Talk:Kakatiya dynasty

Timeline

According to the article, The kigdom was in existence starting 1083 AD. But the article also mentions that the king Gundyana (first Kakatiya) lived between 945 - 970 A.D. There is a disparity of timeline here. Could someone cite authoritive sources for when the timeline.

Caste and Caste Agenda

There is no reliable source supporting the caste of kakatiyas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.115.65.15 (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no source that specifically states that the Kakatiyas were from a specific caste. Jonny555 (talk) 03:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, do not bring any caste agendas to this article. Jonny555 (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The article has been cleverly edited to include references to Kakatiyas as Kamma kings. They were not and were in no way related to Musunuri Nayaks. This is a bigoted kamma caste agenda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.177.24 (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The article is being edited to include Kamma and Musunuri clans as the Kings of the Dynasty which is false and has no what so ever relationship with Kakatiya dynasty. Kammas and Musunuris were peasants in Andhra and have no role in Administrative affairs of Kakatiya Dynasty to which they dont even belong to present day Telangana state and neither do they have any role in the history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psuedocode (talk • contribs) 21:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The caste of the kakatiyas can not be easily fixed by any body because they themselves did not declare it but one can only guess it by studying their ancestry. The kakatiyas ancestry can be traced to Venne Rasa, he was a commander of the Rashtrakutas and took part in many battles for them mostly against the eastern Chalukyas. Rasa is used in kannada language to denote a ruler and hence one can guess that they belonged to karnataka and entered Andhra as chiefs of Rashtrakutas. They belonged to Gakati which is near mysore and a place of Reddi settlements. His descendants Gundiya and Eriya had the title of Rashtrakuta and Kakatiya Prola 2nd had the title Reddi to his name in several of his inscriptions and during his reign Reddi brothers Lakshma Reddi and Velama Reddi started to construct a fort at khammam in AD 950, they came from oragallu, all these facts clearly show and indicate that most probably the kakatiyas belong to the Reddi caste group. Rajshekhar Reddy Arya (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing

Please can people read WP:Citing sources and WP:OR (especially the bit about synthesis) before attempting to improve this article. It is known to attract poor theories, POV pushing etc and citing sources without providing page numbers, author names, publishers, ISBNs etc is simply not good enough. Furthermore, please be prepared to provide copies of the relevant source material if requested, which is highly likely given the subject matter. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 08:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

So you restored the article to the version which had absolutely zero sources provided and which also endorses caste agenda? You could have just simply told me to better provide references instead of deleting all my researched work. Jonny555 (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Your citations are so poor that they are worthless. I'm reverting you again - you have had several hours to at least fix some of the issues that you have reinstated. Feel free to remove the unsourced statements completely and/or to draft something of decent quality in your sandbox and then add it to the article. - Sitush (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Citation problems aside, I noticed that you have still included the caste stuff. Do you believe there is enough evidence to back that stuff up? Jonny555 (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked. I've just removed all statements that were obviously unsourced or inadequately sourced. I've got IT problems at the moment and can delve no deeper but I'm probably up there with the best on Wikipedia when it comes to sorting out caste puffery, caste warfare and similar: I'd estimate that at least half the time such caste claims tend to be wrong or at least grossly embellished. Which ones are you specifically referring to here and, if they are sourced, then why do you think that the sources are unsuitable? - Sitush (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I am talking about the section "Clan of the Kakatiyas" which reads like this:

"Many inscriptions shows Kakatiyas as the rulers, who were belonged to the fourth varna, though it is unclear which community. Some sources shows that, the two Kakatiya chieftains, namely 'Kapaya' and 'Prolaya' were from the Durjaya clan of Musunuru family belongs to Kamma (caste) . And 'Prolaya' was the blood relation of Veera Pratapa Rudra. They were called as Musunuri Nayaks. Kakatiyas were also called as Kakatiya Nayaks (or) Karma/Kamma Nayaks."

This whole paragraph is utter nonsense. From what I have read, this information is false. They may have belonged to the fourth varna but there is nothing that they specifically belonged to the Kamma caste or any such community Jonny555 (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've figured it out - you mean the clan section. Well, obviously that is bullshit based on a book written by a person who appears to have no great academic status and published by a body I've never even heard of. Replace it with stuff from Eaton,. Talbot and this: they're more accessible, more recent. known academics, quality publishers ... and they have no particular axe to grind. - Sitush (talk) 23:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I visited the page after a long time and found to my horror the whole article was messed up. I placed my inputs with lots of research and consulting authentic books published by Telugu University and by reputed historians. The origin of Kakatiyas is a matter of discussion. Kamma nayaks came to Warangal region only after the Battle of Palnadu. Kakatiyas intermarried with Kshatriyas, Kammas and Velamas for political equations. When I tried to restore my older inputs I am unable to do. Can someone help?Kumarrao (talk) 09:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

You can add whatever you wish provided that it complies with our policies of verifiability, reliable sourcing, neutrality and so on. However, please note that I'll be asking you to provide copies of any sources that you use which are not available to me via the internet. I'll also be asking for translations where applicable. - Sitush (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I again deleted the clan section because there is no proof that Kakatiyas were Kammas.Kumarrao (talk) 10:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

This paragraph is being repeatedly reinstated. There is only one source but it refers to "several" historians, which seems odd. Worse, we know that there is a lot of pseudo-history published in India and I've been struggling to find example of where the source is cited by anyone else, which raises questions about its reliability. At present, there is only one other Wikipedia article that refers to anything published by the Indian Peasant Institute and that is related to this one (Kamma (caste)) and uses the same source. Indeed, the IPS appears to have been estrablished by the author himself (see Nidubrolu and N. G. Ranga). Ranga was apparently a professor but his specialism was economics, not ancient history. It really doesn't seem to be a good source and I would appreciate an explanation why others think differently. - Sitush (talk) 09:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The request for a map

Someone has put this request [1] but I need more info to make it happened. Please visit that link and add asked information. --Goran tek-en (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

       I've replied and dropped a note. Lateraldissonance (talk)   — Preceding undated comment added 04:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC) 

I need more info anyway so you will have to look at the request Need_a_map_of_the_Kakatiya_Empire_in_India --Goran tek-en (talk) 11:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Empire or Dynasty?

There seems to be a back and forth in the article about Kakatiya Empire or Kakatiya Dynasty. Is there a sourced reference to the Kakatiya's calling their territories under a different name? Either way, once this is settled, there needs to be some consistency. Lateraldissonance (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

There were findings which uncovered the facts of its(Golconda Forts's) construction way before it in 12th-13th CE in Kakatiya Dynasty. Dronal Bhardwaj (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2015

Please add details about their construction of Lord Shiva temples like Thousand Pillars temple and Ramappa Temples 144.42.254.13 (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

Repeated removal

So, why the repeated removal of sourced content? And why the disregard for sourced content ("sourced content is irrelevant to basic facts")? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Sourced content was removed by previous editors. My edit was restoring the portion of the same cited author's sourced content that was focused on facts, i.e. the Musunuri Nayak political unit that existed for 50 years following the Kakatiya dynasty's fall. Because the second portion of the text was redundant, and it was based on Talbot's theory, 1 section of sourced content was restored and the redundant portion removed. So the question is why was sourced content focused on fact removed for source content based on the author's opinion/editorialising on motivations. Far easier to simply write, x, y, z, happened. Why was the sourced content for the date of the Kakatiya dynasty's founding removed by you? Devanampriya (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I've re-inserted the date and the references you added. I'd reverted on technical grounds: undoing you reverts, because there was no discussion of the removal of sourced content, except for the explanation cited above.

But I really don't see any restoration of sourced content, except for the alteration of a few words ('"initially repulsed" into "defeated in the fourth war"; removal of "apparent"; addition of "the surprised"). How does that justify the removal of sourced content ("with his obeisance on this occasion being arranged by the sultanate to include a very public display whereby he bowed towards Delhi from the ramparts of Orugallu."; "A revisionist interpretation of Prataparudra II himself [...] had occurred.")? Are both Eaton and Talbot merely giving "opinions"? And why the removal of a reference ("The structure of [...] and Velama]s.(sfnp|Eaton|2005|p=22|ps=)")? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

If you look closely, this was the content from an earlier version of this article: "As early as 1330, Musunuri Nayaks who served as army chiefs for Kakatiya kingdom united the various Telugu clans and recovered Warangal from the Delhi Sultanate and ruled for half a century."

References

That was the Talbot sourced content that I restored that some previous editor removed. "("The structure of [...] and Velama]s." wasn't removed by me, it was and is still there. I merely added the old factual Talbot quote after where it was chronologically relevant. There was no citation for "obeisance", only for tribute sentence "100 elephants", etc., which I obviously kept (I didn't see any related block quote). Having given my explanation for the restoration of fact and the removal of speculative opinion, your friend has yet to explain on talk why said Talbot opinion should remain and was cause for the edit war he initiated and in which he involved you. Devanampriya (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I see now that you emphasized not the text of "The structure of [...] and Velama's" but the Eaton citation itself. That wasn't removed due to opinion (different paragraph at the bottom). That was replaced by the original Talbot reference which had been there earlier. That was my main concern that through the insertion of opinion the main fact about the immediate aftermath was lost, as well as the same author's factual citation. It is immaterial to me whether the Eaton reference stays or not, but the Talbot fact reference I restored effectively discusses the same. Devanampriya (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification; I probably see your point. The problem is, your edit did remove other, sourced content as well; unintended, I guess. Please have a look at the diff, and scroll down. I guess you could better simply copy-paste the preferred piece of info. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Devanampriya: Neither I nor JJ have said anything about your new text. So, please leave that out of discussion. The question is your removal of other sourced content, the whole paragraph about the revisionist history. You haven't explained properly why you deleted it. You still haven't. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

You have an obligation to say something about the text (especially Talbot's opinion paragraph), as you have accountability for your edits too. I made an edit (and explained it both in talk/edit summary), you countered it without close scrutiny of the topic and now refuse to give an explanation for why you think it should stay. I have clearly explained that I restored previously deleted sourced content by Talbot that was factual which made sourced content by Talbot, which was opinion and editorialising, redundant. You haven't explained properly why you think opinion is more important than fact and should stay. Devanampriya (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

"Relevance" or "redundancy" are issues of judgement, and they require consensus among editors. You cannot unilaterally declare that something is irrelevant or redundant. You need to state your case. Secondly, the text you deleted is from Eaton (2005), not Talbot. Eaton has about 5 pages of discussion titled "Pratap Rudra remembered," describing in detail the aftermath of the Kakatiya empire and how these events influenced the memory of Pratapa Rudra and the Kakatiya Empire. That memory is still current. So, it needs to be discussed in the article. In any case, the fact that an impeccably reliable source has this discussion is itself enough to establish its relevance. Your opinion constitutes WP:OR. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I can make any declaration I want to provided I discuss it. Respecting consensus means building it rather than steamrolling dissent via edit warring. That is why I am here talking to you both so both sides can make their cases.

In addition, if you read carefully, you will see both Eaton and Talbot are cited in the last paragraph as anyone can clearly see (cite 43 for your edification). Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand the difference between WP:OR and judgment of relevancy to the page. Talbot herself is engaging in revisionism by contesting the historical narrative of these historical figures in their historical sources, so casting that cite as "impeccably reliable" is a judgment call itself. The source I provide, P.R. Rao, clearly antedates Talbot as cited here, so it's obvious who is engaging in said revisionist interpretation. Comparing scholarship necessitates judgment, which is not WP:OR, not mere anointing of one as the high priestess of a topic.

This article is about the Kakatiya dynasty, not Prolaya Nayak or his alleged justification and motives in fighting the Delhi sultan. Regardless of whether it is attributed to Talbot or Eaton, the onus is on you to explain how this "sourced content" is relevant or demonstrate WP:Good Faith by rewording the paragraph where necessary:

As early as 1330, Prolaya Nayaka, [43] chieftain based near Orugallu, was attempting to justify his attempts to oppose the sultanate and promote Hinduism by depicting Prataparudra as a heroic symbol of righteousness and claiming that his own actions were in the same mould.

Most Indian Subcontinent articles are plagued by X vs Y religious narrative. This page and others would benefit by simply stating the facts of what occurred rather than an historian's...any historian's...speculative theory and opinion on whether a different historical figure than this article was engaging in revising his own recent history. That would be true WP:NPOV.

I have made my case, and you should make yours. If you can't accommodate any of these reasonable requests, we'll just have to agree to disagree.Devanampriya (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• Talbot was cited just for the mention of Prolaya Nayaka (note the placing of [43]), but the overall content is from Eaton. So, you need stop badgering Talbot and start reading Eaton.
• "Impeccably reliable" is based on the policies defined in WP:RS. It is not based on whether any editor agrees/disagrees with any content. Whether Talbot and Eaton are engaging in "revisionism" is not pertinent. Being reliable sources, what they say can be stated as fact, unless they are contradicted by other equally reliable sources.
• I don't see the relevance of P. R. Rao to this discussion.
• Your idea to avoid "X vs Y religious narrative," is admirable in theory, but it is unworkable. The lead itself declares the Delhi Sultanate as "aliens" that invaded. The first section is at pains to draw attention to the Hindu vs Muslim conflicts. These things supposedly "happened." If Prolaya Nayaka paints Pratapa Rudra as a righteous upholder of Hindu Dharma, that supposedly didn't happen. Whom are we kidding? To avoid the "religious narrative," you need to delete all mention of religion from the article. Do you think that is possible?
• I, on the other hand, don't find it necessary to delete the mention of religions. Neither do the policies require any such thing. The policies simply state that we should follow WP:NPOV, i.e., a balance of all reliable sources. We don't censor stuff based on our own opinions.
• You have raised the issue of "relevance." This is an article on Kakatiya dynasty. Everything that pertains to them and everything that has been said about them, including novels written or movies made belong in here, provided they are notable. Narratives built about them within a few decades of the end of the empire certainly belong here. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Response below.Devanampriya (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

"As early as 1330"

@Devanampriya: you wrote that you restored "the Talbot sourced content":

"As early as 1330, {{sfnp|Talbot|2001|p=177|ps=}} Musunuri Nayaks who served as army chiefs for Kakatiya kingdom united the various Telugu clans and recovered Warangal from the Delhi Sultanate and ruled for half a century.<ref>Pre-colonial India in Practice, Cynthia Talbot, 2001, Oxford University Press, pp.177-182, ISBN 0-19-513661-6</ref>"

Yet, the text you changed with your edit first read

"{{sfnp|Eaton|2005|p=22|ps=}} As early as 1330, Musunuri Nayaks who served as army chiefs for Kakatiya kingdom united the various Telugu clans and recovered Warangal from the Delhi Sultanate and ruled for half a century.{{sfnp|Talbot|2001|pp=177-182|ps=}}"

So, what you did was the following:

• Adding the date "1053" plus reference
• Remove "with his obeisance on this occasion being arranged by the sultanate to include a very public display whereby he bowed towards Delhi from the ramparts of Orugallu."
• Change '"initially repulsed" into "defeated in the fourth war"; removed "apparent"; added of "the surprised"
• Remove a reference for "Niyogis, Reddies and Velamas." ({{sfnp|Eaton|2005|p=22|ps=}})
• Change a .{{sfnp|Talbot|2001|pp=177-182|ps=}} reference into an inline-reference (<ref>Pre-colonial India in Practice, Cynthia Talbot, 2001, Oxford University Press, pp.177-182, ISBN 0-19-513661-6</ref>)
• Add a reference for "As early as 1330"({{sfnp|Talbot|2001|p=177|ps=}})
• Remove a chink of info:

"A revisionist interpretation of Prataparudra II himself appeared much sooner, within a few years of his death, and for broadly similar reasons. As early as 1330, Prolaya Nayaka, {{sfnp|Talbot|2001|p=177|ps=}} chieftain based near Orugallu, was attempting to justify his attempts to oppose the sultanate and promote Hinduism by depicting Prataparudra as a heroic symbol of righteousness and claiming that his own actions were in the same mould. However, this and similar efforts to depict Prataparudra as the most eminent ruler of the Kakatiya dynasty and to demonstrate a dichotomy between the perceived barbarian invaders and the righteous Hindu inhabitants had generally disappeared by 1420, by which time social assimilation had occurred.{{sfnp|Eaton|2005|pp=26-28|ps=}}"

It might have been easier just to re-insert only the Talbot-reference. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

It also would have been easier if your friend Kautilya3 had merely re-inserted The Talbot/Eaton paragraph rather than removing my cited date via revert. We can all put each other under the microscope, the question is whether you two gentlemen are interested in WP:Good Faith discussion or engaging in acrimony through recrimination. I can respect a difference of opinion and accept when the present majority doesn't agree to my change. The question is how do you two want to resolve this issue, assuming that is the point of this discussion. Is it? I am open either way. Devanampriya (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, the references are not a problem, are they? The question is: why the removal of the two pieces of text? I have to admit that "with his obeisance on this occasion being arranged by the sultanate to include a very public display whereby he bowed towards Delhi from the ramparts of Orugallu" is an awkward sentence; but that could be rewritten, couldn't it? But why the removal of "A revisionist interpretation [...] social assimilation had occurred"? I guess that that's what Kautilya is most interested in. bets regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The Paragraph is the main problem as I have been repeatedly pointing out, before you helped your friend circumvent WP:3RR.

Here is my original edit summary where I clearly call out the editorializing Talbot paragraph and explain why I am removing it in favor of the original factual Talbot quote, which someone curiously removed. Please provide the correct edit summary next time if you wish to put my edits under the microscope. Subsequent edit summaries were during reverts, which were naturally more limited in description. Even those asked whether the reverting editor wanted additional cites(as the revision history clearly shows)--I was prepared to provide them on request. It takes two hands to clap. You didn't answer my question: are you both interested in resolving this dispute or something else? Devanampriya (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

On a side note, I know English isn't your first language, but "chink" is considered a racist insult towards people of Asian descent. You may wish to change that. In the interest of WP:Good Faith that can be considered a typo for now.Devanampriya (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

There are occasions where I have avoided all opinions of historians, e.g., in Ayodhya dispute. The reason there was that the historians themselves became the subject of the dispute. They weren't neutral third parties any more. That is not the case here. If you want to say that Talbot and Eaton can't be stated as fact, you need to bring other equally reliable sources that contest what they say. Only then we need to start worrying about WP:BALANCE. You can only counter reliable sources through other reliable sources, not your personal opinions.- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

And, "chink" is a perfectly fine English word [2]. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

For the sake of readability, I will respond to both your paragraphs here.

1.I am glad you appreciate my point on toning down the clash of religious narratives. Yes, it's true these aspects were part of that era, but that only serves to prove my point that, sourced or not, that Talbot opinion paragraph should be left out. It is precisely for that reason our standard shouldn't be discussing virtually any speculative theory or absolutely everything related to Prataparudra, who already has a wikipedia page anyway. Excessive focus on motivations takes away from simply stating the facts that x,y,z happened. This would spare us from super-imposing speculative modern narratives on verifiable facts that took place in the aftermath. The goal, as such, is Neutral Point of View not Talbot Point of View. Calling for NPOV is, therefore, not "censorship".

2.I am not "badgering" anyone, so you needn't badger me to read Eaton. I am quite familiar with both their works and recognize the speculative nature of the theory they put forth. Like it or not, Talbot herself also writes on the same topic about this alleged "revisionism".

3. "Impeccably reliable" is neither mentioned nor is it a standard in WP:RS, so presenting that in such terms is rather inaccurate, nor would I characterize those authors as such. I encourage you to read beyond them.

4.I have based my judgment not on personal opinion, but on reliable sources, that is why I mentioned P.R.Rao to bring balance. That is the relevance of that source to this discussion because his work demonstrates how recent the "revisionist" theory is, and shows it is Talbot who is actually revisionist, and that paragraph based on speculation (whether her's or Eaton's, since she mentions him in her work). That is the basis for my opposition to the Talbot paragraph.

Also, usage of the word "chink" also matters, hence it is advised against use as it is a well known racial epithet generally rejected by polite society.

In the interest of WP:Good Faith I am willing to propose the following as current compromise text. While I still stand by my position that that last Talbot/Eaton paragraph should be removed, since the majority as it stands insists on leaving it in, why don't we simply reword the introductory sentence as follows: "According to Cynthia Talbot and Richard Eaton"?. Devanampriya (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Response by JJ:

• ad1/3/4: why is the info on the reinterpretation ('revision') of Prataparudra II "opinion" c.q. "speculative theory"?
• ad4: you used Rao to provide a date; you still haven't explained what Rao has got to do with the reinterpretation ('revision') of Prataparudra II. No other source contra this reinterpretation ('revision') of Prataparudra II has been given by you.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Devanampriya, You have just been name-dropping P. R. Rao, but so far haven't said anything significant about him or his ideas. The date 1053 that you attributed to him is patent nonsense because the body of the article already mentions the sixth ruler of the dynasty reigning in 956 CE. So, this reference you have inserted will shortly be deleted. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Editing of article without Consensus & Removal of Cited Content without Discussion

