Talk:Reddy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Rewriting

I have edited the article again. Please do not change it. Discuss in the talk page first.Kumarrao (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, may I know have u kept Shudra as classification for Reddy?. If it is, why did u change to some other now after adding kshatriya? Reddy has got Kshatriya status, I think u know very well about reddy dynasty. Why are u changing to some others? I may accept all other classifications u r adding, u should add kshatriya also along with other classifications. I have already written my openion on varnas. They are not reserved for any one. Reddy is kshatriya, shudra, warrior and some other, it is based on the profession he was doing in that area. In some areas reddy was king, ruled that area, in some areas he was shudra, he had done farming, in some areas he was warrior, he was in army like that. My conclusion is that reddy had so many caps like king, shudra, warrior and etc. Thatswhy u should keep all the statuses. At last I am asking u one thing that if any one is telling that reddy is king, why are u talking against to that? if u don't like reddy I don't bother but the history should be known to the world. I don't have proof that reddy is basically king, but I have proof that reddy is king as well as other statuses mentioned above. I think u will understand what I supposed to convey the message. Please add classification as reddy is kshatriya, shudra, warriors and etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snreddy (talk • contribs) 12:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr Reddy, Please read the article carefully. There was no community by name 'Reddy' till recently. A section of Kapus with exalted status of village chieftains ultimately came to be known as 'Reddys'. Kapus are basically farmers. They took to arms whenever the situation demanded and hence termed 'warriors'. Strictly speaking all agrarian communties of AP are Shudras. They were called 'Shatsudra's in Telugu literature.Kumarrao (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

My Dear Kumarrao, u r telling that there is no caste 'reddy' and some kapus have taken reddy as title for various reasons recently. Here recently means 20 years ago?, or 100 years ago?. According to the history reddy name and kingdoms are mentioned in the 12 -14 th centuries. It means nearly 700-800 years before reddy name is there in the history. U r telling that recently some kapu people have taken title 'reddy' for political or some other reasons. How man?. I am also giving another explanation kapu is using the word for reddy in some areas like royalaseema and some parts of coastal andhra, where as in telangana u never see the word kapu for reddy and u will see the word patel, desmukh etc for reddy. What I want to say to u is that reddy is may be kapu in some areas, may not be kapu in some areas.But here reddy has become king in the history and ruled the area more than 100 years. It means reddy is may be Shatsudra basically but he obtained kshatriya status in the history. Then u have to mention that reddy is Satshudra as well as Kshatriya. Another explanation is all reddys in AP are having same similarity like gothram and subcaste where as for other castes u will not find the same. I have read that u have written that kapu,kamma,velama,reddy all are kapu community basically, but if u observe clearly the above mentioned castes kapu,kamma,velama all r having some similarities in the surname or gothram but there is no similarity with reddy. But u may find a liitle bit similarity like some castes r having reddy in their surname or normal name. Here we have to take consideration of majority in the similarity and not a samll thing.

Another strong explanation from my side regarding history(literature). Most of the telugu literature was written by brahmins and they never support to non brahmin. I am giving one example that we are seeing vemana is how much great poet he is. We are unable to see vemana's greatness before CP Brown why because brahmins have not accepted non brahmins greatness. His talent and greatness was hiden and not explored to the world.

Like wise other example is Uyyalawada Narasimha Reddy, he is the first leader in AP opposed and fought with Britishers before Alluri Seetharama raju but if u refer any history books alluri seetharamaraju is the first leader and given importance to him in the history. Why? this is also one partialism. Then how r u telling that literature written by some one is correct?

I have read ur article but it should be corrected regarding kapu beacuse u have mentioned that some kapus have taken reddy title recently. Reddy title itself found in the history 800 years before but u r saying that recently. I think u simply try to put reddys along with others like kapu, kamma, velama etc in the same row, no problem but here also reddys are having strong and good history that should be known to the world.

Can u tell me , do have any idea regarding - What is the meaning of Reddy and how the title is generated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snreddy (talk • contribs) 09:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr Reddy, Let not the emotions cloud the reason. You are mixing up the title "Reddy" with the name of a community. Reddy title is undoubtedly 1000 years old. Remember, it was only a title. The Velama clan originated from a person named Betaala Reddy (Velogotivaari Vamsaavali). Similarly, the title was used by Addanki and Rajahmundry kings who belonged to Chaturtha Varna and Panta Vamsa. That is what was written in their inscriptions. Nowhere'Reddy' was mentioned either as a 'Vamsam' or 'Kulam' or 'Varnam'. Vemana wrote in a poem that he brought glory to Kaapu Kulam. Krishnadevaraaya wrote in his Amuktamaalyada that when his army marched through the fields Kaapus felt sad at looking at the damaged crops. Obviously these were Kaapus of Raayalaseema. Many surnames of Godavari Kaapus and Kammas have 'reddy' as suffix. Yadavas in some parts of AP use 'Reddy' title. What did all this tell you? Please think. I have no comments about Uyyalavada and Alluri. Kumarrao (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

My Dear Kumarrao, What u told is may be correct, reddy is the title its not a community but it has become community in the modern history thats why I am having reddy caste in my school TC. Being a reddy I dodn't want kshatriya status for reddy by arguement or discussion. I have seen in so many cases and incidents, people will get help from reddy but he will not praise reddy, likewise kapu-reddy(for ur reference) has history but no poet has written in a great manner that is the problem. See recent history also reddy has done so many good things to AP but importance is given to some one who has done a small thing. This is purely biased and partialism. Am I correct in this one? My emotions are that recent or past history is biased in many ways and actual history and facts were hiden due to partialism.

See the First Reference for Reddy article named 'Livelyhood Options' written by prof P venkateswarlu, if u see the castes glory, he has written reddy is untouchable caste. If u see other paper written by Suri some thing he has given more importance and more no of pages to TDP history rather than congress for AP. If we refer these type of papers for history shall we get actual history and facts. My emotions are for this type of biased history, I think u can understand my feelings —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snreddy (talk • contribs) 04:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

As above followed. Its absolutely right. That is all the REDDY,KAPU,KAMMA COMMUNITIES BELONGS TO KAPU CASTE. kapu is the head of the caste Everyboday says that somes castes shares their surnames. but,why dont they think,how?

The truth is, The Reddy,Kapu,Kamma are brothers. The Kingdom of Andhrapradesh was divided accordingly. Reddy- Reddy nadu(rayalaseema),Telaga-Telanadu(srikakulam to godavari dist),kamma-Palanadu(Krishna and guntur).

we arrived from chodas- Renati chodas(reddys),Telugu/telanga chodas(Telaga/kapu) same thing written in the reddy's introduction page and also Kapu introduction page in wikipedia.

If u want any reference please check the book ANDHRA RAJULA CHARITHRA in libraries.User:sudheer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.97.15.200 (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Correction to article about Errana

Hi,

In the main article Errana was mentioned as translator of Ramayana. He is better known for translating Mahabharata, the third chapter (Aranya parvam) which was left incomplete by Nannaya. Tikkana translated the 14 parvams and Nannaya did two and half. After several years Errana completed the remianing half parvam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.196.121.72 (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Move history of Reddy Dynasty

I think the detail about the Reddy dynasty should be moved to that article and only briefly summarised here. If there are no objections, I will do that.Itsmejudith 17:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The detail about the Reddy dynasty should be in Reddy page and not an external link. I am moving the detail back to Reddy article. Foodie 377 (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Foodie, I like what you've done overall, but I'm not sure that we need to have a lengthy description of the Reddy dynasty here; such is the purpose of having the {{main|Reddy dynasty}} template, to let folks know there's more material to be read there. Given how easy it is on WP to go from article to article, the benefits of repeating the same info are minimal, and greatly expand the risk that the two articles will diverge somehow, that one will be improved while the other not, etc.

Before you take anything from Reddy dynasty and duplicate it in Reddy, could you let us know what your plan is so we can come to some agreement? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually I had some more detail and some more references for the Reddy Dynasty article then I thought that Reddy dynasty is a subset of Reddy as a whole, so why have a whole new article for it? What do you think about merging Reddy dynasty with Reddy and deleting Reddy dynasty altogether? that way there will not be any duplication. If not then I will just do my additions to Reddy dynasty article.Foodie 377 (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

We have a pretty strong WP:INDIA precedent of having separate articles for the dynasties, and then a small summary section (with link to "main") in the History section of the community the dynasty sprung from. I think we'd be best keeping Reddy dynasty and adding to that, while leaving just a paragraph or so of summary here as we do now. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

content requires sources

Content in articles requires reliable sources to verify the claims. Any unsourced content can be challenged and removed. Before it can be returned, a reliable source must be supplied. Active Banana (^bananaphone 15:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Controversy about Classification

This is directed specifically towards Mathew Vanitas. I have undid your changes. You are saying that the classification of Reddys as Warriors, landlords, farmers needs a citation and a reference. If so then let me ask you, please go to Kamma(caste) page on WP. they have classified the same but they do not have any references. so if they can do that, why not in Reddy page? please be consistent. If you wish to undo my changes then , I request in all fairness that you remove the same from Kamma(caste) page. Furthermore I dont understand how you can remove the classification of Reddys as Kings and warriors when a WP page called Reddy Dynasty is there and which lists the Reddy kings and their dynasty. Furthermore I have not removed the "Shudra" from the article as you are claiming although I disagree with it. Now I am removing it though because of your quixotic attitude. Even though you are quoting that, it is not true. The person who wrote the book is a westerner. Her sources are questionable. Do you know what is meaning of Sudra? it means worker. I am not suggesting that Reddys are not workers. But usually they belong to upper echelons of society. Reddy comunity has given the state of AP 80% of all Chief Ministers (highest post in state) it has had from time of independence. Reddys are definetely leaders and belong to ruling class. so when you say shudra it is just funny.I look forward to more discussion with you and remember WP is not all about what is in books and referencing them. Hell then why come to WP , we can just open books and read them. Bottomline is if you want to undo my changes then I request that you even remove the classification in Kamma(caste) page as warriors etc as even that is not citedFoodie 377 (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Point by point:

• so if they can do that, why not in Reddy page? - This is what we call WP:Other stuff exists. "Other articles are messed up too" is not a valid justification for deliberately neglecting this article. If you have disputes over content at Kamma (caste), it is totally legitimate to add a "citation needed" tag to it, and after a few weeks remove the uncited material if nobody steps up to support it.
• and remember WP is not all about what is in books and referencing them - How so? If you're going to say "it requires some thought to organising the material, checking references against each other to see which is the scholarly consensus, etc." then sure. If, however, you mean "Wikipedia should include things that aren't written down, like the things that Reddies know from memory about their own community", then you would be totally wrong. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. If you cannot demonstrate that a given fact has been recorded by journalists or academics, it is not admissible here. If there are important aspects of Reddy history that are unwritten, those need to first be recorded and analysed by a true academic, whether historican, anthropologist, etc. Wikipedia is not here to issue the "breaking news" and "leading theories", it is a place to gather the general summary of the field as seen by formal writers.
• Having had a dynasty containing Reddies does not make the bulk of Reddies "kings", and the word "classification" is certainly a strong one, as it implies that some deciding power (Brahmins, Moghuls, British) wrote down many times in many books "the Reddies are a kingly class". This needs a cite to remain.

• I will respond to your Shudra point later, but suffice to say, yes I know what the Shudra varna is. There are plenty of Shudra who have been in ruling classes at various points in time, so it is quite inaccurate to claim that all groups who have ever been classified as Shudra are poor, in low positions, OBC/SC/ST, etc. The varna system is a historical anachronism, and I would almost be inclined not to get into it, were it not for the fact that dozens and dozens of formally Shudra groups claim Wikipedia status in their articles. If varna is so important as to say "the X caste is Kshatriya", then it's worth noting the academically-verified opinion that "the X caste claim Kshatriya status, but were generally historically seen as Shudra." Which would be the case for the Reddies per the references I'm reading. But I'll happily find you a few more and better references. In the meantime, if you have any evidence that they are not Shudra, and by evidence I don't mean some train of logic where "they had a governor, and Shudras can't be governor". I mean an actual book saying "The Reddies are Brahmin/Kshatriya/Vaisya/outside the caste system", etc. Glad we can converse on this, and now that you have appropriately challenged the material we can hash it out here. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I see you provided a response and then removed it, but proceeded to edit the article as though you had actually addressed the issues I raised.

• Again, it is no argument whatsoever to say "other articles have problems too". I'm one guy, so I can't apply equal time and attention to every Indian caste article simultaneously; I fixed other articles before Reddy], and will fix others after, but that's no reason not to fix problems at Reddy now.
• I see you have provided a reference for "kings" and "warriors", however I tried searching several spellings of Reddy on the free eBook and could not find them. Can you let us know which pages you're using to cite those two items? Note that your source book is a free e-book here[1]. Rather than type just a title and author (which is really not specific enough), you can go to the page of the book, copy the URL, and paste it into http://reftag.appspot.com , which will automatically display a full Wikipedia citation you can cut and paste. For example, here's a citation for page 20: A sketch of the dynasties of Southern India. Printed by E. Keys. 1883. pp. 1–. Retrieved 19 June 2011. (you may have to enter the page number manually onto the RefTag field).
• Please provide a page# for the citation you added for kings and warriors, and again we don't need evidence that any Reddy ever was a king or warrior, we need evidence that such was their classification. So something like "the X group categorises the Reddies as a kingly people" or "the East India company ranks them among the martial races", etc. Again, your claim is contested, so you do need to help us actually see your evidence, or again the material can be removed as no response to a challenge. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I find your argument highly obstinate and one dimensional. Yes, you might be logically correct. But please answer my following questions. I will appreciate it.

And what are you talking about? Who the hell are the east india company or whoever to classify Reddys as whatever. so if an east india company or a britisher/westerner classifies Reddys as something, then does that become legitimate? We have got indepedance in 1947 , we dont need any classificaton ""BESTOWED"" upon us by westerners. what a prejudicial statement. I repeat again the very fact that there was a Reddy dynasty proves that Reddys were kings and warriors along with being normal peasants as well. It is funny how you only ask for references for warrior status. Reddys were also farmers. why are you not asking for me to refer that? is it because you are only prejudiced against Reddys for some reason and you dont want to apply a higher status to them?

1. Why are you only policing "Reddy" article? there are similar articles on Telugu castes like Kamma and Velama which have the same classification. you are saying that I should go and challenge that. WHY? you are the one who is policing this article , so you go ahead and do the same to the Kamma(caste) and Velama page also. I am not going to do that. because you certainly are acting like some figure of authority here while deleting some items in Reddy page. so why ONLY REDDY ARTICLE? do the same for Kamma and Velama article otherwise stop please interfering. your dominant and condescending attitude is not warranted. I am removing the need for citation. if u feel u need citation , please go and do the same for Kamma and Velama articles (which are also other telugu castes) also otherwise please refrain from victimising and compromising Reddy community on Wikipedia. My problem is that you are not being fair. One rule must apply to all. FURTHER VICTIMISATION OF REDDY COMMUNITY WILL BE COMPLAINED TO RESPECTED AUTHORITIES OF WIKIPEDIA.

2. And there are numerous articles and references from which you can deduce that Reddys are kings and warriors. The existence of a Reddy dynasty is proof enough.Yes all Reddys are not kings and warriors. How is that possible? that is why in the classification it is written that Reddys can be EITHER ONE of kings/warriors or peasants. For example There is a Reddy dynasty which is testimony that Reddy community produced kings. So how can you say that Reddys were not kings. So Reddys are kings, warriors, farmers and landlords, they can be all of that, that means they can be classified by all of that. I am removing the need for citation.Foodie 377 (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

To #1: as stated above, WP:Other stuff exists, so it does zero good to complain that I'm actively working to fix this page while others remain to be fixed. I can only do so many at one time. I am not condescending nor trying to "own" the page. I'm applying WP policies, clearly explaining every edit with an Edit Summary, and trying to achieve consensus here. Accusations of "victimising" are unwarranted, but by all means feel free to contact the authorities at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, though I strongly doubt they'll have any objections to what I'm doing.

For #2: The key word here is "deduce". Wikipedia is not for "deductions" or "findings", as those are WP:Original research (which I strongly suggest you read). You cannot simply say "well, the Reddies produced this king and that king, so they're classified as kings." You have to find a reputable source of information which states that the Reddies were classified as kings. I didn't ask for cites on farmers and landlords because the article seems to make it pretty clear they did a lot of that, so it's not a particularly controversial claim. You need to find some proof that some authoritative body, whether Indian or European, classified the group as kings and warriors. Barring that, the material continues to be contested.

I have specifically asked you to provide page numbers for your citations for "kings and warriors". You are here editing today, but have not taken the time to do so. If you cannot provide page numbers in a reasonable amount of time (and I have made good faith efforts to find said pages for you, but been unsuccessful), we'll have to remove those claims. I have, above, provided you a link to a footnote generator, so you can produce a comprehensive footnote with a click of a button. I have actually addressed some of your concerns earlier on this page, so please do read the various explanations I've posted before revisiting already-answered questions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I have produced a reference for warrior status. you have reverted it without a justifiable reason, i undid your change. this book is by kalpaz publications not gyan as you are claiming. and you are claiming that this book is from wikipedia. i dont understand what you mean, and where is the reference or proof for your claim?Foodie 377 (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I submit that "Martial Races is a discredited book" is a pretty justifiable reason. Checking the frontispiece, you are correct that it is published by Kalpaz, so good call there. However, this individual book is persona non grata on Wikipedia due to a tremendous number of unsupported statements, substantial copyediting errors indicating general sloppiness, and most importantly because it strongly appears that the author just copy-pasted large amounts of Wikipedia from around the year of his book's publication and jammed it into his book wholesale without attribution. Note on GoogleBooks and GoogleScholar, Tyagi has not a single hit other than the book he wrote himself. He does not appear to be a repuable scholar, the book appears to be a rip-off of Wikipedia (and has been frequently used to attempt to source items not found anywhere else, and frequently contradicted by all other scholarship). In sum, the book is about as credible as a FaceBook page, and his has been extensively discussed on Wikipedia elsewhere in the past. For something as general as "classified as warriors", you should be able to find several much higher-quality sources if the academic consensus supports is (as is the case on the Shudra issue). I'll dig up some more Shudra cites as we go forward. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Now this is bordering on ridiculousness.You are not a authority who determines what works by which author are valid or not. As far as Shudra is concerned , feel free to put it up as you have a cite. Why are you removing Warriors classification? It has a valid cite. If both have cites then both the Kshatriya and Sudra should coexist in this page. there is absolutely no reason to remove warrior status as you have no right to remove material that has been cited and where a valid reference is provided like in the case of the warrior/kshatriya status of Reddys.Foodie 377 (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't just accept any book someone finds; if a book by a hack who has zero citations in scholarly works to his name contradicts with a number of books by widely-cited PhDs, we can safely understand the former to be WP:Fringe theories and not admissible. My concern about "kings and warriors" is that although you have provided a partial cite, I cannot find the portion you refer to in the book, and you have still not provided a page number, thus the "where" tags. Please let me know what portion of the book backs up "kings and warriors". You have also not issued any proper challenge to the use of the Alyssa Ayres books stating their Shudra designation, so unless you have a legitimate concern, I'll restore that point to the lede.

Oh, and further, even if "warriors" has a cite (and its cite is still challenged and not yet proven due to missing page#), that does not make them de-facto Kshatriya in the Brahmanical system, so there would be no justification to add "Kshatriya" just because some Reddies have fought in armies. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Tyagi is not a reliable source. There have been numerous discussions about this in the past, spread across numerous places on Wikipedia. There are huge chunks of content that is clearly plagiarised and the author himself is pretty much unknown other than for this singe book. Furthermore, this single book seems only ever to appear on articles to support statements about kshatriya claims; claims which pretty much every other (usually more accepted) scholar has refuted. I see no reason why Tyagi's claims about the Reddy caste should be believed any more than his claims about other castes. Find something better. If your belief is correct then it will have been documented in other, more acceptable sources. - Sitush (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Foodie, I'm not seeing anything on pg. 113 of Shah that says anything about the Reddies at all. Is that the right page#? If so, what part exactly are you citing? I do note that page 83 has yet another mention of their being a landowning class, but we're already pretty good on that issue. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Click the link and choose Pg 113. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Aou17T8KaEEC&pg=PA256&dq=kshatriya+castes+of+india&hl=en&ei=LxkETsm-CYLsrAfjwvidDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=reddys&f=false. Foodie 377 (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking right at Pg 113 of Shah right now, and the whole page is about Jyotiba; no mention of Reddies at all. Are we looking at the same version[2]? Page 83 does, as you note, have some really interesting content, and does describe the Reddies as a "ruling class", though it doesn't get into detail as to whether this is a reference to their being major landowners, political power, etc. In whatever case, I don't see Pg 83 supporting "kings" or "warriors", so I still can't see supporting their inclusion in the infobox. There's other great stuff on that page that we can incorporate, but just nothing to support those particular points. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Shudra cites

(largely copying this over from Talk:Kamma (caste):

To get consensus, presenting here a few academic references which note the Shudra status of the Reddy:

• and the Sale or weaver caste show a higher rate of literacy than all the 'upper Shudras' (Kamma, Velama, Reddi, etc[3]
• In Andhra, the Shudra higher castes Kamma and Reddi turned out to be the dominant landlord castes. In scuttling land reforms benefitting the downtrodden or committing atrocities, these Shudra Castes are nonetheless akin...[4]
• According to local Hindu caste hierarchy Brahman is regarded as superior caste followed by the Kshatria, Vysya, and Sudra. Reddy,Kapu,Kamma, Yadava, Balija & velama in the present study come under Sudra...[5]
• The tenant-cultivators in the zamindari and ryotwari areas also belonged to the Sudra varna which included peasant castes as well as artisan castes, viz., the Reddy, Kamma, Kapu, Raju, Telaga, Balija, Saale (weaver), Chakali (washerman[6]
• The second group consisted of the four dominant upper sudra castes of Andhra Pradesh viz., Kamma, Reddy, Kapu and Patnaik[7]
• The agricultural castes of the Telegu country are the following :— L Telega. 4. Reddi Varu. 2. Vellama Varu. 5. Kapu. 3. Kamma Varu. 6. Nagas. These are all high caste Sudras. They enlist in the army as common soldiers.[8]

Given the great frequency with which Reddy (like the Kamma) are referred to as Shudra in these works, academic and political, ranging from very recent to a century old, by authors foreign and Indian, why should we not make note of their Shudra status in the article? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Most definetely Shudra status it can be added to both the articles - Reddy and Kamma. Because it has valid cites. In the same way warrior status should also be added with -- > valid cites. Reddy and Kamma for all practical purposes are "sibling" castes i.e both castes have pretty much the same vital statistics. Both these agrarian castes have had martial links and the Reddys arguably more martial, but then I would be accused of being prejudiced. It is just my opinion. And I only wish that same rules should apply to all articles. that is my only request and motive.thank you.Foodie 377 (talk) 04:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Link to Kshatriya status of Reddys here. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

TT, are you serious? The snippet (and that's all we can see) appears to say that after the Reddies became powerful, genealogies were made up for them, as is common with other Kshatriya claimants. Is that the absolute only way to read it? No, however I think you're reading of it as "definitely Kshatriya" is more of a stretch than mine of "had to make up a Kshatriya past", and given that it's Snippet view only and a 1938 governmental document (not an academic one) just weakens the case further. If it were a government document that said "we of the Raj classify Reddies as Kshatriya" that would be something worth noting (not as conclusive, but as historiography), but the quote doesn't even have that. Can you please at least attempt to justify the quotes you provide, as above? Or are you literally just trying to stall for time by providing unusable quotes? MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you have completely missed the fluid caste system part here.

Another link here that is even more clear. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 21:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Varna discussion

I am voting in favor of removal of "Varna" content from the related castes Reddy, Kamma, Kapu, velama articles. The reasons why I have come to this conclusion is the following:

1. This was forced upon us in this article to add "Shudras". I am disputing why it should be there. We have never CLAIMED Kshatriya status in the lede. We are not subscribing to the Kshatriya varna and never claimed "dvija" status.

Please look at the following links, and as you know in south india the varna concept is forced upon and is a contentious issue.

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=7RW6MrAiJ-0C&pg=PA176&dq=reddi+kshatriyas&hl=en&ei=OB0rTpHGDM_qrQeOkvixDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=6&ved=0CEkQ6wEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=reddi%20kshatriyas&f=false

http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=GhQrTu_ZOcnhrAfsg4iyDQ&ct=book-thumbnail&id=nG3aAAAAMAAJ&dq=reddys+in+south+indian+caste+system&q=reddys#search_anchor

http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=lRgtTr75C8rorQfd7qz2Dw&ct=book-thumbnail&id=AOU9AAAAIAAJ&dq=reddy+sat-sudra&q=wily#search_anchor

Page 93 in this link - http://books.google.co.in/books?id=aX-ZAEit4fgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Caste+and+democratic+politics+in+India+By+Ghanshyam+Shah&hl=en&ei=ngATTuq8OpDNrQeSg7CIBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6wEwAA#v=onepage&q=reddys%20kshatriyas&f=false

It says - The Reddys, Nairs and Marathas were never backward. They are the Kshatriyas , Vaisyas of the north with the difference that religion did not sanctify these castes.meaning in the Aryan Brahmanical varna they are listed as upper shudras. But that was never accepted by Reddys.

There are accounts of "wily" Aryan Brahmins who just waltzed in and saw these prosperous and dominant castes and started to demean them by craftily creating a section called upper shudras. I am not disputing that in the Brahmanical system, reddys, kammas are upper shudras, i am just saying that "Varna" issues are contentious and highly debatable topic. So it is unfair to put up something so contentious up there especially when we are not claiming that we are Kshatriyas or brahmins or dvijas. The intention is that we just do not want to enter the GREY area and the highly contentious topic of Varna Foodie 377 (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I love your arguments and sources but come to a very different conclusion: it is precisely because these issues are complex and gray that we need to cover them. And not cover them with 3-4 words in an infobox (I'm coming to agree with Sitush that infoboxes are not only unhelpful but damaging here, see WP:Disinfoboxes), but cover them in the body of the article with a good summary of just how complex they are. You note varna was "forced" on South India, and I agree that appears to be the case, but that's even more reason to discuss the forced-ness, not just handwave it away as "forced" and thus somehow not significant. It may well be the case that much of South India will have to start any caste/varna mention with "it's complicated..." and follow up further down the page, as I did on Kayastha, but I think this controversy, rather than showing we should "leave it be" shows that these are "open wounds" or significant modern notability that need to be described. Though the goal of Wikipedia is not to Right Great Wrongs, I would submit for anyone concerned that people will be hurt by dredging up varna issues: people are already being hurt by the follow-on effects of varna issues, and being open about complex varna history is one way to keep this issues transparent. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok what are your proposals? Because its just inane to just edit-war. How do you think we can better achieve a fair and balanced take on Varna in these articles.Foodie 377 (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I created a section for this at WPINDIA. Please continue discussion there. Foodie 377 (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion continued at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics. Foodie 377 (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Last sentence of the lead

Sorry if the removal upset you, Foodie 377. Adding citation needed tags is never a requirement; information which is unsourced and not "obvious" can be removed immediately. Did it have to be removed? No, a citation needed tag would also have been an acceptable choice. But once 2 (and now 3) separate editors consider the information to be questionable (personally, I think any claim that a particular group lives in a wide-ranging number of different places is always questionable), it's now up to the person who wants it in the article to find a citation to verify it. Furthermore, even if you found such a citation, you would need to put that info in the body; the lead should not tease with a point like "they're found in this country and this country" without giving some info in the background to explain why this is (and, of course, verify it). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Irish Reddy

I think it should be mentioned somewhere that the name Reddy is also an Irish surname that is completely unrelated Eggilicious (talk) 10:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about the varna status of Reddys

To understand this topic, we have to dig into the history, which is both recent past and ancient past. The true understanding of this comes not from the books written by some foreigner who wouldn't even have had time to be overwhelmed by the Grand history which predates their understanding of the beginning of earth(western religions think that the earth was formed in 4000 BC or so). The books written by people like Edgar Thurston and other similar people seems to have been written in haste and not by thorough research, as they had limited time and a lot of topics to cover. So kindly dont ask me to put their writings as references(which are available online in google books).

A better understanding can be achieved if you look at the customs/aacharamulu followed by each of these castes and sub-castes, which is the best reference you can get, since these aacharalu are the unwritten stories we have been following since ancient times, without much change. It is better to put these stories in a chronological order to eliminate confusion as much as possible.

The first mention about any reddy is linked to Ramayana. Everyone knows the story about Lord Rama, the way he won Sita, his exile due to family turmoil, abduction of Sita resulting in a war on Lanka, towards the end Sita's agni pariksha and the Lava kusha episode. That marks the end of Ramayana for most of the people. But thats where the first Reddy story begins. Reddy was previously called Rathi(charioteers), which all those reading this topic would know. And Rama's father's name was DasaRatha(10 Rathas/Chariots). Here goes the first story : There was this Rathi, who evaded taxes(grains) while Rama was in exile. Rama found it out on returning and decided to make them pay heavily. So, he asked them to bring certain quantity of cucurbita (pumpkin) for the Shraddhanjali(death ceremony) of his father, Dasaratha. These people followed his orders and cultivated them. Then, just before the harvest, Hanuman decides to uproot them all(following orders by people above or decides it by himself ?). So, these people agree to replace the entire quantity of pumpkin with Gold(outrageous really, but the nature of true kings). So, they bring out all the gold they have, but the scales were rigged and wouldn't balance out until all their women took out their Taali Bottu to help their men pay off their outstanding debt. Unusual really, because the taali bottu is supposed to be the most important symbol of marriage sanctified by Hinduism. At this point, the riggers understood that these people were totally out of all material wealth and tipped the scales to balance. All the debt cleared, nothing remaining in their lockers, left with a bitter feeling after the whole debacle, they decided to leave their kingdom and travel south to establish their own new kingdom. Since that day, the women of Motati and Pedakanti lineage gave up wearing Taali bottu for good. They dont consider wealth to be greater than their loved ones and a mere Taali Bottu is taken for granted as it is the love in the heart and mind which has no representation with materials. This is a tradition/aacharam followed by the families of these two lineages for the past 7000 years. If you know any Motati Reddy family today, you will notice it that irrelevant to their wealth, they are not really into adorning themselves with gold, or for that matter, any ornaments at all. These people by instinct donot like to adorn themselves. But only during occassions like wedding, etc, their women cover themselves fully with gold. This could be one of the reasons why Motati Reddys are considered to be Reddys of the highest order. This story also gives us a clue that Motati and Pedakanti people had a common ancestor. According to this story, these reddys/Rathis were on par with the family of Rama, as Rama was a Rathi too, son of Dasaratha. If you call these people as Shudras or Sat-Shudras, then so is Lord Rama and Sita. But there is a valid reason as to why the confusion exists today. The story I began is not over yet. I can continue it as a second story or I can stop it here if it is annoying anyone. Every word I typed above is according to the aacharams followed by Motati Reddys of today, also mentioned in the book written by Edgar Thurston. I can give online references, but as I said earlier,I dont really give any credit to the opinion of a white man regarding the grandiosity of our religion and culture. He was just a third party person given the herculean task to bring out all stories of all castes in (South)India in his single life time, which is grossly inadequate. Wedding is a great time to know all the stories of your ancestors. Thats why be a good person and follow all the customs and rituals, only then you will know these stories thoroughly. I really pity those people who cut short their wedding duration just because they are not interested in these stories or they think they are too modern.

The second part of this story is also based on a wedding custom that Motati Reddys follow. I only know a few stories as I have recently developed an interest in them. All those of you who know more about the stories of our traditions/customs/aacharamulu, please contribute. Maddoc9 (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You comment is completely irrelevant unless you can support it using reliable sources. You may also want to read WP:TLDR. - Sitush (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

References (1) from the book "Castes and Tribes of South India" Volume 1 by Edgar Thurston.

Maddoc9 (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thurston is not really a great source. Is there nothing better out there? - Sitush (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe Thurston is not a great source too, but these stories are the customs we have followed for millenia and are following even today. I belong to the Motati Reddy lineage, so I know about our customs and legends. If I were to write something untrue and boasting about our clan, then I never would've mentioned about the tax evasion part by our progenitor and the punishment enforced by Lord Rama onto our progenitor. Every clan has their own story which can be learned as we grow old and go through all the customs in a traditional way. I am not sure if these are mentioned in any ancient literature as I am not a person dealing with History or culture, but I can try to find out sometime in the near future when I come across a littérateur in these fields. The legend I have mentioned is just a small tip of the bigger story. But I did not complete it as I do not have any references to support it. Most of these stories go by the word of mouth and there are particular castes of people living who propagate these and keep the legends alive. They are like the ancient book keepers(though there are no books involved). Until someone collects all this data and compiles a valid Book accepted by all, there can be no reference to put forward. But I will search a little more on the internet to see if I can find any. Maddoc9 (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is a well known "problem" with Wikipedia: there is a lot of knowledge in the world that we cannot capture, because it hasn't first appeared in reliable sources. However, it's really the only way we can proceed fairly. Otherwise, someone else could come on here and say exactly the opposite of what you've just said, also claim to be a member of the same lineage, and we would have no way to tell which story is "true". So, we use the second best tactic, which is to rely on what other experts have already said. Let us know if you do find sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. If the whole concept of God and religion itself is based on on lies, then where can you get any valid scientific proof to support any of these claims. All the religious texts are mostly lies written to glorify Gods and help the Ruling class of people to tame all those below them. I am sure you would apply this to all other such wiki pages too. I have already deleted the stuff that I had posted and will remove this topic soon. I wanted you to know that I acknowledged your concern. I cant go digging into all those religious texts to prove myself now. I dont want to waste my time on something that doesnt feed me. Thanks mate.Maddoc9 (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

All Subcastes of Reddies come under OC

All the Reddies come under Forward Caste(OC) and no one in the presnt days is bothered about their Sub castes. Reddies are uniting themselves. Even though there are several subcastes of reddies, every Reddy is marrying other Reddy irrespective of their Subcaste. And a kind information to all who discuss on subcastes of Reddies is to avoid the division among us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaktiswaroopreddy (talk • contribs) 10:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, interesting point; do you have any WP:Reliable sources (media articles, academic works, etc) to back up these assertions? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

KondaReddys are ST, in Karnataka Reddys are BCs. Are those people considered on par with all other reddys ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maddoc9 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Citekill

An awful lot of statements in this article have three or more citations associated with them. Is this really necessary? A read of WP:CITEKILL may be useful. - Sitush (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

None of the references can be verified.

The references provided for below sentence in the article cannot be verified at all. Please provide reference which can be verified. I checked every link but it is taking to some page which has no relevance. "At one time they were a warrior caste and later became feudal overlords and peasant proprietors.[1][2] Historically they have been the land-owning aristocracy of the villages. The above sentence seems to be over statement.

Reddy is a purely agricultural caste. But the article seems to state words like reddy kingdom, link to rashtrakutas, warrior etc,,.. Can some one provide a valid reference please.

Proof for reddy being a purely agricultural caste is shown below.

• STEEL NIBS ARE SPROUTING: New Dalit Writing From South India, edited by Susie Tharu/ K. Satyanarayana [9]
• Global "Body Shopping": An Indian Labor System in the Information Technology ..., By Biao Xiang [10], Princeton university
• Rise of the Plebeians?: The Changing Face of the Indian Legislative Assemblies, edited by Christophe Jaffrelot, Sanjay Kumar [11], page 278

- Unsigned statement by Sangitha rani111

There is no requirement that the references provided in articles should be available online. In any case, I can see the relevant passage in reference [2] which has a similar statement. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I, too, can see a snippet view of [2] and it supports the claim. I'm not fond of snippet views but our statement does also say that there is some disagreement regarding the issue, so I think we've covered ourselves. - Sitush (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC).

Kshatriyas and vysas

kshatriyas and vysas do exist in andhra pradesh, kindly check ap cences kshatriyas 1 percent ,vysyas 2.7 percent of ap population — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.60.51.186 (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2016

Annareddy is also a common transliteration, it's meaning is "brother to Reddy" Zhycrin (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide a reliable source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2016

Kammas are not related to Reddy's Remove them from related groups! 117.195.144.31 (talk) 06:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done-Provide reliable sources to support your statement.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 09:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Backward reading of history

I think this article suffers from a backward reading of history (which, I am sure, is contained in many sources). According to Cynthia Talbot, The transformation of occupational identities such as ka(m)pu and reddi into hereditary "caste" labels did not occur in Andhra until at least the late Vijayanagara period (ca. seventeenth century), if even then. Throughout much of the medieval period, the abundance of land and the ever-changing patterns of agrarian settlement fostered flexibility in social relations and mutability in definitions of community. Prior to this "caste" formation, "Reddi" was used as an honorific (probably meaning something like "chief") for a long time. The early Kakatiyas used the title. We can't claim that every "Reddi" name occurring in the history represented membership in a caste. In fact, this caste is relatively new. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

We should also remember that the term jati (birth group) was never used in Andhra. It is always kula (lineage). Castes in the North Indian sense did not exist in Andhra until the colonial period. Perhaps we need a page on Caste system in Andhra to set down these broad facts? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 November 2017

