome. It used to be FRIPS, now more languages due to Microsoft keyboards have adopted the early Latin letters 104 keyboards use to spell their own words and dialects = false etymology of Vatican Catholic Latin as the root languages in Europe when they are Russian and Turkic etc. Do morally correct thing. This English article should read "Ayasofya" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng--WLT0Xjc No native English speaker will read this articles name and pronounce the Catholic "Hag" or French "Hagia" as "Aya". The Country is Turkey. The Wiki is English. Remember Aaron Swartz and do what is right, not what is conformist to a 25% Catholic US (Census.gov "Religion") corruption of History and Education for the sake of Catholic Capitalism and defeat of Foreign = non-Catholic Tourism. SecretJournalsofCongress ( talk) 19:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I have reported this user to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I suggest we ignore him/her. Myrvin ( talk) 13:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC) |
I suggest that the Latin name for the building be moved to later in the lede, and more emphasis placed on the similarity between the classical Greek and modern Turkish names. It should also be made more clear when Latin was used. Rwood128 ( talk) 16:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
The name Ayasofya Museum is the one used in English and therefore both more logical and appropriate (I had considered using the Turkish -- but this article is in English). My reason for suggesting moving the Latin name is to place more emphasis on the similarity between the modern Turkish and the classical Greek. I presume that the Latin was only used briefly in the past, though I agree that it needs to be acknowledged. Rwood128 ( talk) 17:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry if I jumped the gun before the discussion was completed. A couple of questions:
Also you don't really address my concerns.
Rwood128 ( talk) 18:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC).
COMMONNAME is Hagia Sophia by the way. elmasmelih 18:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
In Istanbul? That's interesting. Is this the Turkish pronunciation of Ayasofya? Rwood128 ( talk) 20:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia practice is to use the word museum, as in the articles for
Paris,
Rome,
Athens, etc. The use of Turkish here is eccentric -- to be consistent Istanbul and Turkey should match it. I don't accept your argument re style. But this discussion requires other voices obviously.
Rwood128 (
talk)
11:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to be imprecise. Ayasofya Müzesi should be changed to Ayasofya Museum WP:MOS. The English word museum is used in English articles--see the articles for Paris, Rome, Athens, etc. The use of Turkish here is eccentric. Any stylistic problems can easily be fixed. Hope this is clearer. Rwood128 ( talk) 13:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Good point. Thanks. Rwood128 ( talk) 19:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Hagia Sophia Mars 2013.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 20, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-11-20. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 09:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Hello !
You have mentioned in the article and I quote 'For almost 500 years the principal mosque of Istanbul, Hagia Sophia served as a model for many of the Ottoman mosques such as the Sultan Ahmed Mosque (Blue Mosque of Istanbul), the Şehzade Mosque, the Süleymaniye Mosque, the Rüstem Pasha Mosque, and the Kılıç Ali Paşa Mosque.'
I write to question the reason for omitting the mention of Mosque in the description of Hagia Sophia!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tourniqueto ( talk • contribs) 08:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
the black-and-white photograph of the Hagia Sophia is NOT a "depiction" of the mosque in Byzantine times. There were NO PHOTOGRAPHS in the time of the Byzantine Empire. CMEHalverson ( talk) 18:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
This is absolutely true. Even if photographs were to exist, the two buttresses on the facade would not be there - they were added much later. Please delete the picture. 216.165.54.7 ( talk) 02:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems this page does not mention that Mehmed II used Hagia Sofia as a stable for his horses before it was converted to a mosque. <OT redaction> 96.246.108.168 ( talk) 21:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you reference the assertion and include it in the article with citation. Mavigogun ( talk) 02:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The article says that the cathedral was dedicated in 360AD. It goes on to say "It was the largest cathedral in the world for nearly a thousand years, until Seville Cathedral was completed in 1520." That's well over 1000 years. I note also that the article on Seville Cathedral says "At the time of its completion in the 16th century, it supplanted the Hagia Sophia as the largest cathedral in the world. Previously, the Hagia Sophia had held the title for more than a thousand years." Is there some reason this article does not agree? treesmill ( talk) 05:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I just made an edit to the page, but accidentally did not include details on the edit, so I thought I would add them