Talk:Hagia Sophia/Archive 5

Carpet sentence is not NPOV
It doesn't matter if its "reliably sourced" this sentence is not NPOV in the slightest "On 22 July, despite claims the fabric of the building would not be changed, the ancient marble floor was permanently obscured by a turquoise-coloured carpet;"

- It's not permanently obscured, it's literally a carpet you can pick it up and remove it (like they did when it was converted into a museum from a mosque.) Mosques change carpets all the time for cleaning and such.

-Nobody in their right mind thinks laying down a carpet is changing the fabric of the building.

-Were you expecting Muslims to bang their heads against a hard marble floor when going into prostration?

-Making a huge fuss about a carpet stinks of anti turkish sentiment

-No sentence is present in the entire source that sounds anything like this, makes any claims about it obscuring the building or ties this story back to the claims of the turkish government that they would not change the fabric of the building. All the article says is that there was a carpet installed so even your "reliably sourced information" isn't really reliably sourced at all.

Direct quote from the article the only one mentioning the carpet "A turquoise carpet had been laid on the floor to prepare for prayers and Christian relics were covered up with white drapes or obscured by lighting." FullMetal234 (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point. I changed it some. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Changed it up slightly to reflect the original article a bit better. Thank you! FullMetal234 (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * If it's not permanently obscured, when will this important part of the building be on display and publicly accessible again? If you don't think the floor of Hagia Sophia is an integral part of the ancient fabric of the building, you don't know much about the ancient fabric of the building ...
 * Furthermore, Hagia Sophia did not have a carpet for the first four decades of its use as a mosque, so are we expected to believe the Ottomans had more resilient foreheads than their modern descendents, or it it more a case of carpets not really being necessary when people are quite capable of carrying prayer mats? GPinkerton (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It really doesn't matter, this is an inappropriate POV for an encyclopedia. We document what reliable sources say, not personal opinions. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2020
Remove secular from lede, we not need this. Peacetowikied (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: appears as though this would be controversial. Please discuss and establish consensus for the proposed edit before proposing it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Full protection
It seems that an edit war has broken out. Therefore I've fully protected the article at Admin level and the "wrong version" TM When the dispute has been thrashed out and a consensus reached, I intend to permanently semi-protect the article. Mjroots (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Damn. This blocked an important edit I was making. GPinkerton (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , you'll have to put in an edit request then. Mjroots (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please add the following text as the first heading under "Architecture":
 * GPinkerton (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ - - I think I've got it in the right place now. Let me know if it's not. Mjroots (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ - - I think I've got it in the right place now. Let me know if it's not. Mjroots (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2020
I find it very strange that facts that cannot be confirmed are added in the main sections of the post. See below which section I reference.

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.[90] Two Greek refugees, Thomas Eparkhos and Joseph Diplovatazes, appear to be the source of the narrative; their accounts were translated into German and Italian.[90] 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.[90] 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.[90] 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.[90] Leonardo Benvoglienti added that her brother was raped as well, before father, daughter and son were all killed on the altar itself.[90] 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.[90]

Surely this can be added in a separate section? I bet 99% of readers do not even know what apocryphal even means. Luqies (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Several people have already called out GPinkerton on this edit, at the very least he's added apocryphal even though I don't see what it has to do with the structure itself and why a random myth about sometime they allegedly happened inside the building is relevant to a general article about the building. FullMetal234 (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌, we need to establish consensus about this first. The story doesn't seem out of place to me, and whether readers understand the word "apocryphal" is not of much concern here. I would support trimming down the section though. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 14:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

This has already been debated extensively on the "Alleged rape at the altar" section please visit the discussion there FullMetal234 (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That apocryphal and overlong story, which barely mentions the subject of this article and then only as a location, is totally out of place and I removed it. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Drmies FullMetal234 (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The incident is vital to understanding the history of the place. The location of the incident is integral to its notability and long-standing impact on civilization. GPinkerton (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I would include the story, with its apocryphal status made absolutely clear. Its status as a widespread tale about what happened when the church was made into a mosque makes it relevant, and we should not contribute to the silence around rape that promotes denialism. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am sure you are not accusing me of silencing a rape--never mind that the story is apocryphal. There is actually nothing in the current text that says anything at all about some relation between the alleged rape and the church having become a mosque--not a thing. That, as claims, the story is "vital to the understanding of the place" is prima facie belied by the complete absence of any such discussion. But it's more interesting than that. If this content is to be in there, it shouldn't start with an alleged rape and pile on a bunch of awful detail about what a swinish rapist this guy was--especially not if it is a FALSE story, as (p. 38), a reading confirmed by Noel Malcolm in Useful Empires (p. 26). To put it another way, you can reintroduce this content if you make clear that this was a false story, an anti-Muslim lie used to incite Christian hatred against the "infidels" out of resentment over the fall of Constantinople, which was allegorically presented as a repetition of the fall of Troy. The way the content was presented here merely perpetrates that lie; it is not until the last sentence that we find out there was no daughter, and the only allegorical link made here is between Priam and Constantine. But the cited source, The Siege and the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, is quite clear in what the intent of the false story was--the chapter is called "Myths, Legends, and Tales", and leaving out the propagandistic purpose (carefully outlined over dozens of pages by Philippides and Hanak) while lifting just the one story, with the one single adjective "apocryphal", is deceptive at the very least. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence in the source you cited for the incidence being "FALSE", or it being a "anti-Muslim lie used to incite Christian hatred against the "infidels" out of resentment over the fall of Constantinople. The association of the Turks with Teucer and the association of the victim with Cassandra via Priam/Constantine were false and part of pre-existing narrative into which the Fall fitted, as Norman explains, and which as Norman points out, was not exclusively anti-Turkish. There is certainly no evidence of the entire report of rape in Hagia Sophia being deliberate propaganda from the start. Whether or not Mehmed personally participated in the (undeniable) mass rape that did take place is impossible to know, and for the article to suggest otherwise is very wrong, as it is to suggest that the whole idea should be be hidden from the Wikipedia reader's eyes despite its voluminous coverage then and now. Neither source you have cited says the whole story is untrue. In one the word "false" is applied to the sentence including "in revenge for the rape of Cassandra" while the other says "spurious" in relation to text that alleged the rape was "in order to revenge the rape of Cassandra". I do not understand how the association between Hagia Sophia and the Temple of Athena in Homeric literature could be considered not notable and not worthy of inclusion in the article. There is no way of escaping its importance in Europe and the Mediterranean. One of the main proponents was pope for crying out loud! What I think is deceptive at best is the idea that simply ignoring this entire department of human history and deleting the idea en masse simply because sympathetic readers might prefer to believe the conflicting falsehoods attached to the account of 29 May 1453 than the apparently more acceptable falsehoods of 1182, of 1204, and of 21 May 1453. No-one has tried to suggest alternative wording, so surely the term "whitewashing" is apt, given that no retouching, repainting, or rework of any kind has been so much as attempted. GPinkerton (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "He (that is, Filippo da Rimini, --Drmies) also inserted into his report a (false) story that after entering the city, the sultan raped a Greek woman sheltering inside the church of Hagia Sophia". Seems pretty clear to me. "False" is quite different from "apocryphal". If you are claiming that the historian is saying "the rape was real but it was not some Trojan revenge", that's ridiculous. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A clear case of selective quotation, since what Norman actually says is "He also inserted into his report a (false) story that after entering the city, the sultan raped a Greek woman sheltering inside the church of Hagia Sophia in revenge for the rape of Cassandra by Locrian Ajax". It emphatically does not say anything whatever about whether the rape(s) happened or whether or not Mehmed was responsible. GPinkerton (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not Norman, that's Margaret Meserve, and your contention is indeed that "false" applies not to "story", which immediately follows it, but rather ONLY to the latter part of the sentence. That is ridiculous. It says the story is false. For you to say "oh it's only part of the story that's false", yeah. You might as well say "Meserve is arguing that they're thinking it was the other Ajax, not Ajax the Lesser". Come on now. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My contention is no such thing. I am saying only what the the reliable sources say: two claimed eyewitnesses reported the incident, and more erudite Latinate sources mythologized it with reference to the Epic Cycle. Where is the problem in discussing the whole issue with reference to who said what about what Mehmed did to whom when? Even if your apparent argument that the source is saying Mehmed never raped anyone were correct, other sources treat the event as rather more historical than "false" - see:


 * What is beyond dispute is that the stories attached to this building about the events of 1453 are highly notable and simply deleting them as though they were spam is not the right course, and neither is dreaming up pearl-clutching syntheses like "anti-Muslim lie". GPinkerton (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't tell if with "pearl-clutching" you're trying to make a racist or sexist innuendo or not. The fun part is that you are arguing that people were raped and killed according to eyewitnesses, yet the article content we're discussing is only about one single false story. Your source actually doesn't mention the sultan raping anyone, so saying that "other sources treat the event as rather more historical" is just a lie": your source doesn't treat "the event" (the rape of Constantine's daughter by the sultan) at all. All it says is that Byzantine chroniclers report "young girls and boys" being raped on the altars--but that is quite another thing. (And it doesn't explain why the particular location is important, or why the event is important to the location.) So yes, that story is anti-Muslim propaganda. I'm sorry if that hits your sensitivity button, but it is what it is. If you want to insert some contextualized information about atrocities committed by the invaders, be my guest; that shouldn't be hard to do. But hanging on to this, that is not the way to go, and it makes one wonder about what is going on here: is this an attempt to claim that the Muslim "occupation" of the place was, from the beginning, some sort of atrocity perpetrated on Christianity? Drmies (talk) 03:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Why should I be making any innuendo? You aspersions are unbecoming and I won't dignify them with any retort. Pearl-clutching is a perfectly normal expression, see: the dictionary. What exactly is your objection to the way the material was contextualized already? Why don't you suggest an alternative? The article content we're discussing in fact details four separate, but related, stories given by four different Renaissance authors, not one of whom invented the story, in widely dispersed parts of contemporary Europe. Furthermore, the source I quoted above does not, contrary to your claim, say anything about Byzantine chroniclers, but rather refers to the two purported eyewitnesses named in the article before the content was removed and from whom the west derived the story. You can read all about it in the sources cited. What is going on here? Not one of the sources uses the phrase "anti-Muslim lie" and it would not be in accordance with policy to use in the article, not least because the sources speak for many pages about it being directed at the Renaissance Turks as descendants of Teucer not Muslims per se. As for your question: is this an attempt to claim that the Muslim "occupation" of the place was, from the beginning, some sort of atrocity perpetrated on Christianity? the answer is yes, of course. This is very obviously a notable collection of instances of contemporary Europe's pre-occupation with exactly that narrative concerning that most famous of buildings and its laboured literary association with the Troy Cycle. From the beginning this is why it should be included and why I have been mystified as to 1.) this article is not already discuss this, and 2.) why it has been removed wholesale while thoroughly sourced. GPinkerton (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * GPinkerton, I have the feeling that you are confusing yourself with contemporary Christian commentators. They may have claimed this atrocity was characteristic of the Turks/Muslims/Easterners, but you needn't do so. I see now that earlier, when User:TomHennell objected to this bit, you also claimed (incorrectly) that Meserve's "false" applies not to the word "story" but to some part of the sentence that you determined to be the right target of the adjective. There also you tenaciously held on to the thought that this "apocryphal" story should be in here. No, the sources I pointed at don't say "anti-Muslim lie"--literally. They don't need to, and either way I am not proposing that phrase be placed in the article. But you also talk, here, about the Troy association, as if that is an important part of the article--it is not. None of it is mentioned in the article, except for in the section you keep edit-warring over, so the argument that your paragraph should be in there because Troy matters so much is specious. Besides, it's not the building that matters there; it's the Turks/Teucers, and the city/empire as a whole, not this building. And of course these are not "separate, but related" stories: they're all the same story, with differing details. Finally, you keep saying "thoroughly sourced"--well, it seems to me that Meserve is the greatest authority on the matter, and it also seems to me that you did not actually listen to TomHennell's comments, above. I agree in particular with this one claim, that you are "nit-picking about how the contrary opinions of notable scholars might be re-interpreted to say something other than their plain meaning". So here is my proposal: right now nothing in your paragraph adds anything to our understanding of the Haga Sophia. Moreover, the language is tendentious. (And sloppy--your four commentators don't "describe" a story, they "relate" one.) It is overloaded with salacious (invented) detail, and I wonder why you wouldn't have replaced "apocryphal" with "false". Your source, Philippides and Hanak, doesn't use the word, so I am puzzled why you didn't update the section after the last discussion, with Bisaha as a source. No, all of it sounds hollow, and to call my objection "pearl-clutching", when you misinterpret the sources and hang on to all this salacious detail when you know it's false and over the objection of three editors, that's just rich. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "They may have claimed this atrocity was characteristic of the Turks/Muslims/Easterners, but you needn't do so." Please assume good faith and do not make personal attacks. Nothing in the article or anything I have said suggests anything remotely like that. "you also claimed (incorrectly) that Meserve's "false" applies not to the word "story" but to some part of the sentence that you determined to be the right target of the adjective" This is simply your opinion but it does not reflect my position. Meserve says the story as recounted by da Rimini is "false". There is silence on the story of the two refugees, which as is discussed at length in Philippides and Hanak, is not the same as da Rimini's. "There also you tenaciously held on to the thought that this "apocryphal" story should be in here." Yes, because the article is filled with apocrypha which have over the years accreted into the cultural understanding of Hagia Sophia. Others include: 1.) the claim of Hesychius that the first church was on the site of former pagan temples (uncorroborated by earlier sources and disproven archaeologically) 2.) the claim that Justinian said "Solomon I have outdone thee" when the third church was finished (a story which appears for the first time in a collection of fables some five centuries after the purported event) 3.) the claim that Gregory Thaumaturgus "appeared" (this is actually said in Wikivoice) at the sweating column in the aisle in the north-eastern corner of the basilica, after near a millennium of being dead and buried (obvious pious fraud) 4.) the claim that during the pillage of 1204 a draught animal was disembowelled in the struggle to remove the silver plate of the chancel barrier and that a woman literally possessed by devils was installed on the synthronon as the altar was smashed (prima facie bizarre, uncorroborated by anyone and only claimed by a Byzantine refugee who in quick succession had lost: his friend the erstwhile emperor, his job as a senator under the new emperor, his grace-and-favour palace that went with his old job, his second home, and his home city while not being an eyewitness to any of what he describes about Hagia Sophia) 5.) the flight of white hawk that according to the very same author was an omen of an emperor's demise (whose emperor's reign had not yet even begun), 6.) the account of the holy ghost visibly leaving the building a week before the 1453 sack, 7.) the utter myth concerning Theophilus and the doors - need I go on? There is no reason not to include things which are not "true": their historical importance is what is relevant. The page Reichstag fire contains a number of certainly false claims, yet it is not purged of them, because the people who made the claims are notable and their claims were historically consequential. Ultimately, historians are so remote from the events that deciding whether something is absolutely true or absolutely false is not possible (without archaeology). "I am not proposing that phrase be placed in the article." Good, because I read your statement "you can reintroduce this content if you make clear that this was a false story, an anti-Muslim lie used to incite Christian hatred" as implying that. On the issue of the association with Troy, I am not misinterpreting the sources!  It's quite wrong to say "the city/empire as a whole, not this building" - the Renaissance's narrative is more subtle than you suppose (did you read Philippides and Hanak?): in Homer the rape of Cassandra happens in the Temple of Athena in Troy, which is a crucial turning point of the plot of the subsequent Cycle. In the Humanists' works, this was elided - to increase the tragoedic effect - with a different Homeric scene in a different temple where Priam is killed, so that father is witness to the rape of the daughter and daughter witness to the death of the father. To embellish the narrative of rape as set down in translation from the Greek accounts of the refugees, the Renaissance authors incorporated some of these tropes but never all, because they don't fit the facts. The claim "four commentators don't "describe" a story, they "relate" one"" is not correct. "Describe" means "write down". All four commentators wrote down their stories: so describing it. I wonder why you wouldn't have replaced "apocryphal" with "false". Your source, Philippides and Hanak, doesn't use the word, so I am puzzled why you didn't update the section after the last discussion, with Bisaha as a source. Sources (that question the accounts) overwhelmingly describe the accounts as "apocryphal", not "false". I would be quite happy to cite Bisaha as source in the article, just as I did in the discussion above. As you know, there is no reason for censorship on Wikipedia, and the removal of apocrypha which might be deemed salacious by the censorious is not justified by policy. (No comment on the drunken prostitute on the patriarch's throne in 1204?) GPinkerton (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The Khatib didn't "brandish" the sword
Definition of brandish transitive verb

