Talk:Hagia Sophia/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Name and Pronunciation

I see there has been much conversation about the name of this building, but I just want to point out that at no time in the building's entire history was its name EVER pronounced "Hagia Sophia," as suggested by the current article's English transliteration. The rough breathing mark in front of the alpha in the original Greek name of the building--its name at the time it was constructed and consecrated (Ἁγία Σοφία)--had not been pronounced as an English "H" for hundreds of years, since the Hellenistic Period, just as it is still not pronounced as an "H" in Greek today. (See the rough breathing WP article.) The article's current transliteration into English of the name as "Hagia Sophia" is an anachronistic over-Classicization, and it makes it seem that the name has changed in Greek from "Hagia" to modern "Agia," when in fact its name has not changed in Greek. At no point in time did Christian Greek speakers ever overlap with Ancient Greek speakers (i.e. those who would have pronounced Agia (Ἁγία) as "Hagia"). The transliteration listed simply isn't historically correct. Piledhighandeep (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that the name here is the English COMMONAME, chosen long time ago since it is the most used name in the anglophone literature. In Italian, for example, for the same reason we use "Santa Sofia". Alex2006 (talk) 06:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough! Historiography is fascinating. Through inertia we arrive at some strange conventions. Piledhighandeep (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You said that! But sometime intertia is better than too much (linguistic) movement... :-) In Rome there is an old church, named by the populace Santa Passera, a name denoting the female house sparrow, but in Rome actually also a synonim of the woman's genitals. Well, the real dedication of the church was to the Saint Abbacirus, which through Appaciro, Appacero, Pacero, Pacera, became Passera... :-) Alex2006 (talk) 06:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Religion VS Affiliation note about Hagia Sophia

Care should be taken to avoid anachronism. When this church was originally built, there were no such concepts as Roman and Orthodox "religion", much less a Greek Orthodox church. It came to my notice that some users, very often tend to confuse the affiliation of the Hagia Sophia for the religion itself (Eastern Orthodoxy). It is very important to highlight that within a religion, there can be different affiliations. Like how the Eastern Orthodox communion consists of various regional ecclesiastical bodies (Churches), such as the Russian, the Greek, the Bulgarian, etc, the temples too can be of various affiliations. For example, if an Eastern Orthodox temple has the liturgy conducted in the Russian language, and is run by the Russian Orthodox Church, etc, then, the temple's affiliation is of the Russian Orthodox. The affiliation of a temple should not be confused with the Religion itself. Although all the temples are part of the same religion (and that is Eastern Orthodoxy), their affiliation varies. Examples can be the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral in Sophia which is of Bulgarian Orthodox affiliation, the Saint Basil's Cathedral in Moscow which is of Russian Orthodox affiliation and the Hagia Sophia which is of Greek Orthodox affiliation. --SilentResident (talk) 01:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, but there is a specific issue regarding the "Greek Orthodox" label: It does not correspond to any single ecclesiastical body. There is no such thing as a single organization called the Greek Orthodox Church. The term "Greek Orthodox" is an informal label attached to several Eastern Orthodox bodies with varying degrees of connection to the Byzantine Greek cultural and religious heritage (as the relevant article explains). All that can be said with certainty is that the label "Greek Orthodox" refers to a subset of Eastern Orthodoxy, but there is no official or universally-accepted definition of precisely which Eastern Orthodox bodies are Greek Orthodox and which are not. There are 3 Orthodox ecclesiastical bodies that conduct their services in Greek and primarily serve ethnic Greeks (the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Church of Cyprus, and the Church of Greece), plus 3 others that primarily serve ethnic Arabs but are commonly designated "Greek Orthodox" to distinguish them from Syriac and Coptic Orthodox (the "Greek Orthodox" Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem), and, as the relevant article explains, the label "Greek Orthodox" is sometimes also applied to the Orthodox Church of Albania. That means that almost half of all Eastern Orthodox ecclesiastical bodies may fall under the "Greek Orthodox" label - and occasionally the label is even used to refer to the Eastern Orthodox Church as a whole.

