You can disagree with an interpretation, but you can’t disagree that someone else interpreted a sentence the way they did. The comments and upvotes in the comments tell you very clearly how others are interpreting it.
As a +1 explicit data point, I’ll tell you right now that I also read it as the priest being the painter at first.
He was in charge of the church and allowed the local artist to restore it.
Hence why I wrote that he was related to the case.
You could have put that relation in the title to avoid ambiguity
That’s not what the article said. You may be quoting from an article that you didn’t post.
And that is indeed using misinformation tactics.
What. How?
A native English speaker would likely read that title to mean that the priest was the one holding the paintbrush.
I disagree. Hence why I wrote “related” and not “painted”.
You can disagree with an interpretation, but you can’t disagree that someone else interpreted a sentence the way they did. The comments and upvotes in the comments tell you very clearly how others are interpreting it.
As a +1 explicit data point, I’ll tell you right now that I also read it as the priest being the painter at first.