Talk:Church of Saint Sava/Archive 1

Archive 1

Well, fix it then!

• Why on earth don't you just take the trouble of fixing it instead of writing me a blinking explanation! I've told you HOW to fix it. No-one ought to have to follow the links in order to know what you are talking about! The use of the word "landmarks" or better still "historic landmarks" would fix it. And delete the word "line" and use "succession".
• Also make sure that every new section begins with the churches name, not "It".

Amandajm (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Temple vs Cathedral

It is a common and modern affectation to refer to the Orthodox Church Building (Ecclesia) as a Temple (Templon) by those who think it sounds prettier. But in fact, as Orthodox Christianity is the continuation of the true church from its Jewish Roots there needs to be a distinction made between the nature of the Jewish Temple that housed the Holy of Holies (God's window to Earth), and the Church building which is our window into heaven. In English, there are certain negative connotations to the word Temple as it is commonly also used to describe pagan edifices. --Phiddipus 01:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• I have to object the name of the church in Belgrade in Serbian is called "Hram Svetog Save", which translates to the "Temple of St. Sava".

--Happyman22 03:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, if not Temple, how would it be called? Church of Saint Sava? Cathedral of Saint Sava? Nikola 09:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Phiddipus, temple does have a certain non-Christian connotation to it. "Saborni hram" might translate into 'Cathedral' (in English) or simply shrine (for temple). Anonymous

As I'm not a native English speaker so I can't definitely advise on this, but will offer some insights. In Serbian the word "hram" is, too, used for pagan temples but for Orthodox temples as well. Consider also [1] vs [2] vs [3]. Compare with Temple in Jerusalem - Jews are not pagans. Nikola 10:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

An Orthodox Christian place of worship simply CANNOT be styled a temple. Whoever the translator might have been, he or she has not checked even one English dictionary. 1)English does not have the Church Slavonic tradition of calling a pagan, Jewish and Christian places of worship with the same name. This goes back to the first translations of Ss Cyril and Methodius and their disciples. 2)Moreover, this tradition is not present among the Non-Orthodox Slavs, but holds true ONLY for languages of the 'Orthodox' Slavic nations - Bulgarians, Russians (+Byelorussians, Ukrainians) and Serbs (+ Montenegrins, Macedonians). Check any other Slavic language. 3)'Hram' in Serbian is a synonym of 'crkva', but 'temple' is not synonymous to 'church' in English . 4)So far no Orthodox Christian church has ever been called temple in English. If it was not for a few negligible Protestant sects, we might say it held good for the whole of Christendom. Somehow, I'm quite sure you wouldn't like to equate the greatest Serbian church with a meeting place of an American or French Protestant sect (very often alternately called a 'tent', which sometimes it really is!). 5)The translator hasn't bothered to consider a Serbian (let alone Russian or Church Slavonic) dictionary either. 'Hram' is an exact synonym of 'crkva' (cerkov') without any shade of meaning designating 'a large or an important church' as you seem to hint. Check any Serbian explanatory dictionary. 6)'Temple' is a word of Latin and NOT Greek origin - it entered Greek quite late. Consequently, someone's quoting a supposed Greek prototype is rather ridiculous. In modern Greek it simply indicates an iconostasis. 7)The Jews are not pagans indeed, but as usual they are an exception. Therefore, every decent dictionary (even some pocket editions) warns that 'temple' may refer to 'one of three successive buildings for Hebrew worship in ancient Jerusalem built respectively by Solomon, Zerubbabel, and Herod the Great'. 8)The Temple in London contains an Anglican church, as it's an ex-headquarters of the Knights Templars, and its senior clergyman is still called the 'Master of the Temple'. However, as there were no Templars on Vracar... 9)'Cathedral' signifies not only a bishop's or the principal church of a diocese, but also 'any of various large or important nonepiscopal churches'. Russian 'sobor' is commonly translated as 'cathedral'. As a professor of English, Russian and Church Slavonic languages (I hope I won't be forced to send you my diplomas and curricula), as a Master of Arts and a doctorand in Medieval Studies, I entreat (= beg) you to change the title of the Wikipedia article and remove all the temples from there. Doing it and not persisting in stubbornness would do a great favour to all the Serbian people and disassociate them from the pagans, ancient Jews and American and French Protestants. Sincerely, A.Novalija, Ljubljana89.212.91.80 05:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

PS Calling into evidence the quantity of Google results is a funny argument. Irresponsible translators created the collocation, and the foreign tourists and tourist guides just go with the flow. 'Wild Serbs and their temples'. :) Alen89.212.91.80 05:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I would agree - I am currently translating the web site of the Belgrade Tourist Organisation (or rather, the Tourist Organisation of Belgrade) and I am planning to opt for "Cathedral" not Temple. Temple just does not have sufficiently Christian connotations in English. I also agree that while Google searches CAN be very helpful in determining the consensus of usage (after all, most language usage is consensual at the end of the day), but in a case such as this, errors or inadequate solutions are often replicated across many websites, and this needs to be taken into account. Markowe (talk) 12:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC).

Dear Mr Novalija, I appreciate your diplomas etc. but frankly your suggestion, quite naively accepted by the author of this page, sounds very odd. The word cathedral has a negative connotation in Serbian language as it relates mainly to the Roman Catholic Church and this Church is seen as an abominable sect by the Serbian Orthodox Church. I'm aware that you might argue that this is an English site, but for the sake of argument, let's say if one of the synonyms in English language for ' mosque ' were 'krme' (piglet), I don't think that any level of linguistic acrobatics would have persuaded muslims to accept it. On the other hand, I feel that Serbs would prefer to be called ‘pagans’ than Catholics. If I were the author of this article, I would seek 'second' and 'third' opinion, maybe from native English speakers.Popytrewq (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Still calling it the "temple" over a year later? Sigh... So "temple" has more Christian overtones than "cathedral" and Serbs would rather be known as heathens than Christians (if they're not Orthodox christians)? If you want the opinion of a native speaker of English then let's call it the Cathedral and finish this silly discussion... Markowe (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I am curious to know why Markowe finds the word "temple" entirely pagan. What Solomon built was a temple. The place where Jesus read the scriptures was a temple. The church is not a cathedral unless it contains the throne of a bishop. Does it contain the throne of a bishop? The fact that it is large and grand doesn't make it a cathedral. St Michael's Cathedral, Wollongong, is only about 30 metres long and about 6 metres wide, but it does have a bishop. If the term cathedral is offensive to the Serbian Orthodox Christians, then I find it amazing that someone should be trying to force a word with Catholic and Anglican connotations on them. One might as well tell the Methodists that Wesley Central Methodist Hall ought to be called a "cathedral" because the word "hall" is associated with dance halls, music halls, and other places that encourage "sins of the flesh! Amandajm (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

In the Eastern Orthodox Church the use of the word temple comes from the need to distinguish building of the church vs. church as Body of Christ. Tadija (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Writing

It finishes Belgrade's line Kalemegdan - Trg Republike - Terazije - Beograđanka - Slavija - Temple of Saint Sava.

This sentence is totally meaningless and unencyclopedic, because it does not communicate to anyone outside Belgrade.

• Don't begin a section with "it". What is "it"?
• Don't presume that your reader knows what you know. I, as one reader, know nothing about Belgrade.
• What sort of "line" is this? Is it a historic tradition, or is this a railway line?
• What is Kalemegdan? What is Trg Republike? What is Terazije? etc etc etc . I don't have the foggiest tiniest idea what this is about! They are the names of something, but what?

I don't know why this article has been rated a B on the quality scale. Before it can be a B, an ordinary English-speaking person has to be able to understand what it is about. It needs to have some references. It needs someone with a bit of knowledge of the design, not just the specifications, to write a paragraph that acknowledges where the architectural style, and the inspiration has come from. ie Hagia Sophia, the most famous church of the ancient world, as I mentioned above.

Amandajm (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to make sense of this and this is what I have come up with.

The Temple of Saint Sava is the most recent in a long line of important architectural monuments in Belgrade, beginning with the ancient fortress of Kalemegdan, the Square of the Republic, the Terazije (explain), the Beograđanka (explain), the Slavija (explain)

I can't remember what all these things are, having looked them up only once. I know that one is an office block and one is a stadium... But I can't remember which. Please fix it for English-speakers like me.

Amandajm (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I wrote that, using the church's official website as the reference, although I can't find it there anymore. It's simply a line of important landmarks (I wouldn't call them architectural monuments), perhaps comparable to the Axe historique. As for what each of these landmarks are, you can see their articles - they are linked! The term isn't used very often so perhaps that could even be removed. Nikola (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The architecture

Hagia Sophia

The design of the building is plainly based directly on that of the renowned 6th century church of Hagia Sophia. The article needs to state this fact. A great work of architecture needs to be put into context. The long and continuing tradition of the Orthodox Church also needs to be given this context. Amandajm (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But do you have a reference for that? Nikola (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't. I don't live in Serbia. I don't speak the language. It is most unlikely that there will be detailed art histories in other languages at this time. You need to do some research.

Otherwise, cite Hagia Sophia as a primary reference. Your eyes, and anybody elses will prove that it is true. Amandajm (talk) 08:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is not quite ok. It was not based on the Hagia Sofia, it is based on the Greek cross, main architectural idea of the Byzantine architecture, which specific part evolved in Serbia. It look like the Hagia Irene, Hagia Sophia... Or any of the numerous churches of the Byzantine aesthetics. Tadija (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is none of this tradition, including reference to the most famous predecessors in Istanbul acknowledged in the article? The church has been written about as if it was a "one-off" object with no precursor (like the Sydney Opera House).

The "plan" specifically, is based on a Greek cross. However, there is a great deal more to the building than just its plan. St Mark's in Venice has a Greek Cross plan, but a quite different form.

The architecture is most obviously paying homage to Hagia Sophia. It doesn't really matter how many churches have been built in between. The huge size of this building, as well as its form, is a reference to Hagia Sophia. No serious architect building a traditional form in the Byzantine manner could fail to look at the way that structure, mass and space were dealt with in that building.

An article like this fails if it doesn't provide that type of background. Hagia Sophia is beyond the slightest doubt the most important single forerunner in the design of this church.

Amandajm (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

B to C grade

I made the above comments more than six weeks ago. They have not been addressed. For that reason, I have reduced the article from B to C grade. No-one who lives outside Belgrade would have the faintest foggiest idea of what this sentence means:

It finishes Belgrade's line Kalemegdan - Trg Republike - Terazije - Beograđanka - Slavija - Temple of Saint Sava.

Please read the suggestions I have made above, and fix this, before returning this article to B Grade status.

Amandajm (talk) 02:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there anybody awake?

There must be someone who can read and write and who knows the history of their own town better than I do! Please read the four previous posts and fix this mess so that other readers can comprehend it! Amandajm (talk) 06:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Conflict in information

Quoted from an online article: "At the second open competition in 1926 the architectural design of the architect Bogdan Nestorović was selected, with later incorporation of several elements of the project of the architect Aleksandar Deroko. The consecration of the foundations was made by Patriarch Varnava on September 15, 1935, and when the works have moved ahead, Patriarch Gavrilo consecrated and placed the charter in the altar, next to the cornerstone on May 27, 1939. ...... so on April 30, 1985, the temple, desecrated by war and human negligence, was consecrated again by Patriarch German in the presence of all Serbian hierarchs, and the charter on continuing construction works in new historical circumstances was laid again. Branko Pešić, an architect and university professor was appointed protomaster of the construction. ....."

This information here conflicts with the unreferenced info that is in the article. Tha article states that it was the design of Deroko on which the building was based. This article here makes it clear that it was on the design of Nestorovic. Here is the source. Belgrade Church architecture

Amandajm (talk) 09:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Picture???

OK, I might not edit Wikipedia articles too often, but shouldn't the article about Temple/Cathedral of St. Sava include a picture or at least a fresco of St. Sava??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.198.212.13 (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Cathedral of Saint Sava → Saint Sava Memorial Church — The article currently asserts, without attribution, that "it is usually called a cathedral because of its size and importance." This church is not a cathedral in any proper sense of the word. It is, however, referred to as "St. Sava Memorial Church" in this 2008 paper, for instance. Gabbe (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose per COMMON NAME. Saint Sava Memorial Church is totally unusual and internationally unfamiliar name for this cathedral, as you may see, we dont have even redirect for this proposed name. Strong oppose. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 18:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The official name of the church is Hram Svetog Save, which is translated to English as The Church of St Sava (not the temple as some suggest). "Hram" is translated as "temple" when writing about ancient Greek temples etc, but when writing about Orthodox Christianity, "hram" means simply "church" (see: Eastern Orthodox church architecture#Terminology). There is nothing memorial in it. Because of it's size and importance it is usually called the cathedral in English, and there is nothing wrong with it. There are many articles on Wikipedia about "cathedrals" which are not really cathedrals (see: St Machar's Cathedral, Ascension of the Lord Cathedral, Târgu Mureş, Dormition of the Theotokos Cathedral, Satu Mare). Vanjagenije (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Note: I don't think "Cathedral of Saint Sava" is the common name in English for this building. In fact, I have been unable to find a single reliable source referring to it as such. True, Google locates plenty of sites on the Internet calling it a cathedral, but most of them seem to be based on Wikipedia. In addition to the article I mentioned above, there is also this article, which calls it both "St. Sava Church" and "St. Sava Memorial Church". Furthermore, "cathedral" is not an accurate translation of храм; the Serbian phrase for "cathedral" is either Саборни храм or Саборна црква. St. Michael's Cathedral is the cathedral for Belgrade. Gabbe (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, no. Church = Crkva, Katedrala = Cathedral, Temple = Hram. That is direct translation to Serbian. Most common (and mostly only one) name in Serbian is Hram Svetog Save, so it should be Temple of Saint Sava, which is in Eastern Orthodoxy another name for a church. But, because of its size, it is widely regarded as Cathedral. It is not a cathedral in the ecclesiastical sense, but per its size, it is regarded as such.

Google

• Cathedral of Saint Sava + Belgrade (249.000)
• Temple of Saint Sava (40.200)
• Saint Sava Memorial Church (3)

Google books

• Cathedral of Saint Sava (66)
• Temple of Saint Sava (21)
• Saint Sava Memorial Church (1)

So, c`mon, not a single reliable source? It is quite obvious that this IS, by far, the most common name. And official site is Hram Svetog Save. Anyway, name may be better, but that better name is not St. Sava Memorial Church. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 20:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The Google searches you bring up are distorted by the fact that many of the search results use this page as a source, and not all of them are referring to the building which this article is about. Take your Google Books search for "Cathedral of Saint Sava", for example: Most of the hits are to books published by Books LLC, which are basically reprints of this article. Others books are clearly referring to the Cathedral of Saint Sava in New York. Gabbe (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It is quite clear that vast majority of the hits are for the Belgrade Cathedral of Saint Sava, and not for the New York church.

• 206.000 - New York and Trinity. Also, all other sources, including other encyclopedias and recently published books refer to this building as Cathedral and Temple of Sains Sava. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 18:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Which encyclopaedias and recently published books? Would you care to list the names of some of them? Gabbe (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The proper name for this is BASILICA, not "cathedral

Eastern Orthodox basilicas are built in traditional style -- which this neo-Serbo-Byzantine church definitely is, and it looks much more archaic than the actual REAL cathedral of Belgrade (baroque), and basilicas worldover are significant churches that are not cathedrals (home church of the highest ranking clergyman in that city, usually archbishop) in any given city, often bigger than the cathedrals themselves.

Therefore this article should be renamed to St. Sava Basilica, because a cathedral it ain't for sure. Belgrade Cathedral is known as "Saborna crkva" in original Serbian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.41.252.227 (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

No. It shouldn't be renamed "St Sava's Basilica".

There are two types of "basilica". Architecturally speaking, a "basilica" is a church that has a long central nave and an aisle on either side, like an Ancient Roman basilica. THis church is nothing like that in form. It is centrally planned.

The other type of basilica is one that has a special designation from the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. It then has a ceremonial relationship to the papacy. I somehow don't think that this Orthodox church is a Catholic Basilica. Note that the word is Latin, not Greek.

"Basilica" is the wrong word.

If the church doesn't hold the "seat of a bishop", then it isn't a cathedral either. (Note that churches are sometimes called "cathedral" because once in past times they were a cathedral, but that is not the case).

If it is not associated with a bishop, it would be best to call it "temple" or simply "church".

Amandajm (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Move

In response to the above discussion, I have moved the article to a name that is accurate and that no-one will argue with. Referring to a church as a cathedral just because it is large is inappropriate. The church, first and foremost, is a religious institution and ought to be referred to, in an encyclopedia) is ecclesiastical terms, regardless of the fact that ignorant English-speakers may choose to call it "cathedral" and even trot out a dictionary definition to show that the word has been widely (colloquially) applied to "big churches". It isn't a cathedral. It is beyond doubt, a "church".

Amandajm (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with this move. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Largest?

Is this really a largest orthodox church in the world? I hear that this is the most largest orthodox church in Balkan. Moskva have a taller one. http://www.sacred-destinations.com/russia/moscow-cathedral-of-christ-the-savior.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.26.197 (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Cathedral of Christ the Savior, Moscow is taller, but is not larger. Cathedral of Saint Sava is the largest Orthodox church building in the World by terms of area. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's not the largest. I got explained by a travel guide and got the same story: "this is the largest orthodox cathedral in the world. And what about those in Russia? "Ahh, you see now, there is nothing inside of this one, so you can get more chorists in it. This makes it the biggest one." Sorry, but that explanation does not suffice. Provide third-party, non-tourist-site references on this, please. Otherwise remove that statement. --Laveol ^T 09:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The official site of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior says that the volume of the building is 524,000 cubic meters ([4]), while Politika says that the volume of the Cathedral of Saint Sava is 170,000 cubic meters ([5]). Satisfied? Vanjagenije (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Umm, that makes Christ The Savior a bit bigger, you know. --Laveol ^T 11:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm changing the sentence to "biggest in the Balkans". --Laveol ^T 11:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

And the current wording is ok as well. It's obviously true. --Laveol ^T 12:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your POW, provide the reliable source that Cathedral of Christ the Savior is bigger in volume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VoodooDerina (talk • contribs) 09:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Sources clearly state that the volume of this cathedral is 170,000 cubic metres. The volume of Christ the Savior is 524,000 per the source indicated above. This is over than three times more than St Sava. Provide other sources or present a valid argument. Otherwise, sees the pointless edit-warring. --Laveol ^T 11:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That source is clearly biased and unrealistic and is not reliable source it's just self-promoting website. Just do some basic math and you'll see. I don't know if you've ever been in both of this buildings, but if you have, than you are just biased and blinded by national feelings. You still haven't provided a reliable source another than self-promoting website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VoodooDerina (talk • contribs) 09:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Umm,the source for St Sava is also the official website of the cathedral, is it not? So how come one is reliable and the other - not? I've been in St Sava and heard all the promotional stuff the guide had to say. It was really interesting to hear how people always want to present something as the "biggest", "tallest" etc. At least here on the Balkans, that is. Btw, her explanation was beyond ridiculous. She said it was the biggest church in the world and a lot of the visitors confronted her, asking about various buildings in Russia. Then she explained that St Sava was the biggest in terms of the number of people that could get inside given its volume (i.e. by standing on each others'heads). And this was so, she added, cause there is nothing inside of St Sava as of now. "And all those Russian churches have all kinds of furniture etc". Is this your argument as well? --Laveol ^T 14:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course not, I also doubt that the info for the St. Sava is reliable, but is probably much closer to reality (although on the lower side), because, as I said I've been to Russia many times and first of all there are no "various buildings in Russia" that can come even close to Christ the Savior and St. Sava. Cathedral of Christ the Savior's dome is taller but a lot narrower than St. Sava's, also the base section of the cathedral in Moscow is shorter than St. Sava's and almost completely separated from the dome, so there's a lot less volume in that base section and the transition to dome. If you stand in the center of both churches you can clearly see that. And don't get me started about the numbers at the Christ the Savior's website. They say there that the base of the cathedral is an equal sided cross measuring 85 meters across, which is ok. Than the nonsense starts, it says that the dome (cupola) is over 85m wide!!! So it means it's wider than the base and in reality is just a fraction of it. And even then if you calculate the volume for that "cylinder" that has the diameter of 85m and the height of 103m, you come close to the volume that is listed at their site, which is completely ridiculous. You just need to use common sense and not express your national feelings, which as you said is Balkans characteristic. Don't be under the impression of that guide lady, she also said nonsense and done obviously a lot of harm because of her incompetence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VoodooDerina (talk • contribs) 09:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

And again, we cannot rely on personal estimates. The only thing we can rely on is sources. If you have any better ones, cite them. Otherwise, this is what we got. --Laveol ^T 09:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Religions of the World..., p. 510, 512: "The Cathedral of Christ the Savior is the largest Orthodox church in Russia, and possibly in the world. ... very close in size to the Cathedral of St. Sava in Belgrade, Serbia, generally considered the largest Orthodox church building in the world ... [Cathedral of Saint Sava] ... challenges the The Cathedral of Christ the Savior as the largest Orthodox church in the world ... " (There is also data on the sizes of the two).--Zoupan 06:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I am going to change the detail back to largest in the world using the source above, it also agrees with what is on the page about the largest churches in the world, in addition the page on Christ the Saviour makes no mention of it being the largest, so, as far as I can see this resolves the issue between those 3 pages Colinreilly (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Old Bulgarian

(Note to readers: The following is a comment by PajaBG with a reply by Puldin interthreaded. Note that Puldin starts his remarks with his name. —C.Fred (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC))

It has been explained to you that the language used is the (New) Church Slavonic language (CS), not the Old Church Slavonic (OCS), which is in Bulgaria referred to as the Old Bulgarian. Old Church Slavonic has 5 alternative names in the lead section of the article, while the 7th name overall, Old Bulgarian, was mentioned much later in the article, with conclusion “The term is still used by some writers but nowadays normally avoided in favor of Old Church Slavonic.” Out of 39 wikis for CS (which can be checked cause they are in Cyrillic or Latin), none uses the term Old Bulgarian, and of 63 such for OCS, only Bulgarian Wiki calls it Old Bulgarian. Also, English Wiki has articles on all three languages (OCS, CS, Old Bulgarian), while even Bulgarian Wiki differentiate Old Bulgarian and CS, calling them “extremely close”. At the OCS page there is a list of 10 languages, mostly where churches still use Church Slavonic as liturgical language, and none except the Bulgarian language calls it Old Bulgarian.

---

Puldin: My answer to this paragraph: You are obviously only informed by Wikipedia articles. But the important thing here is the sources. Wikipedia articles are based on sources. Otherwise everyone can write whatever they want and the information will not be reliable. Let's start with excerpts from Wikipedia articles that you just keep repeating but you seemingly don't understand. Here's what the first sentence in the "Historical development" section of the Church Slavonic article on Wikipedia says: "Church Slavonic represents a later stage of Old Church Slavonic..." Can you see? Do you understand? Do you know what the word "stage" means? And I say "so-called" because the separation between Old and New Church Slavonic is conditional. These are not two languages. The so-called New Church Slavonic is simply a stage of the development of the Old Church Slavonic language. Therefore, there is no Old Church Slavonic and New Church Slavonic. But if we stick to your point of view, then it would be more accurate to say that there is no New Church Slavonic. Since the core of the language is Old Church Slavonic (Old Bulgarian). But that's not all. In fact, the so-called New Church Slavonic is not even a stage of the development of the Church Slavonic in the full sense of the word "stage". Even the Wikipedia articles mentioned by you show the following (from the article about "New" Church Slavonic): "The Church Slavonic language (also known as the New Church Slavonic, the name proposed by FV Mareš) is actually a set of at least four different dialects (recensions), with essential distinctions between them in the dictionary, spelling (even in writing systems), phonetics etc." Do you see what it says in the article you mention yourself? First: the term "New Church Slavonic" is proposed by one particular person. But this is not so important. Second (and most important): It is not a separate language but it is simply a collective name for several dialects. Do you know the meaning of the word "dialect"? These are recensions (or dialects). Not a separate language. Each (or most of) language contains dialects, and the so-called Church Slavonic is actually the dialects of the Old Church Slavonic. This is probably why (all explained in the lines above) in the Encyclopedia Britannica there is no such an article about the so-called New Church Slavonic language, there isn't even about Church Slavonic, and instead Encyclopedia Britannica refers to the article on the Old Church Slavonic language. Here is what the Encyclopedia Britannica says about the Old Church Slavonic (a quote): "The language as it appeared after the 12th century in its various local forms is known as Church Slavonic..." That is, it is the same language, known with different names. (I already explained that both names in the lines above are conditional). Is Encyclopedia Britannica a credible source in your opinion? Is it reliable? Is everything clear by this point? Now I go on with the explanation and I will prove to you that Old Church Slavonic and Old Bulgarian are synonymous. That is, it is the same language. Let's start with the Wikipedia article you mention. From the article on the Church Slavonic language, the item "Historical development", second paragraph, last sentence (quote): "The Cyrillic script and liturgy in Old Church Slavonic, also called Old Bulgarian, were declared official in Bulgaria in 893." There are three sources listed at the end of this sentence in the corresponding article. Can you see? This proves that you are wrong in saying that only in the Bulgarian article is Old Church Slavonic also called Old Bulgarian. Or you just don't read the articles you give as an argument. But that's not all. I will show you more sources and none of them are by Bulgarian scientists. Let's start with August Leskien, a German linguist. (Link to article in the Encyclopedia Britannica about him: https://www.britannica.com/biography/August-Leskien) Quote from the article about August Leskien in the Encyclopedia Britannica: "He early began to concentrate on the study of Baltic and Slavic languages and in 1871 first published his "Handbuch der altbulgarischen Sprache" (“Handbook of the Old Bulgarian Language”). In succeeding editions he achieved a refined and widely heeded analysis of the Old Church Slavonic literary language."

Next edition of August Leskien's book is entitled "Handbuch der altbulgarischen (altkirchenslavischen) Sprache. Grammatik, Texte, Glossar by A. Leskien, O. A. Rottmann"

(Link to review of one of the editions of August Leskien's book: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40160768?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) About the author of the review: Review by: Jos Schaeken Russian Linguistics Vol. 28, No. 2 3 (2004), pp. 417-423

Here is a quote from an August Leskien book review: “The second edition of 1886 (“VÖLLIG umgearbeitete Auflage”, now with new spelling “altkirchenslavichen” in the title) became the norm for all subsequent editions” and for many other grammars of OCS. Especially V. Jagic’s publication of the Codex Zographensis in 1879 led Leskien to the conclusion that he had made a mistake in the first edition by including texts of East Slavic, Serbian and Middle Bulgarian recension and that only early manuscripts of Bulgarian provenance (“im eigentlichen und engsten Sinne”, 1886, III) could serve as s primary source for a grammar of OCS (“… dass die echte Ueberlieferung der Sprache in dem Zographosevangelium und den ihm verwandten glagolitischen oder kyrillishen Denkmalern enthalten ist”).” Russian Linguistics 28: 417 423, 2004. ©2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Another citation to the book of August Leskien (you can see that Old Church Slavic is used as a synonym of Old Bulgarian): https://books.google.bg/books?id=xAeYVDBqY0QC&pg=PA799&lpg=PA799&dq=Handbook+of+the+Old+Bulgarian+Language+august+leskien&source=bl&ots=RY757M5Iwi&sig=ACfU3U2oZsH7Yi7QjvFF6jWiGsKPCGD7Jg&hl=bg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjvp6PRg5DlAhU0ysQBHSYRCd0Q6AEwDXoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=Handbook%20of%20the%20Old%20Bulgarian%20Language%20august%20leskien&f=false And another citation of the book of Leskien: https://books.google.bg/books?id=rfuqDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA317&lpg=PA317&dq=Handbook+of+the+Old+Bulgarian+Language+august+leskien&source=bl&ots=sTA9zBkea0&sig=ACfU3U3hIoJhEmy-kH87P1Ep9XCcYzskuA&hl=bg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjvp6PRg5DlAhU0ysQBHSYRCd0Q6AEwEXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Handbook%20of%20the%20Old%20Bulgarian%20Language%20august%20leskien&f=false

Above I demonstrated to you that in the English Wikipedia, in the article about Church Slavonic, Old Bulgarian is mentioned as alternative name for Old Church Slavonic. And the same article says that Church Slavonic is just stage of Old Church Slavonic (Old Bulgarian), just a collective name for several dialects.

---

You claim that Old Church Slavonic doesn’t exist, only Old Bulgarian, while you refer to the Church Slavonic as the “so called”, which points to your nationalistic approach.

---

Puldin: My answer to this paragraph: No. I claim that there is not Old and New Church Slavonic but this is the same language. I explained and proved it above. And this (Church Slavonic) is the liturgical language. Old Bulgarian is the spoken daily language in the First Bulgarian Empire in the middle Ages. And this is the only difference between Old Church Slavonic and Old Bulgarian - OCS is the sacred language and Old Bulgarian is the spoken language. As sacred language OCS is almost intact through the ages while Old Bulgarian, as spoken language, evolves through the ages. This is the reason for the presence of different terms. But in the linguistic sense Old Church Slavonic and Old Bulgarian is the same thing. So, Church Slavonic is the same thing as Old Church Slavonic (since these are conditional names; explained above), and Old Church Slavonic is the same thing as Old Bulgarian (in linguistic sense). So Church Slavonic = OCS = Old Bulgarian. Therefore Church Slavonic = Old Bulgarian. There is no nationalistic approach in mentioning some language. This is nonsense. If we follow this "logic" every mentioning of English or any other language is nationalistic approach. Also, Greek is mentioned just few lines after that in the article. So why mentioning Greek is not nationalistic approach and mentioning Old Bulgarian (even not modern Bulgarian but Old Bulgarian which is extinct today) is nationalistic approach according to you? Again, this is nonsense. If you have some concerns with Bulgaria or something, it is your own problem. Do not transfer it here.

---

Also, and maybe most important for this specific article - any alternative name in this article is irrelevant: a) both relevant languages, English and Serbian (English Wikipedia, Serbian church and location), use this terminology

---

Puldin: My answer to this paragraph: Above I demonstrated to you that in English Wikipedia, in the article about Church Slavonic, Old Bulgarian is mentioned as alternative name for Old Church Slavonic. And the same article says that Church Slavonic is just stage of Old Church Slavonic (Old Bulgarian), just a collective name for several dialects.

---

b) the article is not about the language itself so adding this have no merit. Article is about the church and the language is only mentioned once in description of the mosaic, and, again, it is not the same language you claim it is. No one, NO ONE, calls Church Slavonic Old Bulgarian and strictly differentiate between the OCS and CS. If Bulgarian local, national science, doesn't, well, it's nobody else's problem but the Bulgarians.

---

Puldin: My answer to this paragraph: The information that I add is very relevant precisely because it's about the mosaic of the dome. I already explained this to you in the editing process but you just do not want even read what I explain. I already told you: just look pictures of the mosaic. Look the text, look the script and look the letters. All of this is in Old Bulgarian language. Some of the letters that you can see there (on the mosaic) are extinct today but you can see these same letters in texts written in Old Bulgarian language. The script itself (this one that is presented on the mosaic of the dome of St Sava Church) is created in First Bulgarian Empire and by Bulgarian scholars. It is used for the first time in First Bulgarian Empire and from there it spreads to other lands. And for very long time (decades and even centuries) it has been used only or primarily in First Bulgarian Empire. Furthermore, the respective language (Old Bulgarian language) exists very long time before the first ever mentioning of the term "Slavic", very long time before the creation of the term "Slavic". This is а historical fact and there is not any "nationalistic approach" in that. It is almost the same as the Greek. In these lands, Christianity was originally introduced through the Greek language and the Greek script. Since Byzantine Empire is leading force in the region at those times. Then Byzantium's influence entered in the other empire in this part of Europe - the First Bulgarian Empire. Then a new literary language and new script appeared there - Old Bulgarian. Thus, Christianity is spread through two "channels" - through the language and the script of the two empires in this part of the world - Greek language and Greek script on the one hand, and Old Bulgarian language and script on the other. And most probably for this reason the church authorities in Serbia have taken the decision these two old scripts (Old Bulgarian and Greek) to be presented on the dome of St Sava Church. It is precisely because there was no such a thing as nationalism in those old days (the times when these old scripts was created). Mentioning one or another language or culture in the article has nothing to do with nationalism. On the contrary - the mosaic of the dome of St Sava Church has this meaning of Christianity - to unite cultures and people. And obviously it looks back to the history. So, there is nothing more relevant of adding a little bit more information about a historical fact that is not only closely related with the subject but is also physically presented on the dome of St Sava church. These are only three words that I add and this seems to be so big issue for you...? It looks that you are the one who have something to do with nationalism or something. Or you have some personal dealing with Bulgaria. But again: Here is not the place to transfer your personal emotions. Or whatever it is.

---

Short on your claims, which are absolutely irrelevant here, though: following your flawed logic, Latin language would be Old Italian. Following your claims, which I am sure you can find a ton of sources in Bulgaria with ease, even the article on OCS clearly states that the basis is South Slav, not Bulgarian, and Bulgarian version of the language is described as just one of the versions. PajaBG (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Puldin: My answer to this paragraph: It looks like you are not familiar with the matter you are commenting on. South Slav is not literary language. This is also just collective name for spoken dialects in the respective geographic regions during the respective era. Actually the Old Bulgarian language is formed as codification of some (or more) of these dialects which are presented with the common name "South Slav." Old Bulgarian language combines some (or many) of these spoken dialects and unified language is created. Related to this is the next citation. Here I will use another source of information - the Great Russian Encyclopedia and more specifically the article about Birnbaum (linguist). By the way, he has the highest scientific title from the academies of science of several countries, including the Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts. Here is a quote from the article about Birnbaum (in Russian): “Б. – автор трудов по старославянскому языку (древнеболгарскому языку): проблема влияния греческого языка на синтаксис старославянского языка, происхождение древнеболгарских аналитических (составных; см. Аналитизм) форм будущего времени и др. Отстаивал наднациональный характер древнеболгарского литературного языка. Занимался вопросами реконструкции праславянского языка (праязыка славян). Опубликовал работы по сравнительной грамматике славянских языков, славянской фонологии, диалектологии, об истории и культуре славянских народов.” (Google translate: “B. is the author of works on the Old Slavonic language (Old Bulgarian language): the problem of the influence of the Greek language on the syntax of the Old Slavic language, the origin of the ancient Bulgarian analytical (components; see Analitism) forms of the future tense, etc. He defended the supranational character of the Old Bulgarian literary language. He was engaged in the reconstruction of the Pre-Slavic language (the proto-language of the Slavs). He published works on the comparative grammar of Slavic languages, Slavic phonology, dialectology, about the history and culture of Slavic peoples.”)

As for my "flawed logic" and your example that "Latin language would be Old Italian". This only shows again that you do not understand the matter you are commenting on. It is just the opposite of your example. Latin is the base of which many other languages are created and/or evolve. And Latin language is the base of Italian language. Old Bulgarian language is the base on which all later versions (with the collective name “Church Slavonic”) are created or evolve. The difference: while Latin language and Italian language are separated languages, Church Slavonic is just later stage of Old Bulgarian language. Church Slavonic is just a collective name for several dialects (or versions) of Old Bulgarian but it is still one language. If you create a collective name (“New Italian language” for example) for several dialects of the Italian language, it does not mean that there is new language (“New Italian” for example). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puldin (talk • contribs) 12:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

First, your reply is almost unreadable and hard to follow. Second, you are getting insolent. I will repeat it once more: language chronology is absolutely irrelevant for this article. Period. If there should be alternative name it should be either some frequently used in English language (which Old Bulgarian is not) or in Serbian.

The linguistic genesis of the language is, not by any long shot, something this article should care about. Term Old Bulgarian is TODAY used only in Bulgaria. It may be mentioned as a name variant, but it is not used anywhere else – only your Wikipedia equals both, it is mentioned here and there as a name variant, not nearly enough to be instered by you in this, or any other article, for that matter. I will not address your other spins of what I wrote, and there are several. Or you just don’t understand. I knew you will just turn this about the linguistics, missing every point in this, now it is more evident, nationalistic agenda from you. I wanted to write about your linguists shenanigans, but I decided not to bother people with it. You have your agenda, and that’s it. Don’t you see your nationalism oozing out: if something develops from Latin, that is a different language. But everyhting you consider came out of the Bulgarian is, and forever will be Bulgarian. Till the end of universe.

