Talk:Musunuri Kapaya Nayaka

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

India: History Low‑importance

	India portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This redirect is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).
	This redirect was last assessed in May 2012.

Untitled

Hi! Please add credible sources, either online or reference books, to support the facts added. Thank You. --Altruism ^{To talk} 12:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid hagiography

@Callofduty259:, You are turning this page into hagiography, which is all that the Andhra historians do. If Kapaya Nayaka was such a great "patriot", as these sources claim, and threw off the "foreign yoke" by leading confederation of 75 chieftains and all that, he wouldn't have been finished off by another fellow chieftain prematurely. You can't keep pushing these birdy-eyed adulations when other neutral sources exist that provide critical analysis. And, by the way, Malik Maqbul whom Kapaya Nayaka deposed was a perfectly local Warangal man, not a "foreigner". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have reverted the changes for now. Andhra historians have quite a reputation for this sort of thing. I'm afraid that this and related articles have frequently seen the Nayak pudding overegged by sockfarms, so the likes of myself and Kautilya3 have seen these sources time and again. - Sitush (talk) 06:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For example, your use of Richard Eaton was fine but it was a minor point, whereas you used Durga Prasad more extensively (including linking to what appears to be a copyright-violating hosting of the book) and there have been concerns expressed in the past that Prasad simply isn't reliable. - Sitush (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]