Talk:Our Lady of Ljeviš/Archive 1

Archive 1

No argumet

Sombody have putit this Kosovo Monustier here with out argumet in to the Serbia category. We dont have a argumet that Kosovo is part of S/M. We have tha Constitution of this countrie but we have the rez. 1244 wich is more importen for the Wikipedia and is saying that Kosovo it is a part of Yougoslavia and is prototoriat of UN. Till we dont have a clearly argument from UN, aricel about Kosovo must be out of this category. Pleas dont make the discution with intepretation or the Law wich are not accordin to 1244. Everybodoy can do that but that is nothing for Wikipedia. The stub must be a kosovo-stub.--Hipi Zhdripi 04:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

1. See: category. out of first and secend pilary
2. See: Kosovo-Metohia and Kosovo - Out of secend pilary --Hipi Zhdripi 20:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Stub

Kosovo is part of Serbia. I have added another Stub marker called Kosovo-stub. You should be happy now. --Asterion 21:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Cathedral

Why is this church categorized as a cathedral?--Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's lose the "Albanians"

References to destruction of frescoes by "Albanians" are propaganda and do not belong here (I speak as a Serbian), there is no cause to reference an entire nationality here even if the individuals concerned WERE of Albanian nationality. We do not say that "the Scream was stolen by Norwegians". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markowe (talk • contribs) 09:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Native name

The native name is Serbian, Богородица Љевишка. "Kisha e Shën Premtës" is not the native name, but an Albanian translation (with 0 hits on Gbooks). The Serbian Orthodox Church does not use Albanian as a liturgical language, and there are no Orthodox Albanians in Prizren (which would perhaps warrant Albanian "native" use). The infobox has the parameters native name and sr. By this edit, Ktrimi991 cockily places the Albanian name as native, in first order (!). The Albanian name is already in the lead.--Zoupan 13:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I have already answered. See my talk page. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

That is not an answer.--Zoupan 13:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Name Suggestion

Is this translation, Our Lady of Ljeviš really good? Bogorodica Ljeviška can be translated as Virgin Ljeviš? or Ljeviška. What exectly is Ljeviš? Also, should we include word Church? Article is about church, not person, but what about COMMONNAME at the end? I am quite confused for a long time, what do you people think? --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 13:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Anastan: According to this source, "Ljeviška" is Serbian version of the Greek word Eleusa. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

wow, great find. Then this title is even more wrong, if you ask me. Maybe we should rename it as it is, Bogorodica Ljeviška. That is by far COMMONNAME for this object. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 15:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

If you are sure that is the WP:COMMONNAME in English literature, which I'm not sure. UNESCO refers to it as Holy Virgin of Ljevisa[1] and Church of the Virgin of Ljeviša[2] (also used by Radio Free Europe [3]). This source refers to it as The Church of the Holy Virgin of Ljevis. B92 uses mostly Our Lady of Ljeviš[4], but also Holy Virgin of Ljeviš[5], Temple of Our Holy Lady of Ljeviš[6], and St. Mary of Ljeviš[7]. It's hard to say which name is the most common, but the "of Ljevis" part is used almost always. This suggest that current title is not much uncommon. On the other hand, Google Ngram Viewer gives absolute priority to the Bogorodica Ljeviska form in English literature. If this article is to be moved, "Bogorodica Ljeviška" is the only logical title. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

There are two main problems with the present title, and also with the present lack of some crucial data in this important article. I will start with the second question, because it is almost unbelievable: there is not a single data in this article that would inform readers that this church is actually a cathedral church of the Eparchy of Raška and Prizren, not to mention that there is not even a hint of it being a cathedral church in continuation for centuries, during the Middle Ages. So, in the title of this page, instead of a term "church" we should use term "cathedral" since that term is commonly and correctly used in titles of articles on cathedral churches, as any search can show. Secondly, the term "Bogorodica" can not be translated as "Our Lady"! Term "Naša Gospa" is translated as "Our Lady" and term "Bogorodica" is correctly translated as "Holy Mother of God" - just look at the titles of articles on eastern-orthodox cathedral churches with the same dedication: they are styled as "Cathedral of the Holy Mother of God, (place name)" or as "Holy Mother of God Cathedral, (place name)". There is our solution for the correct and factual name of this article. If you go to Google site and type a simple search, like: cathedral Prizren, you will be offered just Wikipedia article on roman-catholic cathedral in Prizren (Cathedral of Our Lady of Perpetual Succour, Prizren) and many other pages, but this article of ours ("Our Lady of Ljeviš") will not appear in the search at all! So, if we want this article to have correct, common and searchable name, I propose this: Serbian Orthodox Cathedral of the Holy Mother of God, Prizren. I can also improve the contents of the article by adding data and scholarly references, but first I am curious to see is anyone going to object the Serbian name in the title. Sorabino (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Sorabino: Actually, the cathedral of the Eparchy of Raška and Prizren is the Cathedral of Saint George in Prizren (see sr:Saborni hram Svetog Đorđa u Prizrenu). Also, we are not allowed to translate the title ourselves, that would be WP:OR. We need reliable sources to show us the most common translation. It does not need to be correct translation, it needs to be the most commonly used one in English sources (see WP:COMMONNAME). Vanjagenije (talk) 12:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I know that, the historical sections and the major part of that article, about the Serbian Orthodox Cathedral of Saint George, Prizren (on Serbian Wikipedia) was actually written by me. That is why I initiated this discussion, about the old cathedral church, so I can proceed with the creation of an article on new cathedral here on English Wikipedia. The old cathedral still has its honorary position, and that should be explained in this article, along with other historical facts. That is why I want to add sections on this church as a cathedral during the Middle Ages, with references and explanation of its present state, but before I do that we should resolve the question of terminology. Editors of articles on roman-catholic co-cathedrals (old in Prizren, and new in Priština) are using correct terminology in the titles for both articles: Cathedral of Our Lady of Perpetual Succour, Prizren and Cathedral of Blessed Mother Teresa in Pristina, while we have just an incomplete article on the old cathedral, with a wrong name, and no article on the new cathedral. Sorabino (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. I created the article on Serbian Orthodox Cathedral of Saint George, Prizren. Some additional editing will follow, in that article, and also in other articles related to the Serbian heritage in Prizren. Sorabino (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

So, guys, what do you think? Should i ask for a rename? We may see what other people thing. Actually, @Vanjagenije: can i ask you to open a rename process, i would use your arguments and sources, and it would be stupid to copy your comments as mine :) --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 18:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@Anastan: But, I never said that I think the article should be moved. I don't think it should be moved. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Factual check-up and additional editing

Is anyone among current or previous editors planing to undertake major editing of this article in the near future? As I stated in the discussion above, this article needs much work, and factual check-up. Many crucial data are missing, not only historical, but also basic data on the church. Here is just one simple example: in the present form, this article does not mention that the church is actually dedicated to the Dormition of the Mother of God (in Serbian: Успење Пресвете Богородице). That is a common knowledge, and yet this article still has factually incorrect title, since the term "Our Lady" (in Croatian: Naša Gospa) is not commonly used for Serbian Orthodox Churches. Just look at how the term Our Lady is defined here on Engish Wikipedia, as a primarily Roman-Catholic designation, and then look at the list - only western churches are listed, with one "glorious" exception - our arthicle under current title! Also, on the same page, look at the language parallels - not a single one leads to any sister-Wikipedia in languages of predominately eastern-orthodox peoples. That is because relevant articles in those languages are correctly connected with English page Theotokos or simply with Mary, mother of Jesus. But, the question of the correct name is just one of several major issues with this article. So, are we going to make edits based on facts, or ... ? Even now, it is clearly stated in the box that church is dedicated to the Theotokos (the Holy Mother of God, in Serbian: Богородица), and that is basically correct. Therefore, it is even more surprising that present title is still kept. In fact, it is this title that can be traced as the main source of incorrect naming of this church throughout the internet. Sorabino (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• (a) Fell free to undertake major editing of this article. I'm sure You can do it. (b) If you think the article should be moved, make a formal WP:move request. (c) Yes, all edits should be based on facts verifiable in reliable sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

POV reverts

@Vanjagenije: if you think that this is an active church, then find the appropriate bibliography that says so and complete the article. I found nothing that suggests that this building which was used as a museum after 1945 is as of 2020 an active Orthodox church. In any case, one's WP:OR shouldn't be used as an excuse to remove massive content which is all based on reliable bibliography in order to restore something which isn't backed up by bibliography.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

It is not hard to find appropriate source. I needed cca 10 seconds to find a reliable source [8]. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