I will add though that article in Britannica you brought out actually slapped you in the face. Terms used are Old Church Slavonic or Old Church Slavic, which you claim doesn’t exist, and mentions no Old Bulgarian. According to Britannica, basis for the OCS were Macedonian South Slav dialects, not Bulgarian language. It also differentiate the Church Slavonic, saying what you quote “The language as it appeared after the 12th century” (previous language appeared in the 9th century, so this is a new or derivative one), adding that “THIS LANGUAGE has continued as a liturgical language”. This language, CS. Just as the Leisken. Quote from Wikipedia: “Leskien is also the author of Handbuch der altbulgarischen Sprache, a guide to Old Church Slavonic”. And even Germans today don’t use the term Old Bulgarian anymore. Using your style: what is not clear here? English terminology (and in this case, everyone else’s on this planet) differs from Bulgarian and this is English Wikipedia. It doesn’t matter if one of 7 alternative names is mentioned here and there. PajaBG (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Surface

Floorplan

Similarities to St. Paul's

The surface area of Saint Sava is greater than 3500 m². Aleksandar Deroko gives it at 4500 m² (Aleksandar Deroko 1985: Nastavak radova na zidanju crkve Svetoga Save. Godisnjak grada Beograda, 32: 193-198. (PDF)) The publication which includes a floorplan can be downloaded with the link. Deroko was the only living main architekt from the intial building at the moment when the renewal started. His calculation must be regarded to be correct: the central square below the dome has 50x50 m= 2500², the four apses cover on the N and S 2x34,80x16m (2 x 556,8 m²) and W and E 2x34,80x13,48m (2 x 469,1 m²) which gives 2051,8 m² without calculating the half circle of the apse. The chuch covers at leat 4.500 m² which Deroko also stated 1985. As Pesic has given the number 3.500 m² (actually he gave 3.250 m² in 1989), he must have meant only the interior space.Orjen (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

You are probably right, but the official site has the main credit (priority). From the official data, deduce that the Nave (big quadrate) and the Altar (E) together have 3,650 m², and the three Narthexes together have 1,440 m². From the data... deduce that the temple has 5,094 m². As Dereko has given the number 4.500 m², value is lower than official data. Using Google Maps, the value is somewhere around 5,000 and I'm inclined to right the official site. The new cadastral-satellite techniques have advanced compared to 1985. Now the official site does not specify clearly if the surface calculated by them is with stairs (outside) or without. I am inclined to believe that it's the interior... and the value of 5,094 m² of the temple is real. MIHAIL (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Its not the Narthexes they refer to with 1440 m² (Три (хорске) галерије површине 1.444 м² могу да приме 700 хориста;) its the galleries above the Narthexes. My data for the three Narthexes is 2 x 469,1 m² + 556,8 m² (1495 m²). I suppose that 3650 m² is in fact the interior space at floor level, as it is refered on the official site for the Naos (Површина пода на нивоу наоса је 3.650 м²;). The addition of 1440 to 3650 is not possible as it covers spaces at different elevations. But you're right, the surface the building covers is somwhere from 4500 to 5100 m². Generally there is confusion also on the official site, as there is in the publication of Branko Pesic (1989).Orjen (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The surface is somewhere around 5,000 m² using google maps or other satellite programs. The surface of the central square (Nave), approximately 50x50m= 2,500 m². The two sides of the Nave... 31.7m+ (7.5m/2.5)*2 ~ 35m with 9+4=13m... the approximate surface is 1,000 m². West side... 35m with 15m, ~600 m². East side... 35m*13m=455 + 455/3 = ~600 m². And the total area of the temple... ~4700 m². This is a superficial calculation without tools. Now taking the ruler and measuring on Deroko's map, found surface: 2,600m²(central) + 650m²(altar-E) + 1,000m²(two sides-NS) + 600m²(side-V) = 4,850 m² (without stairs). The surface also takes into account the thickness of the walls, which are part of the cathedral. In any case a value of 3,650 m² for the whole cathedral... is impossible. Minimum value may not be less than 2,500 (central) + 2,000 (four sides) = 4,500 m². MIHAIL (talk) 06:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Orjen, you are right in your suggestions. Actually, the official site says it very clear. There is no such separation as it is written in the note in the article. (So I will edit it after few minutes). The total interior area is 3650 sq. meters. This is the official information at the moment. The balconies (for the choirs) of course should not be counted. The exterior area is different story. This is the total area of the building. There is no ofificial information (as I see) for the area of the exterior of the temple (more precisely - the area that includes the exterior) but it is about 5000 sq. meters (measured with Google maps). However, the church buildings are listed by the area of the interior at first place. Because the interior area is the "net" area of the church buildings. And not with the different levels (balconies etc) but the area of the floor of the interior. So the article should be edited as follows: first - the official information from the site of the temple (3650 sq. m. - interior); and after that - the suggestion for the total area (exterior) with note that there isn't official information for the total area and it is measured with approximate accuracy with Google maps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puldin (talk • contribs) 04:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello Puldin, not necessarily. I suppose that in reality they give most of the time the space a building covers, including the structure's of the outer walls. Interior space is always harder to calculate than taking the outer circumference.Orjen (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. That's also true. That is because there isn't strict rule and sometimes (or often) the officials use the bigger number. That's why your suggestion is true again. For example, I measured with Google maps some of the other largest Orthodox cathedrals (in Bucharest, in Moscow, in Sofia and partially in St Petersburg) and I found that the listed area (there isn't official information about the area of the cathedral in Moscow) in most cases is the area that is in some way covered (everything that is covered by roof of any kind). Even in some cases the area measured this way is presented as interior area (which is not correct actually). So, the solution is simple - the information about the area of the church buildings should be presented as two separate numbers (one number for the interior area and one number for the exterior area) but not just only one number. With this approach there is no questions and everything is clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puldin (talk • contribs) 23:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Official cadastre gives 4830m² ground area

Dilemma solved - the official cadastre gives 4830 m² for the build-up area of the church: cadastral parcel of the church of saint sava 1819/2 at 4830 m² — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orjen (talk • contribs) 12:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)