So, we have to be careful not to use the term "Greek Orthodox" as if it referred to a specific church organization (like "Russian Orthodox" or "Georgian Orthodox"), because it does not. It's a loosely-defined sub-category of Eastern Orthodoxy, not an ecclesiastical body. Ohff (talk) 03:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

As for Hagia Sophia, I suppose its affiliation could be called "Constantinopolitan Orthodox", since it belonged to the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, but unfortunately the term "Constantinopolitan Orthodox" (or anything with the same meaning) does not actually exist as an adjective in the English language. We could replace it with the phrase "Eastern Orthodox belonging to the Ecumenical Patriarchate", but that is far too long and unwieldy. So I've settled on using the "Greek Orthodox" adjective, but linking it to the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople article. I hope that's a good idea. Ohff (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I've always understood that in fact it did not "belong to the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople" (who had a cathedral somewhere else) but was the private Imperial chapel. I think our article is wrong in this respect. San Marco, Venice was the same. Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

All Eastern Orthodox church buildings in Constantinople (and the surrounding region) belong to the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Imperial chapel or not, all Orthodox (and Catholic) church buildings must always fall under the jurisdiction of some bishop. In the case of the ones in Constantinople, the bishop in question was the Ecumenical Patriarch (or the Latin Patriarch from 1204-1261). Ohff (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Jurisdiction is one thing, ownership a completely different matter. And the buildings of Catholic, and perhaps Orthodox, religious orders, are not "under the jurisdiction of some bishop", but the order. You don't know what you're talking about. Johnbod (talk) 06:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, when I mentioned "belonging", I meant ecclesiastical jurisdiction, of course, not property ownership. By "...belonging to the Ecumenical Patriarchate", I meant "...under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate". I'm sorry about the confusion. But in any case, I myself recommended against using the "belonging" phrase in the article, because I thought it was too long and unwieldy. We can now add that it may also be confusing.

As for religious orders, I admit I forgot about Catholic religious orders when I wrote the above comment. I had the Orthodox in mind, and the Orthodox do not have religious orders. Orthodox monastic communities are always under the jurisdiction of a bishop. But this is an unnecessary tangent, since Hagia Sophia was never a monastery.

Going back to the topic at hand, every source I have read about Hagia Sophia states that it was indeed the patriarchal cathedral. At the same time, it was the church where the emperors attended the liturgy, of course, so it was in a sense the "imperial chapel" as well. It really couldn't have been otherwise. In the Byzantine worldview, the Church and the Empire were meant to act together as one (as in the concept of Symphonia (theology)). So it was practically mandatory that the patriarchal cathedral and the imperial church had to be the same building, in order to symbolically uphold this vision of Church-State unity. Ohff (talk) 09:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You're talking about present-day situations, yet the period in question is 537–1453. There was no "Greek Orthodox Church" or "Eastern Orthodox Church" in 537. "Christian" is the best identifier you're going to be able to use while covering this vast expanse of history. Elizium23 (talk) 03:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

There was no "Eastern Orthodox Church" in 537, but there was the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople - an administrative unit of the undivided Christian Church, which also included the Roman Papacy and other bodies. The Roman Papacy and the Ecumenical Patriarchate were not created by the Orthodox-Catholic split. Hagia Sophia always belonged to the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, including during the centuries when the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Roman Papacy were united as one Church.

Or, to put it differently: From 537 to 1054, the status of Hagia Sophia could be described as "Religion: Christian. Affiliation: Ecumenical Patriarchate." From 1054 to 1204 (and again from 1261 to 1453) the status of Hagia Sophia could be described as "Religion: Eastern Orthodox Christian. Affiliation: Ecumenical Patriarchate." Ohff (talk) 03:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Ohff, but I shall correct something: the 4 ancient Patriarchates, the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria, are, more or less, part of the Greek Orthodox affiliation.

Full list of the national and international religious institutions that are of Greek Orthodox affiliation:

• The four ancient Patriarchates:
  • The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople
    • Semi-autonomous Archdiocese of Crete
    • The four eparchies of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople:
      • The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Thyateira and Great Britain
      • The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Italy and Malta
      • The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
      • The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
  • The Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria
  • The Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
  • The Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem
  • The Church of Greece
  • The Church of Cyprus

The aforementioned institutions conduct the liturgy in Greek, and their temples are of the Greek Orthodox affiliation. Note, however, that this does not mean that Greek affiliation and Greek Orthodox Church are one and the same thing... --SilentResident (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but I would like to make one small correction: Not all of the above institutions conduct their liturgy in Greek on a regular basis today. They all used to conduct their liturgy in Greek, but some have partially or entirely switched to the use of another language because most of their faithful do not speak Greek. Thus, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem mostly use Arabic (especially in the case of Antioch, where the switch from mostly-Greek-speaking leadership to mostly-Arabic-speaking leadership was a major event in the late 19th century), and the diaspora eparchies of the Ecumenical Patriarchate sometimes celebrate parts of the liturgy in the languages of the countries they're located in (although they still use Greek most of the time).

