Talk:Kamma (caste)

India: Andhra Pradesh / Karnataka B‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Andhra Pradesh (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Karnataka (assessed as Mid-importance).

Kamma (caste) needs to be Wikified! So here's what needs to be done:
Check if the article is a copyright violation or meets deletion criteria.	✔ check
Suggestion: Do a quick Google or Yahoo! search with a sentence from the article.
Check if another article already exists on this subject.	✔ check
Suggestion: Use the Wikipedia search to see what comes up.
Add Wikipedia markup.	(Some excessive wiki-links.)
Suggestion: Read up on m:Help:Editing.
Format the article.	✔ check
Suggestion: Read up on Guide to Layout and Manual of Style.
Remove the {{wikify}} tag (if there is one).	✔ check
Join the Wikification effort! • How to use this template

Archives

1 2 3

Old discussion is archived. Start new discussion.Kumarrao (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Kamma is shudra caste and Gamapa kamma, Godachatu Kamma, Moosu Kamma are the types of kammas, Recently Tara chowdary junior artist caught in prostituion also from kamma caste.Kamma is shudra caste and Gamapa kamma, Godachatu Kamma, Moosu Kamma are the types of kammas, Recently Tara chowdary junior artist caught in prostituion also from kamma caste[reply]

Kamma is shudra caste and Gamapa kamma, Godachatu Kamma, Moosu Kamma are the types of kammas, Recently Tara chowdary junior artist caught in prostituion also from kamma caste

Kamma is shudra caste and Gamapa kamma, Godachatu Kamma, Moosu Kamma are the types of kammas, Recently Tara chowdary junior artist caught in prostituion also from kamma caste

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]

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

Kamma come under sudhra. They dont have any 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]

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, Recently Tara chowdary junior artist caught in prostituion also from kamma caste — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.53.172 (talk) 07:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]