I find it telling that neither of you had the courtesy to respond to my proposal and K3 went ahead to begin editing the article without any consensus being reached. Let the record note that I am now compelled to reciprocate your actions and make my suggested changes. JJ obviously lacks any serious knowledge in this area and was only here for circumventing 3RR, so there's no point answering his most recent underinformed questions. I'll focus on Kautilya3. If you were significantly acquainted with the topic, you would understand that the Kakatiyas were feudatories of the Eastern Chalukya dynasty.So the question of when the formal royal dynasty began is a natural question, not "patent nonsense", and probably one of the reasons some previous editor changed the old date to "Uncertain". 1053 was the date given for the first royal inscription based on the permanent grant of Hanumakonda (their original capital for your edification) as a fief to the Kakatiyas. I also suggest you both refresh your knowledge of WP:Civility, to improve the quality of your current and future discussions. If you don't know about an author, here's a hint, ask...politely..rather than first disrespectfully dismissing the author, then demanding his c.v. What's more, his book speaks for itself. Its the History and Culture of Andhra Pradesh (the old state which included the new state of Telangana). This is not some arcane ivory tower speculative paper, but a WP:RS. So if you want to change the date to 956CE, perfectly fine by me. The only difference is, I had the sense of responsibility to provide a citation. I suggest you do the same.

Let me repeat that I am perfectly fine with having a respectful dialogue. But as I've said before, it takes two hands to clap. Ball is in your court, gentlemen. Devanampriya (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

You still haven't answered the question "why is the info on the reinterpretation ('revision') of Prataparudra II "opinion" c.q. "speculative theory?", so there is a serious point in answering this question. Meanwhile Kautilya3 has provided a third author; maybe you could provide page-numbers for Rao's History and Culture of Andhra Pradesh, where he rejects this 'charge' of revisionism? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Because it is Talbot herself who revises the existing Narrative of why the Nayaks fought the Delhi sultans, and how they liberated the Andhra region. P.R. Rao doesn't need to reject Talbot's revisionism, because he merely states the existing narrative that Nayaks fought to liberate their own country from Turk muslims. It is Talbot & Eaton who come up with the "theory" that the Nayaks had revised their own history --as if they needed to in order to liberate their own country from foreigners. Had you read carefully, you would have seen above where I say that Rao himself pre-dates Talbot. If you wanted page numbers for anything (let alone that odd request of an older source needing to explicitly reject a new theory), then you and your friend should have simply asked like adults, with civility.

When I have received even an opinion on the merits to my proposal above, then we can continue this interaction, since you both have been making bad faith edits without consensus and have now reverted my own edit. I didn't even ask for much just "According to Talbot and Eaton", and even that was reverted. Why such stubbornness? You don't own these pages nor are you the review panel.I sense another reason for such behavior given our previous interaction, yet another reason for your appearance here. Be advised that Wikipedia is for good faith editors who want to improve the content, not for bad faith editors who have a vendetta against someone for a sockpuppet investigation. And tell your friends to stop issuing threats on my talk page.

Either way, I responded now to make myself clear. But since you clearly don't have the understanding of the subject matter, rather than waste everyone's time, you should just let your friend do the edits and lead the discussion (assuming even he is interested in that), and you can just go back to helping him circumvent 3RR when he needs you to. It will save time that way, and avoid the bitternness and acrimony you felt in your previous comment which you later removed. Devanampriya (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

We use attribution when an author may be WP:BIASED. It's clear that you don't have a source for calling Talbot's reasearch "opinion" c.q. "speculative theory". It's your personal opinion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I am ok to use attribution. Theirs is after all an interpretation of historical events. Rao & Shulman present another interpretation, which I have indicated in the "Legacy" section below.

@Devanampriya: please calm down and focus on the article. Also, your use of the term "foreigner" suggests a serious bias in your POV. None of the inscriptions I have seen use the term. "Turushka" is an ethnic label, not nationalist. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay. How about Chattopadhyaya (1998)? That publication predates Talbot; should it also be attributed? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Talbot 177-182

@Devanampriya:, you have said that this was sourced content:

"{{sfnp|Eaton|2005|p=22|ps=}} As early as 1330, Musunuri Nayaks who served as army chiefs for Kakatiya kingdom united the various Telugu clans and recovered Warangal from the Delhi Sultanate and ruled for half a century.{{sfnp|Talbot|2001|pp=177-182|ps=}}"

After reading those pages, I am hard put to find this information:

• where is it said that they served as army chiefs for Kakatiya kingdom?
• where does it say that they united various Telugu clans?
• how did you deduce that they rule for half a century?

- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe someone else was responsible for citing Talbot as reliance for the 50 year polity of the Musunuri Nayaks. I merely checked old versions to see why such obvious facts were left out. An alternate citation can be provided to confirm if you find Talbot wanting here. Devanampriya (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I will tag it as citation needed. Since this statement conflicts with the evidence presented by Talbot, the coming citation needs to be uptodate and high quality. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Aftermath should be Legacy

The Aftermath section currently says that the fall of Kakatiyas led to a "political and cultural disarray." I see nothing of the kind. The page 176 of Talbot (2001) doesn't speak of culture at all, and what it describes is a political "disarray" only in the traditional sense, i.e., there was no large empire to replace Kakatiyas. But there were many little kingdoms that sprung up that carried on the legacy of Kakatiyas. The cultural outpouring of these kingdoms was "truly impressive" according to Rao & Shulman. Ulugh Khan might have been a good general, but he proved to be a poor governor. He couldn't control the vast territory of the Kakatiya empire and lost most of it to upstarts, and lost Warangal itself within a short time span. As the Sultan of Delhi, he truly botched it up so much so that the name "Tugluq" still serves as a synonym for a fool in Telugu. The Delhi Sultanate lost control of the entire Deccan, only to be regained after the Mughal Empire was established. Meanwhile, the Telugu people confirmed and developed the cultural-linguistic region defined by the Kakatiyas, which persists till today. So, I think we should rework this section as the "Legacy" of the Kakatiyas. - Kautilya3 (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Mass-revert

Again a mass-revert by Devanampriya to re-insert one piece of text: "According to Cynthia Talbot and Richard Eaton". We use this kind of attribution when the author may be WP:BIASED. You've been asked several times what makes Talbot's and Eaton's 'claim' of revisionism "opinion" or "speculative theory"? Please provide a source for this claim of yours. To remind you: Talbot (2001) was published by Oxford University Press, while Eaton (2005) was published by Cambridge University Press. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:Hounding and Bullying by non-related editors

I have explained myself already, and you have no competence in the article beyond circumventing 3RR on behalf of Kautilya3, hence your odd questions above. Also, tell your non-admin friends with whom I have no interaction to stop commenting on my talk page. Bullying will not serve you or your little gang well. Devanampriya (talk) 08:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Plunder?

The word "plunder" has been repeatedly used in connection with the Delhi sultanate, sourced to Asher & Talbot. However, the meaning of that is not clear. Is it extracting tribute from the defeated rulers, or is it plundering the state and the general population? General plunder has been verifiably attributed to other Turkish invaders (Ghazni, Ghuri etc.) but there is no evidence that such has been carried out by the Khiljis and the Tuglaks. Moreover, it is troubling that we don't mention the "plunder" carried out by the Kakatiyas themselves, e.g., Talbot 2001, p. 150. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Templates

I have just reverted the addition of a template. I'm really not all that fussed about it per se but any article that even mentions Warangal seems to attract a bunch of templates that often overlap in purpose. I think someone needs to perhaps rationalise the things. - Sitush (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Kakatiyas Titles

None of the kakatiya kings used reddy title. It is just false propaganda by some writers. Even the great Pv parabrahma shastry has not mentioned this. There is no inscription for this. If it is there, provide it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ventrun (talk • contribs) 09:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Addition of తెలుగు(Telugu) title

Eventhough this is an English page, as a Telugu, I want a Telugu title to be there, because Kakatiyas are remembered as the face of Telugu courage. So I request you to just add కాకతీయ సామ్రాజ్యము above the English title. Shanmukhmandava27 (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Indic scripts are not to be used in leads and infoboxes on the English Wikipedia; see WP:NOINDICSCRIPT. -LiberatorG (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

were the kakatiyas telugu? WikiProject tagging

if anyone disagrees, please let me know.Abbasquadir (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Can you please look into this? This user is very adamant that Kakatiyas were not telugu and has been removing references to telugu. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 06:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think they were Telugu. I also think this is a pointless controversy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Sourced content is being removed

@Kautilya3: Can you please look into this? This user User talk:सत्यशोधक has been removing sourced content and keeps saying they have been removing propoganda. Can you please break this impasse. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 04:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)