Talk:Kakatiya dynasty

message: 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)
thread_title:  Caste and Caste Agenda 

message: Someone has put this request  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)
thread_title:  The request for a map 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Empire or Dynasty? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2015 

message: , you have said that this was sourced content:
:" 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."
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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Talbot 177-182

message: 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)
thread_title:  Aftermath should be Legacy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mass-revert 

message: ::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)
thread_title: WP:Hounding and Bullying by non-related editors

message: 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., . - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plunder? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Kakatiyas Titles 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Addition of తెలుగు(Telugu) title 

message: if anyone disagrees, please let me know.Abbasquadir (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Yes, I think they were Telugu. I also think this is a pointless controversy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  were the kakatiyas telugu? [[Wikipedia:WikiProject|WikiProject]] tagging 

message: : 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)
thread_title:  Sourced content is being removed