Talk:Kamma (caste)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Questionable edits

@Varun.kumar0104: I have reverted over a dozen edits you have made which I find questionable. Picking the first one, can you produce a reliable source that says Musunuri Nayaks were kamma? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

see below inscription available at julakallu where in Kakitela - gotra ( it means kakatiya gotra) and kamma vamsa was claimed by buchhanna a land lord of palanati seema. in 1789 almost 250 years back.

Julakallu, Palnad Taluk, Guntur District on another slab(?) Saka 1711, Saumya, Margasira su. 15=1789 A. D., December 2 (Wednesday).

It refers to the rule of Malraju Gumdraya and states that the temples of Gopalasvami and Bhimesvarasvami at Jalakamti in Bellamkomda-sima having been dilapidated and the worship therein being stopped for the past four years, Buchchanna, son of Ramamnna, grandson of Ragamnna of Pamgguluru belonging to Kakitela-gotra and Kamma-vamsa, got them renovated and the deities reconsecrated therein, for the worship and offerings of which a gift of wet land with sowing capacity of 4 manike and quarter of wetland (velipsolamu) was made by Buchchanna, from out of the manya lands bestowed on him by the king. It also records the renovation and reconsecration of the temple of Vinayaka and the deity therein, renovation of the tank which was strengthened with bund and sluice and the exavation of a well nearby by the same donor.

In Dourvasa Devi Purana” (an epic), it was mentioned that Prataparudra will be born in Kamma caste in future

There is no caste like reddy during kakatiya period who ever had title at the time of kakatiyans were not reddys, reddy is just title during kakatiya period,

many durjayas claimed vallutla gotra, This gotra people are present in kammas in lakhs, where is reddys almost nil. nearly 300 surnames have this gotra,

these all are proofs telling kakaitays are kammas

On a stone lying in a field at Mukkamala, Guntur Taluk, Guntur District. S. 1130.

States that Vipparula Kondapa-Nayaka and Gundapa-Nayaka of Durjay-anvavaya made gifts of land to certain temples and also to certain persons, presumably servants of the temples, for the merit of Ketaraju.

On a broken Nandi-pillar set up in front of the temple of Ramalingasvami, Ravipadu, Narasaraopeta Taluk, S. 1199. (Expired) States that Samanta Poti-Nayaka consecrated the image of Suresvara in Ravuru in the name of his father and for the merit of Kakatiya Rudradeva-Maharaja built a three-peaked temple and a mandapa for it and endowed it with land and that he also presented a flower and fruit garden and a perpetual lamp to the temple. The inscribed stone is said to have been put up by Potinedu’s sons Potaya and Maraya. Potinedu bears a long list o birudas among which are (1) an ornament of Durjayakula (2) the elevator (vardhana) of the Valautla-vamsa, and (3) a lion to the mad elephant, that is Gajapati

On a pillar lying in the prakara of the same temple. Records in S. 1082 gift of two lamps by Kallaya-Nayaka, the younger brother of Pota, the son of Chagi-Dora of the Durjaya family, and by his wife, who was the daughter of Muchchay.a-Nayaka of Rachchuru, of the same family. (parichedis)

Kakatiya Generals & Commanders : 1. Gannamanayaka, General, Minister & governer 2. Gundaya nayaka (Gajasahini) governer of gurindala and pingali seema 3. Devari Nayaka - governor of Tangeda seema 4. Muppidi nayaka -governer of nellore / kandukur seema 5. Bollinayaka - governer & commander 6. Maraya sahini - governer & commander 7. Jaayapa nayaka - governer of velanadu, incharge of coastal districts & commander 8. Pothi nayaka - governer 9. Parvata nayaka - governer 10 Bappana Kamaya - governer of katyadona 11. Vipparala Kondapanayaka - governer 12. Musunuru chiefs - governer of Musunuru & vuyyuru 13. Pemmasani chiefs - governer Bellamkonda 14. Ganapati nayak family - governers of Manchukonda (khammam) 15. Ravella chiefs - governer of Dupadu/srisailam

Kakatiyas, musunurus, ravella, etc. several kamma kings used chalamartiganda title. where is in others no one is there.

Musunuru surname is not in kapus, where as in kammas it is very familiar.

Huskur madduramma temple was built by kamma velanadu telugu chodas, people till today say that it was built by kamma chodas. (velanadu telugu chodas)

One more thing Durjaya is community name as well as vamsa name, because several durjaya families connected with marriages. in several inscriptions durkula word used instead of durjaya vamsa. durjaya vamsa is a part of this durjaya kula, You can understand

One more thing kammas are north indian durjay community who came to ap before christ so that even today menamamas have higher hand in kamma families. Like all other farward castes kamma population is concentrated in some pockets of andhra (8% incl nri), tamil nadu 3%, telangana3%, karnataka 1%,

Now days no body interested in caste thing, bu history should be written with solid facts but not based on books written by some anti kamma feeling people

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.82.181.137 (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

even reddyrajulu of addanki and kondaveedu, rajahmundry did not claim "reddy" community, instead they told their caste name "panta kapu" these are all proofs for kamma history, you are misguiding people, stabing andhra cultural history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.82.181.137 (talk) 04:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Responsible Editing

Starting 2007 I constructed this article with painstaking research into Telugu and English books on history and literature. The article has been severely vandalized by certain elements inadvertently and/or advertently. After silently watching the destruction of my efforts, I reconstructed the article delving into past inputs. As much as possible, I made it a point to provide proper references and citations. I appeal to well-meaning administrators not to disturb the article without discussing in the Talk page. I shall continue to improve the article as I am aware that there is some incongruence.Kumarrao (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, but most of the content you seem to have reinstated is poorly sourced, sourced to primary sources like historical texts and inscriptions. It is also not encyclopaedic. You should not be reinstating material previously deleted with justification, unless those concerns have been addressed. A cursory glance makes it seem that they have not been addressed. We also can't have anything sourced to Bhavaiah Chowdhary. Several scholarly sources basically labelled it caste propaganda. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

 Administrator note - Hi Kumarrao, It's unclear what you mean when you describe the changes as vandalism. All articles will naturally evolve over time, and none of us have ownership of articles. It's a bit odd that you're suggesting that the changes, including changes made by administrators, would be disturbances. If there are certain controversial areas you think should be changed, it would be wise for you to open discussion here beforehand to make your arguments, since massive changes are likely to be met with resistance. Note that issues related to India and especially with regard to castes and ethnic issues are very sensitive and the community doesn't want to deal with a lot of warring about these subjects, so communication will be very important to the article going forward. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I beg to differ with both of you. It is extremely unfortunate that a great and genuine historian i.e., Mr Kotha Bhavaiah Chaudary was caste-labelled based on prejudiced opinions of a few. Mr Chaudary spent his own precious resources over a period of two decades visiting three South Indian states, reading inscriptions in temples and forts; museums in Madras, Calcutta, Rajahmundry, Thanjavur etc. He painstakingly deciphered many inscriptions. His research was also based on Surnames, Gothras, village Kaifityats, literary sources in Telugu, customs, traditions etc. He sacrificed his best part of life for unearthing the minute details of Kamma history. His three volume treatise written in Telugu and published in 1939 is regarded as the most authentic and sincere contribution to medieval history of Andhra Pradesh and Kamma social group, in particular. For instance, the "Census of India", Vol. 2, Part 6, Issue 21, page 10 describes him as a great researcher. Several historians of Telugu history cited his work, that include Dr Mallampalli Somasekhara Sarma, Andhra University who wrote on Musunuri Nayaks and Reddy Kings of Andhra Pradesh; Dr Rajni Kothari; Prof G.V. Subrahmanyam, A.P. Sahitya Academy etc., I would like to know how centuries old inscriptions become unrelable sources. If any sentence is proved to unauthentic (based on logic, reasoning and proof) I am more than willing to delete it. I shall address all your questions point by point and ready to comply the best standards of Wikipedia. At the same time, the respective administrator should be ready to delete similar inputs in other articles which I am ready to point out. I am not warring with anyone, let it be an editor or an administrator. I created/edited several articles that range a broad spectrum of topics in a very scientific and logical fashion (check my edits from 2007 till today). Because of time constraints I never craved to become an administrator or hankered after Wiki medals. Wikipedia is highly susceptible to bias, narrow-mindedness, parochialism, misplaced nationalism/patriotism and linguistic fanaticism. I noticed that in several cases administrators with shallow knowledge, obviously because of geographical, linguistic and other reasons and limitations failed to appreciate the genuine inputs and put down their feet taking shelter under Wiki rules, which are sometimes arbitrarily applied. All said and done, I am ready to address the concerns of the administrators point by point and modify the article accordingly. Now, let us start with the story, section by section and line line. Thank you.Kumarrao (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

As for Bhavaiah Choudary, Selig Harrison says the following: Kamma lore evokes the image of a once-proud warrior clan reduced by Reddi chicanery to its present peasant status. Reddi duplicity, recounted by Kamma historian K. Bhavaiah Choudary, was first apparent in 1323 AD at the downfall of Andhra's Kakatiya dynasty.... In his research Choudary frankly has an axe to grind: he seeks to establish Kamma claims to Kshatriya rank, second in the traditional Hindu caste hierarchy. His book is quintessential example of efforts to glorify castes. This is not the kind of source we should use on Wikipedia.

I am afraid you do not show any understanding of the basic sourcing policies of Wikipedia, like, e.g., the difference between PRIMARY and SECONDARY sources, and how to recognize/evaluate scholarly sources, especially for history. This edit, where you randomly stuck a mediocre citation in the midst of an WP:OR paragraph, is clearly ridiculous. I think pretty much everything you have done to this article in the last few days needs to go. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

References

What was wrong with Mr Choudary's research? If he tried to infer something based on his research and if some one else (Harrison) mentions that Mr Choudary had an axe to grind, does his life-time work become redundant? Is there any logic? Is Selig Harrison global authority on Telugu social groups? If needed his comment can be cited in the article to present diversity of opinion. By same standard, millions of edits in Wiki will become defunct! Can't we respect a genuine researcher? He never glorified a caste. Please read the book which has revealed many unknown facets of Andhra history. If you say that Ramakrishna's book published by Discovery Publishers as trivial, I tend to agree to some extent. The edit can be removed and I shall do so. I do agree that I am not aware of the distinction between primary and secondary sources (I frankly do not have time) to get into that stuff. I only knew to present an evidence in the form of a citation/reference, as I have been doing for 39 years in my scientific research. If an ancient inscription becomes "Primary Source"" and thus unreliable, I consider Wikipedia is of no relevance to knowledge. I am willing to delete/modify any edit that is false, incredulous, illogical, irrational, unreasonable, unscientific and unbelievable. I am also reasonable within the acceptable boundaries of logic.Kumarrao (talk) 10:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

You need to spend more time reading and understanding Wikipedia policies. Please check WP:PRIMARY, WP:SECONDARY and WP:HISTRS. If you still can't see how Bhavaiah Choudary is not an RS, please ask at the WP:RSN. I am also pinging RegentsPark and Vanamonde93 for quick feedback. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I have not taken a detailed look at the rest of the article, but I do agree that that source is dodgy. A person being from a certain caste does not discount their work: but evidence that they have a caste-based POV to push, does. Also, who is the publisher? What editorial oversight has the work received? There are too many problems with it. Vanamonde (talk) 13:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya is correct. This article had been cleaned of caste POV but now the same stuff is being reinstated. It needs to be reverted. - Sitush (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

This is my last post in Wiki. I shall never ever see, read or refer to Wiki for the simple reason that it is being run by fools, stupids and ignoramuses like Sitush, Vanamonde and Kautilya3. I wonder how many more such fools abound in Wiki. I wish have a mechanism to withdraw my ten year old contributions to Wiki made with great effort and labour. You fools, revel in your false world. I wish I could use much harsher abuse. My education, culture and civility prevent me doing so. Goodbye, you stupid bunch of fools. Goodbye Wiki. I wish you will get rid of such stupids in future and redeem yourself for the sake of truth and veracity.Kumarrao (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2017

Popular Kamma Surnames

Abbineni Abburu/Abburi Achanta Adusumalli/Adusumilli Alapati Alluru, Alluri Aluru, Aluri Ambati Aravapalli Arekatla Aremanda Arepalli Atluru/Atluri Attaluri Attota/Athota Avula Balaneni Balusu Bandarupalli Bandi Bandlamudi Bathina Bejawada Bellam Bellamkonda Bheemineni Bikkasani Bodapati Boddu Bodduluru/Bodduluri Bodi Bogolu Bollineni Bondalapati Boppudi Boyapati Chadalavada Challa Challapalli Chamallamudi Chandra Chapalamadugu Chava Chebrolu Chekuru/Chekurui Chennupati Cherukuru/Cherukuri Chigurupati Chilakapati Chilukuri/Chilukruru Chintagumpu Chintala Chirumamilla Chitturu/Chitturi Chukkapalli Chundi Daggubadu/Daggubati Daggumalli Daggumilli Dama Damacherla Dammalapati Dandamudi Dasari Davuluru/Davuluri Dhulipalla Dondapati Donepudi Doppalapudi Duddukuri Duggirala Daruri Edara Edupuganti/Edpuganti Elaprolu Gaddam Gaddipati Galla Gali Gadde Gangavarapu Gangineni Ganne Garapati Garikapati Gavini Ginjupalli Godavarthi Gogineni Goli Golla Gonuguntla Gorantla Gorrepati Gottimukkala Gottipati Govada Gudapati Gudavalli Gudupudi/Gudipudi Gullapalli Gunnam Guntupalli Gurram Guthikonda Gutta Inaganti Inampudi Inavolu/Inolu Inturi Jagarlamudi Jampala Jampani Jasti Jetti Jonnalagadda Kadiyala Kakani Kakarla Kakollu Kakumanu Kalagara Kalluru Kambampati Kamepalli Kamineni Kanagala Kanaparthi Kancherla Kankanala Kantheti Kantipudi Kanuri Karanam Karlapudi Karumanchi Kasaraneni Katragadda Katuru/Katuri Kavuru Kaza (Kaja) Kesineni Kodali Kodavati Koganti Kolakaluru Kolla Kolli Kollipara Komaraneni Komatineni Kommalapati Kommi Kommineni Konanki Kondamaneni Kondapalli Kondaveeti Koneru Kongara Korrapati Kotapati Kotha Kothapalli Kovelamudi Koya Kuchipudi Kudapa Kudaravalli Kukkapalli Kunamaneni Kuntamukkala Kurapati Kurra kavuturu Lagadapati Lekkala Lingamaneni Madala Madamanchi Maddineni Maddipati Maddipatla Maddukuru Maadineni Madineni Maganti Makkena Malempati Malineni Malladi Mallavaram Mallela Mandava/Manduva Manikonda Mannam Mannava Marella Medikonda Meka Mikkilineni Moparru/Moparthi Moturu Muvva Movva Mukkamala Mulpuri/Mulpuru Munagala Mullapudi Muppalla Mupparaju Muppavarapu Murthineni Musunuri/Musunuru Mynampati Myneni Nadella/Nadendla Nagalla/Nagandla Nallamothu Nallapati Nalluru/Nalluri Namburu Nandamuru Nandigam Nara Narla Narne Narra Neerukonda Nennuri/Nannuri Nimmagadda Nuthakki Nuthalapati Pachava/Patchava Pakalapati Paladugu Pamidi Pamguluru/Panguluru Pamulapati Papineni Parimi Paritala Paruchuri/Parchuri Pathuru/Pathuri Patibandla Pattipati/Prattipati Pavuluru Peddieneni/Peddi Pendyala Peravali Pokurui Polavarapu Polineni Ponugupati Popuri Pothakamuru Pothineni Potluri/Potluru Puchakayala Pulipati Punukollu Putta Puttagunta Puvvada Rallapalli Ravella/Ravela/Ravilla Ravi/Raavi Ravuri/Ravuru Rayapati/Ravipati Recherla Sadineni Sajja Sakhamuri Sakkurthi Sankuratri Singamaneni Sompalli/Somepalli Sudanagunta Sunkara Surapaneni Swarna Tadikonda Talluri Tatiparthi Thakkellapati Thotakura Thottempudi Tiruveedhula Undavalli Unnam Uppalapati Vadde Vaddineni/Vardhineni Vadlamudi Vadlapatla Vallabhi Valluru Vankayalapati Vardineni Vasantha Veeramanchineni Veerapaneni Veerepalli Vejella Velagapudi Velivolu/Veluvolu Vellanki/Yellanki Vemula Vemulapalli Vemuri/Vemuru Venigalla Vipparla Yadlapati Yalamanchili Yalavarthi Yanamadala Yarlagadda Yarram Yeleti Yellanki/Vellanki Yemineni Mpcphanikumar (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. These form of lists are not encyclopaedic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Kamma Naidu

Hello sitush and Kautilya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virender Rag (talk • contribs) 18:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Kamma caste

[Copied from User talk:Kautilya3]

Add Rao and Chowdary titles also in caste titles section of Kamma. They are also used by many Kammas since late 19th century in regions of Coastal Andhra and Telangana. And why don't u add Musunuri Nayaks to Kamma caste. Musunuri surnames is present in only KAMMA. And also Vasireddy Venkatadri Naidu......potturi venkateswar Rao a brahmin by caste, has written a book on Venkatadri Naidu in 2016 launched by AP chief minister Chandrababu Naidu. Potturi is a fine journalist and have credibility. In his book he said Vasireddy Venkatadri Naidu is of Kamma caste. What better source than this is needed? Virender Rag (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) SPI? Virender, this issue has been dealt with on many occasions recently in relation to a sockfarm. You're doing the same thing as them, ie: conducting original research regarding the names. - Sitush (talk) 07:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Caste titles

We don't use caste-affiliated sources on Wikipedia. I've just reverted an addition that included a report from The News Minute which basically just regurgitated what those sources claim. While The News Minute is a secondary source, it isn't a great one and we really need academic sources for things like this. Merely spouting the (often nonsense) that caste organisations say is not particularly helpful and, even if used, would need to be qualified because their are not reliable. - Sitush (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Reg. Kamma (caste)

[Copied from User talk:Kautilya3]

I regret to inform you that you have rollbacked sourced edits of mine with the relevant edit summary (an alternative to the talk page). There was a similar rollback by User:Weckkrum which was amicably explained and settled on User_talk:Weckkrum. Hope the needful would be done. Cheers. -Altruism^{T a l k - Contris.} 07:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Altruism, All content-related discussion needs to take place here. Other editors won't know about it otherwise.

Regarding your edits,

• You can't put stuff into the infobox without discussing in the body first.
• The Kamma Naidu ethonym has been deleted many times here. It appears that it may be applicable to the Kammas in Tamilnadu and Karnataka, but not in general. The Kammas in Telugu states do not necessarily use the "Naidu" title. If you have the energy, please investigate that, and add NPOV content. Do not equate Kamma with "Kamma Naidu".
• Please always write full citations.

As for the Musunuri kingdom claim, the Prasad book only says that Musunuri Kapaya Nayaka was a Kamma. But this is probably speculative because it is in brackets. The Talbot pages that you have cited have no mention of Kammas. According to Talbot, p.86., the modern caste system of Telugu lands was not formed until the late Vijayanagara period. So, Talbot definitely does not support your claim. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Your observations seems to be fair except the insinuation that I had probably added biased content, which is completely untrue. My aim is only to get all the correct facts into this article, in adherence to Wikipedia policies and devoid of the usual noise. You have still not explained why you removed the "Ancient history" section. Cheers -Altruism^{T a l k - Contris.} 07:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

As I understand it, the consensus is that the Durga Prasad book is not reliable. I can't remember why or where that consensus was formed - too many articles, too many years editing. - Sitush (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I hope not. He's done a reasonable job though not all his facts may be accurate. But so is the case with most authors/books. -Altruism^{T a l k - Contris.} 12:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

Languages here would mean that spoken at home, mother tongue, isn't it? I propose removing Tamil for this reason. Telugu is spoken at home even by those Kammas in deep southern Tamil nadu.

I propose the inclusion of Karnataka in the Regions section where a sizable number exists esp. in Bellary, Raichur, Bangalore etc.

As always, suggestions/objections are welcome -Altruism^{T a l k - Contris.} 08:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Just remove everything that is not sourced, even if it might seem blindingly obvious. That's the only way to keep control of these infoboxes, and it applies as well to "related groups" etc when those fields are used. - Sitush (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thats the rule I abide by too. Have been in WP for too long to ignore that. I will provide references to make any changes. -Altruism^{T a l k - Contris.} 12:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Kingdom of the Musunuri Nayaks, who were Kamma

Kautilya I've elaborated about the Musunuris here:

"The Musunuri family probably hailed from the village Musunuru in the Krishna district. They belonged to the fourth caste (Kamma)." (Ref: Prasad D. "History of the Andhras upto 1565 A. D." 1988, P. 168) - The author doesn't express any doubt whatsoever about their caste. The parentheses have only been used to mention which caste and not to express doubt.

"Musunuri Prolaya Nayakas reign (1325 A.D. -1333 A.D.) was very short." (Ref: Prasad D. "History of the Andhras upto 1565 A. D." 1988, P. 168)

"As Prolaya had no children, he was succeeded by his cousin Kapaya Nayaka (1333 A.D.-1368 A.D.), who had his training in statesmanship, warfare and administration under the former. Kapaya had now before him the task of liberating the Andhra country lying to the west of the Eastern Ghats (Telangana)." (Ref: Prasad D. "History of the Andhras upto 1565 A. D." 1988, P. 169) - The above 2 statements prove the existence of the kingdom. Let me explain how. Who would have a reign and get trained in statesmanship, warfare and administration? Who would have before him the task of liberating the Andhra country? Definitely not a normal chieftain or a common man.

Any suggestions/observations are welcome. Thanks & Cheers -Altruism^{T a l k - Contris.} 08:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have checked that Prasad does say that. But he provides no evidence. Presumably "fourth caste" (Shudra) is evidenced, but "Kamma" is an inference. The edit I just made to Musunuri Nayaks explains the problem. There were no modern castes at that time. Varna system was present and it was often referred to as kula. That was the extent of castes at that time. Terms like Kamma-Brahmana and Kamma-Sreshthi were being used in this time period. If there is evidence of Musunuris being called "Kamma-X" anywhere, that would be worth mentioning (even if "Kamma" itself wasn't a caste at that time).

Still, none of this justifies labelling the Musunuri Nayaka kingdom as the "origin" of Kammas. Their origin, evidenced in multiple sources, is Kammanadu. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Lets give it more time then to gather more evidence on the subject. Thanks & Cheers.-Altruism^{T a l k - Contris.} 12:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Ancient history section

Pls expand/elaborate about this new section if possible by citing relevant sources. Any objections/suggestions are also welcome. Thanks -Altruism^{T a l k - Contris.} 07:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you used a book published by Kalpaz, which is not a reliable publisher. Also, there is no relevance to the Kamma caste in your content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be some problem with the link used but the Google books link (unable to paste here though) works and has the relevant content. -Altruism^{T a l k - Contris.} 12:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but it was a Kalpaz book. Just because Google show it doesn't mean it is reliable - they show British Raj era books, too, and all sorts of rubbish by people like David Icke and Konraad Elst. Kalpza, ISHA and Gyan are essentially the same thing. Please read User:Sitush/Common#Gyan. - Sitush (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Sitush/Common#Gyan section was very informative and helpful. I'll try to get any alternative sources. Thanks -Altruism^{T a l k - Contris.} 06:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2018

Origin of Kamma: A Rishi named Kamadita performed his penance in a forest known as Danda-Karanya,when many Rakshaas troubled him; he could not stand it, and hence he repaired to Maha Vishnu and laid before him his grievance. The latter directed the Rishi to his wife Lakshmi Devi, who gave him her ear ornament (Kamma) enjoying him to perform a penance for one hundred years. He fulfilled what had been told him, and the result was that five hundred warriors sprang from that Kamma. They destroyed the forests, annihilated the Rakshasas, and made the placefree from the trouble. The Rishi recognised their help, and blessed them to live happily by cultivation. The descendants of those warriors are called Kammavaaru as they originated from the Kamma.

In 'Brahmanda Purana Kalidharma Prakarnam', Chapters 3 to 20, we find the following:- The kammavars were born to the descendants of the Solar King Dwilipa and as they had alliances with the lunar race they were known as Upayadis. The original man is said to be one Dharmapala and their Guru, Dharmasilan. A member of the lunar race tried to carry away a daughter of Dharmapala, named Kannikamani, when the parents of the girl with a view todisgracing him had a black dog disguised as a girl, left it in the house, and migrated to Southern parts. At that stage, a river barred their way. They begged of the Rishi Jamadagni who was busy in a penance on the bank of the river. They were with him his wife Rukminidevi, and also Parasurama. Rukminidevi gave them her ear ornament (Known as Kamma), directed them to attach veneration to it and further added that if they did so, the river would give way. This came to Pass. Since then they have been known as Kammavaru. From that time forward, they attach much veneration to the names of Jamadagni, Renukadevi and Parasurama. On marriage occasions they first offer prayers to these, and then to their family guru, Palabhaddira. These Kammavars are divided into two classes known as Godasatu (gosha) and Gampasatu (not gosha).

It is said that in the reign of Krishna Deva Rayalu there were 1,60,000 volunteer guards, most of them were Kammavars, to protect the fortresses with in his jurisdiction. Vignesh Ramasubbu (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide reliable sources for all your content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2018

Post-Kakatiya period

"The tradition holds that the Kammas, along with Velamas, evolved out of the community of Kapus (cultivators) in the post-Kakatiya period. A popular legend collected by Edgar Thurston narrates that Kammas originated from the youngest son of a certain Belthi Reddi, who managed to recover his mother's ear-ornament (called "kamma" in Telugu) which had been appropriated by a king's minister. The other sons of Belthi Reddi are similarly said to have given rise to the other prominent caste communities of the Telugu people.

To

The tradition holds that the Kammas, along with Velamas, evolved out of the community of Kapus (cultivators) in the post-Kakatiya period. Chowdary.akp (talk) 05:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. It is reliably sourced content, and relevant to the topic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Kakatiya period

Ventrun, Note that Benbabali is underplaying the migration during the Kakatiya period:

However, the martial activities of the Kamma agriculturists were intermittent and limited to times of war, when they worked as soldiers in the service of the Kakatiya kings of Warangal, and later of the Vijayanagar emperors.

While she is focusing on the Kammas, we know from other sources that all agriculturists from all regions served under these respective kings, and there is nothing surprising about that. The kingdoms would have recruited any fighters they had available. Note also the term "service", not "alliance".

However, sometime in the late Vijayanagara period, this became a more extensive migration without any connection to fighting, with the result that by 1897, three quarters of the Kamma population was found outside the then Krishna district (which included the entirety of Kammanadu).

That is remarkable for a community that derives its identity from a geographical homeland. The issues of mobility, which are extensively covered in the Benbabaali's article as well as Keiko's, would need to be covered in detail here. For the time being, I have only added a summary in the lead. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

What is the relationship between Kamma and Telaga caste ?

What is the relationship between Kamma and Telaga caste? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.147.202.105 (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Oversimplifying a bit, the Kammas are the agriculturists of the Krishna delta, and the Telagas are the agriculturiss of the Godavari delta. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

This page has more biased.

If I edit with the references also some one is removing. Please revoke my edits Rajasekhar Naidu (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits here, because you have removed well-sourced content. The citations you have added are no good. Kalpaz publishes a lot of fake books. A PhD thesis is a marginal source. If it repeats caste folklore from Edgar Thurston without any analysis or evidence, it doesn't fly. Most of all, you have not bothered to explain what you are trying to do, why you removed well-sourced content, and what your issue is!

All new content is subject to editor consensus. The WP:BURDEN to establish its veracity and relevance lies on you. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I concur with his view. I added to your talk page to see if things can be improved. I have some suggestions: Can you add in the Varna-Status category that Kammas claim Kshatriya status and that they hold a status analogous to Kshatriyas. Yamada Keiko and Benhebali clearly state that Kammas claim to be Kshatriyas. Keiko states, " Today, it is only for the claim to Kshatriya status that any of these Kamma historiographies is remembered. Indeed, there is hardly anyone who actually reads the text nowadays, probably because as far as the Kammas themselves are concerned, the issue of their Kshatriya status is no longer under dispute: they were, and are Kshatriyas." Can we explicitly state the following, "The Kammas claim that they are Kshatriyas, though their status in the society of the Telugu states is one that is analogous to the Kshatriyas of the North, similar to the Reddies, Nairs, and Velamas.". We can still include the British Varna classification. Second, we need to include some information on the origins of the Kammas. Can we include a reference to Historian Bihari Lal Avasthi in the opening remarks and say that "There is a belief held by some historians, such as Bihari Lal Avasthi, that Kammas are descended from the Kamboja Indo-Aryan Clan that migrated southwards. This isn't conclusive, and there are other theories of their origins." Thirdly, I think we need to add more about the warrior status of the Kammas in the main page. Can we add this on the main section "The Kammas, in addition to having commercial and agricultural pursuits, also were warriors. They were involved in the military of the Kakatiya Empire and the Vijayanagara Empire as commanders, soldiers, and generals. The Musunuri Nayaks, who historians such as Durga Prasad, B.S.L. Hanumantha Rao, Mallampalli Somasekhara Sharma and Etukuri Balaram Murthy state that Musunuri Nayakas belonged to the Kamma caste, established a dynasty by defeating the Delhi Sultante and recapturing Warangal. There were several Kamma Kings, including Vasireddy Venkatadri Naidu and the Pemmasani Clan of Gandikota". I am sure the Musunuri Nayak will not be a problem since its mentioned that these historians believe they are Kammas on the Musunuri Nayak Page. If you need a specific quote for the warriors things, Harrison states, "Both Kammas and Reddies were probably warriors in the service of early Andhra Kings. Page 383 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1951675?seq=6#metadata_info_tab_contents. For the Golconda Period Section, it's important to add this following "Vasireddy Virappa Naid, in the year 1670, obtained from the King of Golconda a sanad appointing him Deshmukh of the pargana of Nanidgama." (Gordon Mackenzie, a prominent historian and scholar, stated in A Manual of the Kistna District in the Presidency of Madras). Also transition from "The Kammas were largely reduced by the status of peasants in the post-Kakatiya period" by adding ",but they had an influential role during the Vijayanagara Empire and in the Nayak Kingdoms of Tamil Nadu." In the Modern History section, mention that there were Kamma Zamindari families. Harrison states, "Fourteen Kamma zamindars became the biggest estate owners in the Delta Country" (Page 238). Specifically, after this sentence, "Kamma landholdings were consolidated, and their influence consequently increased, by the introduction of the ryotwari system as a replacement for the zamindari system in the 19th century." please add "There were Zamindari families belonging to the Kamma community, such as the fourteen Zamindari Kamma families of the Krishna River Delta." Also " Despite this attachment to Brahminical orthodoxy, the Kammas related to the Kapus (cultivators) and their Shudra identity." This sentence should be changed by delteing everything after Kapus. Keiko probably got this from the fact Kammas have a lore that says they were Kshatriyas but when they were persecuted, they found refuge with the Kapus. I think we should leave it at the Kapus when used in this context. Unless, the Velama article also makes it clear that Velamas are also Shudras, this is not fair to Kammas.

Please see what of these changes you can make. We can have a discussion on ones you are unsure about. I think the warrior thing, Musunuri Nayak mentions, claim of Kshatriya status, the Sanad to Naidu, and the Kamma Zamindari thing should be easy to include since they have proper citation. Let me know. I appreciate it.

Vivek987270 —Preceding undated comment added 02:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC) Struck comments of a now banned sock Sharkslayer87 (talk)

Varna status

I prefer to remove varna status from all South Indian caste pages, because I think there was no varna system in South India at all. Pinging Sitush for his input. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3 That is a reasonable thought. The varna structure in the South is too fluid. For example the Komatis were Shudras until the Court ruling, and Rajus are grouped with Reddies, Kammas, and Velamas in regards to social status by many like Historian Sudarshan Ready. If Sitush is willing to get rid of it for all South indian groups, that's not an issue. But if any mention of a community's varna status is to be mentioned, it has to be equal in phrasing. Reddies can't have "analagous to Kshatriyas" when there is no mention of the equal social status held by Kammas or Kamma claims to be Kshatriyas. Outside the Varna issue, I think the other edits I suggested are reasonable. In the main section, please mention the warrior status of Kammas during the Kakatiya Empire and Vijayanagara Empire. Since historians believe that that warrior-kings Musunuri Nayaks are Kammas, mention that as well (like how Reddies get the Reddy Dynasty). It's a little ridiculous that Reddies get mentioned as "aristocratic" and "landownin" and Velamas as purely Zamindars. I hope you can see the unfairness. I have provided sourced content for my edit requests, and I trust you to help equalize the articles. Please let me know in very clear terms what edits you can make, and we will work through any disouted ones. If Sitush can help that is most welcome.

Kautilya3

Some proposed changes

Information to be added or removed: From "The community of Kammas is that of agricultural families originating from the Kammanadu region of the Guntur and Prakasam districts in Andhra Pradesh" to "The community of Kammas is that of agricultural families originating from the Kammanadu region of the Guntur and Prakasam districts in Andhra Pradesh; in addition to being landholding agriculturalists, Kammas were warriors and some became Army Commanders and local kings."

Explanation of issue: In addition to being invested in agriculture, Kammas were also landholding warriors, commanders, and local kings (Vasireddy Naidu or Pemmasanis). By mentioning that as well, we give the readers a fuller picture of the occupation of the ancestors of the Kammas. The Reddies have a similar mention in their page, so there is precedent for including it.

References supporting change:

• Selig Harrison, 1956 states, "Both Kammas and Reddies were probably warriors in the service of early Andhra Kings. Page 383 [1]."
• John F. Richards, 1970, says, "Razus, Velamas, Kammas or Reddies formed the dominant land-holding stratum". (Pg. 71) and " The Telugu warriors were drawn from four major castes: Razus, Velamas, Kammas, and Kapus (Reddis)." [2]
• Census of India, 1961: "They [Kammas] belong to a warrior race, according to tradition." (Page 8) [3]
• A. Satyanarayana, 2007: "The family histories of some of the Zamindars of Kamma caste also indicate that they were the descendants of warrior chiefs and Nayakas under the Vijayanagara kings. " (page 7) [4]
• K. S. Singh, 1998: "It is claimed that Kammas were a warrior class for several generations who later took up agriculture as an occupation." (Page 1515) [5]

Also the real examples of the Ravella Nayaks, Pemmasani Nayaks, Vasireddy Naidu, Ravella Nayaks, and etc. --Vivek987270 (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

None of these sources are better than the ones we have, viz., Talbot, 2001; Keiko, 2008; Benbabaali, 2018. All of these are in-depth studies, and they trump whatever whatever people wrote earlier. So I suggest you look at what these sources say.

Also, please don't bother mentioning "claims" and "traditions". They can never be facts.

Finally, sincere advice: Read the sources. Don't just do Google search for your favourite WP:POV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3 First, when the Reddies have the Rashtrakuta claim on their website no one raises a word, so this is a double standard. Next, Thank you, but I have read all three individuals. Benbabaali clearly states that some Kammas become commanders and local kings in her paper. Talbot doesn't say anything specific about Kamma, and it is more historical oriented. It's not a good idea to get hung up over a single Historian's view. Keiko doesn't talk about early Kamma history. She discusses more about their history during the British Raj. Since Benbabaali concedes the point made by Harrison, A. Satyanarayana, and Singh, among others, it is well sourced. Had Talbot or Keiko directly discussed the Kammas directly or their ancestors, that would be a different story. The other caste websites make claims about Rashtrakutas from some random historian, but despite the many sources and individuals showing that Kammas have a warrior past and local kings/commanders, it is required to have a billion historians to say the same thing (though there is a clear historical consensus. --Vivek987270 (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, Benbabaali says some Kammas became commanders. Similarly, some Reddis, some Velamas, and some Kapus, and some Rajus would have become commanders too. There is nothing special here. The edit you asked for is not supported by any of your own sources once you throw out claims and traditions. So, this is a 'no go' from me. You better wait for Sitush and see if he feels any differently about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

And, Keiko does talk about how an enormous mythology about Kammas was constructed during the British period. That very same mythology is the source of your demands here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3 You have to get over your obsession with Talbot. She isn't the only scholar. Its like Kammas and that Chowdhary historian. Like you said SOME did become commanders. The thing is the Reddy and Raju article mention their warrior status but the Kammas don't have it highlighted in a prominent or explicit way. You also seem to never talk about the double standards I highlight with the Reddies and their obvious caste glorification. I am formally petitioning to have a "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met" put on this page. ALL POVs are not represented on this page. It is clearly being written by people with anti-Kamma bias, while Reddies are glorified on theirs. All I am asking if for equal standards. I am trying here in good faith, but you clearly have an anti-Kamma bias, perhaps out of jealousy or hatred. Sorry to say, but that's what I feel. I would like to be proven wrong.--Vivek987270 (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3 I have a simple request. If you have no bias against Kammas. Edit the Reddy and Velama articles and bring it to the same level. They all have same social status and Reddies being "aristocracy" and the best warriors in the telugu states is clearly a POV. Why does the Reddy Dynasty have a prominent place on the Reddy article if Talbot Is right? Answer these questions and then critique my sourced edit requests. I hope Sitush will see this, and I trust he will be more reasonable and less prejudiced.--Vivek987270 (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is going to "get over" Talbot here. Please put that thought out of your mind. Cynthia Talbot is an internationally recognised scholar with numerous publications to her credit at world's top journals and University presses. If any local/regional scholar wants to disagree with her conclusions, they need to publish their work in similarly internationally recognised fora.

If you have issues with other caste pages, you need to post them on their respective talk pages. I have told you that numerous times already. We don't make edits to make a WP:POINT. If you continue along this line, you are liable to be blocked. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• With respect to the conflict of interest-based {{request edit}} template used, there can be no conflict of interest (COI) with respect to communities. For example, a person from Japan would not be prevented from editing an article about Japan. A person who is either a member of this caste community or not a member, does not need the request edit template to suggest changes, because a COI is not simply about having a bias. The only conflict of interest possible here would be if the requesting editor were affiliated, either professionally or personally, with an author they are attempting to use as a reference. As no such affiliation has been claimed, I've changed the template to the {{edit semi-protected}} variant, based on the article's protection level. Regards,  Spintendo  00:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Spintendo I totally understand and thank you for the change. Much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivek987270 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Collapsing useless threads by a useless sock - Sharkslayer87 (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Verifiability This edit from a decade ago illustrates how this article has been constructed, by piling folklore upon folklore, without any sources. Then other people came and added WP:FAKE sources, claiming to have verified them. But more than half the text is still the original junk. So, I am going to do another verification drive now, cleaning out anything that I can't find in the source. Any vague citations that cite author/title, without a WP:Full citation will face the same fate. The WP:BURDEN of verifiability rests on the editors that add content. It is not our job to go hunting for sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC) Kautilya3 I just finished adding citations for the Krishnadevaraya and Battle of Raichur articles. I will also work on this, specifically the Vijayanagara and Golconda Period. I will weed through the content because I do have the University of Michigan library at my disposal - I am an alumni - and they have a vast content stock from these areas. I can also increase these sections with sourced content. Is there anything specifically that you wanted to get citations on? Also were Wikipedia policies more lax a decade ago for people to abuse the platform as such? Thanks. Timmarasu (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC) Struck comments of a now banned sock Sharkslayer87 (talk) Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2019 Add Superstar Krishna reference in 'Notable People' section Pkhanda (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 21:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)