This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArtsWikipedia:WikiProject ArtsTemplate:WikiProject ArtsWikiProject Arts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Fayninja, you seem to have trouble going to the talk page to explain yourself, so I'll do it. The claim that the true arch was introduced to Indian architecture by Muslim rulers (specifically the early Delhi Sultanate) is repeated in many other sources, including more recent publications e.g.: here (p.158, 161), here (p. 97), here (p. 260), here (p. 6), etc. Even if isolated occurrences of the true arch are indeed verified in "isolated" earlier monuments, as the source you cited vaguely mentions, that doesn't constitute a clear contradiction of the general point explicitly made by multiple (and more recent) references, nor enough to justify deleting the latter from the article in favour of your own conclusion. Any attempt to imply our own conclusions on academic questions and place them into an article risks running into WP:OR or WP:WEIGHT problems. I would suggest adding mention of occurrences of true arch in a footnote in the current statement (especially if clearer sources can be found on the question), as this article isn't about the history of the true arch and it's not the place to hash out such a debate. The wording in the main article can still be adjusted for clarity afterward if warranted. R Prazeres (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And as it happens, I just found another reliable and equally recent source about the Sultanate period which addresses the point more directly (here, p. 385): "The construction of making [sic] a true arch was not unknown in ancient India but its use was very limited. [...other details follow...]" Based on that, I'll a note in the article. R Prazeres (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As multiple reliable sources exist on both sides, I would suggest to use my wording for a balanced and neutral approach to the controversy rather than confining a conflicting perspective of equal weight to a footnote. WP:NPOV/CONFLICTING/RSUW
That is emphatically not what 3RR means, read the edit-warring policy. I can see from your talk page's history that you've been warned multiple times and blocked once already for this behavior, so you have no excuse for continuing to do so, and you put yourself at risk of being blocked with no further warning. Next time, go to the talk page as soon as you're reverted. See WP:BRD for advice. As for your suggestion, you haven't provided the evidence required to be persuasive, all you've done is repeat yourself. I've actually done some of the work for you here. The current wording sticks closely to what the cited sources say, which is exactly what Wikipedia is supposed to do. R Prazeres (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the line should be removed altogether if the sentence cannot be restructured to give due credence to all sides of the argument and consensus is not achieved as this page on Multifoil arches should not become a warring zone on True Arches a seperate Arch page exists for that purpose as my wording may violate WP:OR because no source addresses “true arched multifoil arches”. Fayninja (talk) 02:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The line is directly sourced and directly relevant, it won't be removed just because you personally disagree with it. Unless something substantial and new is brought up or other editors have questions, this will be my last comment on this matter. You are free to await a new consensus, if there is one. On a formatting note: please indent your talk page responses as is expected practice (see WP:TALK). R Prazeres (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As your sentence violates Wikipedia neutrality and conflicting policies, in short, fails to gives space to other views, it may need admin attention. Furthermore, it is inconsistent to what is said on the parent Arch page Fayninja (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
