Talk:Hagia Sophia

---

Why has Wikipedia not mentioned Mosque in the description of Hagia Sophia? I see Museum/Eastern Orthodox Church and not Mosque (below the photo)!!

Hello !

You have mentioned in the article and I quote 'For almost 500 years the principal mosque of Istanbul, Hagia Sophia served as a model for many of the Ottoman mosques such as the Sultan Ahmed Mosque (Blue Mosque of Istanbul), the Şehzade Mosque, the Süleymaniye Mosque, the Rüstem Pasha Mosque, and the Kılıç Ali Paşa Mosque.'

I write to question the reason for omitting the mention of Mosque in the description of Hagia Sophia!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tourniqueto (talk • contribs) 08:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

BW depiction of Hagia Sophia in Byzantine time

the black-and-white photograph of the Hagia Sophia is NOT a "depiction" of the mosque in Byzantine times. There were NO PHOTOGRAPHS in the time of the Byzantine Empire. CMEHalverson (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This is absolutely true. Even if photographs were to exist, the two buttresses on the facade would not be there - they were added much later. Please delete the picture. 216.165.54.7 (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Question to everyone: why the picture of byzantine Hagia Sophia + ottomans counterforts is still in place? Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Oversight

It seems this page does not mention that Mehmed II used Hagia Sofia as a stable for his horses before it was converted to a mosque. <OT redaction> 96.246.108.168 (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you reference the assertion and include it in the article with citation.Mavigogun (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Largest Cathedral for how long?

The article says that the cathedral was dedicated in 360AD. It goes on to say "It was the largest cathedral in the world for nearly a thousand years, until Seville Cathedral was completed in 1520." That's well over 1000 years. I note also that the article on Seville Cathedral says "At the time of its completion in the 16th century, it supplanted the Hagia Sophia as the largest cathedral in the world. Previously, the Hagia Sophia had held the title for more than a thousand years." Is there some reason this article does not agree? treesmill (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hallo, you are confusing the building date of the first church with that of the Church of Justinian. This explains the discrepancy. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not confused, I have simply pointed out that the article is contradictory internally and with the other article I referenced. Presumably you believe that the earlier churches were not the largest in the world in their time. Do you have any authority for that? Where and when was there a larger church? treesmill (talk) 07:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I expressed myself wrongly. I think that the article about Sevilla's Cathedral is wrong, since it adds up the two churches. Why wrong? Actually we are talking about two different buildings: the old and the new Hagia Sophia. To me it makes no sense to assert that two different buildings (also different in shape, since the old Church was a roman basilica) were the largest church in the world. In Rome we have also a little church (St. Peter :-)) which has been totally rebuilt in XVI century, and people always differentiate between old and new St. Peter. Coming to the dimensions, I will try to check them this evening and let you know tomorrow. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 11:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I checked on my paper :-) Database. Müller-Wiener writes that the dimensions of the first Church are unknown, the only information being that it had the shape of a roman basilica (i.e., rectangular). More interesting is Mamboury. He affirms that the denomination "Megale Ekklesia" has nothing to do with the dimension of the building, but refers only to the fact that it was Bishop's seat. Moreover, it affirms that the Church of Constantine / Theodosius was very small, and that Justinian used several tricks to expropriate the houses near the church in order to get enough room to enlarge the building. Because of that, and considering the dimensions of other large contemporary churches (i.e. the patriarchal Basilicas in Rome) I think that one can positively affirm that the first church was NOT the largest in the world at that time. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 05:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If there are no extant records as to size, then we must rely on historic characterizations (or those of contemporary credible references); drawing conclusions from guesses at the size of the expansion undertaken by Justinian does not meet our standard. Can the size be determined specifically or in contrast by reference? If not, there is no basis for comparison in the article.Mavigogun (talk) 11:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The problem does not come from this article, but from the article about Sevilla's Cathedral. What is written here is correct. Alex2006 (talk) 11:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

