User talk:Kautilya3: Difference between revisions

Now the socks have been blocked, I've pretty brutally taken the chainsaw to Nizams of Hyderabad, and had a poke at Mir Osman Ali Khan. I may have accidentally eaten something of value (indeed, something added by you); I certainly won't take it amiss if you undo bits of what was a quick and radical excision. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Kamma Caste Article

Hello Kautilya, Thank you for your commitment to ensuring fair and unbiased standards in Wikipedia articles, especially caste ones. Though I have a concern. If you look at Reddy one and compare it to the Kamma one it’s clearly an unfair construction. In the Reddy one it states, “At one time they were a warrior caste and later became feudal overlords and peasant proprietors.[1][2] Historically they have been the land-owning aristocracy of the villages.[3][4][5] Traditionally, they were a diverse community of merchants and cultivators.[1][6][7] Their prowess as rulers and warriors is well documented in Telugu history.” The Kamma starts of by saying that are simply agricultural families and doesn’t discuss their warrior status, like the Reddi article. Moreover, the Reddy article has many notable and well deserved historical leaders mentioned, but Kammas aren’t able to mention Pemmasani Ramalinga Naidu, Venkatadri Naidu, or other notable historical members from the group in the respective sections. When someone adds them or anything speculative, it’s instantly removed, despite the facts that the Reddies speculate to be Rashtrakutas on their page. The Reddies have phrase “analagous to Kshatriyas”, but the Kammas, despite having the same social status don’t have it on their Wikipedia page. The same thing goes for the Velama article where it proudly mentions their zamindari ancestry (though Kammas have them do to) but neglect to mention to their agricultural status. Why can’t the same standards apply to both communities? Why can’t we cite the historians who believe Kammas are descended from the Kamboja Clan or a mixture of Haihayas, Durjayas, Chalukyas, and Chodas. Why can’t we Note their “analagous to Kshatriyas” in the Varna status like it’s done for Rajus. Why can’t Kamma zamindaris be referenced like the Velamas? Why can’t pictures of Gandikota or the Battle of Raichur (which Krishnadevaraya credited to Pemmasanis) be put in the Kamma article. We can make it clear that it’s speculative. I want to work with you on this. I’m not going to hide the fact that I’m a Kamma, but I hope you can see why this is unfair. Will you work with me on a reasonable basis to fix this? I have done research and have a list of primary source and reliable documents that meet Wikipedia standards. I trust you to help me with this. Vivek987270 (talk) 02:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with all these South Indian caste pages is that they are contradicted by scholarly sources. Cynthia Talbot has pretty conclusively demonstrated that the modern caste identities arose only in the late Vijayanagara period, i.e., after the Battle of Tallikota when the empire fragmented. However, local historians believe that these castes existed from time immemorial. That rules out all of them from being reliable sources.

The Kamma page is in better shape than the others because there are more scholarly studies available for it now. The other pages still suffer from a lot of folklore. The Kamma page is also the most contentious because there is a lot of caste mythology associated with it. (Again the scholarly sources have studied this.) So people come here wanting to reproduce this mythology and we tend to revert them. I will look at the other caste pages when time permits, but Sitush is more the expert on them, whom I will ping.

We also know pretty conclusively now that, before they became "castes", Kamma was a geographic identity (associated with Kammanadu), and Reddi was a status title. I suspect "Raju" was also a status title. About "Velama", I have no idea. That seems to be quite a modern identity that developed a lot of mythology as well.

We don't generally accept arguments like that page says such and such, and so this page should do it too. Each page is considered on its own merits. There is no issue of "fairness" as you are making out. We state what the scholarly sources say. I suggest that you obtain a copy of Cynthia Talbot's book^[1] and study it. That might tell you how to address the various issues that you mention. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ * Talbot, Cynthia (2001), Pre-colonial India in Practice: Society, Region, and Identity in Medieval Andhra, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19803-123-9

I understand Ms. Cynthia's work. But many other historians and Harrison say that the Musunuri nayaks are Kammas and that Kammas are warriors. We can definitely include that as it is sourced. To this day, Pemmasani is a surname found only in Kammas, and it openly acknowledges in another section of the caste page that Pemmasani Ramalinga Naidu is a Kamma. In that same breath, I have provided a litany of suggestions to improve the article (includig mentioning of Experts Naidu, warrior occupation of Kammas, Musunuri Nayaks, the Kamma Zamindars during the British Raj, and etc.) The current wikipedia page totally washes over their martial/warrior roots. Now with Cynthia's work, with all due respect to her, she is in the minority view ln this topic in scholars and Srinata in Bheemeshwara Puranam mentions Kammas and Velamas as separate groups. That point alone negates hee argument, but the fact the regional historians disagree with her should raise eyebrows too. If Sitish can help, that would be appreciated.