1: to shake or wave (something, such as a weapon) menacingly brandished a knife at them 2: to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner brandishing her intellect

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brandish#:~:text=Most%20of%20the%20time%20when,can%20brandish%20things%20other%20than

He simply had it with him while he was delivering the sermon no menacing shaking or waving can be observed from the livestream nor does the source article say he brandished the sword. Holding a sword/leaning on one while delivering the sermon is in accordance with the hanafi school of jurisprudence for establishing the friday prayer in any conquered city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FullMetal234 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * How does his action not fit the definition of"brandish" as "exhibit in an ostentatious manner". How much ostentatious can you be? When you hold a sword for the purpose of public display, you are brandishing it. GPinkerton (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

He was following the Hanafi school of jurisprudence, can you say for certain his reasoning was to brandish the sword and not to simply follow religious teachings? And the article you cite does not use the word brandish, thats a word you inserted which removes it from NPOV into POV territory. FullMetal234 (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What his reasoning or lack of it was is entirely irrelevant. He brandished the sword. Whether he did it for religious reasons is completely unstated by the source. I have changed it back to idiomatic English. GPinkerton (talk) 04:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * GPinkerton's "armed" with a sword is OR. There's no evidence that sword was to be used as a weapon and the source indicates it may have been ceremonial. In any case, what is the point of including this? This is hardly encyclopedic material.VR talk  16:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * How is it OR? A sword is a weapon and it is undeniable he delivered the sermon armed. He had a sword. That is being armed. A ceremonial weapon is still a weapon. GPinkerton (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

What's your evidence that it was done Ostentatiously can you judge a man's intentions? All we can say for certain in an NPOV way is he had a sword during the khutbah FullMetal234 (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * All we can say for certain in an NPOV way is he had a sword during the khutbah Yes. We can say he was armed.
 * can you judge a man's intentions? You don't need to know intent to qualify for description using that adverb. In any case, it was self-evidently "ostentatiously". He did it while publicly speaking to many people on an historic occasion, notable for its ostentation at an act event notable for its ostentation. What he intended is irrelevant, I don't know why you're bringing it in. Furthermore, not all English language usage is covered by your one abridged online American dictionary. No-one is required to prove to you that words Wikipedia uses fit your favoured definitions. GPinkerton (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

"No-one is required to prove to you that words Wikipedia uses fit your favoured definitions." yes you are especially when you are violating NPOV. FullMetal234 (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. He did not brandish the sword, just held it for the sermon. It's a common tradition for Friday sermons; some imams use swords, in some other countries they use canes or other long objects. If the imam had "brandished" the sword, he would have waved it around. That's the definition of "brandish", which is clearly not the case here (plus the word carries loaded connotations). Yekshemesh (talk) 07:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Sunni mosque
THERE IS NO SUCH REFERENCE FOR THIS CHANGE, THERE ARE NO DIFFERENCES IN SUNNI AND SHIA MOSQUES. STOP VANDALIZING THE PAGE THIS WAY, I WARNED USERS DOZENS OF TIMES YET THEY KEEP REVERTING. SOURCES: http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/religion-miscellaneous/difference-between-shia-and-sunni-mosques/ ArtyomSokolov (talk) 10:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

