Talk:Hagia Sophia

message: Starting on November 10, the user Mattia332 made edits to the opening paragraph and infobox of the article and repeatedly reinserted them after they were reverted. The modified material in the opening paragraph read:
The site was an Catholic Eastern Rite church from 360 AD to 1054, when the  Great Schism caused it to become an Eastern Orthodox Church, until it was converted back to a Catholic church following the Fourth Crusade. It was seized by the Orthodoxs in 1261 and remained an Eastern Orthodox church until the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453.
The edits also changed the infobox to assert that the Hagia Sophia had been an Eastern Rite Catholic church from 360 to 1054, and apparently left out the dates 1054 to 1204 completely.
These edits and the language they used were clearly pushing a point of view, were ideologically charged, and do not reflect the scholarly consensus on the topic. In addition, the citations provided did not support the claim that the Hagia Sophia had been an Eastern Rite Catholic church until 1054.
It is possible to engage in a reasoned debate about whether the Hagia Sophia, and other churches of its time, could rightly be said to have been "Eastern Orthodox" in a time when the division between the Catholic and Orthodox churches had not yet evolved. However, the details of the institutional history of the Christian church are not relevant to the introductory paragraph of an article about a prominent church building. Readers can obtain more context for the description of the church as "Eastern Orthodox" by clicking the article link to Eastern Orthodoxy. That is what article links are for.
I am very doubtful that there are any reputable, mainstream sources that describe the Hagia Sophia as having been an "Eastern Rite Catholic church." If Mattia332 continues in his attempts to inject POV-pushing language into the page, I would think there ought to be a discussion about what steps should be taken to protect the page from further bad-faith edits.
I have reverted the opening paragraph and infobox to their state as of November 1, 2023.
My apologies in advance for any breaches in etiquette or procedure; I've never edited Wikipedia before. IkSculdeSega (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: From what i see, the changes were initially made by an IP a few days earlier, on 5 November (diff); this was apparently the same individual as User:Mattia332. I also removed the rest of the original research that was added by them. None of the three tertiary sources that were cited support their claims. I also don't see any relevant mention in the article Byzantine Empire; as claimed by the user. Demetrios1993 (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Affiliation and history 

message: There has been some recent news about the building's physical state and conservation, namely: concerns about ongoing deterioration of the structure (recently prompted by a report in a Turkish news source and then repeated by several Greek outlets , , , ) and a recent Turkish government declaration in September that a 50-year restoration would commence to repair damages (, ). Things like this probably deserve a mention somewhere. I'm wondering whether they belong towards the end of the current history section, or are perhaps better suited for a "Conservation" section (focused on present-day conservation) in the future? Any thoughts welcome. R Prazeres (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservation