Talk:Church of Saint George (Lod)

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Church of Saint George, Lod. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930155328/http://www.planetware.com/lod/st-georges-church-isr-cn-lodsgc.htm to http://www.planetware.com/lod/st-georges-church-isr-cn-lodsgc.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928162858/http://www.jcjcr.org/index_item_view.php?iid=65 to http://www.jcjcr.org/index_item_view.php?iid=65
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050121191641/http://archnet.org/library/images/thumbnails.tcl?location_id=9972 to http://archnet.org/library/images/thumbnails.tcl?location_id=9972
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710160811/http://www.dvirgallery.com/artists/work_desc.asp?artistID=50&workID=734&contentPageID=5 to http://www.dvirgallery.com/artists/work_desc.asp?artistID=50&workID=734&contentPageID=5
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Pringle describes Byzantine masonry courses at the base of the current church's NW walls, and places the Crusader church right on top of the main Byzantine one. What we have now there is red = 12th c, with some black = 19th c. He also describes many more smaller surviving Byz. remains.
Pringle also defines the apse inside the mosque's prayer hall as part of a secondary, smaller Byzantine church. The plan now makes one believe that that one was the Byz. ch., and that the Crusaders built theirs NE of it, which is totally wrong.
Next distinction: Clermont-Ganneau has found many Byzantine remains in situ, which had survived until his time, but have been removed in the meantime, so one must also decide if to represent the knowledge gained by 19th c. surveys (helps the user understand the historical reconstruction phases), or the current state of the site (maybe a bit more useful for today's visitors). Arminden (talk) 13:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Byzantine basilica may have had just one apse with two irregular pastophoria (chambers). Ref: Margalit, S., "The Bi-Apsidal Churches in Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Cyprus", Liber Annuus 40 (1990): 321-334, pls. 45-48."
Which of the 2 Byzantine basilicas? The main church, or the smaller one? Pringle writes about 3 apses in the main church, so maybe the latter? Or are there 2 different theories? Then based on what?
Is there a link to Margalit's paper? Here, again, having online-accessible sources would be sooo helpful. Far from me the thought of excluding sources not digitised and posted online, but just to say that they make editing work much, much more difficult. Especially when they're quoted elliptically or in an overly abbreviated form, making correlations to other sources impossible. Arminden (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Still nothing done about it. Now that the mosque has been split off, we have 2 articles to suffer from this problem :) It's a fundamental one: if all the (main) churches there have always been built around the traditional tomb and the tomb has always been located towards the northeast end of the complex (traditionally under the main church's central apse, now under the nave), then the site of the southwestern Byzantine church/chapel never took centre stage. Both sites seem to still contain Byzantine-period masonry or other architectural elements, which is not reflected in the plan. The plan makes believe that the mosque might well have inherited the main area of the Byzantine period and the 19th-century Greeks had to make do with a Crusader-period annex, which is exactly the wrong way round. Arminden (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Our site plan is wrong, says Pringle 

message: Hi Oncie. It seems it was you who introduced Baibars here. Maybe you can help with the following? Thanks.
:"Baibars converted the western part of the Crusader church into a mosque. (Ref: Pringle)"
Pringle does not mention Baibars as the builder. Instead, he has the oldest reference to a mosque from the early C15, so 1.5 centuries later (p. 13).
:"Above the entrance to the mosque is an inscription dating its construction to June 1269 (Ramadan 667), as instructed by Baibars. (Ref: Pringle)"
This too I can't find in Pringle. Is the inscription itself from 1269, or maybe a later attribution to Baibars? I know there is such an inscription, and I think it's over the entrance facing the street, so not part of the building with the prayer hall. Can't find any mention using Google. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  When was the mosque built? 

message: Why not split it up into 2 separate articles? The are clearly seperate entities and there are separate articles in both arwiki and hewiki as well as separate categories in commons. DGtal (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Split it, absolutely. Please, read only the bolded arguments and you will see why it cannot be seen as "one complex". History is not the foremost concern when we're dealing with what are today two entirely separate entities, belonging to two different active communities, in buildings not communicating with each other by means of doors or other openings, not sharing a common holy site... nothing! Back-to-back, at best. Definitely link them closely together in the "History" sections and link to the explanation why Khadr & George are somewhat associated, but that's about it! Arminden (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Took a lot of work, but here goes: Church of Saint George, Lod and Mosque of Al-Khadr, Lod. Dan Palraz (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. DGtal (talk) 12:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There was clear opposition above; a split requires consensus. Suggest we move to an RfC, with the addition of Template:Split on the article page, to discuss this formally. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting the article 

message: In addition to this article, we have Monastery of Saint George, al-Khader (a Greek Orthodox monastery near Bethlehem) and Dome of al-Khidr, also known as the Dome of St. George (a dome on the Temple Mount). 
We should be consistent between Khidr / Khader / Khadr. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I don't know. All these forms are being used, so the final criterion is what's more common in RS, not our organising reflexes. Transliteration may often vary, depending on many things; local pronunciation and long-established spelling (blame the Brits) are equally valid criteria. Think of Rabia al-Adawiya, but Rabaa al-Adawiya Mosque and so forth, and so forth. Arminden (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling?