Talk:Church of Saint George (Lod)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Church of Saint George, Lod. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our site plan is wrong, says Pringle[edit]

Pringle describes Byzantine masonry courses at the base of the current church's NW walls, and places the Crusader church right on top of the main Byzantine one. What we have now there is red = 12th c, with some black = 19th c. He also describes many more smaller surviving Byz. remains.

Pringle also defines the apse inside the mosque's prayer hall as part of a secondary, smaller Byzantine church. The plan now makes one believe that that one was the Byz. ch., and that the Crusaders built theirs NE of it, which is totally wrong.

Next distinction: Clermont-Ganneau has found many Byzantine remains in situ, which had survived until his time, but have been removed in the meantime, so one must also decide if to represent the knowledge gained by 19th c. surveys (helps the user understand the historical reconstruction phases), or the current state of the site (maybe a bit more useful for today's visitors). Arminden (talk) 13:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The Byzantine basilica may have had just one apse with two irregular pastophoria (chambers). Ref: Margalit, S., "The Bi-Apsidal Churches in Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Cyprus", Liber Annuus 40 (1990): 321-334, pls. 45-48."

Which of the 2 Byzantine basilicas? The main church, or the smaller one? Pringle writes about 3 apses in the main church, so maybe the latter? Or are there 2 different theories? Then based on what?

Is there a link to Margalit's paper? Here, again, having online-accessible sources would be sooo helpful. Far from me the thought of excluding sources not digitised and posted online, but just to say that they make editing work much, much more difficult. Especially when they're quoted elliptically or in an overly abbreviated form, making correlations to other sources impossible. Arminden (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still nothing done about it. Now that the mosque has been split off, we have 2 articles to suffer from this problem :) It's a fundamental one: if all the (main) churches there have always been built around the traditional tomb and the tomb has always been located towards the northeast end of the complex (traditionally under the main church's central apse, now under the nave), then the site of the southwestern Byzantine church/chapel never took centre stage. Both sites seem to still contain Byzantine-period masonry or other architectural elements, which is not reflected in the plan. The plan makes believe that the mosque might well have inherited the main area of the Byzantine period and the 19th-century Greeks had to make do with a Crusader-period annex, which is exactly the wrong way round. Arminden (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When was the mosque built?[edit]

​Hi Oncie. It seems it was you who introduced Baibars here. Maybe you can help with the following? Thanks.

"Baibars converted the western part of the Crusader church into a mosque. (Ref: Pringle)"

Pringle does not mention Baibars as the builder. Instead, he has the oldest reference to a mosque from the early C15, so 1.5 centuries later (p. 13).

"Above the entrance to the mosque is an inscription dating its construction to June 1269 (Ramadan 667), as instructed by Baibars. (Ref: Pringle)"

This too I can't find in Pringle. Is the inscription itself from 1269, or maybe a later attribution to Baibars? I know there is such an inscription, and I think it's over the entrance facing the street, so not part of the building with the prayer hall. Can't find any mention using Google. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Church-Mosque[edit]

Pinging @Evrik and Huldra: as the two primary authors of this article. All the detailed secondary sources I have read cover both the church and the mosque together as one topic, describing it as a church-mosque within the same overall building. I propose to build out the article in that direction. Please let me know if you agree. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image shows the way the building works very clearly. Can compare to File:57.Ruines a Ludd (Lydde.).jpg Onceinawhile (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Onceinawhile, Evrik, and Huldra: Too bad I wasn't pinged as well. While there have historically been buildings deserving the name church-mosque in the period after the Muslim conquest, this I would never call as such. The two houses of worship are built on the ruins of the same Crusader church, but don't communicate in any way. They don't share an entrance, nor anything else. The church functions strictly as a church and is part of a monastery, with the monastic buildings across the lane, while the mosque functions strictly as a mosque. For all I know, such terms like church-mosque, synagogue-church, etc., are used either for houses of worship serving a mixed cult or two different communities, or by archaeologists for (normally ruined) structures, which have been used for different purposes, but not simultaneously, over time. None of this applies.

The Mosque of el-Khidr, if that's how it's called, is not dedicated to Saint George, which actually makes the discussion here totally superfluous from the get-go. The association of the two "holy men" is nothing close to them being identical.

The name makes no sense, unless one deals only with the fate of the defunct Crusader church from an archaeological point of view; this is not the case. Both houses of worship are very much alive. The church is a major attraction for pilgrims, and is used by locals. The mosque is also used by locals. No connection, wrong name. Arminden (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arminden, I don’t feel strongly about the name. I only feel strongly that the whole complex should be covered by a single article. For exactly the same reasons as you put forward at Talk:David's Tomb#"David's Tomb" and "Cenacle" belong together – i.e. because all scholarly sources treat them together.
I disagree with you on one point above – that is re Khidr / St George. There is no doubt that the mosque’s dedication to Khidr was in order to allow it to act as an Islamic shrine at the tomb of St George.
Onceinawhile (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ​ Once. Then we actually don't disagree at all. Separate sections are enough, no need for separate articles of course.
It goes also w/o saying that the Khidr / St George game has intentionally been played over & over again. They are not identical though, they are just both holy men known to help in distress, and folk religion in Palestine tends to lump them together, which I find admirable and is also practical for the worshipper, while in times of takeovers can serve the dominant side. Mariam and Mary are identical and so forth, but Khidr & St George are not. The church is indeed dedicated to Saint George, but the mosque isn't.
From what I know (from Erhard Gorys mainly; not the perfect RS, but good enough usually), and judging by the site plan you worked out so nicely (envy!), the Byzantine church(es) seem to have been slightly to the SE of the Crusader church (both the Byzantine & Crusader churches having their altars on the north side; weird). Baibars demolished the Crusader church and replaced it with the mosque and a khan. In the 1890s, the Greeks obtained the (ruined?) khan and restructured it into the current church. So they kept the coir and rebuilt what's south of it, as much as the mosque allowed, with a new SW entrance. I guess the crypt used to be under the Byzantine church, so the current one, NW of the Byzantine church remains, has nothing to do with the original one, but I don't know; other scenarios are also imaginable (for instance more than one Byzantine church in a larger complex, with the crypt in a totally lost structure NW of the meager remains which happen to still be preserved in the mosque; if there was a Byzantine crypt at all). Neither the mosque nor the church seem to be using the area of the rest of the former eastern nave. The old sketch you posted shows there a "court", but I don't know what's there now.
I knew that there was a competition between Catholics and Greeks for the khan area, and the Greeks won based on some deal with the Ottoman Muslim authorities (Help with restoring the mosque? Accepting for good the loss of the parts included in the mosque?), but that needs research. Arminden (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is beyond my expertise. I'm neutral on most of this. --evrik (talk) 14:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
​Oncie, the equivalent is "David's Tomb and Cenacle" (or the other way around), not "The church-mosque-synagogue at Mount Zion". That is a final point I wanted to make, since I think we have agreement here. I am at work 90% of the time now, no time for Wiki, sorry, so if you don't mind and have a spare hour, it's in your hand to adapt the articles according to what has been discussed here. If the combined article turns out to be too long (would it?), there's always the option of a "main" combining both and containing the main info, with links to 2 separate sub-articles going into detail. But only if combined they become a "scare to the eye", too daunting for a user not willing to go into deep studies. Thank you! Arminden (talk) 08:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS: If I wasn't explicit enough: I am mainly against the name (church-mosque), as opposed to an "A and B"-type name, since we're dealing here with two separate, autonomous entities which don't really mingle. I am OK with treating both in one combined article, although this solution is less obvious that in the other examples quoted here (Mt Zion, Balkans, Spain etc.), where there's one single building used simultaneously by more than one community; here there are two, of which the mosque is covering much more than the surviving Byzantine apse and southern part of the Crusader church (and is built according to a completely different plan), while the church is restricted to the remaining part of the Crusader church. No organic unity, no common entrance, none of that, but definitely related. The mosque is simply a conqueror's superposition of his own religion on a foreign cult, with a mosque building far from identical with either of the one newer and 2 older church buildings. Arminden (talk) 08:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Arminden that the Mosque and the Church are not the same structure and definitely deserve their separate articles. In either case, I oppose the renaming / rebranding and the article, and as it clearly was not a consensual matter, I would suggest moving it back to Church of Saint George, Lod. Dan Palraz (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Historians obviously deal with the "complex", but the church is a major pilgrimage target, on top of being a local place of worship, as is the mosque. If the primary interest is an important living church, as opposite to a ruin, historical aspects become much less relevant. Had it still been a ruin - very different story, but it's not. Arminden (talk) 11:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the article[edit]

Why not split it up into 2 separate articles? The are clearly seperate entities and there are separate articles in both arwiki and hewiki as well as separate categories in commons. DGtal (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure there is a lot of support for this. --evrik (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We won't know until we check. I honestly don't see a reason to mix up to seperate entities. DGtal (talk) 07:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The church and mosque are part of the same complex. They both sit above the same predecessor churches, with the current mosque (being much older than the current church) having the preeminent position.
    Scholarly works on this subject treat the mosque and church together for that reason. It is impossible to describe the history of one without the other. We can have separate sub-articles on the church and mosque if it gets too big, but there will always need to be an article on the whole complex.
    Onceinawhile (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, I agree with Arminden that "we're dealing here with two separate, autonomous entities which don't really mingle" and with DGtal that there should be two separate articles. As the merging of the article was actually done experimentally a few months ago hoping the move would be consensual, and it clearly hasn't been, I understand that the correct thing to do is to revert the title of the article back to Church of Saint George, Lod, as had been the case from its creation in 2007 until 2022, with a related article created for the Mosque of Al-Khadr, Lod. Dan Palraz (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Split it, absolutely. Please, read only the bolded arguments and you will see why it cannot be seen as "one complex". History is not the foremost concern when we're dealing with what are today two entirely separate entities, belonging to two different active communities, in buildings not communicating with each other by means of doors or other openings, not sharing a common holy site... nothing! Back-to-back, at best. Definitely link them closely together in the "History" sections and link to the explanation why Khadr & George are somewhat associated, but that's about it! Arminden (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Took a lot of work, but here goes: Church of Saint George, Lod and Mosque of Al-Khadr, Lod. Dan Palraz (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. DGtal (talk) 12:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was clear opposition above; a split requires consensus. Suggest we move to an RfC, with the addition of Template:Split on the article page, to discuss this formally. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For ease of reference, the two proposed split articles are [1] and [2]. The sources and content are 90%+ overlapping.

Even if we do have separate articles, we would still need a parent article for this topic. The logic is the same for Talk:Cenacle / David's tomb – we should be led by the sources, but if we have enough content for three separate articles (one parent and two children) then great let’s do it.

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting to consensual title[edit]

Sorry, Onceinawhile, but it was you who moved the article from "Church of Saint George" to "Church of Saint George and Mosque of Al-Khadr" without a discussion or consensus. As shown by Arminden's and my own comments, there was no consensus to move the article from its original title. This isn't a splitting then - we are just reverting to the consensual, long-standing form, as per Wikipedia's rules, until a consensus is reached on changing it - which hasn't happened so far. Dan Palraz (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No that is not correct. You are splitting the article. That needs discussion. The article has covered the church and mosque since the beginning of its history. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Onceinawhile, it is not a matter of opinion: the article was always Church of Saint George, Lod until you changed it without consensus here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Church_of_Saint_George_and_Mosque_of_Al-Khadr&diff=prev&oldid=1106529720 I can see that it upsets you, but you know that, per Wikipedia rules, if your move was not consensual (and it isn't), pending discussions, the original title has to remain. Dan Palraz (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Palraz: Not true. It was moved to the new name more than a year ago following this discussion.
There was clear consensus there, and the article remained stable for a year.
If you want to open a new discussion, that it fine, but edit warring to your desired outcome is unacceptable.
This is a Palestinian historical structure in Israel and thus subject to ARBPIA. You have crossed 1RR. Please self revert.
Onceinawhile (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Onceinawhile, you know you are wrong; the page was created as Church of Saint George, Lod in 2007, and always dealt with the church only; until July 2022, it simply said that the church "sat adjacent" to a mosque. On 9 July 2022, you changed it to say that the church and the mosque were part of the same complex (see change here), and on 25 August 2022 you moved it (see here) from its 15-year-old title to "Church-Mosque of Saint George, Lod", after only one person you pinged commented saying they had no opposition to it. Only ten days later, on 4 September 2022, Arminden already said they had a problem with your move, and with the fact you had made the move before they could even give an opinion about it; later, DGTal also wrote in opposition of said move, and so did I. With all that taken into account, you know that Wikipedia rules dictate that we should revert to the consensual, 15-year-old stable title, until consensus for change is reached. If you really insist that your version is the one that should be kept because you understand that this is what Wikipedia's rules say, I will be happy to join you in asking for outsiders' arbitrage / moderators' clarification on what the procedure should be here. (Also, this article is not contemplated in ARBPIA.) Dan Palraz (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, wrong. Here is the article before I ever edited it. It was a confused jumble, trying to cover the historical wider site and the 1870 small church all in one go, without understanding what it was talking about. I did the deep research, found the best sources, and fixed the article. When doing so I raised the clarifications made here, and suggested we change the title to match the now much clearer content. Arminden raised a reservation, but then said he and I agreed so the article was moved. Arminden himself then tweaked the title a few months later - it was clear we were all ok. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm 100% with Palraz on this. Oncie, please, it didn't use to be your style. This horrific time we're living through makes people more irrascible, I know it perfectly well myself. Let's try not to let it colour everything. Easier said than done... Cheers, Arminden (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am conscious that this isn’t an easy time for editing. None of us are quite feeling ourselves.
I think Dan’s behavior in August was unacceptable. Why did he not alert me to the discussion? He was well aware of the talk page history here - he first stated his view in December. This should have been discussed.
By forcing this through we get nowhere. If it stays like this we will need a third article to deal with the Byzantine and Crusader church(es), as most of those structures are within the mosque not the modern church, and it would likely confuse readers to have the church history primarily at the mosque article.
The ridiculous thing about this debate is that we are having it solely because the joint name doesn’t quite feel right. Not because of the content, which we all know is better as a single site because the sources treat it as one site and for solid historical reasons. To cut to the chase, the question is which is the lesser of two evils: (1) having an imperfect title; (2) having a reasonably small amount of content spread over three articles. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling?[edit]

In addition to this article, we have Monastery of Saint George, al-Khader (a Greek Orthodox monastery near Bethlehem) and Dome of al-Khidr, also known as the Dome of St. George (a dome on the Temple Mount).

We should be consistent between Khidr / Khader / Khadr. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't know. All these forms are being used, so the final criterion is what's more common in RS, not our organising reflexes. Transliteration may often vary, depending on many things; local pronunciation and long-established spelling (blame the Brits) are equally valid criteria. Think of Rabia al-Adawiya, but Rabaa al-Adawiya Mosque and so forth, and so forth. Arminden (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Church_of_Saint_George_(Lod)&oldid=1206849171"