Talk:Hagia Sophia

Edit request, 25 Aug

@Mjroots: Could a hyphen be added to "15th century" per MOS:HYPHEN? Thanks, 207.161.86.162 (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Mjroots (talk) 05:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 September 2020

Please change {{pp-full}} to {{pp-dispute}} ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Unprotected

Following discussion at WP:AN, I've unprotected the article. This does not give editor carte blanche to resume their edit war. I will not hesitate to block individual editors from this page if the disruption continues. I have this page watchlisted, so consider yourselves warned. Mjroots (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Originally I asked that the page be semi-protected, since the politics of the subject are intractable and unresolved and will likely attract more unwelcome attention in future. GPinkerton (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Armed or holding?

This is the exact wording of the source: During a sermon, Turkey's religious affairs agency president, Ali Erbas, held up a sword in an apparent reference to Ottoman traditions. It does not use the word 'armed'. The word isn't necessarily wrong, but it's unnecessary and has the potential to imply something which isn't in the source - 'holding' is fine. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 14:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The problem with "holding" is that it does not have the potential to imply something that is in the sources, namely that sword is symbolic of the armed struggle to "liberate" the building from its unIslamic occupants – the "Ottoman tradition" referred to in the source. "Holding" suggests an anodyne prop rather than a deliberately chosen weapon of choice. "Holding" doesn't capture the express belief of this holy personage that "engaging in armed struggle for belief, existence, nation, survival and freedom is the highest level of jihad" and that "our struggle will continue until Jerusalem is completely free". "Holding" does not suitably express the intent behind the cleric who decreed, while so armed: "Sultan Alparslan, who, with the belief that conquest is not molestation but restoration, not destruction but reconstruction, opened the doors of Anatolia to our nation, and to the martyrs and veterans who made this soil into our homeland and to all those who knead our land with faith." There is clear justification for referring to the imam's armed state as such, since this is what the carrying of weapons is supposed to comvey. The sky is, after all, blue, and sources referring to the sky as "coloured" do not contradict this fact, but supplement it. GPinkerton (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, the cited source says nothing about any of this - it just says he was holding a sword. I'm not saying that your narrative is wrong, but we don't do that - we summarise the sources that we cite, and based on this particular source we can say no more than that he was holding a sword. Feel free to add a mention to Ottoman traditions if you think that would help clarify it, but I cannot support the use of the word 'armed' in this context without seeing evidence that that is the way that the preponderance of RS described it. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

We don't need to plagiarize the sources or parrot what they say word for word. I say "holding a sword" = "armed with a sword", I've not heard persuasive arguments to the contrary, and I don't think "armed" has any undesirable implications in this context. GPinkerton (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

On the basis of Girth Summit’s quotation from the source, “armed with” is clearly inappropriate. “Armed with” implies intended use. Brunton (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

GPinkteron It's not plagiarism to use the same verb that the source uses. You believe that "holding a sword" = "armed with a sword", but you know that a number of users (I count five, including myself, at this talk page, in edit summaries, and at WP:FTN) have disagreed with you on that point. I think the onus is on you here. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Brunton: No it does not imply intended use. The primary definition of "armed" in the Oxford English Dictionary reads: "Equipped with or carrying a weapon or weapons". There is nothing, nothing, about the phrase "armed with a sword" that implies anything other than the undisputed fact the armed individual was bearing arms. @Girth Summit: this is not a question of belief, but one of fact. The man was armed according to most normal definition of the adjective, and I struggle to see any reason to avoid the word. In normal English, the US constitution entitles citizens to go about "armed", not only to go about "holding weapons". These are of course absolute synonyms. GPinkerton (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

It is a longstanding tradition for imams to hold a cane, sword or other long object during the Friday sermon, in accordance with a much older sunnah (tradition) of Muhammad. It has absolutely nothing to do with (as you implied above) being "symbolic of the armed struggle to 'liberate' the building from its unIslamic occupants". Imams have been holding swords as part of the ritual of Friday sermons long before Hagia Sophia's reconversion into a mosque.

The swords used in sermons are ceremonial in nature and are not carried with lethal intent (referencing your comparison with US citizens being "armed"). Thus, the proper word here is "holding" the sword. One does not speak of Queen Elizabeth being "armed" with a sword when she is knighting someone.

In all honesty though, I'd be glad if we did away with that part of the sentence altogether; it does not add any value to the overall subject of the article, namely the Hagia Sophia itself. We shouldn't be spending so much time talking about swords here. Yekshemesh (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