This has got to be some of the most odious POV-pushing I have ever seen, and I have seen a lot. The sources are carefully cherry picked to present a highly misleading picture to the reader. It's a church, not a "pagan altar", not a "mosque", and not a "cultural site". Khirurg (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

This was an eastern Roman church on the site of pagan altar, which between 1309 and 1455 was a Serbian Orthodox church. Then, for the next ~460 years it was a mosque. From 1923 to 1941, it functioned as a Serbian Orthodox church again. From 1953 to the 1990s, it was a museum. And Khirurg, the source which Vanjagenije highlighted says that služe se za praznike posvećene majci Isusa Hrista, a sve ostale dane njena vrata su zatvorena, a zidovi zaštićeni žicom. Now, you probably don't speak Serbo-Croatian, so I wouldn't expect you to be able to evaluate it properly, so I'll also ask you to be more cautious when you decide to get involved in discussions in which you can't assess the sources. This is a closed site, in which twice per year the authorities give the right to the Serbian Orthodox Church to hold a religious ceremony. @Vanjagenije: has changed his position from saying that this is an active church to semi-active church. I appreciate the attempt to reach a consensus, but why go into such length to describe its status instead of just writing what the status actually is. It's still OR to say that this is a semi-active church. It's a closed site, which was used as a museum and once or twice per year since 2013, a ceremony is held there under heavy police protection and a guest list, which is pre-approved many months before the event in order for the police to take the necessary measures of protection depending on who's on the list. We should just describe the situation on the ground. --Maleschreiber (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Any sane, rational human being who sees a picture of this "site" knows it's a church. Now, some people may not like that, but that's too bad. There is a huge difference between what used to be at the site, and what it is now. The present structure is a Serbian Orthodox church. I know it's tough to swallow, but that's what it is. And no, it wasn't a "mosque", it was a church that was forcibly used as a mosque during the era of Ottoman colonialism. There is a difference. Khirurg (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Your comment about colonialism is a very modern political interpretation from a certain point of view, which is not the subject of wikipedia. If I went with the exact same method of interpretation, I could basically say that Milutin converted an eastern Roman church (that stood for many centuries as such) into a Serbian Orthodox church (in order to make the locals pay taxes to him) for 140 years and then another power succeeded him and changed the site's function for its own ends for the next 400 years. There's no "forcible" part in any part of the story either. A Serbian Orthodox church or a mosque was not a communal building, but the personal property of a particular feudal lord who - as feudal landlords do - forced the common people to pay taxes to it. If you were a peasant who lived near a Serbian Orthodox church or a mosque, it was bad news for you because you probably had to pay taxes to it. So what makes this site more of a Serbian Orthodox church and less of a mosque from that perspective? NPOV means to not give undue weight to any particular period and to not consider any particular phase of history as the "correct" phase of history. --Maleschreiber (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The conversion to a mosque was assuredly forcible and unwelcome, as the local inhabitants, who were Orthodox, were not consulted. It was imposed on them by a conquering power. The Ottomans did not build it, they just repurposed it.On the other hand, it was built as a Serbian Orthodox Church by a Serbian King. Oh, not to mention the fact that it looks very much like a Serbian Orthodox church, inside and out. This has got to be one of the most absurd and ludicrous discussions I have seen on Wikipedia, and that's saying a lot. We are reaching levels of sophistry previously thought unreachable. Khirurg (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Khirurg: the infobox on Hagia Sophia says it once was a Greek Orthodox Cathedral and now it is a museum. Are you suggesting that that is "odious PV-pushing", and that the previous status as a Cathedral should be removed? @Maleschreiber: what do you suggest as a solution to your concern about the semi-active thing? Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I suggest that the "semi-active" status should be removed. It makes no sense to say that a place that is closed for 362+ days every year is a "semi-active" church. Also I think that it is WP:UNDUE to start with the characterization of the site as a "Serbian Orthodox church" in the first sentence of the lead. It functioned for 160 years as a Serbian Orthodox church, for 460 years as a mosque, for several centuries as an eastern Roman church and for the last 50 years as a museum.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Of course it is semi-active, and of course it is a Serbian Orthodox Church. Because it was built as a Serbian Orthodox Church. The earlier Byzantine church (which you refer to as "Roman") church was a separate, distinct building. Counting how many years it was this or that is sophistry. Khirurg (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

