|Chalukya dynasty is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 9, 2010.|
|This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chalukya dynasty article.|
Old discussion with bad source
Hi Mr. Kumarrao. Durga Prasad is not a credible historian. I have carefully looked at the pdf file, which at best can be called shabby. I was astonished to see that even the typing of the text was replete with typos, the author has repeatedly used an "!" mark instead of "I". Here are the reasons why you should not be using this source. I am enumerating them in case this issue goes to an administrator who can help you understand WP:RS better.
1) It is a shabbily typed out file and the author himself says he not an expert on this subject and has done no research on it, but rather gathered the data from other books. So It could just be his own POV. It appears that he may be a school teacher or at best a lecturer. Here is a copy of his admission,
Quote: "! do not claim that this is an original contribution on my part in the field of historical research. I have simply tried to give a dependable compendium of the best works on the subject covering all aspects".
2)The content has no ISBN/LCCN/OCLC or any other form of identification to give it credibility that it was ever published. Anyone can edit a PDF file without too much effort and provide the names of a few published books as references. All it takes is some software.
3)I did a google books search to see if either this book has ever been published or if the author Durga Prasad has authored or co-authored any other book on Andhra history or in general, Indian history, but came up with nothing. Clearly this guy is not what you claim him to be.
4)Even in the unlikely event an admin admits this source, you must have heard of WP:UNDUE. In this article, as I can see, there are numerous other "early origin" theories, including possible connections to "Seleukia" tribe of Iraq, Andhra Ikshvaku (from an Ikshvaku inscription of 2nd century), northern origin theory originating from Ayodhya and the Gurjaras of Gujarat. All of these have been well cited with book sources from well known historians and their theories described only as possibilities giving each theory no more than a few lines under the original FA lead paragraph. However, you have conveniently made the Andhra Pradesh origin a surety and have created a new para called "early origin", perhaps with the intention of creating a mind set to the prospective reader about their early origin.
5)Some of the statements you added have already existed in the original article, such as their possible connection to Andhra Ikshvaku, migrants from north west and adversaries of the Pallavas, which indicates you may have never bothered to read the article. However, just because a few theories match between Durga Prasad's PDF and the original FA, it does not give credibility to the PDF file itself, based on points 1, 2 and 3.
- Comment: I happened to come across this thread and ran a few checks. I think user Mayasandra is absolutely right. This source, written by 'Durga Prasad' called "history of the Andhras", is not worth the paper its written on. It is clear he is not a historian. Whether he is a professor or not is immaterial. The author himself clarifies he is not an expert and that he has written up a PDF using other sources. The PDF itself is not published and the content has embarrassing typos. Clearly not a scholarly work worthy of a well cited FA that this article is. I don't think any admin will entertain Durga Prasad's PDF. I believe (going back into the talk history and edit history), Kumarrao has been trying to use (and on occasion sneak in) this unworthy source repeatedly. Mayasandra is also right that Kumarrao is trying to emphasize on one "legendary" theory about the 'early history' of the Chalukyas (2nd-5th century AD) and pass it off as the absolute theory when there are half a dozen such 'early origin' theories. These numerous 'early origin' theories have been already dealt with by the original FA author in a summary style. As such this article deals with their history from 6th century. Interestingly, the original FA author has been thorough enough to mention, among half a dozen 'early origin' theories, the Andhra Ikshvaku theory that Kumarrao is over-emphasizing on. Kumarrao, please help improve wiki ethics so we can all build articles constructively.Holenarasipura (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- That is a good joke. Durga Prasad himself confirms he is not an expert of any sort. BTW, you can't use info from one wiki page as proof for another. Read up on wiki rules about "circular reasoning".Mayasandra (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Good job Mayasandra keeping an eye on this article. It is clear to me, looking at Kumarrao's editing habits that his only interest (going back as far as 2007) is to plop in this paragraph from Durga prasad's PDF file and continue to claim him to be a reliable source. We just have to keep an eye on this article. BTW, if it comes down to a debate in the presence of a neutral admin, I can not only lay out several reliable sources, but also happen to be in touch with some members of the Karnataka work group (on a different forum) who took so much trouble to write a thorough article. I can ping them and bring them into the discussion at short notice.Holenarasipura (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Seleukia tribe of Iraq
There is no such tribe called Seleukia from Iraq, Seleucid Empire was Hellenistic dynasty (Greek & Macedonian) which ruled much of Arab world & Persia while lost war to Mauryan Emperor Chandra Gupta in what is now Afghanistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)