It is a longstanding tradition that European monarchs are armed with swords when dubbing knights. The idea the queen is not armed when creating knights is a fallacy and quite wrong. It certainly has no bearing on the subject at hand, which is an armed cleric delivering a harangue in a mosque. "Long objects" is a crass euphemism for "weapon", as the relevant Hadith attests. GPinkerton (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, can you present any newspaper reports that describe the queen as being armed with a sword when knighting someone? I think it would be a very unusual construction GirthSummit _(blether) 18:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: It would be a deeply unusual thing to point out, since we already know she has to be armed in order to dub a knight, though clerics are not dubbed with a sword and consequently the monarch is not armed in these instances, as in others. Can you reasonably deny that the queen is "Equipped with or carrying a weapon or weapons"? It would be just as unusual to describe her as holding the sword, since the notable action is the blade being touched on each shoulder, not the queen holding the hilt all the while. Is the (functional) sword borne by Erbaş somehow less a weapon than is the serjeant-at-arm's (non-functional) mace? Of course not. Is the ceremonial mace borne by the serjeant-at-arms a sufficient condition of the official being described as "armed" and "at-arms"? Yes. Do reliable sources describe the serjeant-at-arms as "armed with a mace"? Yes. See: [1] and [2]. Does Wikipedia describe the queen's bodyguards as "armed with sword and partizan". Yes. Does this imply the partizan is a regularly used weapon. Of course not. Do newspapers describe Erbaş as "armed with a sword" on this occasion? Yes. Is this phrasing limited only to the English language? No, I have read of Erbaş described as "armata con spada" and have read in pro-government Turkish news media wax lyrical on the "sword of conquest" and "right of the sword" by which Erbaş and his ministry claim the city and its cathedral came into Islamic possession/the possession of Turkey. Ultimately this is special pleading to try and conjure a special meaning for the ordinary adjective"armed" that somehow excludes the actions of Erbaş. GPinkerton (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Why is he "armed"? Does he intend to inflict actual harm on anyone with the sword should the need arise? Not likely. "Armed" is a loaded word. "Holding" is not.

Also, repeating my proposal to just delete that part of the sentence. It is unconstructive to the overall article. Yekshemesh (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The definition of "armed" is "Equipped with or carrying a weapon or weapons". There is nothing loaded about it, rather, the symbolic weight is the carrying of a weapon itself, not the word used to describe it. This talk of intend to inflict actual harm on anyone with the sword should the need arise is utterly irrelevant and it's purported relevance to the definition of "armed" is not supported by any dictionary I have seen, being based wholly on thin air. GPinkerton (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, language is a complex and nuanced thing. People can, and do, read things into certain words that aren't there in the dictionary definition. Here's the crux: if you genuinely believe that "armed with a sword" = "holding a sword", why do you care which phrase we use? If their meaning is identical, it shouldn't matter to you which we use. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I haven't said their meaning is identical, just the opposite. I am saying that holding a sword (a side arm) necessarily means being armed, and that the adjective "armed" is therefore more appropriate than the participle "holding". "Armed" is more specific, more appropriate, more precise, and more descriptive than is "holding". You sound as though you're assuming bad faith. Are you going to cast aspersions on the dictionary editors too for leaving out unspecified things that unspecified people might read into words which according to RS carry no such meanings? Why allow the (unsourced) description of the Yeomen of the Guard as "armed with swords" to stand but quibble over the perfectly reasonable and equivalent description of Erbaş as "armed with a sword"? What is the difference between carrying a weapon and carrying a weapon? They're both (supposedly) mediaeval traditions, so why object to one and not the other? It must be hypocrisy or special pleading. GPinkerton (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Earlier you said that one equalled the other. If that is not your position, then you must allow that a source that supports the one does not support the other. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

No I didn't. I said "holding a sword" = "armed with a sword". This means that the BBC's wording of "holding a sword" supports the statement that he was "armed with a sword". I have not said that "holding" has the same meaning as "armed with", that's absurd. "Armed"'s definition applies primarily to weapons, weapons such as the sword held by Erbaş – that is, the sword with which Erbaş armed himself. The verb "hold" can apply to anything tangible. The phrase "holding a sword" necessarily means that the subject of the sentence is "armed with a sword". By definition, as well as by plain common sense, the man armed with a sword should be described as such. How do we know he was armed with a sword? Reliable sources say so, and besides them other sources say he held a sword, which neither contradicts nor fails to support the statement that he was armed with one. Honestly, you need to demonstrate that Erbaş was somehow unarmed to show that the statement that he was armed is somehow incorrect. A man can be armed or unarmed; it should be obvious which of these adjectives applies to Erbaş that day. GPinkerton (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, we seen to have a different understanding of what is implied by the = symbol - I thought that you meant that they were equal. If they are not equal, then the BBC source does not support the use of the word 'armed' , and no amount of WP:SYNTH argumentation is going to change that. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Aren't you familiar with Venn diagrams? A thing can be one thing without all of the second things being the same as the first thing. Let me try another way:

"Holding a sword" = "armed with a sword".

"Holding a pointèd stick" = "armed with a pointèd stick".

"Armed with a dictionary definition" ≠ "holding a dictionary definition".

"on giving his sermon armed with a sword, Erbas scorned the Koranic example of coexistence which the mosque of the two quiblas of Medina represents, ..."

