Talk:Raju/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Another copy required - Parties, elections, and mobilisation

Can anyone see the relevant pages of K. Ramachandra Murty (1 January 2001). Parties, elections, and mobilisation. Anmol Publications. pp. 158–. ISBN 9788126109791. Retrieved 25 July 2011. ? I can only get snippet view here (and that by using a proxy). - Sitush (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, Krishnarao, B.V (1942). A History of the Early Dynasties of Andhradesa. p. 149,159., which is also only available to me in snippet view via a proxy. - Sitush (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Amended the above citation per note below. - Sitush (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure about the second isbn number? It is coming up for me as "The history of Andhra country 1000 A.D.-1500 A.D.", published by Gyan. JanetteDoe (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I just copy/pasted from the article after searching on GBooks using a proxy. The article is/was a complete mess of poor citations & that is why I am asking a lot of questions right now. "House of cards" is a phrase that I have used more than once here in the last week or so. I'll gradually weed out the cruft (I hope!). - Sitush (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I had already removed the obvious Gyan books, although someone is not happy about it. I'll nip in now and remove the ISBNs that are pointing to incorrect books. Thanks for spotting it. - Sitush (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. An editor is unhappy about an Indian caste article? I'll alert the media. JanetteDoe (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Why ref to AP arch. inscriptions and valuable historical books removed

Dear Sitush,

You have asked about the independence of "Andhra Kshatriyas History by Pencommunities.matsa Krishnam Raju, Kshatriya vamsa ratnamala" earlier in this talk page. Its strange how you follow a different standard when it comes to Kamma (caste) page where you have vilified a caste book (Kammavari charitra by KB Chowdary) which is more of a Caste book rather an independent author, as it is written by A kamma on Kamma caste. I may not be a full timed wiki author/ contributor like you, but I do follow same rules for all wiki pages and communities. my only concern is you have been following double standards in Kamma page may be its your community.

Apart from Andhra Kshatriyas History book, you have also removed content which had AP archaelogical inscription sentences (http://www.whatisindia.com/inscriptions/south_indian_inscriptions/volume10/kakatiya_dynasty_1.html) and sentences from Pg 174 The History of Andhra Country, Yashoda Devi.

As you are the author for Kammas page plz be reminded that same rules apply for all pages, if some caste book can be taken as reference/citation, then can every other community can refer ther own community history books. I request you to be fair to other communities also.

Hereby i am providing some valuable citations, others will be followed soon. Indianprithvi (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYNTHESIS, and please stop making assumptions about who I am or am not. You should probably also read WP:Citing sources because your recent additions are poor in that respect. Is there any chance that you might be able to provide a copy or transcript of the relevant section of "A. R. No. 283 of 1924", which you have inserted as a citation for something that has been uncited for a long time? - Sitush (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

On 30 November 2011 you provided this link with reference to a query regarding the initials "AR". I have been digging around ever since and am not making much progress, although I had some time ago found the link that you provided here yesterday. I still do not see how a limited record of inscriptions carries any real weight per our policies. The few examples that I have located are basically transcriptions and there seems to be no attempt to create a coherent analysis of the linkages between them etc. As such, using them in this article still seems to me to be a combination of original research and synthesis and, worse, based on primary sources. In my opinion, they should all be removed unless someone can provide convincing reasons otherwise (and also provide copies or transcripts of the information that these sources contain, for review).

What we need are reliable secondary sources that take those records of inscriptions and turn them into a coherent whole. - Sitush (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sitush, inscriptions are holded by Govt of India and reliable, if there is some controversies with those statements then we can have second thought but those inscriptions which I have pasted are totally supported by Majoritarian Telugu historians hence no controversy with that.

I have add citations from famous Historian BV Krishna Rao, founder-secretary of the Andhra Historical Research Society. Also its unfortunate that you have removed citation from The History of Andhra Country, Yashoda Devi. Yashoda Devi is a famous historian and we have to respect her. Its strange how come you disrespect famous historians and at the same time consider qoutations from Kammavari Charitra writen by KB Chowdary, which is not at all considered by all the remaining telugu social castes. Request you to respect our famous historians and dont handpick basing on suitability. Indianprithvi (talk) 12:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The AR

I am sorry, but you are missing my point. The bulk of this article is based on citations relating to inscriptions. We need to know more about those citations, as I have told you time and again. It doesn't matter who maintains those records, but rather what they say and how we use them.

Of your recently introduced citations, I would also like to see some sort of background information. There are several reasons for this but the main one is that far too many contributors to Indian caste articles engaged in puffery of their own community and - intentionally or otherwise - misrepresent the sources that they do use. I am not saying that this is so in your case but when books etc are being used which seem not to be commonly available and are written by people whose names do not appear much in sources that are commonly available, then alarm bells start ringing with regard to our policies.

We've been having this discussion since at least last November and still you are insisting in ploughing a furrow of your own: we are working in a collaborative project, not a poet's garret. I keep asking perfectly reasonable questions and all that I get in return are personal attacks, WP:IDHT and edit warring. - Sitush (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sitush, I understand your point. If you see this WP Only a few are cited from inscriptions, most of them are well supported by Book citations ( I mean I have given book citations as secondary, I have provided more than 2-3 citations as backup). Please remember that those inscriptions are genuine and they are not manipulated or tricky. Once can easily corelate the inscription to the actual Rajus WP content. For E.g The inscription A.R No. 283 of 1924 (krishna dist)says "States that a certain Brahmin Chavali Bhaskara consecrated the image of Chagi-Ganapesvara and that king Chagi Manma endowed the temple with land. Describes the Chagi family as of Kshatriya caste (bahujakula) and gives the donor’s genealogy." ----> from this inscription We derive Chagi family as belonging to Kshatriya caste - There is only Chagi royal family in entire telugu society, i.e Chagis of Kshatriya Raju's who ruled Krishna dist, later they ruled Peddapuram kingdom also. There are several inscriptions/books/evidences about Rajus/Rajulu as they have been in ruling since 5th century right from Eastern Chalukyas, after medieval period certainly ther kingdoms started diminishing except one or two.

Also you have cited Mr Sabhyasachi B's book qouting "A. Satyanarayana calls the "locally dominant landed gentry", claims Kshatriya status in the varna system despite there being "no real Kshatriya varna" in the Andhra region." If that is the case then Velamas and Reddys should also be treated as Kshatriyas, but this is not so because Rajus/Andhra Kshatriyas have been in andhra since 5th century. Why you havent cited it in Chalukyan or Chola or Rajput wikipage (as they are the root casue) and why here only.

one can see my contribution to this Rajus WP since three years, I have removed content which was puffery and added content which I was sure about and genuine with backing evidence. I can surely say this Rajus WP just reflects 40-50% of their glorious history. Whatever content I written/write I am sure Majoritarian Andhra historians will agree with me. I agree with you on the point that most of Indian caste make puffery out of nothing, For this I would suggest to Wiki Founders to induldge the Genuine Historians of respective region like Andhra Historical Research Society to be involved and review the caste/community specific WP. I would be one of the happiest persons if it was so. Also please go through this talk page, as most of the answers and relations are explained by Mr. APHistory and myself.

Indianprithvi (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Please can you confirm that you have read the policies which I seem to recall pointing out to you on several occasions, namely WP:PRIMARY, WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS? Have you also read WP:OSE, which I certainly should have mentioned to you in the past but may not have done? The fact that you have contributed to the article over a prolonged period is great, or at least it would be if the article was half-decent. I rather think that in fact the article is constructed on a house of cards but you continually ignore my requests for further information & merely repeat your own original research and synthesis etc. It is not acceptable, and if no-one else is going to be able to resolve the queries then the only rational solution is to remove all of the content that relies on those dubious sources, OR and synthesis. - Sitush (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Admin note; Indianprithvi, some sources from the current millennium would be necessary. If you try to push your personal analysis into this article again, I will indefinitely topic-ban you from this article. This has already gone on for too long here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Blade, I have cleaned up the old inscriptions (upto 11-12 AR inscriptions) from the article. Please remember that earlier also I have cleaned few of them already, but Mr. Sitush has reverted them back due to unknown reasons. I have read of WP citation rules. Almost all remaining citations are from Historical books dated between 1969 to 2002.

I just want to remind you most of famous historical research books are between 1980 to 2000. There will be hardly one or two books from this millenium and most of Indian castes ref from these books 1980-2000. Correct me if I am wrong.

I agree with Mr. Sitush about cleaning up content which relies on Dubious content and welcome it and I will also contribute in that. at the same time there should NOT be any double standards in doing so, like Mr Sitush is citing some unknown books and writing statements to hurt Rajus community and at the same time removing imp citations of Books by authors like Yashoda Devi.

I Request Mr. Sitush to apply the same rules for his community Kamma_(caste) and remove the dubious citations from it as it is full of dubious content than the remaining telugu castes. When one follows constructive role everyone will automatically join follow the constructive method.

Indianprithvi (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

If you think that any of my removals are incorrect then feel free to raise the issue. Similarly, if you think that any of my insertions are incorrect. Regardless of what you choose to do, and yet again, please stop making assumptions regarding who I am and, once again, take a look at WP:OSE. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Indianprithvi, you're pushing your luck with that comment. Alternatively, how about you go and bring that article up to standards? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It is hilarious to read that User: Sitush is a Kamma. If it is so, why did he delete all the names from List of Kammas?

Harping on a renowned historian K.B. Chaudary as a casteist guy is extrely unfortunate. I wish Indianprithvi knew the truth about Mr Chaudary.Kumarrao (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks The Blade of the Northern Lights, Sure I will help in bringing that article also upto standard with your help.

Mr. Kumarrao, I hope Mr. Sitush does follows the same standards/ rule sets & NPOV then the article of Kamma_(caste) can be cleaned up, as its more filled with unreliable citatations. I am neither in favour or against Mr KB Chaudary, its based on WIKI rules (please refer to the WP:PRIMARY, WP:OR and [[WP:SYNTHESIS provided by Mr. Sitush above.)

Sitush it would be helpful if can give specific reason/details why Gyan publishers is not reliable, is it banned by Wiki???.

Indianprithvi (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Effectively, yes. Try searching WP:RSN. Or just assume good faith. I am not going to argue about it because the consensus already exists. - Sitush (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Gyan is listed on WP:MF here. The front page of WP:MF says clearly: "Mirrors and forks are not reliable sources and may not be listed as external links in articles." JanetteDoe (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks JanetteDoe and Sitush, for the clarification on books such as GYAN. Surely such steps/clarifications make consensus much easier :)

Indianprithvi (talk) 06:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Source request

Can anyone see the cited bits of:

• Krishnarao, B.V (1942). A History of the Early Dynasties of Andhradesa. V. Ramaswami Sastrulu. p. 149,159.
• K. Ramachandra Murty (1 January 2001). Parties, elections, and mobilisation. Anmol Publications. pp. 158–. ISBN 978-81-261-0979-1. Retrieved 25 July 2011.

I can only see snippet views and the search is revealing nothing at all, probably because the pages are omitted. - Sitush (talk) 09:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW, this is me asking again - see the thread above. If nothing turns up soon then I am tempted to delete them because I am finding some contrary statements elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 09:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Journal of the Andhra Historical Society

Can anyone get hold of, say, pp 60 - 62 of Journal of the Andhra Historical Society. Andhra Historical Research Society http://books.google.com/books?id=gVNdhHtG134C. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help), which is used in the article as the foundation for what appears to be a rather precarious house of cards? In fact, if the entire article is available somewhere then I would be interested to see it. I am presuming that the thing is written in English, given that the title of the journal is in that language. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I notice that someone has just re-used the above source, so I've left them a note. - Sitush (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 December 2012

- A report published by the Overseas Development Institute in 2002 described the Rajus of Andhra as a peasant caste and noted that along with the Kapu and Vellamar they were "important com temunities with considerable political significance in the State, although in numerical terms they constitute only a small percentage of the population and spatially are confined only to small pockets."

Peasants? You tell that to anyone in Andhra Pradesh and you'll be laughed off the lot.

Edunt (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: I see no specific request to edit the article, only an editor's opinion about the article's current content. If you have a specific change you want made to this article, please identify it explicitly. Do not re-activate or add a new {{edit semi-protected}} tag unless you have a specific edit request. Thank you. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Raju Kshatriya History

Reposted from User_talk:Sitush:

Why are you undoing my changes, can we speak together and agree on the histories.

I can provide the proof of raju kshatriyas.

Actual hindu vedic kshatriya orign from saptha rishi gotra and who are twice born with upanayana.

Raju / Varma kshatriya are classified into Suryavamshi and Chandra Vamshi with Sapta Rishis gotras with upanayana.

Lord Rama is from Vashista Gotra,

please find the family tree of actual hindu vedic kshatriya with saptharishi gotra.

Lord rama, Lord krishna, budha also included.

Kshatriya with saptharishi gotra and twice born with upanayana are actual kshatriya, none other have right to rule kingdom.