Under the languages spoken for the Reddy caste, it only states Telegu, but Tamil is also a spoken language for the caste. 2601:3C3:301:A10:B147:8DC5:33B4:93B1 (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cocohead781 (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Reddy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206002744/http://hyderabadpolice.gov.in/Main/AboutUs.htm to http://www.hyderabadpolice.gov.in/Main/AboutUs.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 February 2019

sir,Large amount of reddy are living in maharashtra region too so plz add maharashtra to the the reddy states . 2409:4042:201B:FC1A:67D7:E8F4:54EB:1150 (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide reliable sources that state such information. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Required status column for Telaga caste. Mark as Forward caste

off-topic

Wikepedia to add this content to Telaga Caste pages and also pass this information to the user who edits this page. Also, it is mentioned as backward peasant caste under Kapu Caste category which is incorrect information. They are classified as Forward Caste. Telaga Caste Telaga is a Community of the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh, concentrated primarily in the Coastal Areas of Andhra. The Telagas are Agriculturists by Profession and have been Fuedal landlords. Telaga is a Branch or a Division of the Kapu, or Naidu Community of Andhra. They have the caste title Naidu, Dora. They are classified as Forward Caste or OC category. Contents Sub Castes Origins Legend Telaga Names Sub Castes The other SubCastes or Geographical Names of Telagas are Kapu Balija / Balija Naidu Munnuru Kapu Turpu Kapu Ontari Naidu Origins The Origin of the Telagas can be traced back to the Western Chalukyan Expansion into Andhra region which happened in the 6th century A.D. Telagas are the most ancient Warrior/Agricultural clans of the Deccan and South India who are specialised in warfare. The term Telaga was a derivation of the word Telingana.Andhra was referred to as Telingana in the ancient texts as it was the area that had three major Shivinsa-Aramas, thus was called Tri-Linga', and the people living there were called Telugus and the language spoken by the people there was called Telugu. The Telagas have served as Nayakulu (Governors),commanders and vassals of the Western Chalukya rulers under Pulakesin.These commanders were also called Telugu Nayakulu from which the community name might also might have been derived Telaga. They formed the bulwark of Ancient armies of the Deccan and South India like Cholas,Pallavas,Chalukyas,Kakatiyas etc.They seem to have a connection with the Eastern Chalukyas. The Vassals of Chalukyas entered into Matrimonial Alliances and ultimately established the Chalukya- Chola Dynasity. Etukuri Balaramamurthy and Colin McKenzie in fact mentione that these Telagas or Kapu communnity are the Descendants of these were these Telugu Cholas. Telugu Cholas The Telugu Cholas rules for over Four Centuries the various regions of Andhra. Important ruling Clans were Velanati Choluluof Palnadu War who supported Bramha Naidu in his war against the Nalagam Raju. Renati Cholas Konidena Cholas Nannuru Cholas Nellore Chola Kings After the fall of the Easten Chalukyan kingdoms and the Velanati Cholas. The Telagas had to serve under the Kakateeyas as Vassals and accept their Suzzienarity.Under the new rulers they were given the title Nayaka/Nayakudu and played a major role in shaping the history of modern Andhra. After the fall of the Kakateeyas the Telagas under Kaapaya Nayaka and Prolaya Nayaka led the battle against the invading Bahamanis by combining forces with the Reddy,Velama and Balija Nayaks and liberated the Andhra Country from Tyrranny nd Destruction. Telagas had matrimonial Alliances with the Kakateeya and Vijayanagar Rulers.Araveeti Rama Raya the son in law of Krishna Devaraya and the ruler of the last Dynasity of Viajayanagar was a Tealaga. This family was a Eastern Chalukyan Fuedataory called the Arayeti Family which became Araveeti in due cource of time. With Vijayanagara coming into power the Telagas served under the new rulers and were Dispatched off to Protect the farflung regions of the empire to Tamil Nadu and were posted as Nayaks and took up Administration as Nayaks/Nayakers. The most famous Telaga General was Viswanatha Nayaka who started the Madurai Nayak Dynasit. -- Source Penugonda Charitra.. After the fall of the Vijayanagar Empire in the Battle of Talikota large sections of Telagas migrated towards the North and settled down in their Native Country the Godavari deltas and took to agriculture.And some of them went further South and settled down in the Tanjavur region and joined the Tanjavur Nayaks Army. Telagas are known for their bravery and fearlessness aptly put by a famous Telrugu Saying describing the community "Teginche vade Telaga" which means "One who dares is a Telaga".Even now we can find swords,armours and weapons with some of the Telaga families in Rajamundry.All of these people are Vaishnavas and have Sri Venugopala Swami has their family deity. Another Legendary Instance of Telaga Bravery was exhibited during the Bobbili War fought between the Velama Kingdom and the Vizianagaram kingdom led by Vijayaram raju. When all seemed lost for the Bobbilli Ranga Rayudu the Bobbili King before riding out to war in no mood to submit the honour and the Dignity of the Royal House Ordered all of his commanders to Execute their Families before riding out to meet their fate. Accordingly the Telaga and Velama Commanders and Soldiers Executed their families before proceeding out to war. Viajayaramaraju was laid to rest by a valiant Telaga Commander Miriyala Venkata Rao along with Papa Rayudu. -- Bobbili Charitra Legend Pulakesin II’s brother, Kubja Vishnu Vardhana, founded the Eastern Chalukya Empire after he was appointed Viceroy of Vengi and gave many of his trusted generals fiefdoms to rule over as his vassals and took up reign as Telaga Nayakulu (Governors). Most of the Telagas are fuedal landlords concentrated mainly in the coastal areas of Andhra. Telaga Names The Telagas are also called Naidu and they also have prefixes like Setty and Reddy in their names denoting their Profession Popular Surnames Some of the surnames are derived from the Weapons used by this warrior community Sunkara, Tupakula, Kathula And Other Surnames are Village names and Names which came out of their Professions having suffixes like Setty and Reddy KATIKIREDDY, Putta, puppala, gundubilli, Nagam, Reddipalli, pupala, vempala, basava, battula, tellakula, masupu Yerramsetti, Ayitham, Chikkam, Chinimilli, Palacholla, Nimmakayala, Bonam, Dasari, Dodda, Doddi, Vuragayala, Chilakalapalli, Davala, Konidela, Nalanagula, Allu, Kota, Kaikala, Kambala, vejju, Adabala, Pappula, Vangaveeti, Addagarla, Sunkara, Cheruku, Kondra, Kolla, Gandham, Chodisetty, Polisetty, Pilla, Turumulla, Tirumalasetti, Majji, Mande, Mucherla, Namburu, Neelam, Padala, Kommana, Yerrabolu, Alla, Bontha, Batreddi, Konidena, Dwaram, Theegala, Thota,Tuta, Mallepudi, Koppana,Koppusetty, Ramisetty, Rangisetty, Nagisetty, Kamisetty, elisetti, mokka, Koppireddy, Kunche, Grandhi, Savaram, Surabattula, Siddireddi, Oosuri, Yadla, Vaddi, Ambati, Yenugula, muppidi, Yalavarthi, Tanneru, Gatti, Badiga, Akula, uppu, nallam, chintalapudi, villa, maddimsetty, tadi, rednam, ganji, bhimala, kotipalli, mutyala, katnam, akkireddy, vungarala, pinaka, Pinisetty, kethinidi, kasireddy, nukala, arigela, yedida, akasam, saladi, ghanta, davuluri, desamsetty, chilaka, vallamsetty, Ravada, Rudra, Singamsetty, Sanam, Nandam, Kantamsetty, Yepuri, Allu, Gurram, Yedida, yarra, sirigineedi, kunapareddi, nagireddi, mutyala, jagata, guruju, tikkisetti, adapa, addala and arava — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:48:C500:F392:D493:2FA0:802D:893B (talk) 04:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)  Not done.Please provide sources for all this description. We cannot add unsourced content as that is against wikipedia policies. Please read WP:RS. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Varna status

