Talk:Battle of Talikota

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 17:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: It is said that this battle is considered one of the most pivotal in Indian history. Also, it seems that there is no reasonable account of the battle barring that of Firishta's and the others, either they seem to be disregarded or the information is not coming out. Then, how can we talk, at all regarding the course of the battle? As regarding the destruction of Vijayanagar Empire, it seems that this battle destroyed the reputation of the kingdom, and not it's power. It is also said that Vijayanagar was the only knigdom, after this war, in the complete country of India, capable of stopping Akbar in a battle. But as a twist of fate, Akbar died at the time both the kingdoms were readying to face each other and the plans were given up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.131.74 (talk) 11:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clearness of Facts 

message: As you can see in the announcements at the top of the page, this article has been featured before in Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries, appearing in the "On this day" section of the Main Page. However, currently it is in a state where needs attention, specifically more inline citations. Because of this, we could not feature it this year. Please fix the relevant issues so that it may be considered for the Main Page next year. Thank you. howcheng  {chat} 18:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  On this day 

message: The article seems very biased in favour of Vijayanagar. Maharattas who had served the Sultans are labelled as "traitors" even though they were not citizens of the vijayanagar kingdom. No reliable sources are quoted regarding the course of the battle.  No mention is made of the use of artillery by the Vijayanagar army at the start of the description ; however, an artillery duel (which, very interestingly, bears striking resemblence to one of the "versions" of the third battle of Panipat) is described later. I suggest that a totally netural individual review the whole article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.79.151 (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing actionable in those comments. FDW777 (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased view 

message: This is generally a terrible article. Writers should look at WP:CCPOL - all of which has been breached in this article extensively.
1. Sources & authorities - research and provide sources compliant with wiki policies.
2. Tentative tone - give a neutral voice to the article.
3. Every sentence/paragraph should be qualified by at least one source.
4. Different POVs - give the historical proposing and opposing perspectives on the matter of debate.
5. Original research - get rid of them!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:388:201:3310:386C:7DD0:4705:A80E (talk) 11:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I greatly support this Ahendra (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Action plan to improve 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Talikota. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101111012319/http://www.explorehampiwithme.in/ to http://www.explorehampiwithme.in/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Just read the sentence mentioned below. I have highlighted the biased portions in Bold font:
# The treacherous defeat of Vijayanagara Empire, followed subsequent destruction and looting which became short lived before the mighty successors of Rama Raya.
# But later, the successors of Rama Raya retaliated vigourously and inflicted such continuous defeats on Bijapur and Golconda Sultanates that they couldn't even shake the empire till the interference of Mughals in South India in 1640s. Entire territory south of Krishna which is present day Andhra Pradesh (except Telangana region) was recaptured by the Vijayanagar empire. Even as the empire resolved in 1650 another Hindu power was slowly growing in the form of Marathas who would later deliver the death blow to Adil Shahi sultanate and make Golconda sultanate accept their superiority without bloodshed.
# Numbered list item  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:E384:6FE:AD33:F3B:DD8B:FAE4 (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extremely pro-Vijayanagara Empire bias 

message: Check this article https://toshkhana.wordpress.com/2011/10/28/last-of-the-rayas-an-eyewitness-account-of-the-defeat-and-death-of-rama-raya-of-vijaynagara-at-talikota/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.121.121 (talk) 10:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gilani Brothers story is not supported.  

message: There are three different dates in this articles as to when it took place. The intro says 26 January, the infobox has 25 January, then the first section says 23 January. Can anyone clear this up? Thanks. —howcheng  {chat} 21:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the infobox was changed in this edit, whereas this one was responsible for the intro. Both of these were done by anonymous users, so I'm willing to chalk this up to vandalism. —howcheng  {chat} 16:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of battle 

message: On the request of editor , I am clarifying some of my edits here. Scholars are not "unaninimous" about either the battle, its interpretation, or its consequences. The article itself lists several historians (Sastri, Scott, Sewell, Krishnaswamy Iyengar etc.) who disagreed on the revisionist interpretations of the battle, and there are living historians (Jain, Nagaswamy etc.) who still question this. Finally, the last part of the article claims that  The citation given for this is not an academic source, but an Op-ed by the noted left-wing magazine, Frontline. It is necessary to attribute this claim, which is why I removed "debunked" and inserted , as this falls under WP:TENDENTIOUS. I hope this clarifies any doubts, specifically of the editor TrangaBellam. 183.83.147.136 (talk) 08:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Which reference are you claiming is an "op-ed" for which use of "nationalist"? FDW777 (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: These - . I hope it clarifies. 183.83.147.136 (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: ... FDW777 (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Also, please note that I am not denigrating Frontline by calling it left-wing; I am merely indicating its political position. 183.83.147.136 (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I count seven references for the one use of "nationalist" that Frontline could possibly reference, what do they say? FDW777 (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Read Janaki Nair and Sanjay Subrahmanyam's citations. I can add others. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I assumed that was the case since Frontline uses the phrase  to refer to some of the people mentioned, as there are other references I assumed they also reference it so the IPs claims that it is referenced solely to an op-ed Frontline appear to be meritless. FDW777 (talk) 11:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Following clarifications from TrangaBellam, the "nationalist" part may be conceded - I had assumed it was the Frontline article. However, all the other sticking points remain. You have asked for sources by other modern scholars disagreeing with Eaton on Vijayanagar; I will try to provide them. In the meantime, however, one thing is unambiguous - the last part, which states that "this has been weaponized", is still cited to just an op-ed, and must be attributed to "some elements of the Indian left." Regards, 183.83.147.136 (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Yes, the article seems somewhat neutral now. Regards, 183.83.147.136 (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of edits 

message: Subrahmanyam notes (p. 68-69) —
 TrangaBellam (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Federici

message: My edit labeling some parts of this article as having excessive citations was reverted by User:TrangaBellam, which is absolutely ridiculous. Read Wikipedia:Citation overkill, the fact that a simple excessive citations tag for a claim with 9 citations was reverted; I mean come on now. That's a blatant example of excessive citations, don't start an edit war over such a petty matter with an obvious solution. Kailanmapper (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Kailanmapper, check the first, second, and fourth citation of OpIndia. Or, the second, third, and fourth citation of Love Jihad. I can go on. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Were you not the same person citing WP:WHATABOUTX in discussion? Stop cherrypicking which Wikipedia rules to follow and which to ignore, those citations don't prove anything except making Wikipedia:Excessive citations even more valid. The point is those are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I shouldn't have my edit reverted because that template is relevant, 9 citations for a claim is overkill. I didn't even remove the citations, I just added the template. Edit: Were you aiming to bundle the citations together? Kailanmapper (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits have been already reverted in one of the above articles by someone other than me. The reasons that were cited in defense is common to this article. Hence, I suggest that you drop the stick. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but removing the template isn't solving the problem, it's ignoring the problem. Should we merge the citations? If so, I am unsure how to do that. Can you do it for me? Kailanmapper (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Even I am not sure. I will learn and do it tomorrow. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive citations 

message: Jaywant Joglekar is not a RS and we cannot use translation of Firishta's work to contradict established historians. Quoting Aftab out of nowhere is pushing POV. 
The rest are redundant additions:
:* to 
:* to . TrangaBellam (talk) 06:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  New edits