No, it wasn't built as an Serbian Orthodox Church. What Milutin's masons did was that they added two aisles to the existing church and some other features like the belfry, but they didn't built a new church. And it didn't function as a Serbian Orthodox Church prior to 1999 either. It was a museum since 1953.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Rebuilding is still building. And the 46-year communist era blip does not change anything. Many churches were closed during communist rule all over the world. But an object's status is separate from what it is. A car may not have license plates, or be driven only once a year, but it's still a car. A house may be uninhabited, but it's still a house. And a Serbian Orthodox church may be closed by a communist regime, but it's still a church. The church was built by a Serbian king, there is a fresco of the Serbian king who built it in the building, for crying out loud, and you're trying to convince the world that it's not a Serbian Orthodox church? This is surreal. Khirurg (talk) 22:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Why should the latest phase be perceived as a blip but what happened 700 years ago should be perceived as the most important era of this building? It can't be argued on the basis of a logical, NPOV approach that a building which functioned for 140 years as S/Orthodox and for 460 years as a mosque is just a church. The Yugoslav government didn't "close" any church. It restored it and opened it as a cultural museum and none of the locals had any problem with that. Also, there is no fresco of Milutin in this buidling. The actual fresco was scrubbed out when the Ottomans converted this into a mosque - a feature which they inherited more from their iconoclast Anatolian Byzantine ancestors, than the Arab Muslims. What is depicted in this picture is the recreation work done in 1952-53 based on how the restoration team thought that the fresco might have originally looked in that location based on some scant traces and historical knowledge of the art of the period. The fact that the restoration work was done by different teams, in different periods and very different attitudes towards their tasks is visible when you compare the above with this recreation. An important part of any research is to be able to deconstruct any previous beliefs in order to be able to face the subject matter as it really is. --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

46 is years is a blip, considering the church's age. And you just admitted that there was a fresco of Milutin, that was vandalized by the Ottomans. So when the church was built, the fresco was there. And you're trying to convince the world that a church built by a Serbian king, with a fresco of him in the church, is not a Serbian Orthodox church. I have yet to see a more absurd, surreal, position in all my years editing wikipedia. If we applied your "logic" (if we can call it that) to other articles, it would be chaos. Khirurg (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

It is not UNDUE or POV because according to most sources it is the church, including the UNESCO and Andrew Herscher, who is most often cited in the articles on Kosovo cultural sites. Maybe it is not а full-time active church, but it is still а church. It can also be an abandoned church, but still а church. The undue weight policy is about sources, not the duration of historical periods. Also, the sources don't say that the Our Lady of Ljeviš had previously been a Roman church and Byzantine basilica, but that the church was built on the same site, at the location of the remains, but it is not the same building. Just as the new World Trade Center was built on the site of the remains of the Twin Towers, but they are not the same entities. Religious ceremonies are probably not held because there are no more Serbs in Prizren. I really wonder if the Our Lady of Ljeviš functions as a museum? Has anyone found the source? Often religious buildings function as a museum at the same time, more precisely they have visitors, in addition to ceremonies.--WEBDuB (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Why is it that you wonder if it functions as a museum? (služe se za praznike posvećene majci Isusa Hrista, a sve ostale dane njena vrata su zatvorena, a zidovi zaštićeni žicom) It doesn't. Also, under Milutin's masons the three aisles became five, and the central nave and inner aisles were made more impressive by a double set of pillars. --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's not a museum either. It is still a church, more precisely a Serbian Orthodox church. It may be said that it is an abandoned church after the ethnic cleansing. Also, it is under protection due to ethnic tensions, but it cannot be denied that it is a church. Most importantly, Wikipedia is not a forum, the only thing that matters is what the sources say.--WEBDuB (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not a museum as of 2020, it was until 1999. Who do you think said anything about this being a museum in our time? Yes, the sources don't say that this is a "semi-active church", so that should go and be replaced with the actual situation: that it functions once or twice per year and for the next 362+ days it is slammed shut under cover of barbed wire.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Haha, great POV case, and I am not talking to Vanja. I will make sure to spread the word about this one. The reason why it's partially slammed is well-known. Or not? We could write about that in the article as well, it's within scope, unlike some material. was first built on a site of an earlier pagan altar of the Roman era is completely irrelevant for the lead. @Maleschreiber, which changes are you proposing here? You do not sound clear at all. 00:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)