I don't think in this modern day and age, one needs to discuss about the varna status. Please remove this section completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.189.184 (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 October 2019

The Varna status of Reddys wan't sat-sudra, that denotes Yadavs, Jhas, etc. The Reddys were ancient kings, soldiers, and noblemen who later indeed became feudal landlords. Thus since ancient times, Reddys were referred as Kshatriyas. Ancient texts speak of Reddys having 'kshatriya dharmam', as seen in the famous Uyyalawada Narasimha Reddy. Reddys are longtime descendants of Rashtrakutas and Rajputs who separated to establish other kingdoms in the southern part of the subcontinent. This led to the formation of the Reddi kingdom. Much later did Reddys become cultivators and huge landlords, but since they are descendants of Rashtrakutas and Rajput clans spread across Rajasthan and Haryana, Reddys along with Kammas and Kapus, are considered Kshatriyas. 115.98.209.238 (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Edit requests should of the form "please change X to Y", and they should provide reliable sources that verify the new content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Populated states

Reddys are major populated community in Telangana than Andhra. Please mention Telangana state in major populated state. Rastrika (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Added to the infobox. (You need to state where you want the information to be added.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Population

Actually according to recent Inter state migration report. Maharashtra stands first for Telugus to migrate & Kerala at last place. I think if Telugus were comparatively less in Kerala then Reddy population presence is expected to be low. There is a considerable population of Reddies in Maharashtra as Maratwada was part of Hyderabad state till 1948 & Maharashtra shares border with Telangana. I don't think Kerala has any considerable reddy population but Maharashtra has considerable proportion more than Odisha. So check the details & add accordingly. Bsr465 (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Warrior caste?

The lead paragraph says:

At one time they were a warrior caste and later became feudal overlords and peasant proprietors.

References

I suppose the sentence stayed in the lead for this long on the strength of the Frykenberg citation. I can't find anything about "warrior" on page 275. There is a mention on page 16, but I can't see enough of the context. So I went looking. There is a journal paper that summarises the book, which says the following:

Each of these centers was dominated by members of extended families within a single high caste or by members of a coalition of two or more elite castes. Elite castes were broadly of two main sorts-that is, they were either agricultural (Clean-Sudras, such as Kammas, Kapus, Reddis, Velamas, and Telagas) or clerical (Brahmans, especially Niyogis). In the distribution of governmental power, these two elite classes fulfilled obvious functions, of sword and of pen. Some villages were dominated by agricultural (warrior) elites, others by clerical elites, and still others by some combination of elite castes. But all centers of local power required both sword-carriers and pen-holders. Members of the agriculturalist elite were the Ryots (Pedda Ryots, Pedda Kammas, etc.); members of the clerical elite were the Karnams (Scribes or Accountants). Together they were the Village Lords (Grama Rayalu).

This makes it clear that Frykenberg is not talking about warriors turned into agriculturists, but rather about agricultural communities some of whose members also happened to take up warring.

I admit that he is a bit loose in bandying about terms like "warrior castes", but what he means by the term should be clear from the above explanation. We should also note that his focus is on the 19th century British India and he is only vaguely brandishing its historical antecedents. (I.e., this is by no means authoritative history.)

The second citation to Subhashini Subrahmanyam is quite pointless because she is only summarising Selig Harrison's book/articles, which in turn is summarising caste mythologies and Raj era preconceptions. On the whole, there is nothing in these citations that is able to contradict Cynthia Talbot's conclusions, and this sentence should be removed. I am tagging it as dubious for now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Removing it per the above analysis, which seems reasonable to me. - Sitush (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 July 2020

Previous decision – not done

Hello, just want to point out that Reddys were never called as sat-shudra. You may argue now because Reddys don't do Upanayanam ceremony and that they don't have Rishi Pravaras and gotras. The definition of Shudra - The lowest of the four varnas, the shudras exist to serve the Brahmans and dvija varnas (Kshatriya and Vyshya). Did any, any Reddy serve a Brahman, Kshatriya, or Vyshya? On the contrary, Reddys were the ruling class and Brahmans were given charitable grants. Reddys are Suryavanshi Rajput Kshatriyas. The origin of Reddy is Rashtrakuta. Go to the Rathore (Rajput caste) page. Same origin. As for gotras, I know a Reddy who has Janakula gotra, which is dead in female line. But the female line is of Sage Viswamitra's gotra. Similarily, you can find Kasyapa gotra. And by the way, it's untrue that south India doesn't have varna system. There are Vyshyas and Shudras in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. Aryavyshya, agnikulakshatriya, aryunthatiyar (shudra barber) exist. Reddys are royal, and they are descended from Lava, son of Shriram. Please make it official, Reddy, Kamma, and Kapu all hold Kshatriya status. Rajus too, and they perform Upanayana ceremony too. But Jats, half of all Rajputs, Kurmi, and Punjabi Khatris (other Kshatriyas) don't do Upanayana either. Please do not misguide people, and change Reddy varna status to Suryavanshi Kshatriya. Rathores and Reddys are related clans, but only Rathores are recognised as Suryavanshi Kshatriyas on Wikipedia. Please change varna status of Reddys to Suryavanshi Kshatriyas (solar race). Even Brahmans of Rayalaseema proclaim Reddys as Kshatriyas. "The Brahmins, on top of the hierarchical social order, viewed the ruling castes of the south like the Reddys, Nairs and Vellalars as sat-Shudras meaning shudras of "true being". Sat-shudras are also known as clean shudras, upper shudras, pure or high-caste shudras.[18][19] This classification and the four-tier varna concept was never accepted by the ruling castes." Change this to - "The Brahmins, the highest varna, classified Reddys and Kammas as Kshatriya, due to their royal origin. However, other castes didn't find it appealing because Reddys did not follow Upanayana sanskar. Reddys and Rathore Rajputs are both descended from Rashtrakuta Empire, a Dravidian empire ruled by northern Indo-Aryan migrants. Rashtrakutas are of Suryavanshi origin (solar race). The puranas indicate that the Reddys and Rathore Rajputs are descendants of Kusha, son of Rama." sources According to Puranic sources, Reddy people are successors of Kusha, second son of Sri Rama and they belonged to ‘Sooryavamsha’. https://www.quora.com/Which-are-the-real-Kshatriya-castes You will encounter Reddy in two answers. Indiamaster (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Further information

Reddys are not sat-shudra. Shudra is defined bu the ancient Brahmans as the varna which serves the upper three varnas. However, Reddy people have been poets, kings, warriors, and high net worth landlords, but never were labourers and servants. Reddys have ruled and it is evident they have high literacy even in ancient times. Reddys like Hemareddy Malamma, and Uyyalawada Narasimha Reddy were trained in the Vedas, a study denied to Shudras. Reddys, however do not follow Upanayana Sanskar. Nanjundaradhya (1974) writes that Reddy people came from Rajasthan. Reddy means ‘Rata’ or ‘Raja’ and it may have become ‘Reddy’ later.

proofs- "The author stated that the Reddy communities living in Andhra Pradesh are from Rajasthan and they migrated to Andhra Pradesh. Reddys originate from the Rashtrakutas, a Kshatriya empire. According to Puranic sources, Reddy people are successors of Kusha, second son of Sri Rama and they belonged to ‘Sooryavamsha’."

source- Written by Shodhganga Research Publications

X- The Varna Status Subheading (delete the whole info)

Change to Y- "The Brahmins, the highest varna, classified Reddys as Kshatriya, due to their royal background. However, other castes didn't find it appealing because Reddys did not follow Upanayana sanskar. Reddys and Rathore Rajputs are both descended from Rashtrakuta Empire, a Dravidian-populated empire ruled by northern Indo-Aryan migrants. Rashtrakutas are of Suryavanshi origin (solar race). The puranas indicate that the Reddys and Rathore Rajputs are descendants of Kusha, son of Rama. Reddys originated from Rajasthan (via Rashtrikas/Rashtrakutas), and migrated to the Andhra region."