Brahmaan, Kshatriya, Vaisya, Sudra are all equal, but no other community other than kshatriyas (suryavamshi and chandravamshi originated from saptharish gotra) can rule the kingdom.

Lord rama is from vashista gotra File:The_Genealogy_of_Bharata.png

Ancient vedic sources do not qualify as WP:RS. They are a primary source and cannot be used. Also, please sign your posts. JanetteDoe (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

IP, you have only recently been briefly blocked for your edit warring position & so I am pleased that you have on this occasion - at the last minute - seen fit to talk this through. That is a good start. I did not do so because the situation seems to be so clear to me but, in retrospect, perhaps I should have done. You need to read our policies regarding verifiability, reliable sources and primary sources. If after reading those you still consider that your edits conform to the consensus here at English Wikipedia then please do feel free to explain why that is so. If not, then please sef-revert and stop this continued insertion of poorly source/unsourced statements. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I have provided the below proof for the source of lord rama and lord krishna from vedic kshatriya classified by saptharishi gotra, raju kshatriya are the vedic kshatriya from spatharishi gotra divided into suryavaamshi and chandravamshi.

I attached the proof of vedic kshatriya from the below document. what other sources you need.

raju's are Ikshvaku origin, Sitush you cannot undo the changes without referring the documents attached.

I refer you to the two replies that have been provided for your original statement. Repeating yourself is not going to change anything. - Sitush (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You can discuss here, dont undo my contributions.

I provided lord rama and lord krishna orign from spaatharishi gotra as attached document..

what else you need, lord rama and lord krishnaa cannot come back and confirm us.

Hindu gotras for brahmana, kshatriya, viashya are from spatharishi gotra.

please refere the history there are many history books that provide vedic orrign of caste system.

I can provide you documents. Please mention what documents you need..........?

I added lord rama and lord krishna in raaju kshatriya who orign from vedic orign kshaaatriya..

Let me know what documents you need, i can provide all proofs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.124.113.148 (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Provide the verification then, please. You have so far only provided a completely unacceptable primary source. Take a look at the article on reliable sources in order to find out what is acceptable as a source on English Wikipedia. This has been explained to you on several occasions now. I suggest that you self-revert your last edit to the article until the matter is resolved in this discussion. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

HI Sitush,

Thanks for reply, I provided the document proof "The_Genealogy_of_Bharata.png" from the below wiki weblink.

Please refer the below wiki link, which have the documents provided as per the wiki standard.

I m refereing the document from wiki, so it should be as per the wiki standard.

I provided document of orign of saptarisshi which contiaan the family tree of lord rama and lord krishna.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saptarishi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.124.113.148 (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You have not read the WP:RS article, have you? The image file is not acceptable, and nor is a link to another article on Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Dont undo my changes, I provided correct information. I will find the valid proof for you.

I will provide you the rama and krishna orign from suryavamshi and chaandharvamshi orign. let me know if you need any other information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.124.113.148 (talk) 11:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:BURDEN - the burden is on you to ensure that the statements conform with our policies etc. It would be best to remove them until such time as you do provide suitable info. - Sitush (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I will provide the documents this week, can you let me know what related information need to submitted with proofs.

Is that ok if i provide the lord rama and lord krishna gotra's and their orign from kshatriya (saptharishi)

Already many of the wiki pages state, lord rama is orign from sage kasyapa gotra. please refer Ikshvaku king names from the below link:

The genealogy of the Ikshvaku dynasty to Rama is mentioned in the Ramayana in two lists (i.69.17-32 and ii.102.4-29). The only difference between the two lists is that, Kukshi is mentioned only in the second list (ii.102.4-29). In the first list (i.69.17-32), Vikukshi is mentioned as the son of Ikshvaku.[6] The genealogy is as follows:

   Surya
   Marichi.
   Kashyapa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikshvaku_dynasty

Below document states rama is from kasyapa gotra (saptharishi), kasyapa linkage is from suryavamshi. Rama is from Ravikul after Raghu maharaj got name to the vansh, ravikul was named to Raghuvansh. Sage vashista was Bhagvan RAM's guru. Among the kshatriya community one king will be there. Not all kshatriyas are kings, they will be army.

Only the kshatriyas created in yagna after all suryavamshi kings were killed by Lord parushuram will have saptharshi Gothra's. As these kings were created in yagna and given these gotras by rishi's. Before that the Actual Suryavamshi's gothra's were Ravikul, raghukul, raghuvansh, kaushal(Kush- Son of Rama) etc. there are few gothras like Harischandra and Dileepa, who were again suryavanshi decendents. Please don't manupulate bhagvan RAM ji's gotra for the sake of marketting your castes. Please refer kalidasa's book on Suryavansh.

vashista and kaszhyapa were bhagvan RAM Ji's worshippers and guru's.

Actual Ikshvakus Suryavansh gothras are different from the suryavanshi's created by yagna. Suryavanshi's created after yagna will have vashista and kashyapa and few other saptharshi's gotras. Ikshvakus will have the Ravikul(Sun), Raghukul(Raghumaharaj), and other decendents of suryakul a their gothras. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.63.142.252 (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

>> http://books.google.co.in/books?id=XUiYu3XByNgC&pg=PA28&dq=rama+is+kasyapa+gotra&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NbU3T__bEcex0AWG1tGzAg&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=rama%20is%20kasyapa%20gotra&f=false

This document state lord rama is from kasyapa gotra. let me know for any question.

Dont undo any information, i provided the correct. I will update the lord krishna orign also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.124.113.148 (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You are still supplying mostly inappropriate sources. What is more, I am at a loss to understand what all this genealogy is intended to achieve. This article concerns Rajus, not Krishna etc. If anything, the sections should be removed rather than expanded: we already have articles for the various dynasties, for Krishna etc and you appear to be in some danger of synthesising content here. - Sitush (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Gotra/sect/clan added

I have added the Raju caste sect and gotra,from verifiable source,A book entitled Sri Andhra Kshatriya Vamsha Ratnakaram elaborates on the traditional accounts and genealogy of the Kshatriya Raju community of Coastal Andhra and was written by Varahala Raju Buddharaju in Telugu. iwill be trying to aquire the book to add futher sources.

as reagards to the Kshatriya caste(varna system) i have found many sources to support the claim which i will be editing soon. earlier also i remember some miscreants had deleted the information,which i will add soon as i get time.Regards Panzerkampf1990 (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I am very concerned about the use of the "All India Kshatriya Federation" as a source for Kshatriya claims. Who exactly is in charge of this organisation, and what are their credentials? And regardless, it sounds more like an advocacy group than any academic organisation.

That said, it may well be appropriate to note something like "The All India Kshatriya Federation includes Rajus as its members, stating XYZ justification, etc. etc." However, I don't think it's reasonable to say "the AIKF says Rajus are Kshatriya, so that's how the last 3000 years of history have definitely been." MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You are correct in a way Matthew! the problem is that Hindu history has hardly any proper histography in the past,very little has been recorded,bulk of the history comes from incriptions,coins,balads,legands and suprisingly foreign historians!

as far as caste is concerned,most of the castes including brahmins are claimed! infact there is no direct evidence to confirm any caste as a fact! even the Rajputs(rajasthan) are claimiants of the kshatriya caste,many simple landlords,Banyas who had large land holdings in rajasthan declared themsleves as kshatriyas.(medival Indian History by V.D. Mahajan)

That being said i will anyhow provide more sources with the best of my ability in the future. RegardsPanzerkampf1990 (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

edited varna and classification

I have made changes to the classification of the varna system/occupation.I have provided sources for it.(check'view history' page)These sources are verifable.regards Panzerkampf1990 (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted you because your contribution was an interpretation of what the ODI source says, not what it actually says. The All-India Kshatriya website is not a reliable source: it is well-known that such advocacy groups were and still are established to pursue claims of kshatriya status as a part of the process known as sanskritisation. The most we could say is, perhaps, that the Rajus claim to be kshatriya. - Sitush (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

regarding the source no.19" Overseas Development Institute"

the source Overseas Development Institute[Srinivasulu, K. (September 2002). "Caste, Class and Social Articulation In Andhra Pradesh. Mapping Differential Regional Tragectories". London: Overseas Development Institute. p. 3. ISBN 0-85003-612-7. Retrieved 2012-02-29.}

regarding the Raju caste being'prominant caste" strangly the author also self contradicts by defining it is an ex warrior caste at the same time!. strange inst it? so therefore i have made some changes(edited) to the post. to check please check the glossary page vi of the same report o the above mentioned source. regards Panzerkampf1990 (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

That is not necessarily a contradiction and I have reverted you. - Sitush (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

how is it not a contidiction? the author has clearly defined Rajus as "ex-warrior caste from coastal andhra" at the same time mentioned them to be of peasentry.. it is very clear that there is an contidiction. therefore i am reverting you.

As far as Kshatriya caste in India is concerned all communities claiming to be kshatriya caste have no evidence as their claim is essentially from mythology,legends and word of mouth.there is no evidence of any caste being from the varna system as a fact.even the sisodia rajputs of rajasthan, Marathas, Dogras rajputs of Jammu and the Khatris of Punjab claim to be Kshatriya.so there is no kshatriya jati as such. That being said please have a look at the following. i am quoting from "Indian communities", by K.S. Singh.vol.5,pg1853,1856,1858.

"Kshatriya-a varna category, there is no kshatriya jati as such, however a number of communities claim the status of kshatriya and the number of communities apart from rajputs are very small.they are Raju(andhra prades tamil nadu,karnataka) Raghuvanshi kshatriya(karanataka) Kshatriya(kerela) koteyar(tamil Nadu.karanataka) Dal kshatriya (bihar)Aguri(west bengal) and kshatriya (orissa and assam) - in all eight categories"

so that being said i will revert you by classifying them as ex-warrior class by providing the same source which clearly has defined it as such. Regards Panzerkampf1990 (talk) 08:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about Sitush's reason, but the info you've provided is clearly too complex for an infobox. You'll need to provide more details, and put it into the text itself. Of course, be sure to avoid WP:OR. One aspect of that is that you may not decide something like "the text contradicts itself"--that's always a matter of interpretation. The only way we could include info like that is if another reliable source said the first one contradicted itself. I know this sounds odd, but WP is very strict in this regard--we may only say what sources actually say (in a summarized form); we may never interpret them. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on other Warriors

Dear Indian Prithvi and Kumar Rao,

I have started reading up on history only of late and cannot pinpoint corrections as you both. My only point is that since Aryan translates as Caucasoid to historians, there is something amiss with the claims being made by one community.

The Rajput connection should have showed Caucasoid input into the Raju population group. Instead, Raju grouping is no different from other groups. On the contrary, it is predominantly Australoid. Plus we see similar multiple clusters as that of Rajus, not only in Rajus but also in various tribes and castes of Orissa and Andhra. So why is only one community making claims of being from one varna; plus when the rest of Andhra and Orissa were tribal janapadas (not following chaturvarna), on what basis are the claims made?

Rightfully speaking, all warrior tribes should simply be called what they are - as warrior tribes. It just does not matter if they are fishermen or whatever in the present day. And let’s leave varna out of the pic while talking about various tribes. Let’s just try and see where various tribes originated from and what their culture is / was. And try to find points of time when they admixed with other tribes.

I request one of you to make a new wiki page titled Andhra Kshatriyas or something to the effect of warrior tribes of Andhra...and we can continue discussion on that page. Please do post the link to the new page here. Thanks. - MigratoryRefRequest

Sitush ID wantedly removing all raju history.