New section added: Transition between Church and Mosque

Hello everyone. I just made an edit to the page, but accidentally did not include details on the edit, so I thought I would add them here. First, thank you to all the contributors; this is an excellent and informative page. My main contribution was to add details on the structure's final time as a Church and initial time as a Mosque as part of the fall of Constantinople in 1453. This was not addressed previously in the article. In addition, I made a slight correction to the “Mosque” section. It previously stated that the church doors had fallen off. This is not really accurate, as it leaves the impression that they fell off in some passive way (for example from neglect or disrepair), while in reality they were knocked down during the siege of city. In the “Transition between Church and Mosque” section I have provided references on the doors being knocked down. I primarily used three references in researching the new section, though two were written by the same author so should not really be considered independent. I was only able to find one other author to check this information against (Ali and Spencer reference), but they covered the scene in such brevity there was not much to pull from it. I did not include any of the more fanciful aspects of the scene (such as omens involving Hagia Sophia that were interpreted as predicting the city’s fall, priests disappearing into the walls to hide sacred vessels…), even though they showed up consistently in the sources and provide insight on how the conversion of Hagia Sophia was understood by people at the time. These items seemed a bit off topic, but I am interested in other people’s opinions on this. Regards, Domichael. --Domichael (talk) 04:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Domichael, if you want my personal opinion, you should remove this section. The reason is the following: what the Ottoman historians (among them, Tursun Bey and Katip Çelebi), tell us about the transition is a quite different story from the one narrated by Runciman, and the two versions are (almost) incompatible. This is also the reason why until now none dared to add this section to the article. If you want to know more about the Ottoman version of the takeover of Hagia Sophia, you can read the related article on the (beautiful) catalogue of the (even more beautiful) exhibition about Byzantium / Constantinople / Istanbul currently held in Sakıp Sabancı Museum in Istanbul. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 06:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Rather than abandoning the purpose of an encyclopedia, the article would be better served if we used this space to draft a representation of the best material from the most reputable sources by contemporary standards. Review the source material and vet its sources, evaluate the degree to which conjecture was relayed upon, and judiciously include only what is substantial- free of supposition and imagination. It will be work. Those with vested interest in a particular point of view will inevitably be displeased; nothing new, that - nor is it our mission to edit based on popular preference.Mavigogun (talk) 10:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Then we have to discuss a lot of what it was written there, because the ottoman sources write - among others - that: the Sultan excluded from the plundering Hagia Sophia and the Holy Apostles churches; he declared Hagia Sophia as his exclusive property; he let kill a soldier which was trying to remove one part of the floor of the church; and so on. Having read a little about Mehmet II and his personality, I think that this version fits much better than the Runciman's one (but of course this is only my personal opinion :-)) By the way, the information that the doors had fallen off because of neglect is true, but comes from a Constantinople's pilgrim during the first half of XV century, before the Conquest. Please see Janin, Géographie, sub voce. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello All - I have to add something here. I have been to Hagia Sophia and I have seen the huge bronze doors. I have always wondered if the doors were battered/pushed open, why was there not more damage done. The doors are in pretty prestine condition for being 1500+ years old (actually much older than the the church itself) Presumibly, both sides were on either side pushing, with the Turks probably using some sort of battering ram or other tool to force them open. If they were forced open, why was there not more damage? User:Dinkytown (talk)06:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not a venue for speculation, proving theory, or conducting research. Add a referenced history of the doors if you feel it is warranted. Do you have any support for the assertion that the doors are 'much older than the church itself'? What do you mean by 'much'? If you are asserting that the present condition of the doors acts as some sort of proof that structure was at no point forcefully breached - and that subsequent repairs do not account for their present state - then cite your source with qualified references. Your source must make assertion - it is not for us to draw conclusions, generate original research.Mavigogun (talk) 08:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Who was speculating? I stated an observation which relevant to this discussion, and was inquiring comment on such. Consider good faith. This page is reserved for discussion, and my statement was very relevant. Regarding the older age of the door, there are several doors, one being here dating back to 2 century BCE. Dinkytown (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

