Talk:Hagia Sophia/Archive 4

 

 

 

 

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: ${\displaystyle {\sqrt {2}}}$  of the square and ${\displaystyle \pi }$  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)

 

@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:

 

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)

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" ^{[1][unreliable source?][better source needed]}

as well as this arabic language source ^{[2][unreliable source?][better source needed]} which provides images of the deed of purchase from the Ottoman Imperial Archives

Here is an additional source confirming the same ^{[3][unreliable source?][better source needed]} 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)

This edit request to Hagia Sophia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

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 [1] 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 [2] 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

This edit request to Hagia Sophia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

(Turkish: Ayasofya-i Kebîr Câmi-i Şerîfi) 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)

This edit request to Hagia Sophia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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).[3] 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)

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)

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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)