Extended content

Hello Sitush, Why you are wantedly removing raju history. Are you related to other community, want to reduce the pride of raju kshatriya. This is not fair, maitain the true data. I can see you removing all the information from raju history, I didnt see any contributions from you. Below is your remove edit history. I can see your contributions in other wiki links, why you are removing all contribution from raju wiki link. What advantage do you have ? 10:41, 12 February 2012‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (23,494 bytes) (→Etymology: need full citations here - page numbers, url/isbn etc) 10:39, 12 February 2012‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (23,478 bytes) (→Eastern Chalukyas: remove: I simply do not see the relevance of this material) 10:38, 12 February 2012‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (27,425 bytes) (→Gajapatis of Kalinga/Orissa: cite requests; remove some statements that have been unsourced for too long) 10:35, 12 February 2012‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (28,282 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by 2.124.113.148 (talk): No, sorry: the infoboxes are unnecessary and you have reinstated some unsourced statements - see talk page. ([[WP:TW|...) 22:03, 11 February 2012‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (28,282 bytes) (→Legends: remove: I cannot see the relevance of this) 22:01, 11 February 2012‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (29,608 bytes) (Undid revision 476342739 by 2.124.113.148 (talk) unsourced and unlinked) 14:16, 11 February 2012‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (29,608 bytes) (→Vijayanagara Period: trim url) 14:15, 11 February 2012‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (29,664 bytes) (→Etymology: remove: have been tagged for page numbers for ages, and we do have an alternate source that is fully cited) 10 February 2012‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (30,324 bytes) (Undid revision 476160958 by 2.124.113.148 (talk) we need sources, not more unsourced content) 20:41, 7 February 2012‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (30,324 bytes) (Undid revision 475632672 by 2.124.113.148 (talk) still unsourced) 08:48, 4 February 2012‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (30,324 bytes) (Undid revision 474925115 by 2.124.113.148 (talk) still unsourced) 21:50, 2 February 2012‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (30,324 bytes) (Undid revision 474648532 by 2.124.113.148 (talk) still unsourced) 14:24, 29 January 2012‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (30,306 bytes) (cite request- →Ethnonyms) 14:23, 29 January 2012‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (30,299 bytes) (Undid revision 473854521 by 90.214.171.96 (talk) unsourced) 01:10, 22 January 2012‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (30,299 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by Maharajakrishnamraju (talk): Unsourced pov pushing. (TW)) 10:21, 22 December 2011‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (30,299 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by 122.166.34.54 (talk): Unsourced and breaks the section's opening para. (TW)) 18:50, 30 November 2011‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (30,299 bytes) (remove: it references this article & therefore is not a "related group" but in fact this very group) 12:00, 30 November 2011‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (30,309 bytes) (remove: undue weight to show one; wrong place to have a list) 05:22, 20 November 2011‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (30,908 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by Rebelphani (talk): Unsourced changes. (TW)) 12:58, 29 August 2011‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (30,892 bytes) (→Gotras: wrong place - would put it under Further reading but the thing is in Telegu & I have no idea if it is reliable/authoritative etc) 10:12, 29 August 2011‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (31,238 bytes) (remove: it is incorrect, per the article body) 09:33, 29 August 2011‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (31,207 bytes) (→Kakatiya period: remove: no obvious connection to the subject of this article) 09:32, 29 August 2011‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (37,061 bytes) (→Gajapatis of Kalinga/Orissa: cite request) 09:31, 29 August 2011‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (37,055 bytes) (→Eastern Chalukyas: remove: does not appear to connect to Rajus at all) 09:29, 29 August 2011‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (38,452 bytes) (→Vishnukundina Dynasty: remove: aside from the last (non sequitor) sentence, this does not appear to connect to Rajus at all) 09:27, 29 August 2011‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (40,304 bytes) (remove: if they are redlinked then they are not notable) 09:14, 29 August 2011‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (40,256 bytes) (→Other sources: remove: it is cited inline) 09:13, 29 August 2011‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (40,315 bytes) (→Gotras: remove: not a reliable source (dead now anyway, but have seen it before)) 09:12, 29 August 2011‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (40,401 bytes) (remove: Kshatriya is not an ethnic group, it is a ritual rank in Hinduism) 09:08, 29 August 2011‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (40,416 bytes) (→Other sources: remove: nothing to indicate that this association is authoritative for the points raised) 09:04, 29 August 2011‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (40,603 bytes) (→Gajapatis of Kalinga/Orissa: remove unreliable source) 09:03, 29 August 2011‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (40,782 bytes) (→Legends: clean up orphaned ref name) 09:02, 29 August 2011‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (40,815 bytes) (remove SPS at tripod) 09:01, 29 August 2011‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (41,138 bytes) (→Legends: remove: SPS at tripod) 09:00, 29 August 2011‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (41,237 bytes) (→References: remove uncited source) 08:58, 29 August 2011‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (41,419 bytes) (→Vijayanagara Period: fix punc.; remove unreliable source) 08:58, 29 August 2011‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (41,491 bytes) (→Modern community: rmv unreliable source) 08:57, 29 August 2011‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (41,557 bytes) (→Kakatiya period: rmv unreliable source) 08:56, 29 August 2011‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (41,617 bytes) (→Modern community: replace unreliable source with request; remove original research/commentary) 08:55, 29 August 2011‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (41,811 bytes) (→Eastern Chalukyas: remove unreliable, often mirror source) 08:53, 29 August 2011‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (41,874 bytes) (→Legends: cite request; remove WP:OR based on primary sources) 08:52, 29 August 2011‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (42,751 bytes) (→History: replace unreliable source with cite request) 08:51, 29 August 2011‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (42,892 bytes) (→History: fix per WP:MOSQUOTE; remove some commentary) 08:49, 29 August 2011‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (42,955 bytes) (→Etymology: tidy up, overlinks etc) 08:48, 29 August 2011‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ (43,007 bytes) (remove: cannot locate statement in the cited source & in any event Brahman is not a caste but a ritual rank)

Quote from source

Provide actual quotes from the source provided for this statement "From the medieval period, the term "Andhra Kshatriya" has been used synonymously with Rachavaru, Rajus and Telugu Kshatriya." --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

I can't even see the term "Andhra Kshatriya" in the source. - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That's long enough for this request. I've removed the statement. - Sitush (talk) 07:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits by Sitush

Rajus are kshatriya-rap

This particular "Sitush" is wantedly removing the sources provided by people which are reliable.He had removed references by Famous Historians like Yashoda Devi & even K.S.Singh etc.Even he had recently removed the reference which is affiliated to Anthropological Survey in India.I Think this particular "Sitush" have personal grudge on "Rajus" Community as this particular Sitush belongs to "Kamma" caste of Shudra Varna.Do you think you can defame "Rajus" Community,even Britishers & Government has listed them as "Kshatriyas".On whatever castes you have grudge you are very particular about references.Then what about your "Kamma" page references, are they completely reliable ?? and accepted by foreign universities ?? "Kammavari Charitra (in Telugu language) by Kotha Bhavaiah Chowdary, 1939. Revised Edition (2006), Pavuluri Publishers, Guntur";"Telugu Vignana Sarvaswamu, Volume 2, History, Telugu University, Hyderabad";"A History of Telugu Literature, Chenchaiah Chowdary, B. and Bhujanga Rao, R. M., 1988, Asian Educational Services, p.50"??? and many more.You are very liberal in writing about your community and you have even removed their shudra varna classified by Britishers from that page.After i have entered in that page, you made it again appear on the page.As Rajus are Andhra Kshatriyas you are trying to defame them using wikipedia,it is your mere foolishness in thinking such way.You have provided books in favour of Dalits & Bahujans as references in "Rajus" page.They aren't reliable.You are talking about Sanskritisation & other topics etc. What is your knowledge in judging references, are you a social scientist or a great historian ??? Do You think that you can prove Kshatriya Castes as they are not Kshatriyas,you are after all a "Guano in a Ocean".Kshatriyas contain the gotras named after saptarishis & also other great sages i.e maharishis unlike the gotras of all other shudra castes.Kshatriyas don't need the acceptance of shudra caste person like you who have personal grudge on them.A number of communities claim the status of "Kshatriya Varna",but apart from "Rajput" they are very small.They are "Rajus"(Andhra Pradesh,Tamil Nadu),"Raghuvamsi Kshatriya"(Karnataka),"Kshatriya"(Kerala),"Koteyar"(Tamil Nadu,Karnataka),"Dal Kshatriya"(Bihar),"Aguri"(West Bengal) and "Kshatriya"(Orissa and Assam)-in all eight communities which are widely accepted in the references of "India's Communities" by K.S.Singh,Vol-V.p.1853,1856-1858","http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=A0O8UtD5Bo6IiQejnIHQCg&id=1lZuAAAAMAAJ&dq=india%27s+communities&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=aguri" This was the statement mentioned by K.S.Singh in his book.This statement of K.S.Singh is given as the Kshatriya Rajus asked their caste to be placed in Backward castes list in Tamil Nadu which can be seen in the following link "www.ncbc.nic.in/Pdf/Tamil%20Nadu/Tamilnadu-Vol2/7.pdf‎".You don't have the moral right for asking discussions & you should always feel ashamed of your heinous acts in editing caste articles with personal grudges.Please don't spoil the reputation of Wikipedia.Hence,it would be fair for you,if you don't vandalise this page any further. I am finally asking Wikipedia to take care in providing & maintaining articles especially castes articles in Wikipedia.Don't hand over these aricles for editing to the persons like "sitush" who have personal grudges on castes because of his low class mentality. I redacted your title. Falsely accusing someone from vandalism is disruptive and you can be blocked for it. And "low class mentality", that's a personal attack. Comment on the edits, if you can, not on the editor. And please try using paragraphs. Drmies (talk) 05:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC) We don't put varna in lead sections because it is outdated puffery, it is often contested (notably because of sanskritisation) and it is often a far more complex issue than can be done justice at the start of an article. For example, in this case, there were Brahmins who called themselves Raju, according to the sources cited in the article body. - Sitush (talk) 07:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC) You(Sitush) are willingly doing this,you don't want this article to get developed,and you also tried before to create Rajus as peasants later you again changed to ex-warrior caste.you are deleting gotras,then if you know gotras of rajus,then you may write in this page.Only Indian Historians can explain about surnames & gotras.Your main motto is not to develop the article by deleting.You are a culprit,low class scoundrel and a cold blooded bastard who is doing all this.But,remember no one can improve or degrade a person or community's status,if you think so it is you mere foolishness and the time will come and then you have to pay for all this.

Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Provide justice for Rajus or Kshatriya Rajus Article

