Talk:Kamma (caste)/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

New Changes Explanation

1. The Old Post-Kakatiya section was essentially more of an Origins section, which is already present, and it repeated some information present in the Origins section. Therefore, I shifted the origins content, namely the Belthi Reddi folktale and the descent of Velamas and Reddys from Kapus, into the Origins section.

2. I have written a new section for the Post-Kakatiya section. I am going to explain each sentence and its justification below:

- "The demise of the Kakatiya Empire resulted in confusion and anarchy for sometime, before the Musunuri Nayaks brought stability to the region." (This is a direct usage from the Kakatiya page that is exceptionally sourced.)

- "The Musunuri Nayaks, who Telugu historians have stated are Kammas, led a confederacy of Telugu nobles to liberate the Telugu regions from the rule of the Tughlaqs." (There are a grand total of 7 citations attesting to their roots as Kammas. All from the post-1990 era, including ones from 2000s, except for one in 1988. That is the fact and I have written as such. The other part of the sentence is a usage from the Kapaya Nayaka article, and I was not the one who phrased it that way initially.)

- "The Vilasa Grant of Prolaya Nayaka, where he bemoaned the devastation of Telugu regions under the Turks, sought to legitimize himself as the rightful restorer of order following the Kakatiyas. Kapaya Nayaka, who was the cousin of Prolaya, later succeeded him, and the capital was shifted to Warangal following Kapaya Nayaka's ousting of Malik Maqbul, who was the governor of that area for the Delhi Sultanate. The Musunuri Nayaks were succeeded by the Recherla Nayakas." (These sentences should not be controversial. They reflect the main-pages of these articles, and I used as much direct phrasing as possible from the likes of Eaton.)

- "Cynthia Talbot states that the modern-castes of the Telugu states did not originate until the late stages of the Vijayanagara Empire." (This is a critical piece of information included in most-post Kakatiya articles before Vijayanagara. I have stated what she has written. If there are more historians that agree with her, do provide citations in the Talk Page so it can be rephrased.).

- "Telugu historians disagree with that statement. For instance, B.S.L Hanumantha Rao, states that the post-Kakatiya Andhradesa (Telugu regions) experienced a triangular-conflict between the Velamas, Kammas, and Reddys, and K.Satyamurthy noted that the post-Kakatiya period saw the Kammas, Reddys, and Velamas, among others, leading Telugu society." (This reflects the other part of the equation to show Telugu historians, with all theirs positives and faults, disagree with Tolbot. Dr. Benbabaali herself attributed the word Kamma to describe a specific community to the 10th century, which contradicts Tolbot's conclusions. As Ms. Talbot's work is mentioned, there is no harm in mentioning the views of local historians since the two specific ones I have cited are in the 1990s.)

3. I have written this in the most agreeable language without the usage of "Peacock" or other glorification terminology. Much of what I added is not my own writing, but rather the work of other great contributors on Wikipedia. Everything is properly sourced with as many as 7 sources and reflects the current main-pages of those articles. Callofduty259 (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Musunuri

I am afraid it makes no differences how many hundreds of Andhra historians "disagree" with Cynthia Talbot. Talbot has done the research and published it in internationally refereed journals and Oxford University. They have nothing to counter it with, except folklore. This is POV and not acceptable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia cites these historians on many articles. Dr. Dalel clearly states in her book that "After the decline of Buddhism in the Krishna valley, the term ‘Kamma’ no longer referred to a place and started to be used as a caste name to designate the main agrarian community inhabiting that territory." She is also published by international publications and much more recently. In her video presentation, she gives the dating as the 10th century. Talbot's view is represented. Also while we are on this topic, I noticed you made edits to the Telaga article a while back. You cited a source saying they are descended from the Telugu Chodas and cited an Andhra historian with no mentioning of Talbot nor her work. Please do explain. Callofduty259 (talk) 09:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

While you explain how it met Wikipedia policies to cite one Andhra historian for the Telugu-Choda claim for the Telagas with no mention of Talbot or another additional source (compared to the many I provided), please keep in mind that Wikipedia states "we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians". I understand you believe ALL of Andhra's historians are based on folktales, but do cite a published scholar or two that concur with that view. Finally, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority viewsthat have appeared in those sources are covered" is also stated in Wikipedia. This is definetely a majority opinion backed up by 7 different sources, and the only opinion amongst who commented on their caste. Considering many were published by universities and in the 2000s, they are reliable. Callofduty259 (talk) 09:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Callofduty259:, have you read Cynthia Talbot's book? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