'Observations' that are not from cited, referenced material aren't relevant. This page isn't for the general discussion of the topic, but rather specifically for working out article content. Again, if you have a reference for information on the doors and judge it relevant, edit to reflect that (however, the caption on a Wikipedia Commons photo is not a valid reference). What can not be done is contriving the inclusion of ideas in support of a conclusion unsupported by valid reference, constituting synthesis - regardless of likelihood. Wondering how the doors are in such fine shape considering apparently conflicting accounts of violence against them is speculation.Mavigogun (talk) 04:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree, but what are we going to do with this section? This was my original question, but the author did not answer yet. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 08:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This is certainly a difficult section, and I appreciate the thought that the reviewers have given it. I believe it is a key point in the history of the structure and we should do our best to catalog it. Alessandro57 mentioned the story of the Sultan stopping a solider from harming the floor; my sources did not state that he killed the solider, but this basic story is corroborated by at least one of the sources I cite. In fact, as was customary at the time, the sultan held that all building structures (floors, walls, etc) were off limits because all buildings were to be his property. Unfortunately, this was left out of his initial proclomation of pilliage to the soliders, and according to those same sources, he did not enforce it until he entered Hagia Sophia itself, well after the initial pillage (1-3 days after, depending on the source). As for the doors, every source I found that discusses this event says they were broken through. I did not research the doors specifically, perhaps someone could look into it (were the doors Dinkytown saw were refurbished?)? Mavigogun's suggestion seems like a sensible one. I have done my best to present a fully sourced depiction of the scene. Unpleasant though it is, the sources are credible (cambridge university press, for example) and my reporting is true to them. Cheers, Domichael (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Domichale —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domichael (talk • contribs) 02:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The writer which affirm that some doors of the Church lay on the ground is Ruy Gonzáles de Clavijo, one of the main sources for Constantinople at the beginning of the XIV century. I think that this information is compatible with the other about the doors being broken through (everyone which visited the building can notice that there is more than one door, and to penetrate in a building mostly is enough to open a door only :-)) About your sources, the fact that Runciman has been published by CUP does not mean necessarily that it is credible. You should examine the primary sources that it is referring to. In the case of Runciman, these are clearly specified and discussed, and this makes the book useful. The problem with him is that he dismiss the Turkish sources as unreliable. What about the other sources? Which are their primary sources? Can you check it? Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 05:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Steven Runciman's 'The Fall of Constantinople 1453' (frequently cited in the section in question) is available for preview using Googlebooks and on Amazon; my review of his source material, which is annotated with comment in the appendix, revealed that Runciman was sensitive to both bias and degree of purity of his sources; he comments on impossible exaggeration and hyperbole. That said, he seems to prefer including material to present a more completely embroidered tapestry rather than strict accuracy - and should be read with such in mind. His characterization of Turkish sources, more than being unreliable, was that of differing topical focus- that is, they were not concerned with the maters he wished to speak to.Mavigogun (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Mavigogun, I read Runciman twice (and it is on my desk now :-)), and I agree with you. What bothers me, is that the Turks tell us a partially different story basing on their sources. Unfortunately I have no access to the turkish sources. By the way, I corrected a couple of sentences in the article since they did not correspond to what Runciman writes in its book (1965 edition). Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Church restoration

Critique of relevance and content of material related to the church restoration campaign prompted my edits to reflect more appropriately the weight of the material; in doing so, the material was moved and merged in the History subjection relating to the structure's current use. At the same time, entry details were added.Mavigogun (talk) 08:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort to improve this area of the article, but it still remains that we are merely reprinting the press release of a marginal and decidedly non-notable entity. Let's not let our natural attraction for a full story and rich multi-layered narrative divert us from our responsibilities. I have looked and cannot find supporting ref's to justify our inclusion of this tidbit which seems at first glance to give flesh to the history. But, alas, it is not so. It is incumbent on us to remove this regurgitation of the non-notable press release.99.141.242.135 (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

To me, the presence of international debate on the proper use of the building is relevant to the modern history of Hagia Sophia. WP should not endorse any of the views, but to me it seems permissible to cite an article that shows an example of this debate. I added some text to the section to give it this context.Domichael (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)domichael

It's not an "article". It's a press release directly from the guy who is the only one ever mentioned trying to make the museum a church. Again, we don't write "stories", no matter how perfectly we think they illustrate the larger history at play. .12:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.242.135 (talk)

I will add that your recent edit seems to point to a possible form for relevant, acceptable and proper inclusion. I'm re-considering my position. .99.141.242.135 (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I would not call it debate, but rather a series of provocations. Anyway, also provocations can be relevant in the article, for the reason stated by Domichael. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Provocations or protestations, sure- debate and controversy, no. Reverted a recent edit that included controversy label and implied that there was a struggle between 3 groups for use of the structure (the third being what, the Roman Catholics?).Mavigogun (talk) 13:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It's just not notable. I'd love to include some mention, it really does seem to underscore some of the tension of Greek-Turkish relations. The problem is that it does so singularly and without notability. Its just an aggrandizing and self-serving press release from one guy. Let's respect the process. We do not write history, although the siren song is strong and this piece so very well fits our puzzle and brings centuries of tension to life, it simply has no place here for all the usual reasons, its a press release, its not noted in secondary RS, it's undue weight to an individual seeking limelight, --- it's just not for here. I've removed it. .99.141.242.135 (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Not relevant to the current page, since the edit has been deleted, but to Mavigogun's earlier question: yes, the various structures on the site of the current Hagia Sophia prior to the Great Schism are viewed by many Catholics as operating Catholic Cathedrals. Domichael (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)domichael

Spencer Reference

I removed the portion of the article that claimed that the Sultan Mehmed II laid siege to the city in part to convert it to Islam. This claim was based on a book co-written by an Islamophobe, Robert Spencer, who is not an expert on medieval Turkish history. Furthermore, the Sultan allowed the Greek and other Christian churches to live peacefully in the city. The Greek patriarchate is still in Istanbul today. It was also this same sultan who allowed Armenians to establish their own church in the city, which had not been allowed before during the Byzantine times[[1]].Lugalbanda (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

A nonpartisan review of the siege would be unable to characterize any aspect of it -including the aftermath- as peaceful; still, this unsupported assertion that Spencer is unqualified to provide reference material is specious, at best. The motive of the prime actors in the history of Hagia Sophia are topical and relevent- and that most definitely includes Mehmed. The material has been replaced.--Mavigogun (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't agree on the method. I didn't read this book, but in a first version of the citation the word "in part" was not there, and it has been inserted later. It would be interesting to read what Spencer is really writing. Second, and more important (this is a general remark), it is crucial to understand what sources Spencer uses to come to this assertion. I am observing again and again in Wikipedia that people is writing articles using sources (mostly web pages) which don't use any reference, and uses them uncritically, and without checking them. On the contrary, it is clearly stated that in writing articles we should mainly using secondary sources, but a source is defined as secondary if and only if it refers to primary sources. Now, back to Spencer: whence does it come his assertion that Mehmed was driven from desire to convert the City to Islam? This is the main point to me. Is it referenced in its book? OK. Is it not? It must be removed. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No small bit of hypocrisy there: read the material in question, assess the references yourself. Speculating as to the merit of material you haven't bothered to consider is pointless. Since you will likely not accept the judgment of a proxy performing the assessment for you, doing so would be a waste of time.Mavigogun (talk) 10:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I would do it gladly: unfortunately, as I wrote, I don't have this book. I would for sure accept the judgment of another one, provided that it is constructive and founded. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 11:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The book is readily available; I was inspired to procure a copy because of this page.Mavigogun (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Very good! Please read it (not the whole book, the part which we need is enough :-)) and tell me your opinion. Many thanks and cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As the person who added the original text, I have several issues with the way this was approached. First, making a unilateral deletion of a cited entry based on general dislike of an author, without bothering to check into the citation, is clearly against the spirit of WP. Second, WP is not for original research: the personal theories linking the Sultan's behavior after the siege with his motives for the siege are not material to the article. In researching this section of the article, I remember coming across at least one other discussion on the Sultan's motives (I think in the "last centuries..." book by Nicol). I cited Spencer's book because I thought it did a better job of providing context to the siege and subsequent desecration of Hagia Sophia, but I will update the article with additional sources. This will take me a few weeks as it is hard for me to get to the library. In the mean time, I welcome additional assessment of Spencer's book. You may also want to check out the "last centuries..." book. Also, I request that we all adhere to the spirit of WP and refrain from making any more uninformed edits. domichael —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domichael (talk • contribs) 14:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hallo domichael, sorry, I do not understand which have been my uninformed edits and my theories. Can you please be more specific? I think that about the deletion you confounded me with Lugalbanda, the other contributor. Thanks & cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 07:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This thread is drifting heavily: the initial redaction was ill conceived; the material was restored; the cited material was clear and well referenced as to proclamations of motive made by Mehmed II. No drama. Tempest in a teapot, this.Mavigogun (talk) 09:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

My sincere apologies to Alex2006 - I did get confused between editors. I have edited my comments above to remove reference to anyone's user name. Domichael (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)domichael

Apologies gladly accepted! :-) Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 06:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Contradictions & not NPOV

There are several contradictions in this article. The first is if the Hagia Sophia was instantly converted to a Mosque why then would there be 3 days of pillaging? It stands to reason that pillagers who would seek to defile and desecrate the Hagia Sophia then all symbols of Christianity in the building would be destroyed and/or removed.