Rajus are kshatriya-rap

Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Provide justice for Rajus or Kshatriya Rajus Article Summary of thread: According to 117, Sitush is deleting sourced statements with reliable sources: 1. Kshatriya Varna Sitush is removing Kshatriya Varna. Please verify this paragraph: "A number of communities claim the status of Kshatriya Varna, but apart from Rajput they are very small. They are Rajus (Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu), Raghuvamsi Kshatriya (Karnataka), Kshatriya (Kerala), Koteyar (Tamil Nadu,Karnataka), Dal Kshatriya (Bihar), Aguri (West Bengal) and Kshatriya (Orissa and Assam)." All eight communities are widely accepted in the references of K.S.Singh', "India's Communities", Vol-V., p.1853, 1856-1858 [1] 2. Gotras (clan) Sitush removed Gotras (clan) in that page. Gotras are provided from the following 2 references: Suresh Singh (1997), Tamil Nadu Part 2, Affiliated East-West Press [for] Anthropological Survey of India, p.774 [2]: Rajus are of Kshatriya Varna. Singh [3] K.S.Singh is a great historian. These sources are reliable sources. 3. Kshatriya Rajus as Backward caste The Kshatriya Rajus asked their caste to be placed in Backward castes list in Tamil Nadu for the Backward Classes commission which can be seen in this link. This is a reliable source and sitush has removed this from the page. Reply by JJ: 1. Kshatriya Varna - I'm sorry, I can't access this source. What I do find at Google books, though, is this: "In Andhra there is no real Kshatriya varna, but the locally dominant landed gentry known as Raju claimed Kshatriya status." Which is already being stated in the article. 2. Gotras (clan) - again, I can't access Singh. 3. Kshatriya Rajus as Backward caste - the link does not work, but Gopal K. Bhargava & S. C. Bhatt (2006), Land and people of Indian states and union territories. 13. Karnataka, p.145, does mention "Raju Kshatriya" as a backward class. Yet, this does not prove thet the Rajus were originally kshatriyas, does it? I found something else: Sathya Sai Baba was a "Raju (Kshatriya)". See N. Suman Bhat (2005), Saints of the masses, Sura Books, p.82. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC) This can be seen in the following link: http://books.google.co.in/books?id=hPgqk2UgcmAC&pg=PP4&dq=N.+Suman+Bhat+%282005%29,+Saints+of+the+masses,+Sura+Books&hl=en&sa=X&ei=aeoTU5OYMIL8rAfl0YCABw&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=raju&f=false Joshua Jonathan Sir,Rajus are described as Kshatriyas by Government of Andhra Pradesh and also a forward caste beacuse of their ancestry as Kings,rulers and warriors.But Kshatriya Rajus in Tamil Nadu due to their economic backwardness in the recent period asked themselves to be placed in backward class.What i mean to say is the statement given by K.S.Singh about 8 Kshatriya Castes is submitted to the Backward commission.I am saying that the article about 8 castes is deleted in this page not about the Tamil Kshatriya Rajus.Not about its usage i.e statements of book to backward commission.What i mean to say is these 8 communities are of real kshatriya varna .So,this statement of K.S.Singh is submmitted to Backward commission of Central Government. Sir, I am unable to enter the link here.But you can write it in google search as" Kshatriya Raju Backward class" then u will find the link for National Backward class commission at the first.You can download the pdf & see. If u beleive those are reliable u place only the paragraph of 8 communities of K.S.Singh in this Rajus page not the discussion in backward commission. Coming to the gotras of Rajus,see the following 2 links: (i)Tamil Nadu Part-2 Affiliated East-West Press [for] Anthropological Survey of India, 1997. Kumar Suresh Singh, R. Thirumalai, S. Manoharan. 1997. p. 774. & http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=XM78UpaOGIulrQei84CYAQ&id=P3LiAAAAMAAJ&dq=kshatriya+rajus&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=gotras (ii)http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=UZAMU5WWGIyMrAecmYGICQ&id=1lZuAAAAMAAJ&dq=inauthor%3A%22Singh+K+S%22&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=chandravamsamu.Basically Kshatriya Rajus gotras are Vasishta,Dhanunjaya,Koundinya,Kasyapa,Pasupati & Bharadwaja which are gotras named after Saptarishis & also other great sages according to Hindu religion.Also u can find some common gotras between brahmins & kshatriyas. Kshatriya varna is described in the reference 1 in the rajus page and also u can find in the reference 11 of Overseas development institute in that page.But it is not mentioned in that page.Government describes Rajus as Kshatriyas in its caste list but it is not mentioned.Also Kshatriya varna is mentioned in the following references of government as "Kshatriya(Raju)" in the links : (i)http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=Zz4QU42NH4uYrgfb6oHIAQ&id=WN4cAQAAMAAJ&dq=rachavaru%2Frajus&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=kshatriya+rajus (ii)http://books.google.co.in/books?id=bYIdAAAAMAAJ&q=raju+term+is+used+for+kshatriyas&dq=raju+term+is+used+for+kshatriyas&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ND8QU8CHFYiVrAfgvYHgAQ&ved=0CFwQ6AEwBw.Also Historians of British period described them as Andhra Kshatriyas and also following statements (i)"The Raju term is today used to refer to a Telugu Kshatriya caste in Andhra Pradesh" supported by refernce 1 is removed. (ii)"From the medieval period, the term "Andhra Kshatriya" has been used synonymously with Rachavaru, Rajus and Telugu Kshatriya" this reliable statement supported by reliable reference "http://books.google.co.in/books?id=ONSCAAAAIAAJ&q=A+History+of+the+Early+Dynasties+of+Andhradesa&dq=A+History+of+the+Early+Dynasties+of+Andhradesa" is also removed.You please develop the article by studing these & by adding them. I'm really sorry, but none of those sources is accessible to me, due to the limitations Google has set on the use of Google Books. I did find a pdf for Kshatriya Raju Backward class, though. It does contain some information, on pages 6-9, on "Kshatriya Raju", or at least the opinions of Shri Venkatarama Raju, president of the "Kshatriya Raju Association", and quotations from Singh. The document cites Singh: "A varna category, there is no Kshatriya jati as such. However, a number of communities claim the status of Kshatriya. (p.8)" The documents says claim, not are. I'm afraid there's no more I can do. The only thing I can add, as a westerner, is that the value of people does not depend on their birth or jati, but on their being a human. But living in a rich society with equal opportunities for most people, it's easy to say something like that... Wish you all the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC) Those 8 communities are real kshatriyas so they say i.e claim which is expressed by K.S.Singh and remember they are not interpreting false statements.Ok and anyway thank you Mr.Joshua Jonathan for the efforts and also spending your valuable time in trying to analyse and develop this article :) Singh may be used by the government of India but he is not reliable for Wikipedia articles. Furthermore, there have been thousands of changes to the government classifications in the last ten years alone: they're always been adjusted back and forth. Singh merely trotted out the determinations made by the scientific racists of the British Raj era & he is used selectively by caste groups appealing their status, depending upon whether he supports their claim or otherwise. The Land & People book is, IIRC, published by Gyan and is also not reliable. Our article already points out the claim and puts it into context. That is in accordance with our neutrality policy and is as good as it is going to get. We can't ignore reliable sources but we must ignore unreliable ones. - Sitush (talk) 10:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC) Mr.Sitush! Listen point by point: 1.You can't blame K.S.Singh & his sources are unreliable.Because no source can be treated more reliable than Central Government of Indian Organizations like Anthropological Survey of India and also State Government Sources.Because they can't employ Historians with poor knowledge in preparing articles.Historians with poor knowledge may be present wikipedia to edit and delete articles with their personal reasons.Great Historians are used by Governement of India and State to develop caste articles based on survey.You(Sitush) being an Indian treating Government of India's Department like AnSI as unreliable is an insult to our country and unconstitutional.Government sources are the most reliable for castes articles as Government provides different types of benefits to different castes for their development.Treating Government Sources as unreliable is mere foolishness and it is left to your ethics. 2.Second thing is thousands of changes can't happen in castes list or castes.As it is stupidity in thinking that new castes will be emerged in recent period after 1947 and particularly last 10 years.Castes and their varnas and also their occupations are prepared according to their ancestral history and profession from medieval period,they are organized into different classes i.e OC,BC,SC,ST etc according to AnSI in different states of India. 3.Then,finally K.S.Singh's reputation is questioned by you.How foolish it is ?.After all you don't have the eligibility or status to comment on a Great Historian and an IAS like him and he also acted as Director General for Anthropological Survey of India.It is nothing but a type of character assasination.K.S.Singh had written many books like castes,languages and about cultures of different states and people of different states and many more.All are accepted by AnSi and also verified by Oxford University Press.AnSI don't accept false theories and this is also verified by Oxford University Press.Caste Groups can't try to do anything in favour of them.Because AnSI classifies real ritual varna of Hinduism i.e. Brahmin,Kshatriya & Vaishya Varnas.And Sanskritisation can't be done in AnSI because only castes which are of their own real varna are accepted there.I am saying this because you are always using the term "Sanskritisation",it really means that a caste of shudra varna tries to improve their status to the above three varnas.But it is not at all accepted by AnSI.K.S.Singh provided 8 castes of Kshatriya Varna which are real varna.You also commented on ALL INDIA KSHATRIYA FEDERATION that is a advocacy group.AIKF membership is given to groups not individuals.Also Castes which Government accepted as Kshatriya Varna are present in the Group i.e. Rajputs & Rajus etc.Also the 8 Communities explained by K.S.Singh are real Kshatriyas who have ruling ancestry and dvijas and also they contain gotras named after Saptarishis and also other great sages.The problem is there with you and you don't want people to get aware of the History of lineages,gotras etc of Rajus caste because you don't like them i.e. may be your personal reasons.So,you are wantonly doing this and using wikipedia as medium.I don't like to comment on you further beacause it is left to your ethics. 4.Finally,Remember people are not fools to accept everything what you say.Iam again repeating again,no person or caste's status can be increased or decreased because of false statements or theories if you think in such a way it is your foolishness. Therefore,notice that if Government of India's sources like AnSI is not acceptable as reliable,then the problem is yours not any one else,but if wikipedia don't accept Indian Government's sources then the problem is with wikipedia that no one can help. At last i'm tired enough to say as a conclusion,only one thing i can say,please maintain the reputation of wikipedia.It is good if you provide true knowledge in articles for readers,otherwise what remains is only disputes and bad reputation for fake articles.Please take care in editing different pages in wikipedia.Thanks for your contributions to wikipedia whether they are genuine or fake..but they are mostly fake Government sources are often unreliable. The People of India has frequently suffered criticism from academics for being a political exercise. - Sitush (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Article needs to be developed

Rajus are kshatriya-rap

Alluri Sitarama Raju freedom fighter belongs to the Rajus(Kshatriya) is present in many google books.His surname is Alluri and he is of west Godavari District.One of the link shows: http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=znsUU_KNMoGNrQfg_IGgAw&id=OEowAQAAIAAJ&dq=alluri+sitarama+raju+was+kshatriya&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=kshatriya and also http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=VHwUU4YNwYauB9PWgagE&id=XqoeAAAAMAAJ&dq=alluri+sitarama+raju+was+kshatriya+raju&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=kshatriya -Shvrs (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC) The article already says this, as you know. However, bearing in mind the title that you have given to this section, we cannot assume people are members of a caste group just because they bear a particular name. Nor can we use GBooks snippet views as sources. - Sitush (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC) I have just provided only 2 references but almost all the google books are saying that he belongs to Kshatriya Raju family.How can you say that all references of google books are snippet views and can't be accepted.Then what type of reference is needed for you - Shvrs (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC) One that we can read in context. It's dead simple: we don't use snippet views because we cannot read around more than a couple of sentences and thus we have no idea whether qualifications/developments of the statements are made. This has been discussed on umpteen occasions, including recently in a thread at WP:RSN. In the event that someone can see a better view, I'd appreciate a copy of the text because there is a ridiculous amount of POV-pushing and misrepresentation etc on caste articles - one of the reasons why WP:GS/Caste came about. In any event, these items would be a list of notable Rajus, not a means to push the kshatriya agenda: it is not unheard of for some families to adopt a varna that is not adopted by others of the same community. In fact, that is how sanskritisation begins. - Sitush (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC) K why have u removed Krishna Rao source when it is already used in other sentence. -Shvrs (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC) B. V. Krishnarao is not reliable for statements of fact. I don't mind leaving in his statement that the Rajus believe themselves to be descended from X, Y and Z (because, I presume, he spoke with them) but Krishnarao was of the Hindu nationalist school of history that toyed with the Vijayanagara stuff in order to politicise the masses. See this for some background to the problems of with the historiography of Andhra Pradesh. There are similar issues with many sources of that pre-independence period concerning Orissa. As a general rule, we don't use sources from the Raj period or earlier because they simply are not reliable. - Sitush (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC) Then if you feel so in many of your articles you have provided such sources.And these statements were lasted for so long in this page.You can't delete them whenever you don't like. -Shvrs (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC) why aren't you answering on talk page ? -Shvrs (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC) Problems and solutions emerge all the time on Wikipedia because there is no deadline. I've explained some issues regarding the history of this article etc on your talk page and I urge you to self-revert your latest reinstatements and continue discussion here. The alternative is to be blocked and/or to find the article protected, preventing further contributions. Neither outcome is desirable. - Sitush (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC) why i have to revert,what you won't like,can't be deleted,this article needs to be developed,if you can help then allow it,oherwise remain silent,but you can't delete the sourced statements with reliable sources if you don't like them.Every editor has the equal right to develop the article -Shvrs (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC) Because you are not understanding our policies. There is all sorts of crap on Indian caste articles but that is not an excuse to perpetuate it here. Sources have to be reliable, not merely extant. By the way, here's a recent comment about pre-1945 sources from someone who has a lot of experience in the area. - Sitush (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC) Fine,then it depends on the case,but that doesn't say that that they will not be definitely accepted.If sources are reliable and clearly explains that they are to be accepted.You don't need to be worried about that. -Shvrs (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC) This article's version is very clear and also reliable.So,you can remain cool about the article. -Shvrs (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC) I'm not cool about the article. It is pseudo-history and nonsense pushed by self-glorifying people who wouldn't know neutrality if it slapped them in the face. So please don't tell what I need or need not be worried about. You'll be reverted in due course, I'm sure. and if you reinstate again then you'll be blocked. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC) I know that how much so called neutrality you are following in each & every article in wikipedia.You even know about your edits that the reasons provided by you are genuine or not.You should also remember that you don't have the right to threaten any editor.This version is reliable and it is accepted even by you.you don't need to get over exited.Your personal opinion is immaterial.K then discuss it with other editors.Only your opinion about any article on wikipedia is not final,your personal likes or dislikes can't be satisfied by any one,there is no need of it even.Remember you are not monarch.If you feel it is not reliable take the issue to wikipedia sources noticeboard,but remember you don't have the right to delete anyone's article if you don't like them.The version is reliable. -Shvrs (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC) Now I'm getting really worried. The current version is not accepted by me and that you think otherwise makes me wonder whether you are proficient in reading English, let alone analysing sources. - Sitush (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC) I have found out an other reliable source explaining about Rajus.This is a reliable source accepted by wikipedia which is also provided in Kapu(caste) page to explain about their varna category.The book is "Fertility and Familial Power Relations: Procreation in South India" By Minna Säävälä.This book explains that "Raju" caste as "Higher Caste of Traditional warriors and rulers;Kshatriya". -Shvrs (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC) This is about the author of the book : http://www.vaestoliitto.fi/in_english/population_research_institute/contact_information/minna_saavala/ -Shvrs (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Yes, that source is reliable. It doesn't alter all the crap that you've reinstated, though, and it doesn't alter what the article already says. Therefore, it isn't needed. - Sitush (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC) I have already said that only the reference is to be checked whether it is reliable or not.But, i don't need the permission of you to develop the article because of your like or dislike.What an Indian Author Sathyanarayana,said about the caste is mentioned,then why can't a much better and great Anthropologist like Minna Säävälä be mentioned in this page. -Shvrs (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC) As far as I can tell Sitush never removed Säävälä from the article. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Thank you Mr.Drmies for your contributions about Kakatiya Dynasty to this article and i wish a senior editor like you to involve in the further development of this article -Shvrs (talk) 04:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC) The quote you gave is from the glossary (p.xvi); it does not explain about "Raju". At page 15 the author speaks about "Raju (warrior caste)". "Caste" as in "varna", or as in "jati"? An author mixing up such basic notions raises my doubts about his reliablility on this topic. It looks more like he simply took over existing local interpretations, without contextualising or explaining them. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Mr.Joshua Jonathan, the anthropologer Minna Säävälä has clarity about it, she described Rajus caste as traditional rulers and warriors and are Kshatriya that means they are of Kshatriya Varna and you can see that in her book, she also describes Rajus caste as "Raju Kulam(Kshatriyas)" in one sentence in that book.Here Kulam,jati,caste are synonyms.Kshatriya is their varna.In Ancient India,there are only four varnas or castes.But in present India,there are thousands of castes because many castes originated in shudra varna as they have classified due to their profession.In present India,there are castes of Brahmins,Kshatriyas,Vaishyas,Upper Shudras,Shudras,Dalits & Tribals/Adivasis.You can find these in many books.In present India,there are different Brahmin,Kshatriya & Vaishya castes that means those are the castes which comes under those three varnas.And the castes of those varnas will classified according to their respective varnas and they are called as Brahmins,Kshatriyas & Vaishyas.For example,Rajput & Rajus are Kshatriya Castes that means those are different castes but comes under Kshatriya Varna,that means they are called as Kshatriya Castes i.e. Kshatriyas.Also you can notice that gotras of Brahmins,Kshatriyas & Vaishyas are different from shudras.Also those three varnas are dvijas i.e. possess sacred thread and they also possess gotras named after rishis whether they are saptarishis(7 great sages) or other rishis(sages).Many Indian & Foreign Anthropologers made analysis about all these.Minna Säävälä-She is one of the great anthropologers who had written many books and analysed the castes of India. -Shvrs (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC) Mr.Joshua Jonathan,I request you to please revise your edit because you have taken into consideration and given importance to the Indian author who wrote book in the favour of Dalit & bahujans.He stated that Rajus & Komatis claimed Kshatriya & Vaishya status.Even he did not provide any explanation or detailed reference and he simply said the statement that they claimed Kshatriya status because of author's idea to create them as they are not real Kshatriyas.You please analyse that Satyanarayana's Book.Thank You -Shvrs (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC) According to AnSI, the Kshatriya Raju population is also distributed in Maharashtra State i.e. in Aurangabad,Beed,Jalna,Latur,Nanded,Osmanabad & Parbhani.This can be seen in the following link in Page No:583: http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=QsMfU6D0CIr9rAep54DgBw&id=bfAMAQAAMAAJ&dq=communities%2Csegments&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Aurangabad. So,Maharashtra State is added.Thank You -Shvrs (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

valid proofs

Rajus are kshatriya-rap

What is more valid than the Government of Andhra Pradesh and Government of India which recognise rajus as Kshatriyas. Dear sitush,I am editing again with valid proofs. Just study them and if you have any doubts let me know. I doubt satyanarayana's standards and beleave in sherringHarshavardhanvarma (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC) The kshatriya bit is the least of my concerns right now. I've given you some links regarding problems with this stuff on your talk page. You'd be well-advised to spend a little of your two-day block period reading those links. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

reliable source

@Harshavardhanvarma I want to know sitush, what do you mean by reliable source. Gurajada Appa Rao one the greats in Telugu literature wrote pusapati Rajula charitra.In the book he mentioned the same thing that which i added. I think he is more than a reliable source. And sisodia's say rajus of vizianagram are their branch with valid proofs,rajus say they are branched out from gahlot tribe of sisodiya's. I don't know why you trust satyanarayana to greats like gurajada and ramaswamy. And Serring is more than a valid historian.Harshavardhanvarma (talk) 04:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS. As far as the British Raj writers go, there is a general consensus that we do not cite them. - Sitush (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits by Sitush #2

Rajus are kshatriya-rap

Please don't change the article according to your likes.Your personal opinions or likes are immaterial & the article is according to the sources provided. I know that you are editing the article wantonly,why had you removed the word "Kshatriya" from "Raju(Kshatriya)" which is written about satya sai baba which is clearly stated in reference and many more edits you have done and provided fake reasons.The version created by Joshua Jonathan is the best version.Don't spoil it repeatedly,if any one adds new material analyse it and if it is not reliable then discuss it with senior editors(but not you alone) and remove it, but don't spoil the previous version.Definitely,your each & every edit for this article will be challenged by me if they are not justifiable.Because i personally feel that you can't develop this article,but the better don't spoil it.There are many senior editors that i believe can develop this article like Drmies,Joshua Jonathan etc., but i don't accept any of your edits which are mostly unjustifiable.You are not giving a chance for any other editor.You are simple making them get blocked and delete the sourced materials and by providing fake reasons.I am warning you for the last time and it would be fair if you don't repeat such type of acts.Thank You. -Shvrs (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC) If you can source it then that's fine; it you cannot then it goes. And trying to pepper the word "kshatriya" all over the article is typical of a POV-pushing single-purpose account. We don't need people like that editing this or any other article. If that is your purpose on Wikipedia then I suggest you find some other hobby. - Sitush (talk) 07:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC) Before asking me i have provided clearly sources of anthropological survey sources for infobox and then you are repeatedly removing pusapati kings which is an offence as i have clearly stated many times. K then first answer my question, you please see your Kamma (caste) page,there you have provided no source of info box(the source there is not valid) and also you have stated non-sense in Medeival History without sourced statements.If you really have moral values and you are a genuine editor you should definitely remove all the history of that page.As you were very particular about references in other caste pages and very interested in deleting sources of others.Then you first clean up that Kamma (caste) page completely.I know your poisonous mind won't accept the truth. But,remember this issue will be prolonged and i will take the dispute to the WP:RSN and also WT:ANB. Also remember,Wikipedia's caste articles can be taken to court and legal action can be taken against you.Thanks -Shvrs (talk) 09:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC) Firstly, no article is mine. Secondly, other stuff exists and there is no deadline. Thirdly, you can't take something to WP:RSN if it is unsourced - RSN is for evaluation of sources and so, by definition, cannot assist you. Fourth, I think you mean WP:ANI, not WT:ANB, but if you go there then I can tell you now that your rationale here means that you'll not get much satisfaction there. (People regularly take me there, they're almost always clue-less and it has gotten to the point where someone has actually set up WP:AN/S, a humourous page created because of the number of bad reports filed about me at ANI.) Finally, please read WP:NLT - say that again and you'll be blocked for chilling this discussion. It is your right to pursue legal action but you cannot contribute to Wikipedia while you do so. Frankly, when someone mentions legal action in relation to caste-related articles here, it almost always means they've reached the end of the road and have no desire to follow the Wikipedia "way". And, obviously, we don't need contributors like that because they are inherently disruptive. So, by all means go sue Wikipedia or myself but it is unlikely that you'll be accepted as a good-faith contributor at this article again and you'll not win your legal action because, even if the courts accept your ludicrous claim, I am not in the jurisdiction of the courts of India. Actually, your best bet might be to hope that the BJP win the forthcoming elections and decide to block Wikipedia access in India entirely on the grounds that it hosts "illegal" maps of India. - Sitush (talk) 10:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Suman N. Bhat - Saints of the Masses

Who is Suman N. Bhat? Their book, Saints of the Masses, is cited in this article but is published by Sura Books, who seem to have no particular academic standing. I can't see any great citations for the thing and it looks to me like a set of potted biographies written by someone with no particular expertise, who gives no sources and may well have derived their content at least in part from our own articles. - Sitush (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

These are your personal opinions and what was explained which you don't like can't become unreliable.After all you are an editor with limited knowledge who edits & deletes articles with unjustifiable reasons.Your way of speaking about the book is like that your a great historian and you know every possible thing about history.Don't give reasons which are foolish & not valid. -Shvrs (talk) 07:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Ethnonyms

I've just removed the entire section concerning ethnonyms. The claim was that names such as Ratsa, Rajavar, Ratsawar and Andhra Kshatriya (also, Raja caste) are variants for Raju that have been used at different times. I've done a fair bit of digging over many months and simply cannot find where the sources, or indeed any other sources, say this. Sure, it is possible but we can't assume that any of these are related terms unless we have a source that explicitly says so. It is particuarly awkward because "Raju" is often described as a title rather than a caste grouping, as indeed the article makes clear. - Sitush (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

What is the proof that you analysed and you are saying that "digging" which is not reliable.Your puppets may have faith in you but no one accepts your deletion and you don't have the right to delete.You can add or at the top of the page you can add POV at top of the page.But you can't delete.Because we don't have faith in your edits.Or else prove that the statements are wrong by showing reliable sources.Otherwise your reasons are not valid.You can't delete any statement by providing valid reasons in talk page. -Shvrs (talk) 07:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Sitush Wantedly Removing Rajus History Added

Rajus are kshatriya-rap

Sitush Wantedly Removing Rajus History Added with all documents published and proofs, He is editing raju wiki page from last 4 r 5 years, wantedly removing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.250.118.227 (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC) Yes,he has been doing it from 2011 because of his personal reasons i.e. hatred on Kshatriya Castes like Rajputs,Rajus etc. -Shvrs (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

For Sitush

Rajus are kshatriya-rap

sitush is trying to create that there are "no real kshatriya varna" in Andhra region by an unreliable source i.e a book written in favour of dalit & bahujans.Is satya narayana a reliable souce,definitely not.Because K S Singh : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumar_Suresh_Singh clearly stated that in his books rajus are kshatriyas of Surya Vanshi & chandra vanshi who migrated from North India to South India in his Books "India's communities" and "people of India".He is an IAS & Director General of AnSI.And even B.V.Krishna Rao,Director of Andhra Historical Research Society stated the same as K S Singh said.Who is that fool satyanarayana and there is no necessity of his acceptance.Most of the historians including britishers made research on Rajus and their Gotras & Lineages and said the same as K.S.Singh & B.V.krishna Rao.The K S Singh's sources are not before 1945,they are the sources after 1980.Most of them are written after 1990.Therefore,Satya narayana's fake statement and sitush's plan to support is not accepted and not valid.Thats why i removed satyanarayana's statement.one more thing is Joshua Jonathan added the word "claims of Kshatriya status" and for Minna Savaala he added "no explanation" as it is not valid because he knew nothing about Rajus.So,that is deleted. -Shvrs (talk) 08:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Don't think that you own all the Indian articles & especially caste articles.I have observed you mostly delete the statements and clean them by saying your reasons by without discussing in talk pages of the particular wiki articles.Your contributions mostly incude deletions but not developing articles.You can be called better as a cleaner i.e.for unjustifiable deleting but not a good contributor.You yourself are violating wikipedia policies.This version is created by me and if you anyone has any problem including sitush add POV at the top of page or add for unsourced statements.But you don't have the right to delete them with personal reasons or else prove them that they are wrong by providing valid sources in talk page that you can't do beacause most of the historians explained what i have said.Unless otherwise You are not allowed to delete any statements. -Shvrs (talk) 08:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC) I suggest you read WP:NPA and WP:OWN. Dougweller (talk) 08:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Those are made after losing patience and due to being vexed upon his behaviour from long time,but not in the motto to make a personal attack.Thank You. -Shvrs (talk) 09:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Willfull defamation or undermining of Raju caste

Rajus are kshatriya-rap

Actually i had edited this article many times before providing evidences(similar to the once at present) of Rajus Khshatriya liniage but all of it was completely deleted and no reasons were ever provided, when i again re-edited the page they were immediately deleted, and reason provided was very vague or unjustified(he/she kept on insisting that it was deleted in "good Faith") , then i knew there was somthing fishy. as far as i remember it is not just one person but few others were also involved. at best i can say is that clearly these people have a anti Hindu/upper caste mentality as their wiki. account edit history does not show them editing other "kshatriya" castes of India. Once a friend of mine told me that for the past 5-6 years especially in coastel andhra christians missionaries nad anti hindu communal forces have been spreading hatred against Hindus. Panzerkampf1990 (talk) 11:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC) Yes,what you said is probably right and it's been going here repeatedly. -Shvrs (talk) 09:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of info + "sources"

Rajus are kshatriya-rap

for the past few weeks info and sources have been inserted which don't support the kshatriya-claim. This has been explained several times, without avail. If some editors still want to insert those sources, please be so kind to discuss them here first, as asked before. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC) I wonder why you can't understand i have provided nine references that Rajus are Kshatriyas and also said they will be mentioned as kshatriyas in Government castes list and government of Andhra Pradesh's records.Thats why in forward castes list "Raju" term is not used and also in overseas development institute reference of srinivasulu there only it is mentioned there as "Kshatriya" and populated as 1.2% and it is also mentioned in other reference "Satyam Saga".If you knew nothing about this then please enquire by sending a person to andhra Pradesh if you have still doubt or otherwise ask your senior users from Andhra Pradesh that how "Rajus" will be mentioned in castes list.That's why overseas development institute mentions them as Kshatriyas in its forward castes list.This you can ask your sitush or senior editor like kumarrao etc.But, because of your foolishness or misunderstanding you can't delete that ""Rajus" are Kshatriyas" statement. -Shvrs (talk) 09:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC) I have already said your Satyanarayana reference is wrong and sitush's plan to support that reference above in preceing section.As it is completely false because Rajus are kshatriyas and migrated from north india but not locally dominant landed gentry according to K.S.Singh and you added "claims of Kshatriya status" i.e. your personal opinion of misunderstanding or whatever. Secondly, I have already stated to Mr.Dougweller that i have provided references from Kumar Suresh Singh's books i.e. from "India's Communities","People of India" & "Communities,segments,synonyms,surnames & titles" and also provided some government's references and also reference of Thurston.These clearly state that Rajus are of Suryavamsa and Chandravamsa.Their gotras are vasishta,dhanumjaya,Koundinya,Kasyapa,Pasupati.These five gotras you can clearly find in the sources i have provided there. Coming to the populated states i have already said that rajus are populated according to the Ansi reference of K.S.singh which you can again see here in K.S.Singh's book page no.583 : http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=QsMfU6D0CIr9rAep54DgBw&id=bfAMAQAAMAAJ&dq=communities%2Csegments&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=nanded Data from his book: “Communities,Segments,Synonmys,Surnames and Titles” by K.S.Singh Kshatriyalu – POI Equivalent;Kshatriya raju/Raju Reported as Malayalam caste name in 1881 census Present distribution – Andhra Pradesh –adilabad, Hyderabd,Karimnagar,Khammam,Mahbubnagar, Medak, Nalgonda, Nizamabad,Rangareddi,Viziangaram,Warangal. Karnataka-Bidar,Gulbarga,Raichur Maharashtra –Aurangabad,Beed,Jalna,Latur,Nanded,Osmanabad,Parbhani Tamil Nadu – Throughout the state Synonyms: Andhra Kshatriya,Kshatriya[Andhra Pradesh] Kshatriyaraju, Musugu rajulu,Rachevor,Ravikula Kshatriya, Suryavamsa Kshatriya[Tamil Nadu] Titles Raja,Raju[Tamil Nadu] Raju,Singh,Varma[Andhra Pradesh] Joshua Jonathan,If you are really a honest person then remember & accept this you have already read in preceding sections few months back when Rajus asked their caste to be placed in backward caste in Tamil Nadu but Backward commission kept that in pending and finally not added beacuse Rajus in Tamil Nadu migrated from Andhra Pradesh and thay are Kshatriyas which is forward caste in Andhra Pradesh -Shvrs (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC) If you have an anti hindu/anti upper caste/anti kshatriya castes attitude then it is your persnal opinion and keep it with you or else if you don't have such opinions then accept the truth.But don't act foolish.Nowcheck the Rajus version there everything will be according to the sources and you can check every statement.Thank you -Shvrs (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC) It is a claim and the article already says this. The Andhra Kshatriya title is claimed by at least three non-Raju communities also. And, of course, there were in fact no kshatriya in south India anyway because the Vedic Brahmanism did not apply there - this has been discussed repeatedly across numerous articles. We have a responsibility to present things neutrally and thus we cannot simply state the puffery/vanity of those who belong to the Raju community as if it were indubitable fact. Now back off, please, before you end up being blocked again. - Sitush (talk) 10:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC) I have already stated clearly that for proper understanding to users about population & forward caste i have written ""Kshatriya" i.e "Rajus" of Andhra Pradesh",it is necessary because name of this page is "Raju" but not "Andhra Kshatriya".Beacuse Government of andhra Pradesh and even overseas development institute mentions them as "Kshatriya" but not "Rajus" or "Kshatriya Rajus".As synonyms of 'Raju' or 'Kshatriya Raju' is "Kshatriya" & "Andhra Kshatriya" as stated above and according to anthroplgers & historians.And this truth is facing willful undermining from 4 years -Shvrs (talk) 11:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC) No,you are totally wrong the synonyms or terms of "Kshatriya" and "Andhra Kshatriya" was and is used for only "Rajus" but not other castes of Andhra Pradesh acording to Anthropological Survey of India by Kumar Suresh Singh which can be seen above and also in his other books.Because "Rajus" are kshatriyas and also called as "Rachavaru" in telugu in Medeival Period.Thats why Krishna Rao used the word "Rachavaru" and also he is not an ordinary man,B.V.Krishna Rao belongs to Andhra Historical Research society.According to Kumar Suresh Singh they are Kshatriyas who migrated from north india but not locals which is also supported by other anthropologers as the truth is Aryans initially entered into Indian Sub-continent and stayed in north india & north-east and then their castes i.e. Brahmins,Kshatriyas & Vaishyas gradually migrated and settled in south india. No,Rajus are Kshatriyas and if it is a claim then why Government mentions them as Kshatriyas in its caste list and its records and also why historians & anthropolgers i.e. Indians,Britishers & also other foreigners state them as "Kshatriya" or "Andhra Kshatriya".You are not a historian or a anthropolger.After all you are an ordinary user who edits with personal opinions not only in this article but many caste related articles especially Kshatriya Castes.Because of your dislike towards Rajus you can't delete by stating foolish reasons.I have clearly expained to Mr.Dougweller.Thank You -Shvrs (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Rajus are Kshatriyas and it is not a claim and clarifications to the misconceptions or misunderstandings

Rajus are kshatriya-rap

As i have clearly stated many no. of times and i am again mentioning that Rajus are forward caste in Andhra Pradesh and they are clearly mentioned as "Kshatriya" in Government's caste list and government's records and also even in overseas development institute.Those who have misunderstandings please see the elections of Government of Andhra Pradesh there u can clearly understand that "Rajus" are mentioned as "Kshatriyas" by Government but not Rajus or Kshatriya Rajus.see in the link: http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=rIRGU-HwBsjirAfM5YHIDw&id=LSeOAAAAMAAJ&dq=inauthor%3A%22K.+Ramachandra+Murty%22&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=rajus Please analyse that book then you can get clear idea about the castes and you can know the truth that Government mentions them as "Kshatriya" while candidates from rajus caste contest in elections.Then,you can understand that Rajus are Kshatriyas in Andhra Pradesh. -Shvrs (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC) Another thing i have to say is "Kshatriya" is used for only "Rajus" and it is a forward caste mentioned as "Kshatriya".In the Medeival Period Rachavaru,Andhra Kshatriya & Telugu Kshatriya is used only for Rajus.But in the present period,Government of Andhra Pradesh mentions Rajus as "Kshatriyas". -Shvrs (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Backward castes of Shudra varna in Andhra Pradesh who changed their caste names

Other castes in Andhra Pradesh who are of Shudra varna but due to their succesful politicking in 1931 census changed their caste names.They are:

1. Agnikulakshatriya,Palli,Vadabalija,besthaJalari,Gangavar,Gangaputra,Goondla, Vanyakulakshatriya(Vennakapu,vannereddi,pallikapu,pallireddi,neyyala & pattapu) whose occupation is fishing.
2. Arya kshatriya,Chittari,Giniyar,Chitrakara,Nakhas whose occupation is painting & doll making.
3. Perika(Perika balija,Puragiri Kshatriya) whose occupation is Jute weaving & gunny bag making.
4. Thogata,Thogati or Thogata veera Kshatriya whose occupation is weavers.
5. Rangrez or Bhavsara Kshatriya whose occupation is dyers & tailors.

These you can verify in the Backward castes lists & their occupations provided by the Government of Andhra Pradesh list in the following link: http://www.aponline.gov.in/APPORTAL/departments/BC%20Welfare%20Reports/BC-Projected%20figures-final.xls

Government sources are rarely reliable for caste definitions and they are notoriously ambiguous in the case of the OBC lists etc. - Sitush (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

your opinions doesn't matter only truth matters.your opinions in writing articles are not reliable but these government's sources are very much reliable.Thank you -Shvrs (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Examination of sources

Wikipedia:Raju (Kshatriya) sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Sitush wantedly removing raju history added

Rajus are kshatriya-rap
Sitush wantedly removing raju history added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.250.118.227 (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC) Sitush removed fables and fantasies. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit Proposal (Posting it the second time after it was censored)

You were not censored. I've welcomed you and explained the issues on your talk page. - Sitush (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I have been visiting this page since a few years. It was very informative a few years back. Now, it seems to be stripped of even the most basic essentials. I don't know who has been vandalizing it since then. Reason and common sense is enough to tell that the editors have made this article worse over time.As of now this article represents no real facts or substance about the real Raju Kshatriya community in Andhra Pradesh. The article begins with a derisive, poorly-informed, self-contradictory opinion of a Dalit sympathizer. All facts contradictory to his lies have been censored by the editors. It should give an indication on how 'neutral' this article is. I have left some of the sources I have come across here.I hope the editors discuss it so we can reach a consensus for a new edit. My first and primary proposal is remove the sentence "The Raju caste, which A. Satyanarayana calls the "locally dominant landed gentry", claims Kshatriya status in the varna system despite there being "no real Kshatriya varna" in the Andhra region..." There are two citations to this sentence. The second one refers to Minna Säävälä. I suggest you place Minna Säävälä's definition of Raju in the Etymology section and A. Satyanarayana's quote at the bottom in references and citation section. MY THOUGHTS ON CASTE The hierarchical castes Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra were created by the early Vedic invadors from the Central Asian steppes. They originated from the regions of Eastern Europe and later spread across Eurasia. They entered India and assimilated into various native communities and created the varna we know today. Social fragmentation is found in almost every Indo-European society. If you look at the genetic tests, you will find that there is no place on this planet where pure Aryan populations exist... even in Europe (because R1a is not most dominant y-dna marker there). Some people insist on equating caste with a 'pure' race. These self-haters basically deny Indian history. According to these nihilists we are black aborigines sujugated by a tribe of White warriors. The institution of caste, according to them is a historical fabrication. I have nothing to discuss with these people. "The Rig Veda and Indo-European Society", Stonehenge and the Origins of Western Culture, Leon. E Stover and Bruce Kraig 1979 http://aryan-myth-and-metahistory.blogspot.com/2008/12/rig-veda-and-indo-european-society.html "What's in a name" asked Shakespeare. He was right. Why do people attach such a great importance to it? From empirical and scientific observation it has been observed that people belonging to the higher varnas are more likely to have Indo-European (Aryan) ancestry. This is not a rule, but the people of higher castes tend to have preserved Indo-European features better than the lower castes. Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Rajputs, Pathans, Jatts are all high castes. In a way, the assertion of their caste can be considered merely a 'claim' because they are not ethnically pure European warriors. In spite of that, their claim has immense validity because individuals in their community are more likely to have more European features than the general population. Today, we see people of mixed race in various castes so obviously the 'pure' race ideal has long been discarded. This would mean that people with European features would have intermarried people with South Asian features at some point in Indian history. This indicates that a change in castes did take place all the time (a violation according to some). When one can change his/her caste, it is clear that one's personal claim about their family is more important and valued than what someone else have to say about it (whether that person is a scientist, anthropologist, politician, sociologist etc... even historians). Race is completely different from caste, although the latter is a great predictor of the former. But still caste is independent from race and depends more on the individual's choice and group acceptance. Ex. A dalit can become a Brahmin if the Brahmin community welcomes him. Race doesn't come into picture here. In fact, some of the Brahmins may be darker than the Dalit. [Genetic Evidence on the Origins of Indian Caste Populations, Michael Bamshad 2001] http://genome.cshlp.org/content/11/6/994.abstract Rajus as Kshatriyas "Kshatriya Raju, Dasari, Chakkiliyan, Arudathiyar and Gajulu Baliji. All these communities follow the norm of community endogamy." Tamil Nadu Part 1, Volume 40 - People of India, Kumar Suresh Singh, R. Thirumalai, S. Manoharan Affiliated East-West Press, Anthropological Survey of India, 1997 - Ethnology http://books.google.co.in/books?id=kXHiAAAAMAAJ&dq=kshatriya%20rajus&source=gbs_book_other_versions "The Kshatriya Raju were traditionally warriors and rulers... Even Today they practice subgroup endogamy while the southern district the Raju remain as an isolated endogamous group in the community. All gruops of the community have four common gotras, viz. Vasishta, Pasupati, Dhanumajay and Kashyapa." Tamil Nadu Part 2, Volume 40 - People of India, Kumar Suresh Singh, R. Thirumalai, S. Manoharan Affiliated East-West Press, Anthropological Survey of India, 1997 - Ethnology http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=XM78UpaOGIulrQei84CYAQ&id=P3LiAAAAMAAJ&dq=kshatriya+rajus&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=kshatriya+rajus+gotras "The Raju, a warrior community and are also reffered to as Rajoo, Razu, Kshatriya, Rachavar, Rachevar, Rajawar" Tamil Nadu Part 3, Volume 40 - People of India, Kumar Suresh Singh, R. Thirumalai, S. Manoharan Affiliated East-West Press, Anthropological Survey of India, 1997 - Ethnology http://books.google.co.in/books?id=kXHiAAAAMAAJ&dq=kshatriya%20rajus&source=gbs_book_other_versions "Although the Gough article is ostensibly an ethnographic description of the traditional Brahmin family structure, it offers considerable information on both Brahmin and non-Brahmin Tamil kinship teminology. The Kumaraswamy article compares the Tirunelveli Tamil dialect's "personal" kinship terms with the Kshatriya Raju's Telugu dialect of Rajapalayam. Since there is evidence that the fused construction involving kinship terms (Old Tamil has /em-pi/ "my younger brother" /num-pi/ "your younger brother" etc) is a Proto-Dravidian feature, Raja raises the question of why this feature is preserved only in Tirunelveli Tamil and Kshatriya Raju Telugu, but neither in standard Tamil or standard Telugu." Language and society in South Asia, Michael C. Shapiro, Harold F. Schiffman http://books.google.co.in/books?id=WECni12L06sC&pg=PA236&dq=kshatriya+raju&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pH9JU_KUEcafyQHhy4DABA&ved=0CFgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=kshatriya%20raju&f=false "Caste Hindus- Brahmin, Vaishya, Kshatriya (Raju)etc., Scheduled Castes (1,132); and Scheduled Tribes (3)." Census of India, 1961: Andhra Pradesh India, Office of the Registrar General http://books.google.co.in/books?id=1fccAQAAMAAJ&q=kshatriya+raju&dq=kshatriya+raju&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rYRJU8TOFOPkyAGVt4DIBw&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBjgK "They were Raju Kshatriyas, which in this regional setting meant they had inferior status. In North India, the Kshatriyas were a powerful group, traditionally part of the warrior caste, but here they had little to do" (Bangalore) India: A Portrait, Patrick French (Pg 230) http://books.google.com/books?id=9Umq5giFg8gC&pg=PA394&lpg=PA394&dq=India:+A+Portrait,+Patrick+French+Raju&source=bl&ots=qZq28ftFSS&sig=BPkCDuhlwI0O5v3aZvhiWWuxTGk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=68lJU5ngH5PwyAGa6YCYBg&ved=0CEcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=India%3A%20A%20Portrait%2C%20Patrick%20French%20Raju&f=false "Rajus, comparatively a little higher up in the social ladder among farming communities, Rajus belong to the Kshatriya caste. " Farmers of India: Madras, Andhra Pradesh, Mysore & Kerala, 1961 http://books.google.co.in/books?id=4P1IAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=rajus "The generic Raju indicating Kshatriya caste was appended to personal names of Brahamanas who were employed in in the royal court during the period of Eastern Gangas. Eg. Lakshmaraju, Kramaraju" http://books.google.co.in/books?id=4P1IAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=rajus "Raju Kshatriyas demand 5 per cent reservation" http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-karnataka/raju-kshatriyas-demand-5-per-cent-reservation/article3166753.ece The Rāzus, or Rājus, are stated, in the Madras Census Report, 1901, to be “perhaps descendants of the military section of the Kāpu, Kamma, and Velama castes. At their weddings they worship a sword, which is a ceremony which usually denotes a soldier caste. They say they are Kshatriyas, and at marriages use a string made of cotton and wool, the combination peculiar to Kshatriyas, to tie the wrist of the happy couple. But they eat fowls, which a strict Kshatriya would not do, and their claims are not universally admitted by other Hindus. It may be noted that some Konda Doras call themselves Rāja (= Rāzu) Kāpus or Reddis, and Sūryavamsam (of the solar race). “In the Godāvari delta,” Of the Rāzus, Mr. H. A. Stuart writes that “this is a Telugu caste, though represented by small bodies in some of the Tamil districts. They are most numerous in Cuddapah and North Arcot, to which districts they came with the Vijayanagar armies. It is evident that Rāzu has been returned by a number of individuals who, in reality, belong to other castes, but claim to be Kshatriyas. The true Rāzus also make this claim, but it is, of course, baseless, unless Kshatriya is taken to mean the military class without any reference to Aryan origin. In religion they are mostly Vaishnavites, and their priests are Brāhmans. They wear the sacred thread, and in most respects copy the marriage and other customs of the Brāhmans.” The Rāzus, Mr. Stuart writes further,7 are “the most numerous class of those who claim to be Kshatriyas in North Arcot. They are found almost entirely in the Karvetnagar estate, the zemindar being the head of the caste. As a class they are the handsomest and best developed men in the country, and differ so much in feature and build from other Hindus that they may usually be distinguished at a glance. They seem to have entirely abandoned the military inclinations of their ancestors, never enlist in the native army, and almost wholly occupy themselves in agriculture. In appearance they do not at all resemble the other claimants to Kshatriya descent, the Rāzus and Rājputs (On the 'Rangari' community) For the following note on the Rāzus of the Godāvari district, I am indebted to Mr. F. R. Hemingway. “They say they are Kshatriyas, wear the sacred thread, have Brāhmanical gōtras, decline to eat with other non-Brāhmans, and are divided into the three classes, Sūrya [251](sun), Chandra (moon), and Machi (fish). Of these, the first claim to be descended from the kings of Oudh, and to be of the same lineage as Rāma; the second, from the kings of Hastināpura, of the same line as the Pāndavas; and the third, from Hanumān (the monkey god) and a mermaid. Pūsapāti.—The family name of the Mahārājahs of Vizianagram. From the Kshatriyas in Rājputāna people of four gōtrams are said to have come to the Northern Circars several centuries ago, having the Pūsapāti family at their head. The name of the present Mahārāja is Mirza Rājah Srī Pūsapāti Viziarāma Gajapati Rāj Manya Sultān Bahādur Gāru. (237) It is noted, in connection with the battle of Padmanābham in the Vizagapatam district, in 1794, that “no correct list of the wounded was ever procured, but no less than three hundred and nine were killed. Of these two hundred and eight were Rājputs, and the bodies of forty Rājputs, of the first rank in the country, formed a rampart round the corpse of Viziarāma Rāzu. Padmanābham will long be remembered as the Flodden of the Rājputs of Vizianagram.” Castes and Tribes of Southern India, Edgar Thurston http://www.gutenberg.org/files/42996/42996-h/42996-h.htm (Pg 248) https://archive.org/stream/castestribesofso06thuriala#page/246/mode/2up Falling in the middle are the two remaining social types-reddis and rajus- who gave gifts to major and minor temples at about the average rate. Reddi is a name associated today with a dominant landowning caste-cluster in Andhra, but in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the use of the term as a caste name had not yet fully evolved; it does appear to denote peasant origin or some connection with agriculture, however. Some reddis in both the Kakatiya and post-Kakatiya periods were eminent warriors and founded chiefly lineages; so the title was used even by persons who had transcended their peasant backgrounds. Unlike the royalty of the southern coastal districts, royal and noble lineages of the northern coastal districts rarely employed the kingly title maharaja in their inscriptions, relying instead on the Telugu variant raju. But not all rajus were of noble family, for approximately one-third of the people with this status name were of humbler ancestry and possessed administrative titles such as pradhdni (minister), mantri (minister), and karnam (accountant). Rdju may therefore designate a person (sometimes said to be brahmin) employed by a lord in a ministerial capacity, as well as a prince or lord, and perhaps referred to that group of brahmins, today called niyogi in Andhra, who engage in secular occupations as opposed to vaidiki or Vedic brahmins. Temples, Donors, and Gifts: Patterns of Patronage in Thirteenth-Century South India, Cynthia Talblot http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/hf/iakh/HIS2172/h11/undervisningsmateriale/HIS2172_Talbot.pdf Exogamous Units/Surnames: Kshatriya Raju/Raju, Andhra Pradesh http://books.google.com/books?id=bfAMAQAAMAAJ&q=raju+kshatriya&dq=raju+kshatriya&hl=en&sa=X&ei=k7FJU6u0LPP7yAHvnIGoDA&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAzgK Communities, segments, synonyms, surnames and titles The Maharaja of Vizianagram is descended from the Ranas of Udaipur, one of the most ancient, and, in popular estimation, most illustrious families in India. He is consequently of the Grahilot tribe; and speaks of himself as belonging to the Sisodiya branch, and of the Vasisht gotra. According to the traditions of this famous house, Bijaibhup, one of its members, at a very early period, settled in Ajudhiya, the modern Oudh, whence, in the year 514 of the Saka era, corresponding to 592 A.D., his descendant, Madhavavarma, emigrated to the Telingana country, accompanied by representatives of the Vasisht, Dhanunjaya, Kaundinya, Kasyap, and Bharaddwaj gotras of his own tribe. Hindu Tribes and Castes, Volume 1, Matthew Atmore Sherring http://books.google.co.in/books?id=8V4IAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA125&vq=Vizianagram&output=html_text#PA125 Verses of Pusapati Madhavavarma, leader of South Indian Rajaputs https://archive.org/stream/studiesinsouthin00ramarich#page/23/mode/1up Government sources are often unreliable. The People of India has frequently suffered criticism from academics for being a political exercise. - Sitush (talk) Government sources are rarely reliable for caste definitions and they are notoriously ambiguous in the case of the OBC lists etc. It is a claim and the article already says this. The Andhra Kshatriya title is claimed by at least three non-Raju communities also. And, of course, there were in fact no kshatriya in south India anyway because the Vedic Brahmanism did not apply there - this has been discussed repeatedly across numerous articles. We have a responsibility to present things neutrally and thus we cannot simply state the puffery/vanity of those who belong to the Raju community as if it were indubitable fact. Now back off, please, before you end up being blocked again - Prove it. Where did you get it from (Preferably Primary source, Secondary should be alright) The article already says this, as you know. However, bearing in mind the title that you have given to this section, we cannot assume people are members of a caste group just because they bear a particular name. Nor can we use GBooks snippet views as sources. - Sitush (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC) - If someone cited something and you disagree with it, the burden of proof then is on you. Contradict it with information, not your laziness to find the source. One that we can read in context. It's dead simple: we don't use snippet views because we cannot read around more than a couple of sentences and thus we have no idea whether qualifications/developments of the statements are made. - "The Raju caste, which A. Satyanarayana calls the locally dominant landed gentry, claims Kshatriya status in the varna system despite there being "no real Kshatriya varna" in the Andhra region." This first sentence in the article is absolutely erroneous when taken in context with the sources I provided. The amount of evidence that Rajus are 'historically' Kshatriya is abundant but that isn't the point. People can identify themselves however they want. That has been the case throughout history. No historian, politician or anthropologist has authority over others identity. Identity comes from group acceptance and consensus. It is a generally accepted fact that Rajus are Kshatriyas, both within and outside the community. Class resentment is not going to change that.I am sure you will find many sources from Dalit-sympthizers like Mr Satyanarayana to support your idea but the point is the truth often tends to overwhelm their lies.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_exposure_theory). I'm really sorry, but none of those sources is accessible to me, due to the limitations Google has set on the use of Google Books. I did find a pdf for Kshatriya Raju Backward class, though. It does contain some information, on pages 6-9, on "Kshatriya Raju", or at least the opinions of Shri Venkatarama Raju, president of the "Kshatriya Raju Association", and quotations from Singh. The document cites Singh: "A varna category, there is no Kshatriya jati as such. However, a number of communities claim the status of Kshatriya. (p.8)" The documents says 'claim', not 'are'. I'm afraid there's no more I can do. The only thing I can add, as a westerner, is that the value of people does not depend on their birth or jati, but on their being a human. But living in a rich society with equal opportunities for most people, it's easy to say something like that... Wish you all the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC) - Your reasoning has no substance. Be objective. According to the definition of caste I gave, anyone can claim to be any caste they like and it is perfectly valid. The 'claim', as you put it, is everything and what matters. Being a Kshatriya has nothing to do with looking like a corn-haired blue-eyed barbarian. Just try thinking about what would have happened if the ancient Kshatriyas had enforced strong anti-miscegenation laws in the Vedic society. By now, it should be abundantly clear to us that a post-racial definition of varna is what led to our society to become the way it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logic12345 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Raju caste and Kshatriya status

Rajus are kshatriya-rap

The comment by A. Satyanarayana is spurious. I have piles of contradictory facts against his statement. It should be removed as it has no substance and indicates a bias. If you want to be neutral bring Minna Saavala's comments on the Etymology section and place Satyanarayana's comment in the references section. Saavala espouses the mainstream opinion. " calls the "locally dominant landed gentry", claims Kshatriya status in the varna system despite there being "no real Kshatriya varna" in the Andhra region." What is a 'real' varna? He clearly doesn't have an objective definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logic12345 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC) According to your reasoning historical facts don't matter here, only the claims being made. So, it makes perfect sense to state in the article that the Rajus claim to descent from the Kshatriya varna. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC) THE SENTENCE IN DISPUTE The Raju caste, which A. Satyanarayana calls the "locally dominant landed gentry", claims Kshatriya status in the varna system despite there being "no real Kshatriya varna" in the Andhra region. I have a few sources with me which I believe contradict that statement above. I posted them on the page you created, Wikipedia:Raju (Kshatriya) sources According to my sources, Rajus are 1) not local or confined to Andhra Pradesh. 2) not dominant. 3) not landed gentry. According to me 1) Mr. A. Satyanarayana's statement is contradictory to the sources I provided. The sources I provided have equal or more credibility than Mr Satyanarayana's work. They reveal a deeper knowledge and understanding of the community. 2) "According to your reasoning historical facts don't matter here, only the claims being made. " Yes, according to me the claim/identification is what matters the most. Irrespective of what I think, the evidence I cite is government classification, historical records, ethnographic records, newspapers, census, linguistic studies etc. I request you to tell me 1) What does Mr. A. Satyanarayana mean by saying there is "no real Kshatriya varna" in the Andhra region. What is a 'real' Kshatriya varna? 2) What is the difference between claiming to be a Kshatriya and being a real Kshatriya? 3) What 'historical facts' am I missing from my reasoning? 4) Does Mr. Satyanarayana's statement reflect the mainstream consensus? Is the article neutral by having his statement right at the beginning? 5) Kindly verify my references. --Logic12345 (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC) I am not going to waste too much of my time on this because the issues have been discussed time and again, this article is prone to POV-pushing by (often clueless) members of the Raju communuity and also to sock- and meatpuppetry. Basically, the community has shot itself in the foot as far as I am concerned - I pretty much have no good faith left in my store, sorry, and especially not when someone comes along more or less when another person is on the way out of the community due to tendentious behaviour about exactly the same points. That said, Satyanarayana's bio indicates a very definite academic expertise in the subject matter and thus we should not discard the source. The basic thesis - that Vedic Brahmanism, and thus the classic varna system, did not establish itself in southern India - is also widely accepted & by no means some sort of weird fringe opinion. There were, for example, some very long discussions about this at Talk:Tamil Kshatriya and, surely, you know about sanskritisation. Finally, since I can't be bothered repeating myself time and again in detail, the short answer is that your sources do not say what you think they say/they are not reliable/are cherrypicked - use your noodle to select which of those is appropriate in each case. - Sitush (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC) I am wasting my time on this topic; tge closer examination is revealing. Thurston (1909) makes clear that the kshatriya-claim is indeed just that, a claim. And Randhawa (1961) states "The generic Raju indicating Kshatriya caste was appended to personal names of Brahamanas who were employed in in the royal court during the period of Eastern Gangas. Eg. Lakshmaraju, Kramaraju". So far for the kshatriya-status. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Sitush and your team, why do you wantely defaming the Raju WIKI, We respect all, you have to respect Raju WIKI

Rajus are kshatriya

Sitush why you are not contributing about the history of vijayanar empire, Ashok Gajapathis raju to Raju WIKI. Madhava Varma from Vasista Gotra ruled Andhra as Vijayawada as capital to Raju WIKI. Ikshvaku, Vishnukundina, Chalukya, Chagi, Pericchedi, Eastern Ganga dynasty, and Gajapati Kingdom Famous freedom fighter Alluri Sita Rama Raju to Raju WIKI and many other history in Raju WIKI. Sitush your intentions are to defame Raju WIKI from some non identical writer Satyanarayana, A. (2002) and you are rejecting Indian Government Survey and famouse hisstorian from Oxford university about Raju WIKI Indian Government Survey and Famous Historian given clearly about Raju Kshatriya Raju are real Kshatriya (Suryavamsshi and Chandravamshi), why do u use as Raju claiming Kshatriya Status ?. We would like to have the true data in WIKI, every one has to accept the facts the government anthropologist survey as Raju Kshatriya (Suryavamsshi and Chandravamshi). K.S.Singh from (Oxford University London) and Yashoda Devi are the famous Historian, dont understand why do you reject their sources and accept some non identical writer Satyanarayana, A. (2002). Raju always see all castes equally, never dominate any others, they respect all castes and they donate and serve the people, I am not sure what are your intentions removing and defaming this Raju WIKI. So I request you please update the truth rather than having personal greediness . We are equal mates, we just want the truth and our history available in our own Raju WIKI. We love all. All four varns are equal, Kshatriya, Brahmin, Vaisya, Sudra, we love all and respect all. We never degraded others. Its not wrong to have our own history from the facts we supplied in our own WIKI, authors please respect Raju wiki, SITISH please don't have your personal greediness mate. Dear SITUSH, why do u have that much greediness not allowing to develop this webpage, please remove your greediness mate, respect others facts and history. Please respect Indian Government Survey and Famous Historians, I don't really understand Sitush rejecting famous historians from Oxford University. Census of India, 1961: Andra Pradesh [4] Journal of Society for Study of State Governments [5] Yashoda Devi [6] K.S.Singh (Oxford University Press, 1998) [7] and Kumar Suresh Singh Anthropological Survey in India Government [8] Bhavaraju Venkata Krishnarao [9] I would request to refer above references, and if you feel they are valid, I would request some of the WIKI team to update the Raju WIKI. Because Sitush is completely holding the Raju WIKI page and is personally supporting other communities. I provided valid reference above, request WIKI team to update the Raju WIKI [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] I don't see any summaries from you, I can only see the links and books. Can you explain that what should be done? Bladesmulti (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC) Have a look at Wikipedia:Raju (Kshatriya) sources. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC) Where they made some non-reverted changes. Oddities such as "non identical writers" aside, I don't know what to do with this either, except to urge the writer to please copy edit their messages, not make personal attacks or presume they know someone's motivation, and read up on Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, including WP:RS. Drmies (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Rajus claim kshatriya-status

Rajus are kshatriya-rap

Thanks for the response Bladesmulti, Joshua Jonathan, Drmies Dear Drmies, They cannot made their changes non-reverted changes with irrelivant information such as raju claims kshatriya. Refer Indian government survey and famous historian from oxford university has given raju as kshatriya. Many of the raju history is been deleted wantedly from raju wiki by Sitush and he added some defaming wording and made them non-reveredted changes, this is not the true information Sitush wantely doing thing as he is supporting his own community. I would request, please update the true data what I have provided from Indian Government Survey. How can Sitush Reject Indian Government, what he is trying to do here. Please refer below to include Copied from?... Dear Bladesmulti, Raju Wiki you have added, Raju claims Kshatriya status, no one claiming Kshatriya status. Documents clearly says Raju are the Kshatriya Suryavanshi and Chandravanshi. You can refer the Indian Government Survey and Other links to add statement Below things should be done and included: (Below are the sources from Indian Government and Famous Historians) *Raju are Kshatriya (Suryavanshi and ChandraVanshi), (please delete claiming kshatriyas status, no one claiming. raju are the kshatriya) ** K.S.Singh (Oxford University Press, 1998) [16] and ** Census of India, 1961: Andra Pradesh[17] *Please include the Raju gotra from Sapta rishi as reference in the document ** Kumar Suresh Singh Anthropological Survey in India Government [18] *I would like to include the history of Kshatriya raju from below Yashoda Devi book. Please go through the below and add the brief on each dynasty. ** Yashoda Devi [19] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ::86.144.3.146 (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC) Basing on ancient inscriptions, traditional accounts and historical evidences, the Rajus of Andhra are descendents of the following ancient clans: 1. Vishnukundina: A folktale claims Madhav Varma of the Vishnukundina dynasty led the original members of their gotras to Andhra. 2. Chalukyas: Chandravanshi Rajus are said to be descendents of Eastern Chalukyas. 3. Parichedis: The forefathers of the Pusapatis. 4. Kota Vamsa: Dharanikota Kings of Dhanunjaya gotra. 5. Chagi: Forefathers of the Sagis and Vatsavais 6. Chedi (Haiheya-Kalachuri-Kona Chodas): Chodarajus 7. Gajapati and Eastern Ganga: Kurupam and Salur zamindars claim descent from them. 8. Matsya of Oddadi (Orissa), which is linked to ancient Matsya Kingdom: The zamindars of Madgole claim descent from them. Rajus are classified into two sects (as per ancient Kshatriya tradition based on Vansh): 1. Suryavanshi (Sun Dynasty) include Vishnukundina, Paricheda, Kota Vamsa, Chola-Chalukyas (Cholas claimed Suryavanshi and Chalukyas were Chandravanshi, the two families merged) Eastern Ganga and Gajapati. 2. Chandravanshi (Moon Dynasty) includes Eastern Chalukyas, , Kalachuris (Chedi-Haihaya), Saluva and Aravidu dyanasties of Vijayanagar. Gotras They are further subdivided into Four Gotras. 1. Vasishta 2. Dhanunjaya 3. Kashyapa 4. Kaundinya A poem called Sri Krishna-vijayam dated 1540 A.D. tells of a migration of these four clans to Telingana led by Madhav Varma. While Rajus of Coastal Andhra and Rajapalayam have above four gotras, the Rajus of Karnataka have three additional gotras: 1. Pasupati 2. Vishwamitra 3. Atreya — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.3.146 (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC) As far as I can see, the kshatriya-claim is just that: a claim. Singh has been discussed before; he does not give an account of Raju-history, only a passing comment. DEvi does not give info on the Rajus. No sources are given by you for the "ancient inscriptions". The classification into Sun Dynasty and Moon Dynsty says it all: mythology. I think it would be wise to stop this ongoing argument; you've repeated your arguments over and over and over again; it has become WP:DISRUPTIVE. Just leave it now, and accept that Wikipedia does not support the kshatriya-claim. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Thanks for the response Joshua Jonathan. Yes there are inscriptions saying raju are suryavamshi. The Raju Kshatriya King Madhava Varma (gotra vasista) from Vishnukundina Dynasty are suryavamshi. There are Vishnukundina dynasty inscription about the suryavamsam. I will share the link for you. 20:07, 6 May 2014‎ User:86.144.3.146 I did a Google-search on Suryavansha raju -wikipedia; nope. Please stop. Start a blog somewhere, but just quit here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Dear Joshua, Hope you understood what I said, I said I will provide the inscriptions for Suryavansha Raju which is available for Vishnukundani dynasty by madhava varma. Please wait until I provide. I can update wiki at any time if I have the supporting references and proofs, there is nothing end and the beginning. Can you answer me why did all the talk page deleted except my blog ?, is that to get rid of what Sitush and his team wantedly doing in Raju wiki ?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.3.146 (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC) The talk page contents are in the archive. You've provided a HUGE wall of text, which has become unreadable. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC) Dear Joshua, Inscription 1: Below incriptions say raju king from Solar Race (Suryavamshi). [20] No. 309. (A. R. No. 564 of 1915.) Siddhavatam, Siddhavatam Taluk, Cuddapah District. At the entrance, on the east wall of the old fort. Venkatapati, 1605 A.D. This is dated Saka 1527, (also expressed by Chronogram Asva-ambaka-bana-bhu) Visvavasu, corresponding to 1605 A.D. It states that the Matla chief Ananta constructed the fortifications round the town of Siddhavatam which had been captured by his father Ellama Raju, after defeating in battle, the chief Kondraju Tirupati Raju. Ananta who belonged to the Devachoda family claims his descent from the solar race. He bore the titles Manne-Hamvira and Rachabebbuli. Among his achievements described at length are mentioned his victory in the battle of Jambulamadaka (i.e., Jammalamadugu) and the capture of Cuttack. He is praised as the right hand of the Karnata emperor (i.e., the Vijayanagara king) and as the author of the Kakutsthavijayamu and other works. He is also stated to have constructed a tank in the name of his father. The inscription commences with a Sanskrit verse followed by six verses in Telugu. See Sources of Vijayanagara History, pp. 248-50. Published in the Epigraphia Indica, Vol. XXXVII, pp. 103 ff. So, what does this prove? "claims his descent from the solar race." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC) By the way, my compliments (despite the fact that I disagree with your conclusions) for the efforts you take. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC) Conclusions : raju are from solar race I want to conclude you that "raju are from solar race" as per the inscriptions i have provided If you really have some problem insipte of my inscriptions I have provided to you saying that raju are from solar race. Inscription 2: Below incriptions say raju king from Solar Race (Suryavamshi). No. 45. (A.R. No. 491 of 1906.) Pulivendla, Pulivendla Taluk, Cuddapah District. On a slab set up at the entrance of the Ranganathasvamin temple. Krishnaraya, AD 1509. This is dated Saka 1431, Sukla, Kartika su. 12,corresponding to AD 1509, October 24, which was, Wednesday. It records a gift of the village Kunddal Kundu to the god Sri Ranga Raju of Pulivindla by Narasayya Deva Maharaju, brother of Basava Raju, son of Tamma Raju, grandson of Valla Bharaya and great-grandson of Bejawada Madhava Varma of Vasishtha-gotra and Surya-vamsa. The gift village is said to be situated in Pulivindalasthala, a subdivision of Mulkinadu in Gandhi Kotasima of Udayagiri Rajya. Inscription 3: Below incriptions say raju king from Solar Race (Suryavamshi). No. 167. (A.R. No. 377 of 1926.) Tangeda, Palnadu Taluk, Guntur District. On a slab set up in front of the deserted temple of Sita Rama Svamin in the fort. Sadasiva, AD 1548. This is dated Saka 1470, Kilaka, vaisakha su. 15, Sunday, lunar eclipse corresponding to AD 1548, 22 April. It registers the grant of the village Kachavaram in Tangedasima to the god Lakshmi Narasimha at Tangeda by Deva Chodaraju, son of Mummaya Deva Chodaraju and the grandson of Maha Mandalesvara Apratika Malla Kurucheti Somaya Deva Chodaraju of the solar race and belonging to the Kasyapa-gotra, apastamba-sutra and Yajus-sakha at the command of Rama Raja Vithalaya Deva Maharaju who is said to have conferred the Tangedasima as nayankara the donor. I provided above inscriptions 1 , 2 and 3 as raju king from solar race your action : to update the same to raju wiki