Virtual Hagia Sophia

away · Post by **away** » Fri 13 February 2004 3:48 pm

I dont know all that much about Hagia Sophia, but this article seems to be full of errors.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3472589.stm

Its about making a virtual reality tour of the Church of Holy Wisdom in Istanbul.

Can someone with more knowledge than me pick this article to peices please?

Daniel · Post by **Daniel** » Fri 13 February 2004 4:11 pm

I didn't see anything that was necessarily wrong.

Maybe, you could point out what you have questions on.

Aristokles · Post by **Aristokles** » Sat 14 February 2004 4:47 am

Daniel wrote:
I didn't see anything that was necessarily wrong.

Maybe, you could point out what you have questions on.

Try these:
"They have developed virtual reality models of two Turkish mosques dating from the Ottoman era of the 16th century which let you move around and explore the buildings in real-time. "

Sort of ignores about 1000 years of history-Orthodox Christain history. The Turks, having little fine culture of their own, have to steal ours and continue to engage in historical revisionism.

And:

"The Hagia Sofia was originally a cathedral, while the Aya Sofya was the church of St Sergius and Bacchus, both dating back from the 6th century. "

Rather nonsensical, I would say.

Turks....

Demetri

Daniel · Post by **Daniel** » Sat 14 February 2004 8:31 am

But neither of those statements are false, though. Both buildings have been mosques since the 1500's, and were orginally churches built in the 500's. Granted, it does gloss over what the buildings were orginially built for, but still, I didn't see any thing in the article that was blatanly false.

*Edit-spelling/grammer

away · Post by **away** » Sat 14 February 2004 5:01 pm

Yes, good point Daniel. When I read it again, I see they have not really said anything that is not true.

Natasha · Post by **Natasha** » Sat 14 February 2004 7:49 pm

"They have developed virtual reality models of two Turkish mosques dating from the Ottoman era of the 16th century which let you move around and explore the buildings in real-time. "

I can see your point Aristokles. I don't like the way that is worded either. Sure, the turks have used them as mosques since the 1500's, but we still call it Constantinople !

Aristokles · Post by **Aristokles** » Sun 15 February 2004 6:51 am

Daniel wrote:
But neither of those statements are false, though. Both buildings have been mosques since the 1500's, and were orginally churches built in the 500's. Granted, it does gloss over what the buildings were orginially built for, but still, I didn't see any thing in the article that was blatanly false.

*Edit-spelling/grammer

Exactly, "blatantly" is the key word. Perhaps you've viewed the recent PBS broadcast specials on "Turkish culture"? Everything shown was either of ancient Hellenic or Orthodox Christian origin. And yet not a mention was made of that fact. That is 'historical revisionism'. The Turks still deny their genocide and pogroms against the Armenians and the Pontic Greeks. And, apparently it's not politically correct to maintain history accurately, but only to the extent of what is politely acceptable. "Glossing over" the full facts does not make the article factually true, only suggestively valid.
Demetri