Noufouri, Hamuradi & Nespral, Fernando Luis Martínez. "Architecture and the battles for cultural purity." Perfil, 2020-08-08. ([3]) and [4]

What more remains to be said? That he "donned the sword"? ([5]) That he "bore" it? ([6]). What part of "bearing arms" is at variance with the phrase "armed with"? Why haven't you been willing (or able) to address any of the other points I have made?GPinkerton (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, good morning. Yes, I am familiar with Venn diagrams, thank you. I have not said that to say 'armed with' would be wrong (see my initial post), I've said that it's not necessary when 'holding' is accurate and is closer to the source currently used to support the content. I don't accept that 'armed with' is more precise, specific or descriptive - I think that it is less so in fact. If one wears a sword in a scabbard, or has it tucked up one's jumper in an attempt to conceal it, one is still armed with it - holding tells us that he had it in his hand, it is more specific, precise and descriptive. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused here. If GPinkerton agrees that holding a sword is the same as armed with a sword, then why are arguing about it? GPinkerton agrees that saying "holding" is enough since it means exactly the same thing, others feel holding is better for various reasons. No one seems to think armed is better. GPinkerton seemed to disagree at first then they came to the realisation that holding a sword conveys exactly the same meaning. Nil Einne (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I'm saying armed is a better and more idiomatic way of expressing the same idea. GPinkerton (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: my point is whatever you mean by "better and more idiomatic" since you've already agreed it means the exact same thing, it doesn't actually matter to you. Since others disagree it means the exact same thing, and instead genuinely believe that holding is "more precise, specific or descriptive" and overall the better term because they don't actually covey the exact same meaning even if both may technically be correct, which doesn't apply to you since by you agreement this cannot be the case for armed vs holding since they mean the exact same thing to you; therefore there is no point getting worked about it. In other words when one editor says they mean the exact same thing, and the other editor says "they don't", ultimately I don't see the benefit for Wikipedia for extensive argument over the point. For the editor who feels they mean the exact same thing, they are satisfied by saying the exact same thing. For the editor who feels they convey subtle yet important differences, and while neither is incorrect, one is truly better because they don't mean the exact same thing, then they are satisfied by keeping the subtly different phrasing. Everyone is happy. To give a related example, hopefully it's obvious that I'm confused how 2 different phrasings can mean the exact same thing or be equal (instead of simply equivalent or something) to each other but one can also be "better and more idiomatic". It's interesting question but not one I find interesting enough, or likely to be helpful to Wikipedia to explore further, so I haven't asked. Nil Einne (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: No, I have not said it is the exact same thing; quite the opposite! See above. "Armed" is more precise, specific, descriptive, and idiomatic than is "holding", and the fact that he was holding it presupposes that he was armed with it. The possession of weapons is being armed. "Holding a sword" sounds vague and non-idiomatic. GPinkerton (talk) 02:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, I've been keeping a weather eye on this ever since I placed the article under full protection. Consensus is clear that "armed" carries implication of intent to use, as opposed to "holding", which merely means "being in possession of". GPinkerton the horse is dead, no need to flog it any further. Mjroots (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I still disagree that the consensus is rooted in reality sound argument. GPinkerton (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC on conquest legend

Should the following text be inserted? If not, then how should the information be worded? 21:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

In an apocryphal story described by Matthias Döring, Leonardo Benvoglienti, Filippo da Rimini, and Mathieu d'Escouchy, Mehmed perpetrated the rape of a girl inside the church. Two Greek refugees, Thomas Eparkhos and Joseph Diplovatazes, appear to be the source of the narrative; their accounts were translated into German and Italian. According to Filippo da Rimini, who compared the girl's fate to that of Cassandra at the Fall of Troy, Mehmed claimed it was his revenge for Cassandra's rape by Ajax the Lesser in Troy's Temple of Athena. In the account to Mathieu d'Escouchy, the victim was a daughter of Constantine XI whom Mehmed had tried to convert to Islam, decapitating her and sending her head to her uncle when she refused. As told by Matthias Döring, Mehmed raped the girl on the church's altar, while her father and brother were made to watch, and then dismembered them all the following day. Leonardo Benvoglienti added that her brother was raped as well, before father, daughter and son were all killed on the altar itself. The claim of the girl being the emperor's daughter is fictitious; Constantine XI did not have a daughter, and this detail was apparently invented to closer match the tragic fate of the Trojan king Priam and his daughter Cassandra.

References

Survey

*Include GPinkerton (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The comment above by GPinkerton was made in violation of a topic ban and should not be considered in the discussion. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• While it seem relevant to the historiography of Mehmed II and should be included in his article, it is only tangentially connected to Hagia Sophia. The focus is the rape and murder, not its location. 21:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)
  • @Dimadick: Surely it is relevant because the relevant scene happens in the Temple of Athena in the Epic Cycle, and the supernatural revenge this generates is an important part of the plot, as was the later tradition (current in the 15th century) of Priam's death being moved into the same temple to heighten the dramatic effect (so father can witness the rape of daughter), so the location of the supposed mirror to this scene (Asia taking revenge on Europe for the rape of Cassandra) is all-important because the profanation of the holy place sets up the imagined sequel for the Renaissance reader: that at some time or other Europe/God would be avenged for the profanation by Asia/Mehmet of the temple/cathedral. Apart from this, it seems obvious that the mythic importance of the conquest of the biggest and one of the oldest churches in Christendom should not be omitted from this article. GPinkerton (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The comment above by GPinkerton was made in violation of a topic ban and should not be considered in the discussion. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)