Having said that, all the institutions you listed did conduct their liturgy in Greek for the majority of their historical existence. Thus, even the ones that have moved away from the use of Greek in recent times are still called "Greek" Orthodox for historical reasons, in the same way that the Latin Church is called "Latin". So you're right about the topic of Greek Orthodox affiliation. I just wanted to make sure we're being precise. Ohff (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I've got a novel idea. Why don't we see what terms are used by reliable secondary sources to describe its affiliation? Elizium23 (talk) 03:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Incoherent sentence needs fixing

Can someone please fix this sentence? I can't figure out what it's trying to say. I tried to put a "clarify" tag on it but keep getting reverted. "The narratives about these columns were spoils from Rome, Ephesus and other antique sites are found to be only medieval tales that were far from truth." Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I rewrote it. Let me know if it's easier to understand now. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Much better. Thank you. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Gaspare Fossati - Louis Haghe - Vue générale de la grande nef, en regardant l'occident (Hagia Sophia - Ayasofya Mosque nave).jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Gaspare Fossati - Louis Haghe - Vue générale de la grande nef, en regardant l'occident (Hagia Sophia - Ayasofya Mosque nave).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 3, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-06-02. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Picture of the day

An interior view of the Hagia Sophia in 1852, when it was known as the Ayasofya Mosque. The building was originally constructed as a main Eastern Orthodox church and served in this role from 537 AD until the fall of Constantinople in 1453 (except between 1204 and 1261 when it was converted by the Fourth Crusaders to a Roman Catholic cathedral). When the Ottoman Turks under Mehmed II conquered Constantinople, the Hagia Sophia was converted into a mosque and Christian relics and art were either removed or plastered over. It remained a mosque for almost 500 years, before being converted into a museum between 1931 and 1935. Famous in particular for its massive dome, it is considered the epitome of Byzantine architecture and influenced the design of numerous mosques in what is now Istanbul.Artwork: Gaspare Fossati; lithograph: Louis Haghe; restoration: Adam Cuerden

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hagia Sophia. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120124014309/http://www.istanbul.gov.tr/Default.aspx?pid=343 to http://www.istanbul.gov.tr/Default.aspx?pid=343
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104033545/http://www.ayasofyamuzesi.gov.tr/en/icmekan.aspx?no=72 to http://www.ayasofyamuzesi.gov.tr/en/icmekan.aspx?no=72

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) 22:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hagia Sophia. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090105062813/http://archnet.org/library/sites/one-site.jsp?site_id=2966 to http://archnet.org/library/sites/one-site.jsp?site_id=2966
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150505015235/http://www.arte.tv/guide/fr/047933-000/monuments-eternels to http://www.arte.tv/guide/fr/047933-000/monuments-eternels
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/Fading-Glory.html

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) 22:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hagia Sophia. 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:

• Added archive web.archive.org/web/20160807194137/http://www.hagiasophia.xyz/history/ to www.hagiasophia.xyz/history/

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) 04:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

gallery sections

two gallery sections with center alignment seem distorting the PC article ! 123.1.79.180 (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it appears something is broken in that gallery template. I switched to an alternate template for the two centered galleries in the article. AmateurEditor (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Talalalmutairi's peer review

The lead shows a clear view of the topic. The author clearly describes what Hagia Sophia was and what it has currently turned out to be. That is from being a cathedral to a mosque and now a museum. The lead further shows a concise reflection of the information in the rest of the article. It clearly describes the rulers who controlled the temple and how one ruler conquered the other in succession to rule over Hagia Sophia. There is clear structuring of the article with sections clearly marked which makes it easier to understand the article. There is a clear flow of ideas from the history of Hagia Sophia to architecture, to the mosaics and the gallery. The sections in the article are well balanced with each section having a subject that is well documented. The author clearly marks his viewpoints in the article with all the viewpoints seemingly having representation. The author clearly sets the reference and bibliography in a balanced way whereby the author connects the statements in the article section to reliable sources. The article is therefore well balanced. From the article Hagia Sophia, I have developed a clear view of how sections are set and content in the sections should bear an equal weight in order to have a balance. Talalalmutairi97 (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Structural Principles video

I have added a video depicting the "simple" static concepts of the architects, Isodore and Anthemius.
Feel free to comment / criticise / suggest improvements / delete if inappropriate. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

When?

"It was the world's largest building and an engineering marvel of its time." When? The 2nd Red Guy (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infobox

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

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

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

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

Acoustics

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

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

What is Grand Mosque (fyi)

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

Reverts by User:Hezarfen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request

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

Adult spam inserted?

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

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2020

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2020

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political parties claim

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

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

Deleted Information

On the timeline this information was included:

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

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

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

References

Ottoman name

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For names on the infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stability of the dome of Hagia Sophia

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

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutrality

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2020

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

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

British Encyclopedia

The following citation is from the British Encyclopedia Encyclopedia Britannica:

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

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

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

In the "see also" section

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2020

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

to

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

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