There are significant differences between the architecturl traditions of Sunnis and Shi'as. Apart from that, the Hagia Sophia was a mosque of a Sunni caliphate   and was very much a mosque in which Sunnism was preached. In other words, a Sunni Muslim place of worship. GPinkerton (talk) 10:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Unreferenced non-sense. There are absolute no differences in Sunni or Shia mosque structures, See link above. Furthermore the structure was built in 537. Before Islam. Its structure its neither Ottoman - Arabic or Persian but Byzantine. ArtyomSokolov (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Furthermore! Ottoman Empire was not a SUNNI CALIPHATE, yet another unreferenced NON SENSE. Millions of Christians Sunnis are Shias lived in Ottoman Empire, particularly Shia of East Anatolia, Levant and Iraq. Do not make non sense unreferenced claims like this again. ArtyomSokolov (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * - the Ottoman Empire article has two book references that say Sunni Islam was its religion. Are you saying these are incorrect? Or does that not fit your WP:AGENDA? Be warned, you are extremely close to being blocked. You have had your final warning and I suspect you may already be into edit war territory. Stop the SHOUTING please, it isn't clever and does not make you look big. Mjroots (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I too find the term "Sunni mosque" odd. I know that Sunni Islam was the state religion of the Ottoman empire, but I think simply "mosque" would be more accurate. How do reliable sources describe it?VR talk  20:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Artyom has been indeffed as an editor who is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Agree with Viceregent that we go with reliable sources. That said, there are two book sources in the Ottoman Empire article which state that Sunni Islam was the religion of the empire, so it is not overtly wrong to call it a "Sunni mosque" - we distinguish between Roman Catholic and Anglican churches, do we not? Mjroots (talk) 05:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, and between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, pertinently. If the khutbah is read in the name of Sunni caliph, it's a Sunni mosque by definition. We don't have sources right now, to my knowledge, for the exact governance of the place since Friday/the abolition of the caliphate altogether, but I'm much in favour of clarifying that the place was a Sunni mosque under a long dynasty of Sunni caliphs. GPinkerton (talk) 05:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What might apply in Christianity won't necessarily apply to Islam. For now, lets leave it as "mosque" until it can be shown that more reliable sources use the term "sunni mosque" than just "mosque".VR talk  05:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not my area of expertise, so am happy to defer to those who are more familiar with the issue. We can all agree that it is a mosque though. Mjroots (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The Conversation refers to the importance of specifically Sunni Islam in its article on the subject. Contrary to the claims above, the minarets typically indicate a Sunni place of worship; Shi'as traditionally took the instruction of Muhammad that Bilal should give the adhan "from the roof" literally. GPinkerton (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That assertion that is contradicted by looking at pictures of Shia mosques: Imam Ali Mosque, Al Husayn Mosque, Imam Reza Shrine, Jamkaran Mosque.VR talk 01:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In fact, the assertion is strengthened by looking at such mosques. Not only does every one of them state the affiliation with Shiism in the infobox, to which VR has been opposed here on the grounds that "What might apply in Christianity won't necessarily apply to Islam", but all of them have their minarets either side of pishtaq, nothing like Hagia Sophia's detached towers. Furthermore, in Iran, the minarets were not traditionally used for adhan, as I have said and as can be seen, for instance, by looking at the Shah Mosque or by consulting the sources: GPinkerton (talk) 02:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reliable sources that back up your claim that Hagia Sophia's detached minarets are a distinctly Sunni thing? This was not in the source you cited. And even so, that is an aesthetic attribute, not a religious one. Finally, the common term used by scholarly sources is that Hagia Sophia was transformed into a "mosque" as opposed to "Sunni mosque".VR talk 04:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * even so, that is an aesthetic attribute, not a religious one Is that so? Is aesthetics the justification for alterations made to the building. We don't need reliable sources to say the WP:SKY is blue. We already know the Ottomans were a Sunni dynasty and their caliphate was a Sunni caliphate and their caliphal mosque was a Sunni mosque. I'm curious as to whether you'd like the "Religious Affiliation" in the infobox of the Sultan Ahmed Mosque to be changed. There are no reliable sources cited. Or the Imam Ali Mosque, the Al Husayn Mosque, the Imam Reza Shrine, or the Jamkaran Mosque, all of which you yourself called Shia mosques. Are you really proposing that there is no such thing as a Shia mosque when you yourself refer to them as such, or are you proposing that the Blue Mosque is somehow less Sunni than the Ottoman caliphate's mosque only a few hundred metres away? This is special pleading, without question. GPinkerton (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also there should be a policy that users are allowed to have less precise language on the talk page of an article than the article itself. In fact, when you linked to WP:SKY, I think what you meant is WP:SKYBLUE. And I'm not disputing whether the Ottomans were Sunnis, they clearly were. But is the description of it as a "Sunni mosque" really WP:DUE when almost all sources describe it simply as a "mosque"? In fact, in the recent controversy, I don't recall a single news article describing its new status as a "Sunni mosque". A google books search doesn't give much of a connection between Hagia Sophia and the Sunni branch. If you find a source that says the Ottoman additions followed a distinctly Sunni style, that would actually be useful information to describe at Hagia_Sophia.VR talk 11:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Your position is not tenable. Reliable sources overwhelmingly refer to Hagia Sophia as a church. Does that mean we should refer to it as such? The recent change is not very important (though it is a fact that the Diyanet is a Sunni organization) but it is very odd to insist on excluding the obvious fact that it was a Sunni mosque for many centuries. GPinkerton (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of reliable sources that refer to Hagia Sophia as an "Orthodox Church" or "Orthodox Cathedral".
 * And since the Ottoman Empire leaned towards the Hanafi maddhab, would you also call the mosque a "Sunni Hanafi mosque"? And if it can be shown that the Ottomans followed Ash'ari theology, would you add that to the name too? VR talk 03:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd be quite happy to refer to it as an orthodox church throughout the article, but I suspect you'd object (possibly with actual reasoning this time). And no, there's no reason to insert any irrelevant details on law or theology. The identity of the controlling sect is plenty. You don't see the words Nicene Chalcedonian Homoosian Dyophysite anywhere, do you? Neither have you explained why you think it's alright for the Blue Mosque and the Shah Mosque to be described as "Sunni" and "Shia" respectively, but you're somehow getting upset if another mosque is described in exactly the same way for exactly the same reasons. GPinkerton (talk) 04:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Attribution not necessary
The 1204 sack of Hagia Sophia is attested to by many reliable sources as fact. It is not necessary to attribute this and we can use wikipedia's voice for this because it is widely treated as fact. I'm referring to my edit here.VR talk  03:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have undone your edit because this claim is reliant on a single primary source and it is quite reasonable to attribute this claim to its source. Naturally I'm still waiting for the source for a "massacre" in Hagia Sophia in 1204 ... GPinkerton (talk) 03:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You are engaged in an edit-war. I will not engage with you, but if you continue, you might find yourself blocked. The sources I presented treat this as fact, so we are expected to do so here as well.VR talk  03:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the reliable sources attribute the claim to Niketas Choniates, where it originates. If you could be bothered to read the source then you might know that. Moreover, one of the (weak, POV) sources you adduced as evidence for the "fact" is merely quoting the judgement of Greek historian (and labelled as such) who is effectively quoting Niketas. Next you'll be telling me Mehemd "purchased" the mosque again, a clear mark of someone who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. GPinkerton (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't make personal attacks ("a clear mark of someone who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about"). That makes it very difficult to have a discussion.VR talk  03:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You have made blatant POV edits to this very page before and I make no apology for calling you out on that. GPinkerton (talk) 03:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Is there still anyone who thinks that attribution is necessary? Because I don't. If someone disagrees, I will ping the last few users who commented on this page or file an RfC.VR talk  13:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Analysis
The present argument appears to be over this, so let us compare the versions. Both versions start:
 * According to the Greek historian Niketas Choniates, in 1203 during the Fourth Crusade, the emperors Isaac II Angelos and Alexios IV Angelos stripped Hagia Sophia of all the gold ornaments and all the silver oil-lamps in order to pay off the Crusaders who had ousted Alexios III Angelos and helped Isaac return to the throne.