Indiamaster (talk) 03:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)indiamaster

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiamaster (talk • contribs) 05:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Sorry, but this is a major and likely controversial request. The first sentence of the section you're asking to be deleted states: "The varna designation of Reddys is a contested and complex topic." This leads me to believe other editors will disagree with your proposal. You'll need to discuss this with other editors first and gain a consensus. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 03:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Research

I have done extensive research on my earlier request on the Varna Status of the Reddy caste. I have asked around and explored some paths leading to the origins of the Reddys. Here is what I deduced - Reddy caste is not of a single Varna, it is of multiple. You can find Kshatriya and Shudra-caste Reddys. Let me explain. There are some Reddys, who are genetically related to the Rashtrikas/Rashtrakutas. Most of these Reddys have Rajanya(Kshatriya in Sanskrit) gotras. Ex. Janakula, Raghukula, Koundinyasa,Kashyapa, Ikshwakula). Nowadays, it is very rare to see these gotras as they are extant(dead in the male line). However, it is wrong to say they are sat-sudras. And there are Shudra, or as mentioned, sat-sudra Reddys. These Reddys are Kapus (designated as sat-Shudra on Wikipedia) and they are called Reddys due to their subcaste profession. At the start of Reddi Kingdom rule, Prola I designated himself Prola Reddi despite being a Kapu. This trend continued as Kapus who used the Reddy title as still to be found. (ex. Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy, YS Jaganmohan Reddy, etc.) These Reddys are Shudra. However, there are peasants who have taken the Reddy title as they became chieftain. Reddy is a name for Kapu chieftain class, but said peasant is not Kapu. These Reddys are not Reddy or Aryan. (Kapus are mentioned in the Aithreya Brahmana as migrators from Yamuna River). Please mention under Varna Status that there are both Reddys of Kshatriya varna and sat-Shudra varna. Also, Shudra varna is mentioned as the peasant class. How can Reddys, who own thousands of hectares of land, be peasants? They aren't peasants, they employ peasants.Please don't think I'm prejudiced. One of my contacts is a Reddy and his gotra is Kaundinyasa, a Rishi Pravara. So I'm just striving for accurate webpages.

Indiamaster (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Indiamaster

To add to article

Basic information to add to this article: the etymology of the name "Reddy." 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

We don't add information from slideshows. Please find a credible secondary source to support your claims.Chariotrider555 (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The article contradicts itself. The Rashtrakutas and Rashtrikas were Kshatriyas of the Solar Races, but the Reddys who are descended from it, they aren't? Reddys are Kshatriya as well, for the most part, disregarding the Kapus (Suryanvanshi, demoted Varna status die to widow remarriage and failure to adhere to Brahmanical scriptures) and peasants who usurped it.

"the ancient clan names such as "Rashtrika", epithets (Ratta, Rashtrakuta, Lattalura Puravaradhiswara)" Reddy itself means Ratta, king or head (Reddy is a corruption of Ratta, Rattadi). What other proof are we looking for?

Please familiarize yourself with Wikpedia's policy on reliable sources. Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

HindItihaas (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)HindItihaas

Reddy Varna Status

Hello, respected editors! I just noticed that the Reddiars (Reddys of Tamil Nadu) are classified as Kshatriyas. So, aren't the Reddys, the same people, also Kshatriyas? Also, the Lingayat sect of Reddys wear the janeu and this is a custom reserved for the 'savarna' social groups. So why are Reddys classified as sat-sudra in the Reddy page? It would be OK to remove the varna status as a whole, but definitely wrong to give inaccurate information. Hope I have understood correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.179.207 (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

That was an error on the Reddiar page. The source actually stated that they were classified as Shudras. South India only has Brahmins, Shudras, and Dalits, as seen in the sources below. Chariotrider555 (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Reddy Varna Status

South India comprises of only Brahmins, Shudras, and Dalits? What about the Rashtrakuta dynasty? They were branched from the Ikshvaku dynasties. What about Komati Vyshyas? I don't know who told people this nonsense? Go to any Telugu village, there are Vaishyas. If we ask them the varna of Reddys, they will tell you they are descended from the Rathores. However, there is no varna status for Reddy. Jats face a similar situation, they have no specific varna. Also, shudra literally means slave of a Brahman. Reddys were not slaves of Brahmins, infact, Brahmin temples ran because of Reddys. Reddys have Rishi Pravaras and do Nama Karana and Yajnas, and other rituals inaccesible by Shudras like Yadavs. I request you either delete the Varna Status altogether or just say there is no assigned Varna to Reddys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.228.50 (talk) 11:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia relies on reliable sources and not original research. Chariotrider555 (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Reddys in Maharashtra

Hey , There is a sizeable community of Reddy's in Maharashtra , they identify themselves Reddy-Yellam, where Yellam is a sub-caste of Reddy. So please add Maharashtra also in list of Populated states in the minor section. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andys0007 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The Sources cited don't mention Reddy's as Peasant Proprietors

@Kautilya3 @Chariotrider555 Hey, the sources cited mention Rayudu's and Kapu's as peasant proprietors, not Reddy's. I request admins to delete the portion which is mentioning them as peasant proprietors or cite a proper source.SuperSonic54 (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Look at this @Kautilya3-SuperSonic54 (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I see the second source identifying Kapu with Reddy. So I don't see a problem. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 In the same page (pg:75) he says that there is a confusion between kapu's and reddy's, he also says kamma's and reddis are warrior caste's in the same page which is cited as a source!! Please check the complete page SuperSonic54 (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

You are contesting anew issues that have been long settled. That is disruptive. Please read the History of Reddy Kingdoms, page 70 onwards. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

How is this disruptive? I am just mentioning that the sources cited next to a sentence don't justify the sentence. You are confusing Kapu community with people using Reddy title. Reddy title was given to the palegars and feudal lords not to the peasants of kapu community. I read page 70 of History of Reddy Kingdoms , and that doesn't say reddy title was given to peasants. So, Please edit the article @Kautilya3SuperSonic54 (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Also a book published by Cambridge University Press & Assessment mentions reddy's as warriors, check page no. 21 of [12] @Kautilya3 SuperSonic54 (talk) 11:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The term used here (Burton Stein - Vijayanagara) is "warlike peasantries". And it says that Reddis and Velamas "exemplify" such warlike peasantries. It doesn't say that all Reddis were necessarily warriors.

The History of Reddi Kingdoms describes in detail on p. 75 the duties performed by the people with Reddi title. The intimate connection with the title and the "Kapu" concept is also covered.

I think I am done here. So please stop pinging me. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Nairs are kshethriyas not shudras

This article mention the ruling and warrior clan Nairs of kerala as shudras . According to vedic hierarchy kshatriya caste includes nairs because of warrior and military caste . അഹം ബ്രഹ്മശ്രീ (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

അഹം ബ്രഹ്മശ്രീ Please provide a source, There are many agro-warrior castes like reddy, nair, kamma, velama, okkaliga's, maratha's which where warrior/ruling castes but that doesn't make them kshatriyas SuperSonic54 (talk) 10:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)