::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.