So 100% agreement there. -- Toddy1 (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Questions
Do you have a reliable source that explicitly says that a "woman laden with sins" means a prostitute? -- Toddy1 (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It probably does mean prostitute (though that, or where she is supposed to have come from, is not stated); Niketas says: "Moreover, a certain silly woman laden with sins, an attendant of the Erinyes, the handmaid of demons, the workshop of unspeakable spells and reprehensible charms, waxing wanton against Christ, sat upon the synthronon and intoned a song, and then whirled about and kicked up her heels in dance." At least part of this is a quote from 1 Timothy 5.11: "but the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry". So "woman laden with sins" might mean prostitute, but it might also refer to the claim that she was 1.) a witch, 2.) in league with demons, 3.) working for the Furies of Greek myth, and 4.) "silly". GPinkerton (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We have to abide by No original research. So unless we have a source for an interpretation, the article should show that interpretation. -- Toddy1 (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Very true, and in this instance a great number of (not-specialist) sources say something like "the crusaders placed a prostitute in the patriarch's throne" which shows why we should use Niketas's text and not the popular rehearsal of the story: he doesn't say "prostitute", though he implies it with his "wanton" quotation, and he doesn't say "patriarch's throne", since the patriarch did not have such a thing, and Niketas's text says "the synthronon", which is not the same thing as a "throne" as usually understood. I'm still curious as to why this story and ibn al-Athir's are considered more worthy of inclusion than the similarly partisan and non-reliable but historically significant accounts of 1453's sack. GPinkerton (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This source says "a prostitute straddled the patriarch's throne".VR talk  20:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source that explicitly says that Niketas did not witness the events in person? -- Toddy1 (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, Niketas himself says he lived near the church but fled the city as the Crusaders arrived with the help of an Italian friend. He says of what happened in Hagia Sophia that "The report of the impious acts perpetrated in the Great Church are unwelcome to the ears." He never claims to have been there. He wasn't in Constantinople when the pack-mule was disembowelled in the sanctuary. GPinkerton (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton's version says that the detail in the rest of the paragraph comes from Niketas Choniates, who was relying on what he had heard, on on documents that he had seen. Does anyone dispute this? -- Toddy1 (talk) 15:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We need the attribution because Niketas Choniates says one thing and ibn al-Athir says another. Neither corroborates what the other says, neither was there. Incidentally, none of the Latin authors mention any of these events, even though they were general very critical of the entire campaign and its poor attendance, its hijacking by the Venetians, its attack on Hungarian-held Dyrrachium, its failure to attack the Muslims, and so on. GPinkerton (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My main issue is giving attribution when no conflict in reliable sources is presented. are there any reliable sources that do the analysis you're doing? If not, what you're doing is WP:NOR. Even if yes, if most reliable sources accept the accounts as valid and only a minority question it, then we should mention the debate but still present the events as fact. Only when there's significant debate should we not present the events as fact.VR  talk  20:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * , I can probably present a dozen sources that present the events as fact. But doing so is time consuming and tedious. So I'd rather GPinkerton first present at least a single reliable source that doubts the authenticity of events. Without even a single reliable source, the claims are GPinkterton's OR at this stage.VR  talk  20:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not all reliable sources that mention the events attribute them to Niketas Choniates. Some don't attribute them to anyone in particular (which doesn't make them any less reliable). But several attribute the 1204 sacking to contemporary sources other than Niketas Choniates:
 * Constantine Stilbes:
 * So no mention of a prostitute, disembowelled animals, or the destruction of books. Moreover Constantine Stilbes was not present in Constantinople during 1204, instead being bishop of Cyzicus, hundreds of miles away. GPinkerton (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A 1231 delegation of Byzantines:
 * So no mention of a prostitute, disembowelled animals, or the destruction of books. GPinkerton (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ibn al-Athir, who I've mentioned in another section.
 * Who also makes no mention whatever of a prostitute, disembowelled animals, or the destruction of books. GPinkerton (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * VR talk 21:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for helping my argument so much! You've proved beyond doubt that not one of these accounts corroborates Niketas Choniates account, and many of them are written with strong biases and at a distance of hundreds of miles, or decades, or both. GPinkerton (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Since we now all agree this account is due only to Niketas Choniates, we need to give attribution, as Wikipedia usually does for medieval historians, and should. The same naturally applies to other notable non-witnesses, like those of the sack of 1453. GPinkerton (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're going to deliberately mischaracterize my argument, then this discussion will again derail (last time it derailed due to your personal attacks). As I said there are many reliable sources that discuss this without attributing it to Choniates, like this one.VR talk  22:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You are mischaracterizing the source material. Whether you're doing it deliberately or in error is hard to say. The book you are quoting is quoting another book to show how Choniates was used to make political points in a pop. history book from 1967. That book has not footnotes whatsoever and attempts to cover the entire span of the Byzantine empire in less than 200 pages. Surely you can find a better source for your POV than that? Are you really denying that these details come from Niketas? GPinkerton (talk) 23:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also notable is the observation that the book you have adduced as evidence for your arguments not only is merely quoting a 1960s pop-history, but isn't even written by a historian. The author is psychologist. GPinkerton (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear you're talking about this source, which is published by Routledge, which is an academic publisher. Once you confirm you think this book is unreliable, I can take this to WP:RSN.VR talk  21:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Friendly pinging to .VR talk 03:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you still arguing that we need to use the 1967 200-page history of Byzantium for the general reader as absolute and incontrovertible truth? I'm interested in why you haven't been arguing to include such details as:
 * I'm afraid you're trying to cherry-pick from this source when there are dozens of more reliable works. GPinkerton (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're trying to cherry-pick from this source when there are dozens of more reliable works. GPinkerton (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit request, 25 Aug
Could a hyphen be added to "15th century" per MOS:HYPHEN? Thanks, 207.161.86.162 (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Mjroots (talk) 05:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 September 2020
Please change to  ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; 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 Girth Summit  (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)
 * , 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. Girth Summit  (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)
 * 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.  Girth Summit  (blether)  16:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


