Talk:Church of St Benedict, Ardwick

"Crowther's masterpiece"
The lead section says "It is generally considered to be Crowther's masterpiece..." Where is this claim in the article main body? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * final sentence, Historic England, “The most original of Crowther’s designs”. KJP1 (talk) 13:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Since when does "the most original of Crowther's designs" (described just by Historic England) equate to "It is generally considered to be Crowther's masterpiece..."?? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, those words from HE do not appear on that page of the source. They appear on this page. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * First, it’s the same page - the link takes you to the Overview - if you tab right, you get the List entry. Second, it works for me - HE, the body responsible for listing, considers it his most original work. “Most original” = “best” = “masterpiece”. If others have concerns, however, we can certainly look at the wording. Last, can you drop the aggressive tone. Aside for not being collegiate, you will find doing so makes others more sympathetic to your viewpoint. KJP1 (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't the one dishing out block threats on a Talkpage? The lead section is meant to summarise the main body and not contain anything novel. That's pretty simple, isn't it? Your personal interpretations are not really relevant here. This problem can be solved very easily by just copying what the main body says. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That was after you’d repeatedly reverted without any attempt to discuss. To me there’s no problem, so I won’t be changing it, without a consensus that it needs changing. At present we have two views. If we get others, very happy to see what we can collectively agree on. KJP1 (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "without any attempt to discuss"? I thought each of my edit summaries was perfectly clear, unlike yours. Perhaps you'd like to add your little interpretation sequence as a footnote, so that the rest of us can understand why that assessment is "generally considered". 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Generally, we summarise on here. For me, saying it’s his best work is a fair summary of the HE view that its his most original work. As I’ve said, if there’s a consensus for changing it, I’m absolutely up for having a look at other suggestions/ideas/alternatives. But I’m not pursuing this continuing this conversation, as it’s already clear we won’t agree. KJP1 (talk) 14:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with summarising. That's what the lead section is for. You've taken a direct quote from HE in the main body, applied your own personal interpretation to those words, and then presented your opinion as a "general claim" in the lead. I really don't think that's valid, sorry. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)