[JKolios]

What exactly is "false" or "fake news" about the parent comment? All three sentences look entirely factual to me:

The Hagia Sophia was indeed a church. The Hagia Sophia was also indeed a museum. The reconversion into a Mosque was also widely criticized.

[daemoens]

The omission of the fact that it was a mosque since 1453. It hasn't been a Christian orthodox church for 567 years.

[adfgionionio]

Do you think this is an accurate summary of your opinion on this matter?

>What exactly is "false" or "fake news" about the parent comment? All three sentences...to me. The...museum...was also widely criticized.

Lying by omission is still lying. Context matters.

[JKolios]

That is not even a good example of lying by omission. You directly altered the facts as I presented them by joining sentence fragments. In this case, the grandparent comment is replying to an article that mentions the Hagia Sophia in the same breath as buildings that were built as mosques and have gone through their entire lifetimes as mosques. The comment does not have to restate the article point by point. If anyone is guilty of lying by omission it's the article's writer. They've erased most of the building's history.

[adfgionionio]

>That is...a good example of lying by omission. You directly...presented...this case...point by point.

Thank you!

What the article's author wrote is fine. The Hagia Sophia was a mosque for about five hundred years. It is a mosque today. The last time it was a church is the 15th century. It is perfectly fine to mention a famous mosque in an article about mosques without getting into its (literally) ancient history.

pirate787, on the other hand, deliberately hid its long history as a mosque in service of proving a point.

[JKolios]

And it's also perfectly fine to point out the rest of the building's entirely true and factual history, without having to accept snide remarks like "byzantine fake news".