Vivek987270 (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"We state what the scholarly sources say." This may be true for other caste pages, but not Kammas. There is a clear neglect of the Musunuri Kayaks, Kamma Zamindars, The warrior status of kammas (harrison and benheballi explicitly say this), and etc. If what you say is true, i have provided scholarly citations on the Kamma talk page abour these points. I hope you enact them. Othewise use Talbot's work and remove the Rashtrakutas and Reddy Dynasty from the Reddy page since caste groups, according to her, were formed after the Vijayanagara Empire. You can't have double standards. Vivek987270 (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 I came to you in good faith for edits. Instead, you deleted an entire section of the Musunuri Nayaks being Kammas today after I mentioned it, despite the fact that regional historians believe they are and you failed to mention the viewpoint of regional historians. Moreover, you could have used this time, which you used to delete sourced content that was achieved after a consensus on the talk page, to edit the Reddy and Velama articles since you believe Talbot is correct. I guess "When I have time to edit" is your excuse to not edit them, but you seemingly did find time to edit out the Kamma link to the Musunuri Nayaks. I hope you will return the good faith work by having a discussion to reach a consensus. So, what can we add to the Kamma page from the sourced content I provided. Vivek987270 (talk)

Vivek987270, it appears that all that you are interested in is glorifying one caste and shooting down others. I am not interested in engaging in a debate of that sort. Please stop posting here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 That statement is ironic because no where do see "aristocratic", "Reddy Dynasty", "Kshatriya", or anything of that sort in the Kamma article but it is present in the Reddies, despite them having the same social status and history. I am not shooting one down. I am asking for equal standards to apply. You removed the view of regional historians that Kammas were Musunuris and cited Talbot's view. I say fine. Remove the Reddy Dynasty information from the Reddy article since Talbot's standard applies to them. If you chose not, then why did you remove the Kamma mentions of the Musunuris and are not engaging with me on sourced edits to balance the article? With all due respect, I will continue posting here with sourced work that follows the rules of Wikipedia. You clearly have an anti-Kamma bias, as I have pro. I was hoping we could work together on reasonable edits that show the whole picture, but your apparent prejudices are quite clear. Vivek987270 (talk)

Kammas language

Kammas only talk telugu as thier mother tongue. Please kindly remove Tamil word from the header section Ventrun (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] * Talbot, Cynthia (2001), Pre-colonial India in Practice: Society, Region, and Identity in Medieval Andhra, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19803-123-9

[1]

@@ Line 76: / Line 76: @@
 : {{U|Vivek987270}}, it appears that all that you are interested in is glorifying one caste and shooting down others. I am not interested in engaging in a debate of that sort. Please stop posting here. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3#top|talk]]) 20:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
+[[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] That statement is ironic because no where do see "aristocratic", "Reddy Dynasty", "Kshatriya", or anything of that sort in the Kamma article but it is present in the Reddies, despite them having the same social status and history. I am not shooting one down. I am asking for equal standards to apply. You removed the view of regional historians that Kammas were Musunuris and cited Talbot's view. I say fine. Remove the Reddy Dynasty information from the Reddy article since Talbot's standard applies to them. If you chose not, then why did you remove the Kamma mentions of the Musunuris and are not engaging with me on sourced edits to balance the article? With all due respect, I will continue posting here with sourced work that follows the rules of Wikipedia. You clearly have an anti-Kamma bias, as I have pro. I was hoping we could work together on reasonable edits that show the whole picture, but your apparent prejudices are quite clear.   [[User:Vivek987270|Vivek987270]] ([[User talk:Vivek987270|talk]])
 == Kammas language ==