 * 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. 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)
 * , 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 Girth Summit  (blether)  18:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 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: and . 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)
 * , 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. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (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. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (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)
 * , 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. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (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".
 * Noufouri, Hamuradi & Nespral, Fernando Luis Martínez. "Architecture and the battles for cultural purity." Perfil, 2020-08-08. and
 * What more remains to be said? That he "donned the sword"? That he "bore" it? . 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)
 * , 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. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (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)
 * I'm saying armed is a better and more idiomatic way of expressing the same idea. GPinkerton (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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". 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)

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)
 * 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)

Edit war?
- I hope there isn't an edit war breaking out. I've locked this article before and will do so again. There is always the possibility that my banhammer will have to be taken out of its case. Never a good outcome when that happens. Mjroots (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , feel free to protect. I'm currently being barraged by e-mails from this user trying to justify their changes, on the grounds that Erdogan is a dictator and anything done under his presidency is invalid; I'm currently trying to find the button that will disable his ability to e-mail me. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  08:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Found it., any arguments you want to put forth to support those changes should be made here, you are no longer able to e-mail me. Best Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  09:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

[Bayramoviç]: I really don't care, the history is the history. I really don't understand why you took it personally anyway? Whatever, I will just write what is the truth, hope you the best.
 * I haven't taken anything personally, I just don't like getting multiple e-mails from someone I've repeatedly asked to use the talk page, not e-mail. With regard to 'the truth', WP:TRUTH is worth reading. Best Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  09:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

[Bayramoviç]: I wasn't known about the talk page, this is my first edit on Wikipedia. I am not an expert here, alright, I just wanted to clarify something that is important for my country with the official documents. FYI, I sent an e-mail to Mjroots as well so that I can discuss with him. Jesus! Have a nice day.
 * I'm of the opinion that discussions should take place on-Wiki, unless there are compelling reasons that they are not public (which there are not in this case). I'm not going to protect the article just yet, but I have this page watchlisted. I don't care about the politics, we got with what is verifiable by reliable sources. Those will be adhered to. Your e-mail has been received and read. MSN is a reliable source AFAIK, it is not a "cheap, 3rd class website", even if you personally don't like it. I've got no problem with the article stating that Hagia Sophia was a mosque that was converted into a museum, but it has now been redesignated as a mosque, and is presumably used as such. Mjroots (talk) 09:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If MSN isn't to everyone's taste, we could also use the New York Times, BBC News, The Guardian or any one of a host of sources that a Google search throws up. I'm not fussed which one we use, since it isn't (or shouldn't be) a controversial assertion. Whatever we as editors may think of it or how it came about, the government and courts of Turkey have redesignated the building as a mosque, and our article about it needs to reflect that (while discussing its prior designations). Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  09:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Is the mosque purchased?
I reverted edit from and  that claimed that Hagia Sophia is bought by Mehmed after the fall of Constantinople, and I invited both to discuss it here so we don't get into edit wars. The sources provided are [1 ] [2 ] [3 ].

The problem I found with [1 ] is that the article just cover that "someone said that Hagia Sophia is bought". Only a single line is mentioned, and most of the articles is about attempts to fully convert it to a mosque. While the news outlet is clearly verifiable, the claim is not as the article didn't cover the claim.

The case with [2 ] is also similar, the article just covers about the attempt by Memur-Sen Çorlu, and just reported on his comments regarding Hagia Sophia.

The case with [3 ] is a bit different, as it is not covering Memur-Sen Çorlu but from other people, but I find that it is just claim instead of strong verifiable fact that it is indeed bought.

All of the sources came from people that supported converting Hagia Sophia to be a mosque, which also creates a problem on independence as all sources have clear bias on their statements. Thus, I disagreed that "bought" should be on the article, as the sources given is just about "I say this" instead of strong facts. I do agree though if we use "Some claimed that it is bought".SunDawn (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I do agree though if we use "Some claimed that it is bought". Thanks. Perhaps this is a better option. ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~ Contact  14:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciation
It is not pronounced "HOG-ee-uh so-FEE-uh." The correct pronunciation is roughly "eye-UH so-FEE-uh."

Someone with knowledge of how to render this in the standard pronunciation guide format should edit the article to reflect this.

Source: https://youtu. be/XwP2oOmlKIw?t=680 (with space after period removed)

172.56.42.108 (talk) 06:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Conquest or Fall?
The city was conquered by the Ottomans. It needs to be referred as the Conquest of Constantinople. 786wave (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * States are conquered, cities fall. Though in the case of Constantinople, towards the end, the two were the same. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the edit, because the common name in English-language literature is 'fall of Constantinople'. This topic has already been addressed several times on the discussion page of the article Fall of Constantinople. Please read the discussion there. It is also to be considered that the point of view of the winners is different, because in Turkish literature the event is called (rightly) İstanbul'un Fethi ("Conquest of Istanbul"). Alex2006 (talk) 10:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Islamic Info Box
If you go to the Wiki page for the Cathedral-Mosque of Cordoba, it has the Catholic info box colors and the affiliation is Catholicism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosque%E2%80%93Cathedral_of_C%C3%B3rdoba

For the sake of fairness and consistency, the Hagia Sophia info box should be made green.
 * hello. it is not an ordinary mosque. it is not necessary. also, then name of this article should be this "hagia sophia mosque"? Modern primat (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

please, it was a museum almost for 100 years.. i added this info into article, but please dont remove it.
in first words, it says "it is mosque now" and "it was church".. but how about museum?? i added this...... Modern primat (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Polski1683, Dianamen16, Spinemaster13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2018 and 22 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Johndeines, Talalalmutairi97. Peer reviewers: Chevsapher.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)