here. First, thank you to all the contributors; this is an excellent and informative page. My main contribution was to add details on the structure's final time as a Church and initial time as a Mosque as part of the fall of Constantinople in 1453. This was not addressed previously in the article. In addition, I made a slight correction to the “Mosque” section. It previously stated that the church doors had fallen off. This is not really accurate, as it leaves the impression that they fell off in some passive way (for example from neglect or disrepair), while in reality they were knocked down during the siege of city. In the “Transition between Church and Mosque” section I have provided references on the doors being knocked down. I primarily used three references in researching the new section, though two were written by the same author so should not really be considered independent. I was only able to find one other author to check this information against (Ali and Spencer reference), but they covered the scene in such brevity there was not much to pull from it. I did not include any of the more fanciful aspects of the scene (such as omens involving Hagia Sophia that were interpreted as predicting the city’s fall, priests disappearing into the walls to hide sacred vessels…), even though they showed up consistently in the sources and provide insight on how the conversion of Hagia Sophia was understood by people at the time. These items seemed a bit off topic, but I am interested in other people’s opinions on this. Regards, Domichael. -- Domichael ( talk) 04:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
This is certainly a difficult section, and I appreciate the thought that the reviewers have given it. I believe it is a key point in the history of the structure and we should do our best to catalog it. Alessandro57 mentioned the story of the Sultan stopping a solider from harming the floor; my sources did not state that he killed the solider, but this basic story is corroborated by at least one of the sources I cite. In fact, as was customary at the time, the sultan held that all building structures (floors, walls, etc) were off limits because all buildings were to be his property. Unfortunately, this was left out of his initial proclomation of pilliage to the soliders, and according to those same sources, he did not enforce it until he entered Hagia Sophia itself, well after the initial pillage (1-3 days after, depending on the source). As for the doors, every source I found that discusses this event says they were broken through. I did not research the doors specifically, perhaps someone could look into it (were the doors Dinkytown saw were refurbished?)? Mavigogun's suggestion seems like a sensible one. I have done my best to present a fully sourced depiction of the scene. Unpleasant though it is, the sources are credible (cambridge university press, for example) and my reporting is true to them. Cheers, Domichael ( talk) 02:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Domichale —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domichael ( talk • contribs) 02:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Critique of relevance and content of material related to the church restoration campaign prompted my edits to reflect more appropriately the weight of the material; in doing so, the material was moved and merged in the History subjection relating to the structure's current use. At the same time, entry details were added. Mavigogun ( talk) 08:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I removed the portion of the article that claimed that the Sultan Mehmed II laid siege to the city in part to convert it to Islam. This claim was based on a book co-written by an Islamophobe, Robert Spencer, who is not an expert on medieval Turkish history. Furthermore, the Sultan allowed the Greek and other Christian churches to live peacefully in the city. The Greek patriarchate is still in Istanbul today. It was also this same sultan who allowed Armenians to establish their own church in the city, which had not been allowed before during the Byzantine times[ [1]]. Lugalbanda ( talk) 23:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm surprised at how dated this section is - by at least 100 years! Isn't it now accepted that the original 532AD dome was nothing like the 558AD dome - that it has no pendentives and was a vast, probably windowless, domical vault? The pendentives are simply the only surviving parts of the original, mathematically and aesthetically pure, domical vault. Scribblescribblescribble ( talk) 23:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
There are several contradictions in this article. The first is if the Hagia Sophia was instantly converted to a Mosque why then would there be 3 days of pillaging? It stands to reason that pillagers who would seek to defile and desecrate the Hagia Sophia then all symbols of Christianity in the building would be destroyed and/or removed.
Pillaging of Constantinople and it's centers of religious worship did happen but not by the Ottomans as much as we would like to believe. The holy army assembled for the 4th crusade is the group who defiled the Hagia Sophia and removed many artifacts of the church.
It is also a discourse that the 4th crusade is not mentioned since the Vatican recently apologized to the Greek Orthodox church about it's actions during the 4th crusade. Do we vilify the Ottomans while conveniently ignoring the actions of Rome during the 4th crusade?
It would also stand to reason that internationally circulated sources that are free from Greek & Turkish bias do not mention this pillaging of either Hagia Sophia and to a greater extent Constantinople (Istanbul. (2010). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved November 23, 2010, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/296962/Istanbul). AussieSkeptic82 ( talk) 04:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Hallo, as I told you, I will contact an administrator. About your change, the first part is correct (Hagia Sophia was converted after an order of the Sultan), the second not, and according to me it constitutes vandalism. Runciman can you read yourself, Müller-Wiener, which you apparently don't know, writes: "Hagia Sophia wurde von Mehmed durch ein hier abgehaltenen Gebet für dem Islamischen Kult übernommen und zur Hauptmoschee der Stadt umgewandelt", which is what Runciman writes. About your objection, a mosque is nothing more than a congregation hall where the Muslims pray together. There is nothing "magic" about the transformation. Everywhere, also in Istanbul, they exist a lot of mosques without Mihrab, Minbar, and the like. The example about the train station makes also no sense. Here we talk about history, that means, what actually happened in Constantinople, not a video game. Cheers, Alex2006 ( talk) 05:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Traslation of Müller-Wiener: "Unmittelbar nach der Einstürmung der Stadt am 29.05.1453 wird die Kirche von Sultan Mehmed durch ein hier abgehaltenes Gebet für den Islamischen Kult übernommen und zur Hauptmoschee der Stadt umgewandelt" => "Immediately after the conquest of the city on 29.05.1453 the church is taken over for the Islamic cult by Sultan Mehmed II by means of a prayer recited there and converted into the main mosque of the city"
I would cite also Franz Babinger, the maximum authority about Mehmed:...Then the sultan commanded one of these present to go up into the pulpit and proclaim the Moslem creed: La ilaha illallah: Muhammad rasulullah. "There is no God but God. Mohammed is God's Prophet" The faithful were summoned to the afternoon prayer. Mehmed himself, we are told, leaped up on the altar and performed his devotion. With this the byzantine Hagia Sophia ceased to be a Christian Church and became a Moslem Mosque, henceforth known as Aya Sofya. (Franz Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror and his time Princeton, 1978 , pg. 96) .
Alex2006 ( talk) 05:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Mehmet II actualy plastered over the mosaics, so the article says. Now why would someone out to "erase all of christinanity" (said by the article) plaster over the mosaics? Surely one would simply remove the mosaics... I belive this should be added. Tugrulirmak ( talk) 06:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Imehling ( talk · contribs): could you explain the rationale behind replacing the other photo, which seemed to me clear and useful (showed "Islamic elements on the ceiling"), with the current one, which is dark and hard to make out any detail whatsoever? Elizium23 ( talk) 09:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Hallo
I removed - twice - the "artistic rendition" of Hagia Sophia in Byzantine time. It is already the third or fourth time in the last years that this image - or a similar one - is added to the article, and the reason for the removal is always the same. This is NOT an image of the building during the byzantine age. The buttresses shown there are partially ottoman, the domes in foreground too: The color of the building dates from the restoration of Fossati. That's why I named this picture a time patchwork. I really would welcome a picture which renders a faithful reconstruction of Hagia Sophia during the byzantine empire, but what is regularly inserted here is unworthy of an encyclopedia. If someone does not agree with me, we can start a discussion here. Cheers, Alex2006 ( talk) 06:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Thats only part of the story. While its true that the Hagia Sophia is still officially only a museum and therefore can not be used as a church, a part of the building is used as an islamic prayer room (officially for Muslims who work in this "museum", but is also widely used by muslim tourist fe.) and the minaretts are used in the last years again for the islamic prayer call of the muezzin.-- 77.117.22.148 ( talk) 22:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I have made various edits to the Architecture section including adding some references and clarifying some wording. The architecture/dome sections were slightly cross-polinated so i cleaned that up a bit. I cleaned up "The dome is supported by pendentives which had never been used before the building of this structure a bit. Removed "Another probable change in the design of the dome"... unnecessary. I changed "supported in part by 40 arched windows" to "resting on 40 arched windows"- any part of the structure could be said to be supporting the dome 'in part'- I just thought that was unnecessary, and also it does not describe exactly where the 40 windows are located, and while that may be easily inferable, I think "resting on" indicates more precisely their location. Let me know how this section could be further improved, because I think it still leaves a lot to be desired. Ahp378 ( talk) 20:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
According to the following, "Papa Lefteris Noufrakis officiated at this complete Divine Liturgy in Hagia Sophia in 1919, 466 years after the previous Divine Liturgy of May 29, 1453.". There seems to be more information in the following Greek article (a translation by Google can be accessed here, although it doesn't appear to be very good). I think there could be a mention somewhere in the article when the last Liturgy took place. Cody7777777 ( talk) 14:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
This peace for the mosque is full of lies you need to learn history from the Turks....It's not the Turks but crusades plundered the H.Sophia as well as the city.. Learn some history and don not deceive people please... http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/constantinople-an-empty-symbol.aspx?pageID=238&nID=14025&NewsCatID=438
Unsigned remark transferred by JoJan ( talk) 14:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Just because the crusades plundered Hagia Sophia, it did not mean that the Ottomans did not.
