Purpose of this Wikipage

It is about time to discuss the purpose of this Wikipage for the social group (kamma). There should be some ground rules and some answers should be provided for questions that are very basic. What should be conveyed? What is a claim? What is a reference? How should they be reviewed? Who are the targeted audience? Does the section Origins, command highest priority? Do Titles, who is who etc, are relevant if the Wikipage does not want to be a Class-B low grade page?

Let us have a discussion and improve the quality of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.228.129 (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose is addition to knowledge which is central to Wiki. Each and every information that is added is to be supported by references/citations. If any one disagress with certain input one is free to discuss and provide evidences to support the conflicting view point. It is advisable if you log in with an User name and freely contribute within the confines of Wiki guiedelines.Kumarrao (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as (i) expertise, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject; (ii) what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information; or (iii) be absolutely certain or sure about something. That is what is knowledge facts and verifiable and reproducable information. Not fables, tales, myths. We still have not established what constitutes a reference. You can not quote from oral historical tales, or a Novel. Certainly one can not be quoting from a book that is not peer reviewed. And old books that are popular not necessarily mean true. Like Mahabharata, we still can not conclusively prove which part was fact which part was fiction. So we have to lay the strict guidelines for what is a REFERENCE. Regarding my user name, irrelevant. I am from the same social group, from a peasant family from Krishna District, an Engineer by profession and now live in Texas, Dallas for 25 years. My user name is my IP address. I am within the wiki guidelines to improve the quality of this page without a bias and prejudice.

I think the focus should be on the people and not on the name, or titles or why we are kammas, and how to become a Kshatriya or a Zamindar. Attempts of legitemization on controversial issues should not be the focus also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.228.129 (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The book by Kotta Bhavayya is a valid, historical, well-researched book (it took 13 years and expending enormous sums of personal finances) with extensive references and inscriptional records. The book is quoted by several historians. Try to get a copy of the book (three large volumes in original) and read it carefully.Kumarrao (talk) 06:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we call for an external peer review on the book? Just remember that you are speaking on behalf of an entire community which should not be ashamed of one persons zeal. I personally see no relevance on adhering to the topic of zamindars so adamantly when lot of other things can be talked about, e.g social workers, educators, freedom fighters etc. If you feel like promoting something then don't do it on public forums.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.228.129 (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The questions you raised about peer review, author's zeal, relevance of the section etc are absolutely irreleavant in the context of the article. I added a few more references to support the inputs. I hope you would not wish to peer review Gordon mackenzie too!!Kumarrao (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goal of this page

To describe a social group in India or anywhere else is a daunting task. It is daunting due to many reasons mainly space given. There are multitude of aspects to cover and limited space does not do any justice at all. Under such circumstances, one would have to described a social group using the most salient features that are uncontroversial and unbiased. It is difficult to come up with a democratic agreement on what such a description will be and that makes the job of the contributors (editors) that much challenging. The existing page on Kammas has a focus mostly on the origins and history, 2 topics by their very nature are very subjective based on limited evidence. It is a common curiosity for any one to dwell on the origins and history so hopefully this page will evolve to be a good reference to Kammas and non-Kammas alike all over the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.228.129 (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zamindars

Subsection deleted. No references were given to those claims, or references that are anitquated unverifiable. If it is common knowledge then there is no need to add that in this page.

Reference is provided.Kumarrao (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need a proof that the book is peer reviewed or at least there are references in the book that were peer reviewed. Take that as a challenge KumarRao. "Kammavari Charitra" is not a valid reference. It is a printed book, that does not necessarily make it a valid reference. In any case do not call the social group as Zamindars based on a handful of zamindars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.228.129 (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Titles

The titles were not unique to this particular social group, they were archaic if they are titles at all, and in modern times they are just names with frequent occurence, hence convey no special meaning to this article. There seems to be tendency to connect this social group to the Royalty of India. Stop doing that. Tendencies like this make this page Class-B low grade page. The Section is deleted.

All titles are used even today although less frequently. It is a factual information. No royalty is intended. Kammas are Shudras who attained a certain status in the society through hard work and sheer merit and metle down the centuries.Kumarrao (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with your assertion of "less frequently". Rao, Naidu, Reddy are present in almost everybody's name e.g. your name "KumarRao". How can you maintain this page with such attention to detail. And I do not see the relevance of invoking "Shudras" with an implication of lower level, when that itself is hotly debated.

Language

Unclear about the intention and purpose of this heading. The social group, hailing from the state of Andhrapradesh, speak Telugu. This is a well known fact and does not convey any new information, hence redundant. Do not see a reason why English language has been omitted. Hence this editor deems that this subsection insufficiently presented and thus removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.228.129 (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

Irrelevant Subsection. Does not convey any new information. As with any social group in India, majority of the citizens practice Hinduism. And all other religions are also practiced by this social group, such as Christianity, Islam and Budhism to mention a few. So this editor deems it unnecessary to add this sub heading —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.228.129 (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classification

What is the rationale behind saying that the social group is classified as "Warriors, Peasants, etc" 1). Was it historical, what is the time period? 2). Are you saying there are no other professions practiced by this social group? 3). Why not talk about the contemporary classification? 4). If a handful of the social group were zamindars, why the whole group is classified as zamindars? 5). Again if a handful of the social group were Warriors, why classify the whole group as Warriors? 6). I hail from a farming community and an Engineer by profession. Peasant class is the dominant section of this social group. And that is changing rapidly as we speak. So where does the classification reflect the changing tiems? 7). KumarRao or whoever thinks owns this site/page, please catagorize the reasons and references for this classification?

Since there is no specific modern nor historical classification and also due to the reason that other social groups also have similarities, the classification does not convey any unique information pertaining to this social group. Another reason being, few samples does not lead to a rigorous conclusion, hence deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.228.129 (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the above comments about the article by unknown user are irrelevant. Wiki is an open encyclopedia about everything under the Sun including castes, their orgin, members, history etc. Removal of the section "Jamindars" in Kamma (caste) was unjustified. All the Jamindars existed till recently. Please refer to Kotta Bhavayya's book on the History of Kammas.I suggest you to log in as a Wiki user and sign always after the edits.Kumarrao (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you can talk about every thing, but you are talking about me also as I am part of the social group, in a manner that is not agreeable to me. Misplaced pride only welcomes redicule.

Stop saying that Kammavari Charitra is a valid reference. How many people have to point that to this page. No researcher would call such a book as a reference. Again all books can not be references. Why is the question of calling the entire social group as Zamindars irrelvant? I know for fact about Challapalli Zamindar. SO WHAT? What is the reason to highlight such a fact. This again goes back to the question of "What is the purpose of this web page?". Why the preoccupation on Zamindars and Warriors when there are so many other things that can be talked. I am not an unknown user, my IP address is my signature. In fact reviews should be done full blind or halfblind. What is important is the right question not the WRONG ANSWER.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.228.129 (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on the genetics section

Hi,

1) This article mentions that Kammas are "Largely Haplogroup R2 (M124)". Kindly note that the sample size of the study was made up of just 15 Kamma individuals; and of them 73.3% (that is around 10-11 individuals) were found to be R2 haplogroup. In what way does a sample size of 15 individuals represent the entire lot of Kammas to be designated as "Largely" R2 ?

2) Moreover this article mentions the journey of Haplogroup R2, and says "it can be inferred" that Kammas might have migrated from Bihar to Palnadu. Kindly mention how can such a thing be inferred? What has R2 haplogroup, which is 25,000 years old, got to do with the migratory events of the Mauryan period? I kindly request the authors of this article to use the appropriate terms.

3) The article also mentions that "Interestingly, the other social group with highest concentration of Haplogroup R2 is Jaunpur Kshatriyas of Varanasi region". This is blatantly false. Of the whole lot, Karmali, a Scheduled Tribe of West Bengal had 100% frequency (the highest concentration) in a sample size of 16 individuals.
Kindly amend the article.
Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]

Reply from 76.184.228.129

There is no need to amend the article. The conclusions are based on the results. If the results are incomplete (or partial) so is the conclusion (possibly). As more results come, the conclusions also change accordingly. I got my DNA tested, and I am R2. I strongly advice anybody who reads this social group's page should contact the Genographic project or any such project to know the relevant Haplogroup.

Yes you are partly right, when you said that the trail was 25000 years ago. Exactly we are talking about 25000 years ago. What are we today? DO not know the answer. And what is the relevance? Just says what it says, 25000 years ago. I dont see any problem with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.228.129 (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many social groups all over the world share that Haplogroup (R2). What is wrong with that? If you go farther enough (into past) we all share same parentage, what is wrong with that?

About "inferring" the trail, yes it is hypothetical. That is what it is with history, nobody knows it for sure. It is one explanation of the origins, as there are many. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.228.129 (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to 76.184.228.129

1) Ask any genetist. A sample size of 15 individuals cannot represent any caste group to be designated as "Largely" R2 haplogroup.

2) If you want to claim that Kammas migrated from Bihar, it has to be based on historical sources. You cannot claim that Kammas might have migrated from Bihar to Palnadu based on the "journey of R2" by citing the National Genographic Project. The "journey of R2" belongs to an antiquated time period and pertains to many people across the globe who belong to R2 hg.

3) The only group with 100% (highest) frequency of R2 in the list is a Scheduled Tribe of iron-smelters from West Bengal known as Karmali. Not the Jaunpur Kshatriyas. Mentioning only the Jaunpur Kshatriyas and leaving out all other indian populations with high concentration of R2 amounts to a falsified representation. In terms of 'concentration levels', if one were to calculate based on an equalized sample size then the Komatis, Kapus and Kammas (all three) have the same concentration levels.

I feel the IP address 76.184.228.129 can stay out of this. Apparently he belives he can "infer" hypothetical things without any grounding or basis. Its like making up stories out of thin air. The major contributor to this article is Kumar Rao. It is better kumarrao amends the article using the appropriate terminology. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Mayasutra.[reply]

Re Dear Mayasutra

Interests and hobbies are not qualifications. Do not pretend to be something that is not you by education and by practice. With no such background on the subject, the farthest someone like you can go is to object, but not edit somebody else's edits, especially when the references were given and perhaps called for a review by a Genetician. In the quest to find genetic markers, samples will never approach a large number. Hence sample size is not the relevant question but rather how intelligently the samples should be taken. As I mentioned that I am R2, that speaks for at least some 1000 relatives on both sides of my parentage and for several generations. That is how these samples are interpreted. If you deem Genographic project conducted by Stanford has no merit, can you please specify what kind of research organization, journal or authors meet the bar, for these discussions. And by the way, whoever conducts the test, finding the marker is a standardized test and is not a subjective test. The whole theory is based on Out of Africa theory, yes it is a theory. But a theory most of the researchers agree upon for now. And Kumarrao, 15 samples are more than the list of Zamindars you had, which made you declare that the Kamma caste were Zamindars. You exhibited double standards and a bias for portraying the social group as elite and royal.

Regarding Mayasutra's assertion on falsification and blatant lie?: the reference is given so it is not falsification. At the most it would have been quoting partial result, and may be slightly out of context but not falsified representation. What is a falsified representation is you pretending to be a Genetician without the proper qualification (if you are, then show a proof that you are a Genetician). As for me, as I mentioned I am a practicing engineer. And regarding my hypothesis, How many times I have to mention that it is a Hypothesis? Do you understand the meaning of Hypothesis? It could be proven wrong or right when sufficient data is available. And in fact it seconds the theories of BUDHIST/KURMI Origins. Do you read the content carefully before objecting so vehemently posing as the sole owner of the Genetic studies? Those tow theories are THEORIES based on some circumstantial data that is conveniently interpreted. In light of the new standards, and since I am not a qualified Historian nor Genetician, I withdraw my inference and hypothesis based on the data on R2 Haplogroup and insist that the data itself should be presented to this page. Quoting from books that are read during leisure time is plagiarism and is not Research.

Reply

i guess the discussion is getting personal to the above author. wiki poject is free for all. looks like the contention is on "largely, from a sample of 15. And hypothesizing on the journey. objection to sample size of 15 is valid, but it is already noted and reference is given. R2 HP is worldwide, crosses many countries and castes. It is given in the reference. R2 is not owned by any group. And regarding the jouney, and spread read R2 instead of kamma, in the spreading of R2. Dear objecting author, I do not understand your motive, is it academic or personal? WE are all the same more than we think we are. We dont need genetics to prove that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.228.129 (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to 76.184.228.129 and other authors of this page

1) Be factual. This is a public page.
2) Provide academic sources for claims made.
3) So far no reference has been given for other haplogroups apart from R2. I request the authors of this article to provide relevant references for the other haplogroups mentioned.
4) I have edited the genetics section and moved the migratory claims to a new section. You cannot use a hyperlink on the Journey of R2 from the National Genographic Project, to make claims that Kammas migrated from Bihar to Palnadu. Use relevant sources.
--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 06:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]

I agree with Mayasutra. Fifteen is too small a number for population genetics. Inputs deleted.Kumarrao (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--- Reply Dont delete the entire section. Just delete if u have to, the migration hypothesis. Is there somekind of caste fight going on. Suddenly people seem to be strong and vehement about Class B articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.228.129 (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re to Kumarrao

Thanks Kumarrao. I have added something on the Kamma nayaks of the Kakatiya period. Request you to please research on the Samanta families amongst the Kammas and add relevant info. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 12:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]

Re to both KumarRao and Mayasutra

What is this thanks for, is this some kind of favor in old boys club. Kumarrao how dare you delete somebody's input. As critical and harsh it sounded, Mayasutra actually tried to improve the quality of this Class-B low grade page. On the other hand, KumarRao just self mutilated. If things are taken this seriously, there is a chance that non of the material on this page survives a rigorous review process. References alone are not sufficent, they should be authenticated and of reputable source. Here reputable does not mean famous author nor ancient text. Are you ready to take the discussion to the next level? I am ready. Put back the last edit where Mayasutra finsihed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.228.129 (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check the Vandalism in Wikipedia section. Content dispute requires discussions, debates, arbitration and peer review process. But not unilateral removal. That constitutes Vandalism. Be careful with what editing means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.228.129 (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Discussion

Please write your comments here.Kumarrao (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the origin of kamma caste is not established and is also widely accepted that it has non vedic origins. In such case classifying the community as one among the four varnas is not appropriate. Please explain the reasons. I would like to suggest leaving it out of the four varnas. - SGN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.135.181 (talk) 11:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let us take the trail of origins of the social group through Budhism. Gautam Budha was known to be born in a non-Vedic culture, (or with least influence of Vedic culture). We also know that the social group Kamma, attached itself to the evolution, migration and dispersion of Budhism away from Bihar region. So it is my conjecture (seconded by the DNA trail) that the social group Kamma, has its origins outside of Vedic culture, or origins on the periphery of Vedic culture. But it seems that it had been absorbed into the Vedic culture, just the way Budhism was absorbed into Vedic culture. Upon their entry, they might have been called Sudras. But, Kammas, being free spirited and not strong adherents of Vedic culture, evolved in all facets of life simultaneously. So it is not uncommon to find Kammas being Warriors, Peasants, Landlords, Poets, Artists, Educators and Social workers, even in historic times, although the evidence may be scant. Personally I am against any classification of human beings, but for the sake of academic curiosity, we can engage in these discussions. Please take my views as so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.243.152 (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yashoda Devi's Book

Dear Kumarrao,

The famous historian Yashoda Devi's book pg 159 clearly says Kota Kings as ancestors of Kshatriya Rajus and of Dhananjaya gotra. She says they are categorized as second among the Andhra Kshatriya gotras.

Clearly kammas dont have Dhanunjaya gotra nor any of inscription says they r kammas. Plz provide an authenticated historian's evidence or inscription for supporting your Kamma caste theory, A caste based book cannot be a Historical book and it is never agreed by non-kamma castes in andhra. If genuine historian/ inscriptions are ther ur statements can be agreed.

Indianprithvi (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kumar Rao,

The Kota Kings belong to the Khshatriya or Raju clan there is no evidence that states that they have any relation to the kammas or Velamas. They belong to the Dhanunjaya Gotra the only other communities which share these gotras are Bramhins and Telagas(Kapu). Even if you want to claim that there is a sencond line of Kota Kings who might belong to the fourth Varna it still doesnt support the Kammas but points to the Telagas..

Pls delete these posts claiming the Kota kings as Kammas Raju248 (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many historical evidences to show Kota kings were from Fourth Varna, Durjaya ancestry (Shudras), Chaturthanvaya lineage etc., Please see:

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=-d9IAvFOUHsC&pg=PA171&dq=dhanyakataka&lr=#PPA149,M1
Kammavari Charitra (in Telugu) by Kotha Bhavaiah Chowdary, 1939. Revised Edition (2006), Pavuluri Publishers, Guntur. pp. 31-32.
A History of the Early Dynasties of Andhradesa, c. 200-625, B. V. Krishnarao, V. R. Sastrulu, Madras, 1942, p. 370; http://books.google.co.in/books?id=ONSCAAAAIAAJ&q=dharanikota&dq=dharanikota&lr=&pgis=1 Kumarrao (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classification

I classified Kammas as Shudra Warriors, Peasants and Landlords as per historical records. This does not rule out Kshatriya element in Kammas because certain clans merged into Kammas for historical reasons and also due to marital alliances.Kumarrao (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I classified"? what is your qualification to classify? On What basis? Is it top three professions by population? Provide quantitative evidence on why that is a valid (summarization). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.228.129 (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let us take the trail of origins of the social group through Budhism. Gautam Budha was known to be born in a non-Vedic culture, (or with least influence of Vedic culture). We also know that the social group Kamma, attached itself to the evolution, migration and dispersion of Budhism away from Bihar region. So it is my conjecture (seconded by the DNA trail) that the social group Kamma, has its origins outside of Vedic culture, or origins on the periphery of Vedic culture. But it seems that it had been absorbed into the Vedic culture, just the way Budhism was absorbed into Vedic culture. Upon their entry, they might have been called Sudras. But, Kammas, being free spirited and not strong adherents of Vedic culture, evolved in all facets of life simultaneously. So it is not uncommon to find Kammas being Warriors, Peasants, Landlords, Poets, Artists, Educators and Social Reformers, even in historic times, although the evidence may be scant. Personally I am against any classification of human beings, but for the sake of academic curiosity, we can engage in these discussions. Please take my views as so.

Do add some information on Kamma Industrialists and Social Reformers.There are a few of them in Tamil Nadu like GD Naidu,G Kuppuswami Naidu,KG Balakrishnan etc who have helped develop the Coimbatore and Salem areas.-Raghavan(Talk) 13:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not edit "classification". Kammas are Shudras. Musunuri Prolaya Nayaka proudly claimed in his inscriptions that he belonged to Chaturtha varna (Shudra), Durjaya clan and Musunuri family. Kumarrao (talk) 11:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please establish a criterion for including the names of individuals in the Classification section. And also try to represent a broader section of the social group, and reduce the emphasis on Film Industry. Classification need not be a popularity contest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.243.152 (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kota kings

Kota kings originated from Dhananjaya who was born from the feet of Brahma which means they were shudras. They belong to Durjaya clan which is again associated with fourth varna. Kakatiyas were also Durjayas. It was a common practice to claim Kshatriya status after gaining power.Kumarrao (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kota kings originated from Dhananjaya - agreed every historian says so. Also agreed there is some controversy (lack of info reg this mystical prince Dhananjaya), but about his fourth varna only one person Mr KB Chaudary mentioned so... which was ref by Yashoda devi. She didnt find it anywhere else except in Kammavari charitra.

Again, in Kota Kingdom there were around 4 branches, Two of them (including main branch of Kotas) mentioned themselves as Kshatriyas of Dhanunjaya gotra n 2 other mentioning 2 be chathurta varna r so. So surely there must be something (difference) between those two separate groups. I hope u know during 11-12th centuries Varna system was followed so fanatically that it led to Palnadu war, so I am sure there is some mistake in deciphering inscription or mixing inscription of one branch to the other branch of Kotas.

In 13-14th century famous Poet Srinatha wrote Poem on "Kota Kings" and dedicated it to Kshatriya king Dhantuluri Gannabhupala of Kota descency, this in iteslf is self evidence.

Every historian unanimously says Main branch of Kota kings are Kshatriyas of Dhananjaya gotra, There is clearly no Dhananjaya Gotra in Kammas. never seen any historian attaching the Main branch of Kota kings to Kammas. If you have inscription/ historian's exact reference text, It would be beneficial in getting clarification.

Indianprithvi (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Born at the feet of Brahma" - how naive. Mixing Theology with History and calling that as a reference. That statement definitely does not pass the "verifiable" test. I think "Kammavari Charitra" should be validated to be a verifiable reference. Please do not ignore the fact that all printed books are not valid references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.228.129 (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Names of Movie Artists

Please keep the names of movie artists off of this page please.... The social group is not a bunch of movie people only. Neither it is a page for advertisement or selective promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.228.129 (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Origin

It is very much possible that Kammas are descendents of migrant populations from Eastern U.P., and Bihar during post-Buddha times. They probably had Kshatriya origin but got identified with peasant-warrior class in later years. The inscriptions during Kakatiya time clearly gave Shudra status (Chaturthanvaya) to them. In brief, Kammas are a group of warriors (not necessarily Ksshatriya) who took up farming in times of peace and vice versa. I agree with the above discussion of Kumarrao that some Kshatriya element got into Kammas because of difficult times Kshatriyas faced from Velamas post-Kakatiya period. The physical phenotype of many Kamma clans (tall, fair, handsome and aquiline-nosed) could be an indication. E.g., Krishna, NTR, Sobhan Babu etc., — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.246.162.154 (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proverb

There has been some disagreement in retaining an old Telugu proverb which describes the hard working nature of Kammas. The proverbs should be taken in their historical context. In addition, the proverb in consideration does not belittle others. I only quoted a very old Telugu proverb/saying which was quoted by British authors who wrote manuals about people living in various districts of Madras presidency. This proverb might have been valid in British times, not necessarily now. It is important in historical context because it describes how hard working Kammas were.Kumarrao (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, we shouldn't be quoting the proverb, but the secondary sources that discuss it. In general, we prefer secondary sources over primary ones. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classification as warriors needs valid citation

Please provide valid citation that Kamma were classified as warriors otherwise it will be removed from classification. Again do not cite sources like "Kammavari Charitra" because it is a book written by a Kamma for Kammas. Again just by some handful of people in a community being warriors does not classify the whole caste as warriors.You cannot simply say "well, the Kammas produced this warrior and that warrior, so they're classified as warrior." You have to find a reputable source of information which states that the Kammas were classified as warriors.Foodie 377 (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Foodie 377, Yours is a warped logic. Kammas started as warriors, became landlords during the passage of time and settled down to farming during pre-British times. These are abundant evidences throughout the article to support this statement. Kumarrao (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great article

I have ready many caste related articles in Wikipedia, but all of them project completely utter nonsense. I have to say this reading this article really left me with the impression that one can write a proper encyclopedia article about Indian castes one day. Great job.Kanatonian (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 28 November 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Kamma dont come under sudhra. They have orign. 92.26.112.223 (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. And that doesn't even make sense--every group has an origin, unless they've existed forever. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genetics

Another new comer (Sitush) and mindless edits start all over again. We have gone through this before. If you think you are an editor your job is to verify the existence of citation and not the content. For that there is peer review process, and i dont think you have the qualification. Situs, please put back the genetics section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.250.205 (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a "newcomer" either to Wikipedia or to this article. Check the archives, where you will also see that you have consistently been in a minority regarding inclusion of these genetic studies. Even you admit them to be incomplete and comprising a statistically unfeasible sample size. Furthermore, my "job" as an editor - as with anyone else here - is not merely to verify but also to evaluate on the basis of well-established groundrules such as wP:DUE. - Sitush (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concur w/Sitush here, unsurprisingly. If there are reliable research reports that have been published in peer-reviewed journals, then maybe, just maybe, we might be able to include the info. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is 2 of you now. I dont know what is your day job, but seems that you 2 are enjoying the full exercise of the control in wikipedia on topics that requires 0 brains. Part of me like what you do for this page... the page can use some serious content challenge. But other part of me says that, you two are doing a very dry job, without a soul and sometimes actually getting confused between policing and peer review. I think, I like the bitter arguments I had with KumarRao, atleast he had a soul. But anyway - it is all yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.250.205 (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kamma is shudra caste and Gamapa kamma, Godachatu Kamma, Moosu Kamma are the types of kammas— Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.53.172 (talk) 07:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Upper Class Shudra classification

I have removed the upper class shudra classification, even though some wiki editor has inserted reference for the same. Such citations were speculative in nature and there is no mention in the Varna system (if at all it was in vouge in South India -except for Brahmins) of Upper - Middle & Lower classification of Shudras. And such statements can only misinform the readers, when the origins of Kammas themselves are rare with infrequent records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ask27 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I am about to revert you. Please provide some sort of support for your statement that the sources are "speculative in nature". I am, by the way, well aware of the Caste system of Kerala etc, and this exact issue has arisen on other articles for the South India area. You cannot delete without reason statements that appear to be sourced in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. We are not censored. - Sitush (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur--the statement seems to be well-sourced. If there are competing claims of a different caste, and you (Ask27) have a reliable source, then we can definitely include that information as well and rephrase to indicate that the exact classification is in dispute. But only with reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 16 January 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The references cited for Kammas being classified as 'Upper Shudras' are pretty useless at best. The first one cites a classification from 1921, and the second reference has NO mention of Kammas as Upper Shudras! Why are we writing articles with classifications from almost a century ago (even if that is true, which I have no recollection of)? Also, that exact same first reference cites Reddys and Vellamas as Upper Shudras, BUT the wikipedia entries for those castes indicates them as nobility, warriors etc. Can you people at-least present coherent articles with consistency? Ridiculous! Also, do you even know that the person that wrote the first reference is a known authority in the field? Why then are we using his reference?

Sitush, et al., please know that information presented in a misconstrued way and/or without reliable documentation from a 'known' authority, serves bad purpose in the end. Who wrote this article anyway? Terrible workmanship!

Snowywin (talk) 08:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If history tells us anything, it is that caste, religion and once beliefs are some of the most emotional subjects. So please show as much patience and caution as possible to edit this page. Especially by those who do not belong to this social group. Citizen journalism (wikipedia) is a Gentelmen's game (only in Utopia). Since we are on Earth, and there so no proper jurisdiction (wikileaks is an example) I urge those who do not belong to this social group (including the editors) to be cautious in their editings. As far as what a Valid Reference is? for this topic there is none, in the strictest sense of verifiability, and fact checking. So editors, just stay on the side, and do not judge what is correct or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.250.205 (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the request from User:Snowywin, the Bhattacharya citation seems ok because let us not forget that in 1947 the entire concept was made illegal. That does not mean that it was invalid in 1921, which is not too long before the (somewhat unsuccessful) attempt at social engineering began. As far as the Oldenberg/Ayres citation is concerned, well, did you actually read the cited page? It says "Their demographic weakness had been largely responsible for their decline, whose main beneficiaries had been "upper Shudras," usch as the Kammas and Reddys". There may be grounds for arguing that it is not a great source, but claiming that "the second reference has NO mention of Kammas as Upper Shudras" is plain wrong.

Regarding the subsequent comment from Special:Contributions/76.184.250.205, sorry but we do not deal in soapboxing or censorship here - if you have some reliable sources to contest the issue then that is great, but otherwise your comment serves no purpose, sorry. I should add that, assuming the existing sources are reliable, anything that you might mention would be welcome but would also not be a cause to remove the items that already exist: we would simply show both points of view. - Sitush (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, let me tell you in the same language. Sitush, you are making wikipedia a battle ground, and making wikipedia too buerocratic. You are not allowing a consensus to build, and coming too soon in the middle of any disucussion. You are doing a poor job in improving the quality of this web page. You opinion on what is a reference is irrelevant and plain wrong. I dont think you are qualified to be an editor for this web page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.250.205 (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Sithush You are quoting something (existing sources) from "1921" as Current (2012)? Really Sithush? Per that logic, if someone brought you an article from pre 1947, you'd be happy to report that India and Pakistan are one country today, right?

Unbelievable! I agree that statements have to be well corroborated, BUT to bring forth a REALLY old reference, and use that to STATE FACTS in today's date is equally worse! You are saying that these classifications remained the same in almost a century? Wow! If anything, Kammas are the MOST socio-economically advanced of ALL castes in Andhra!

I do not have access to government records, but here is a 2011 reference from the Deccan News Paper:

http://deccannews.blogspot.com/2011/09/andhra-pradesh-castes-list-information.html

I'll try to find more references, but so you don't propagate mis-guided information in the meantime, try and NOT classify Kammas at all, instead of mis-classifying them!

Oh, also per your statement, if Kammas and Reddys "were" classified as "Upper Shudras", why are Reddys listed as a forward community in Wikipedia? As far as I know, even Khatris were referred to as Upper Shudras in many old documents. However, you chose to call them forward here.

Snowywin

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Blogs are not reliable. Mdann52 (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 29 January 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The division of warrior clans of Telugu land into many social groups commenced during the time of Kakatiya king Rudra I (1158-1195). According to Velugotivari Vamsavali and Padmanayakacharitra, texts written in medieval times, farmers (Kapus) became Kammas and Velamas.[4][5] In medieval times the term Kapu meant a farmer or protector. Badabanala Bhatta, the minister in the court of Ganapatideva prescribed Surnames and Gothras of Velamas. Kakatiya king Prataparudra entrusted the defence of Warangal to 77 Padmanayaka clans.[6] Velamas constituted a significant proportion of the broader "Padmanayaka" group. Velamas have 77 gothras and 77 flags in earlier times. According to Cynthia Talbot, Velama and Padmanayaka are not synonymous.[7] Velama and Padmanayaka were listed as separate communities in Bhimeswara Puranamu.[8] Famous Telugu poet Srinatha (14th century CE), while describing the social divisions during his time, categorized Padmanayaka, Velama and Kamma in his Bhimeswara Puranamu.[9] In addition, an inscription in Telangana from 1613 described one man as a Padmanayaka and ascribed Velama clan status to another.[10]

122.175.12.251 (talk) 06:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We would need reliable secondary sources before we could even consider this request. - Sitush (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 18 February 2012

Please add kamma caste subgroups 1.Pedda kamma 2.Chinna Kamma 3.Gampa Kamma 4.Godachatu Kamma 6.moosu kamma — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.118.125.251 (talk) 06:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reliable soucers to verify that information. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kumarrao (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need proper reliable citations

I appreciate the hardwork of authors in providing references/citations, but most of them dont obey wiki standards like direct ref to inscriptions and refering to non english sources.

Almost year back I have asked for reliable citations for the claim in this WP that Kota Kings are Kammas, 3 citations have been provided and the funny thing is two of those are famous historian books which clearly say that Kotas as Rachavaru (kshatriya Rajus) and belong to dhanunjaya gotra. Kota Kings are ancestors to Rajus clans Datla, Dantuluri and Jampana. Plz refer thos two historical books: 1. pg 159-161 from The History of Andhra Country by Yashoda Devi [url=http://books.google.co.in/books?id=-d9IAvFOUHsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+History+of+Andhra+Country] 2. pg 149,159 from A History of the Early Dynasties of Andhradesa, by B.V Krishna Rao [1]

The two authenticated historical books clearly say Kota Kings as Rachavaru (Rajus), nowhere in the entire two books Kota kings is linked to Kammas. The third book by Mr. KB Chaudary is unreliable as it is not inline to wiki standards (WP:PRIMARY, WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS) Hence the statements in the article are considered as baseless, and if proper citations are not provided then it shall be cleaned up as per wiki standards.op harping upon Request authors/contributors to update with proper citations. Indianprithvi (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate that a great scholar/historian Mr K. B. Choudary is branded as a caste advocate. "A Brief History of Kammas" published in 1954 was a short English Translation of Mr Choudary's monumental Telugu work of three large volumes on Kamma history which was painstakingly researched over a span of 13 years and published in 1938. Goebbelian methods do not work in Wiki. A cursory hit in Google Books "Kotha Bhavaiah Choudary" shows that his book was cited by "Census of India, 1961" and "Andhra Pradesh District Gazettes". Mr Choudary's book is highly respected by Telugu historians as an authentic account of Kamma social group. Indianprithvi should stop harping on imaginary issues and rather improve his own articles in Wiki.Kumarrao (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kumarrao, No ill feelings I was just following wiki standards. Even I have refered govt inscriptions and "Census of India, 1961" earlier in my wiki writings but they are not considered as reliable by wiki Admins. The reliability depends on the wide acceptibilty. KB Choudary might did some great work for his community, but if you go through latest historical books Mr. KB Choudary is being described more as Caste based author. I can refer that statement if you want. If wiki admins think it is also authentic book then every one else will accept it, thats it. I dont want to argue on this much.Indianprithvi (talk) 05:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am unfamiliar with all of these sources. Is the Chaudary one available online anywhere in translation? Please do not forget that if reliable sources show differing opinions then we should reflect those differing opinions. Also, we do have the reliable sources noticeboard, which is a venue for discussion in the event of deadlock etc. I wouldn't take this issue there right now but it is worth bearing in mind. - Sitush (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr K. B. Chaudary's work is available in English translation "A brief History of the Kammas" by Prof G. V. Rao, The University of California (1954). In addition, I reproduce here what the journal "Asian Survey" Volume 18, published by the University of California, Berkeley, Institute of International Studies, (1978) says on Page 295: "The History of Kammas written by K. B. Chaudary was one of the first systematic attempts to trace their ancestry".Kumarrao (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted here. Look, whether or not KBC is a reliable source, we do not need two citations for points such as these. Every single reference added in that edit appears to be an additional source for an already-sourced statement. Unless the statements are controversial, this is unnecessary - see WP:CITEKILL. - Sitush (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted two more edits. British Raj censuses are not reliable and they are also primary sources - they should be used as a last resort, and there was no last resort in the instance that they were used here. Thurston just regurgitated rubbish written by earlier travellers etc but, more seriously, the phrasing of the edit was all wrong: neutrality is one of our Five Pillars. - Sitush (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transition of kammas from agriculture to Modern era (19 century)

main reference is India's New Capitalists: Caste, Business, and Industry in a Modern Nation [Hardcover] Harish Damodaran. http://www.scribd.com/doc/59021417/10/The-First-Wave-of-Kamma-Entrepreneurs

There is a nice sketch of the period and Kammas transition to Industry. SOmebody can write up a small section, KumarRao perhaps.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.250.205 (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly cannot use that url because scribd.com contains many copyright violations. - Sitush (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harish Damodaran provided several citations in his book that can be cited.Kumarrao (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Woah. My apologies for not seeing your response ages ago. Certainly, we should not link to scribd.com but that does not invalidate the source itself. I'll try to find out more about who the author is and who published it etc. Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if I do no respond further. - Sitush (talk) 02:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Status

I have just reverted a contribution. I thank the IP editor for providing a rationale in their edit summary and - wonder of wonders - what appears to be sources for an alternate point of view. The problem is, the edits removed an existing and seemingly valid POV. We can and should accommodate all non-fringe viewpoints here, so I think that we need to dig further and discuss the relative merits of the claims. I hope that this seems to be a reasonable approach. - Sitush (talk) 02:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

I visited the article after a long time and found that many of the earliest inputs I made were either deleted or edited. I restored some input and found that Wiki editing process itself changed. I have to learn the new editing.Kumarrao (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not like the new editing style (I don't!) then you can set a preference to use the old version. Click on your "Preferences" link, then on "Gadgets" and turn off "Visual Editor". - Sitush (talk) 08:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 23 July 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hindu religious origin of Kamma Caste:

The Hindu religion classifies the Kamma caste as Sudhra caste falling in the Varna Class 4, which is lower than Varna Class 1 Brahmin caste. The basis for Hindu society is that people are classified by birth into four (4) Varna classes. 199.181.201.5 (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Also, please include a reliable source. Rivertorch (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliablity

The sources such as British Indian manuals, Professors of reputed universities cannot be termed unraliable. Do not delete the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.217.221 (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of the Raj censuses were reliable, nor are the works of the amateur, gentleman-scholar "ethnologists" etc of that period. That is the long-standing consensus in relation to all caste articles, not just this one. Take a look at, say, James Tod and H. H. Risley if you would like to understand why this is so. - Sitush (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need. If that is so, all Indian history, geography, botanical and zoological surveys, archaeology, books on Indian arts, dance, sculpture, each and every thing we came to know about who we were through British writers become garbage by your logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.217.221 (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly, yes. So what? Please do not reinstate the material again until you have consensus to do so here - WP:BRD explains. - Sitush (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What authority you have to refute British sources as garbage. Does it apply to your God Galloway too??117.201.217.221 (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)?[reply]

I've no idea what you are on about. Who is Galloway? - Sitush (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of the sources & the entire Article

This article has lot of statements unsourced and also the some of the references provided are very much unreliable. Coming to the Origin,there is a lot of mess.Unreliable sources are provided without pages.Indian authors especially telugu "Bavaiaih Chowdary" and "Kammavari Charitra" is not at all a reliable source and not accepted.He is an author of same caste and not a reliable source.It is an attempt of self boasting to increase their status with unreliable sources.Origin is completely disputed."Kammas are present from 3rd century" is meaningless.No reliable source from Indian History stated that.All the unsourced content is disputed and unreliable sources are challenged.You said "Kammas ruled" it is not at all a fact.According to Andhra Pradesh History & History stated by Britishers they are not at all rulers.Only Velamas & Reddies were having ruling history in castes of shudra varna.In fact Kammas acted Governors and commanders under Kakatiyas who are velamas.They had only a warrior history not ruling history.Also Nayaka Titles were used by Velamas even.It is not entitled only to Kammas.Britishers classified them as Shudras.Few Kammas have warrior past and most of them have agricultural background.Britishers classified them as Shudras.This article should be improved by removing unsourced & poorly sourced content.Statements with unreliable sources are definitely challenged and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.161.202 (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are right about some of the sources and I've removed the obvious ones. If there are any more then please could you list/explain here.

Regarding your general points, I'll do some research myself but it would be helpful if you could provide some reliable sources that support what you say. I reverted your tagging with {{cn}}, {{pn}} etc because you'd kinda gone a bit extreme with those - I'll try to reinstate the pertinent ones. - Sitush (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is there in Ancient History and Medeival History.The statements should be reviewed and should be sourced with reliable sources accepted by Britishers or foreign universities not the telugu people or Indian Historians whose sources are not reliable according to Historians.The statements must be reviewed and strongly sourced with pages.Otherwise remove them or tag them as "^{[citation needed]}"

That's not good enough, sorry. Can you be more specific about which statements and which sources? - Sitush (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Origin where are the "pages" for the references provided ???. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.161.202 (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of it is tagged as {{cn}}; there is "p. 99" given for one source. - Sitush (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Refrences 2 & 3 are not at all reliable ?? Provide proper sources with pages!

Also references 4 & 7 are not reliable and provide page for 8th reference...

Why are they not reliable? Do you have any alternate reliable sources for origin? And please can you sign your posts (type 4 ~s at the end). - Sitush (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are no proper origin theories about "Kammas" provide the references affiliated to foreign university or Britishers not telugu people or indians which aren't accepted...

"Pages are needed" for 9 & 10 and also reference 11 is not at all areliable source...

I can't understand you are very much particular about references according to wikipedia for other caste pages, but why not this page ???

Please improve the article and this article's neutrality is always disputed until proper reliable sources are stated with pages in ancient & medieval history and unreliable statements should be removed ...Thanks that will be enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.161.202 (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've got over 2000 articles on my watchlist. With keeping on top of the torrent of bad stuff that happens to them all, it takes a while to get round to things. That doesn't stop you from improving the article, of course, but you'll have to explain yourself carefully. For example, I know that it is difficult to prove a negative but "there are no proper origin theories about Kammas" needs some sort of rationale. You've provided one along the lines of disputing the reliability of the sources & now we'll have to see what the consensus is. To be honest, if I look at the sources and agree with you then many people would probably say that's good enough but we do need to give other people a chance here. - Sitush (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This statement is completely wrong and false."Vijayanagara Kingdom is founded by Kammas"...This statement should be deleted immediately.As Sangama and Aravidu are Kshatriya Dynasties accepted by Historians.But there are no proper sources about the castes of saluva and Tuluva Dynasty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.18.188 (talk) 13:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources are deleted which are provided by telugu or Indian People.Some statements are tagged.Kammas also never ruled princely states.In Hindus,Almost all the Princely States are ruled by Castes of Kshatriya Varna like Rajputs,Rajus,Marathas etc.For example Rajputanas,Maratha empire and princely state of orissa,vizianagaram,peddapuram,ramachandrapuram etc.In Andhra Pradesh some small Kingdoms are ruled by Reddies and velamas of shudra varna but for a limited time.Kammas who were of shudra varna never ruled princely states some of them were granted lands as zamindaris under nizam rule and muslim rule and in the medeival past some of them were governors and commanders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.18.188 (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted you, mainly but not solely because your tagging was dreadful. For example, you somehow managed to do things such as {{cn}}{{pn}}, which is plain nonsense. Let's go through the sources one at a time, please: a bit of patience will do no harm since this is not a biography of a living person. - Sitush (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vijayanagara Empire

an IP in the [preceding section says that we are incorrect to show Kammas as the founders of the Vijayanagara Empire. These ancient kingdoms have notoriously varied histories but, assuming good faith, our article on that Empire does kind of make the same claim and are sourced. I've also done a quick read around and can see some other sources that appear at least to offer the Kammas as one of the possible founders. I will try to dig deeper into this because I strongly suspect that we will need to tone down the claim somewhat. If anyone has any reliable sources for or against the statement then please could they list them here. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article

The article Kamma (caste) was created in 2003 by the User:Usedbook. Since then, several people added lots of information, reliable and other wise. I started editing the article in March 2007 when I first came to know about Wikipedia. I took lots of pains to carry out research on the history of Kammas (as well as other social groups). I deleted hype and added authentic information in a true historical and scientific spirit. User:Sitush came along sometime in November in 2011 and played havoc with the article and is continuing to do so. Information with authentic sources (at one time there were more than 100 citations) was removed. Because of my professional commitments, I do not have time to revert his edits nor engage in arguments with him. I Even today, I do not understand several Wikipedia guidelines which Sitush has been using to delete important and useful information. I watched that he has been doing the same thing in other articles too. Only a person steeped in Indian ethos, traditions, literature, understanding and native touch can make meaningful contributions. I am helpless and I appeal to other Wikipedia users to take up the issue, restore the previous informative content and call the bluff of certain Users who have no idea of what they have been doingKumarrao (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]