Pillaging of Constantinople and it's centers of religious worship did happen but not by the Ottomans as much as we would like to believe. The holy army assembled for the 4th crusade is the group who defiled the Hagia Sophia and removed many artifacts of the church.

It is also a discourse that the 4th crusade is not mentioned since the Vatican recently apologized to the Greek Orthodox church about it's actions during the 4th crusade. Do we vilify the Ottomans while conveniently ignoring the actions of Rome during the 4th crusade?

It would also stand to reason that internationally circulated sources that are free from Greek & Turkish bias do not mention this pillaging of either Hagia Sophia and to a greater extent Constantinople (Istanbul. (2010). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved November 23, 2010, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/296962/Istanbul). AussieSkeptic82 (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hallo, the 3 days of pillage refer to the city as a whole, not to the church. The pillage of Hagia Sophia was stopped at once by the Sultan when he entered the building and noticed that a soldier was trying to detach a piece of the floor. About the 4th crusade and the subsequent pillage, please read the article ("Upon the capture of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade,..."). Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 07:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. I had indeed overlooked the mentioning of the fourth crusade. However the article does still insist the Hagia Sophia was ransacked and pillaged. In order to remain NPOV, claims such as the massacre of civilians should be cited from a range of primary sources and not those sources in which people can question motivation. It can be justified that the current sources in the article used for the claims of killing of civilians and pillage was fabricated by British historians at a time in which the British would gladly vilify the Turks due to the outcomes of the British campaign in Central Anatolia during WW1.

For these claims I am suggesting that not only British sources be used but Greek, Turkish and internationally accepted sources should also be used. This will not only ensure that the article is protected against POV claims but also ensure that the claim/s are strengthened as to be undoubted. AussieSkeptic82 (talk) 10:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I am also very suspicious about sources, but one must admit that Runciman - which was used here - bases his work upon all the available authors contemporary to the Fall of the City ( please see his analysis of the sources present at the end of his book). As a matter of fact, there are almost no contemporary Ottoman writers describing the Siege of Constantinople in 1453, and this is really a pity for us. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

AussieSkeptic82's commnents seems to me like an attempt to whitewash history. What is lacking in the account of the final days of the building's existence as a church is the symbolic importance it held to the population at that time. Also, that section dealing with the pillage of Haghia Sofia should be moved up to the "Third church" section, given that the structure was still a church at the time of the Ottoman attack. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

How is this an attempt at white washing history Scribblescribblescribble? The only thing that I mentioned in my comment above

is that sources that are not biased should be used, as sources that are British, Greek and Turkish are suspect to be biased.

Given that the British author at the time of his work's publication had his nation involved in a war against the Turks

and a war that the British ultimately lost, while Greeks and Turkish sources can be assumed to be biased since these two

groups of people have been at odds for centuries.

My mentioning of the 4th crusade sacking Constantinople is not fiction and neither is the Vatican recently issuing an apology.

What I suspect from your comment to my post and the slandering that I am somehow white washing history has a hidden purpose

which is an attempt on your part to promote the pillage of Hagia Sophia into the Third Church section. People and those who

know how words can be twisted are not blind. Next time give your reasons and dont attempt to slander others for your own

personal gain. AussieSkeptic82 (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Outdated and simplictic "Architecture" section

I'm surprised at how dated this section is - by at least 100 years! Isn't it now accepted that the original 532AD dome was nothing like the 558AD dome - that it has no pendentives and was a vast, probably windowless, domical vault? The pendentives are simply the only surviving parts of the original, mathematically and aesthetically pure, domical vault. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You are right. As soon as I will find some time, I will correct this part. Thanks and cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)