IceDragon64 ( talk) 00:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Really? From the year 360 until 1453? The demonym "Greek" was valid in all this time? Was Constantine(s) Greek BTW? -- E4024 ( talk) 11:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
As it stood today, when I looked at the article there was no explanation of what a "lustration urn" is or what it was used for. I have "Been Bold", and glossed lustration as "ritual purification", but please would someone who knows more about this add to, or correct, what I have written? I am not clear if we can link Lustration to Lustrum or not? It does not seem appropriate to link it to Lustration. Maybe we need a new stub article explaining what this kind of urn is and what it was used for? Thanks, Invertzoo ( talk) 14:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Needs more on minerets including pix.
IceDragon64 ( talk) 00:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
The largest eight columns are between 9 and 11 meter, the four massive piers (who are also called columns sometimes) who support the dome are between 23-25 meter in height. Here is a picture to show their part in the building. DragonTiger23 ( talk) 17:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Another info that would be worth being mentioned, but with a RS, concerns the minarets: although the status of the building did not change, since a couple of years they are used again to transmit the muezzin prayer. About two years ago I reverted an anonymous user who inserted the info, thinking that he was dreaming, but I have to admit now that he is right, since I heard it in March and again in May. Alex2006 ( talk) 10:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Hallo
,
I moved the two references about the first consecration of the church in articl's body, where it already was, although Müller-Wiener already cites these two primary sources. In the next days I will recover Janin's Geographie at the library, to check what he really says.
Alex2006 (
talk)
06:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
On the whole this is a brilliant article - however the 'mosque' section is problematic, it's not as NPOV as it could be and it uses quite emotional language. Can I rewrite it to make it more neutral? The first link [26] is from a book written by Robert Spencer, if you don't know who he is feel free to google. Hardly a neutral source! There is other things i'd like to clean up if it's OK. Oxr033 ( talk) 21:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
46.197.118.18 ( talk) 04:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)There is also the mention of the "bigger" Blue Mosque or Sultanahmet Mosque, which is not correct. The Blue Mosque encloses a smaller space as well as a smaller diameter of its dome.
Hagia Sophia is a landmark of Istanbul (Turkey). So, consistently with all the naming of landmarks worldwide, the name of the country when it now stands is the first. This of course does not imply that it has been built by Turks. Alex2006 ( talk) 11:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I gave two: Zeyrek Mosque, Bodrum Mosque. Both have infobox, and no Greek name there. About the three that you give, Hagia Irene has only the common name, the Monastery of Stoudios is an article about the monastery, not the church building, has no info box, and -moreover - the church building has been converted again into a mosque last month. Pammakaristos has no infobox and the article deals mainly with the parekklesion. Inconsistency in the lead of Hagia Sophia has been previously addressed: derives from the etymology. About your main arguments, you brought already a couple in the discussion, and each time that I confute one, you abandon it and look for another. I think that it is now slowly coming the time for you to drop the stick :-). Alex2006 ( talk) 10:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
You write that "most scholars, books, and sources refer to the Hagia Sophia by its Greek name" This is not true, since the most important works which describe the building in its whole history (Müller-Wiener, Eyice, Mamboury, and, among the guides, Freely), either do not cite the greek name at all, or, when they do it, as in Müller-Wiener, cite it after the turkish one. About what you write at the end, it just shows that you don't know how wikipedia works. Any attempt to change an article without reaching a consensus on the part of someone who wants to change it, will result in the opening of an incident against this person. Listen to me and ask for a third opinion. Bye, Alex2006 ( talk) 07:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again. -- ` ( talk) 08:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Correct. It is Chora (a small inattention for someone interested in the City :-)), and there we have the turkish name (Kariye) as only one in the lead list. Chora is not a "special case": the problem is that, being Chora - as Hagia Sophia - a very well known building, the article has been written very soon in wikipedia, and the lead has never been harmonised with the others. In other words, there has never been a pattern in the case of Museums of Istanbul and, as a matter of fact, as far as I know no general work which deals with the complete history of the byzantine buildings in Istanbul makes a difference in nomenclature among mosques, ex-mosques, museums, and so on. All these building, known as Kilise-Camiler, follow the same pattern. In their wikipedia articles we use the common name in english (which is mostly the turkish one) as the article's name, and then as alternate names in the lead the turkish name. You can check it, following the links given in this template:
. So, if we want to harmonise Hagia Sophia and the other 2-3 buildings to this rule, the only way is putting the turkish name as first in the list of the alternate names in the lead. As I said before, this is what the most eminent scholars and divulgators do in their general works. Alex2006 ( talk) 10:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Viriditas ( talk · contribs) 02:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
WP:NOTAFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The English name is Ayasofya. Please stop calling the greatest Chalcedon Orthodox Church a "Hag" named Sophie. Rome was Jealous of the design of Notre-Dame. So jealous that when it leaked who was designing and building it, the Pope in Vatican started the Inquisitions in 1184 AD to hunt down and kill the Hahraahm Abis Architects designing and building Notre Dame, and then mobilize Crusades to invade Turkey, Lebonon, Syria, and destroy the Cathedral Buttressed Mosques the architects were building there. This destruction causes Mosques to go back to dome shaped roofs. And the period needed for the erasing of Arabic Cathedrals is the reason it took several hundred years, multiple intentionally spread plagues, for the Catholics to resume and complete Notre Dame in France to remove Turkic and other races claims. "Roman" architecture was not revived by Gothics, Gothics tortured trained with and then genocided Turkic and Moorish peoples for the sake of Catholic Rome to falsely claim and uninterrupted transmission of Stone Masonry that was completely Aramaika, Turkic, Arabic, and then through Culture cleansing stolen and claimed as Roman even though everything in Rome existed in Turkey Egypt Lebonon Syria Jordan long before it was copied into one "Small World" Exhibit called Rome. Steal the Gods, then Steal their arts, then destroy their names, until they are lost in history. If you care at all about history, tourism, or travel and do not support the destruction of foreign cultures. Then please use an English name and spelling. "Ayasofya" is how the name is spelled in English. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng--WLT0Xjc ~ Hagia Sofia/Sancta Sophia is Catholic Anti-Tourism toward nations and landmarks they want to corrupt as their own creations and namings. ~ Look up "Latin" sometime. It has nothing to do with language roots, and everything to do with the clever replacement of European alphabets with the limited accent system of Rome. It used to be FRIPS, now more languages due to Microsoft keyboards have adopted the early Latin letters 104 keyboards use to spell their own words and dialects = false etymology of Vatican Catholic Latin as the root languages in Europe when they are Russian and Turkic etc. Do morally correct thing. This English article should read "Ayasofya" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng--WLT0Xjc No native English speaker will read this articles name and pronounce the Catholic "Hag" or French "Hagia" as "Aya". The Country is Turkey. The Wiki is English. Remember Aaron Swartz and do what is right, not what is conformist to a 25% Catholic US (Census.gov "Religion") corruption of History and Education for the sake of Catholic Capitalism and defeat of Foreign = non-Catholic Tourism. SecretJournalsofCongress ( talk) 19:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I have reported this user to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I suggest we ignore him/her. Myrvin ( talk) 13:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC) |
I suggest that the Latin name for the building be moved to later in the lede, and more emphasis placed on the similarity between the classical Greek and modern Turkish names. It should also be made more clear when Latin was used. Rwood128 ( talk) 16:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
The name Ayasofya Museum is the one used in English and therefore both more logical and appropriate (I had considered using the Turkish -- but this article is in English). My reason for suggesting moving the Latin name is to place more emphasis on the similarity between the modern Turkish and the classical Greek. I presume that the Latin was only used briefly in the past, though I agree that it needs to be acknowledged. Rwood128 ( talk) 17:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry if I jumped the gun before the discussion was completed. A couple of questions:
Also you don't really address my concerns.
Rwood128 ( talk) 18:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC).
COMMONNAME is Hagia Sophia by the way. elmasmelih 18:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
In Istanbul? That's interesting. Is this the Turkish pronunciation of Ayasofya? Rwood128 ( talk) 20:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia practice is to use the word museum, as in the articles for
Paris,
Rome,
Athens, etc. The use of Turkish here is eccentric -- to be consistent Istanbul and Turkey should match it. I don't accept your argument re style. But this discussion requires other voices obviously.
Rwood128 (
talk)
11:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to be imprecise. Ayasofya Müzesi should be changed to Ayasofya Museum WP:MOS. The English word museum is used in English articles--see the articles for Paris, Rome, Athens, etc. The use of Turkish here is eccentric. Any stylistic problems can easily be fixed. Hope this is clearer. Rwood128 ( talk) 13:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Good point. Thanks. Rwood128 ( talk) 19:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Hagia Sophia Mars 2013.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 20, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-11-20. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 09:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)