In all kindness and respect, please do answer my questions directly. I respect Cynthia Talbot and her work. Besides Stein, Romila Thapar, Sheldon Pollock, Dr. Dalel, I’m sure she is an accomplished author. However, despite her publishing years before individuals like Dr. Dalel, who is similarly held in high-regard internationally, her work is a minority opinion. No matter how excellent her credentials, is there any other scholar that agrees with her? So my direct answer to your question, which I would appreciate if you could do as well, is no, I have not read her book entirely. I have read snippets of it, enough to understand her view on issues. But her view was directly contradicted by a much more recent and international scholar, Dr. Dalel. Moreover, to dismiss the work of Telugu historians in the 2000s and the 1990s as pure fiction, when indeed no other scholar, including Miss Talbot has done so, is not correct. There is no rule in Wikipedia that says “Talbot trumps all”. Recent scholarship is also given more weight, and Dr. Dalel is not only recent and published by internationally recognized publications, but directly contradicts Talbot. It’s easy to pick and chose what we like and what we don’t. Looking forward to your answer for the Telaga-inquiry and if you have scholars backing up your view that ALL Telugu historians write is folktales. I’m especially interested in the former since you have clearly based on your wording read Talbot’s Book and yet made no mention of it in that article, but felt a single Andhra historian, whom you consider to be a teller of folktales, was sufficient enough. Thanks - much kindness and respect for another Wikipedian. Callofduty259 (talk) 10:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see Benbabali as a historian. She is merely reproducing folklore.

I am afraid you do not understand what is going on here. Talbot has said, after analysing hundreds of medieval inscriptions, that there was no caste system in Andhra until the late Vijayanagara period. There were Brahmins and Komatis, and an amorphous "chaturthakula" (I guess the Brahmins didn't feel comfortable using the term "Sudra"). This is just the imaginary varna classification, not a real caste system. Medieval identities were regional and occupational, e.g., "pakanati kapu" meant an agriculturist from Pakanadu. The term kulam, on the few occasions when it was used, could mean anything from family, to clan, to some vague form of community. There was no "Velama caste", or "Reddy caste", or "Kamma caste". All these caste identities arose when the Vijayanagara empire fell apart and the groups started contesting for power. Then they back-projected whatever identities they formed back into time. You really need to read Talbot's book or at least the paper before you make any further edits to caste-related articles.

Has Benbabali cited any historical evidence that contradicts Talbot's conclusions? Did she say that Talbot's conclusions were wrong? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I see. Anyone who disagrees with you, regardless if they are currently an Oxford Professor, is merely reproducing folklore. Also please answer my question. I have answered yours. Under your own rules, you should not have made those edits to the Telaga article. Please provide an explanation because An explanation is warranted. Again no one is denying Talbot’s work. I explicitly mentioned her. The issue has arisen because you say that all Andhra historians produce folklore, even in the 1990s and 2000s (though you did use it for the Telaga article - again please provide an explanation.) Not even Talbot claimed that. I hope you realize, with all warranted respect and kindness, that you are asking the community to overrule not only Telugu scholars, but international ones as well who have done work more recent than Talbot. I don’t see this dispute resolving with us two. I think it’s wise for us to request an arbitrator through Wikipedia’s request option. Also do answer the the question about the Telagas - perhaps silence speakers greater than volumes. With all due respect. Callofduty259 (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Calm down buddy. You are still a greenhorn here. At least I presume you are.

Reliable sources for history are described at WP:HISTRS. Here is Cynthia Talbot's home page, and here is Dalel Benbabali's. Which of them is a historian?

WP:RS gives some guidelines for how to assess sources. In particular, note: Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.

Cynthia Talbot's work has overturned a lot of age-old assumptions. It has received wide recognition and acknowledgement. See Google scholar listings and citations. I can also cite book reviews if need be. But the other sources you are coming up with are so weak that I wouldn't even bother. If you are claiming that Benbabali's analysis has overridden Talbot's, then you need to answer the two questions I asked the end of my last post. Your tendency to throw a fit without sincerely participating in the central issues of the discussion is inexplicable.

So, once again I ask: what did Benbabali write which overrides Talbot's analysis? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I thank you for the advice, though I am calm and see a path forward. First, please explain your actions on Telagas. If you are a staunch believer in Talbot's work, why was she excluded. How can you write that Telugu Chodas, who came hundreds of years before the Musunuris, are believed to be Telagas with ONE Andhra historian and no mention of Talbot's work. Yet, you object to the edits I made. Callofduty259 (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Also do-explain how when you performed "clean-up" on October 4, 2018 on the Kapu-article, how despite Talbot's beliefs, which you clearly so agree with, you did not challenge nor delete the classification of Prolaya Vema Reddy, Yogi Vemana, and Gona Budda Reddy as Kapus? It was only Sitush who deleted it later. Under your beliefs, they should not have been classified as Kapus, but not only did you not challenge it, but you assisted in linking them to their main-pages. You said so yourself that all the Kammas, Velamas, and Reddys were one large Chathurthakula, not Kapus. The article clearly mentioned at that time that "Kapu refers to a social grouping of agriculturists found primarily in the southern Indian states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana (the Telugu-speaking states). Kapus are primarily an agrarian community, forming a heterogeneous peasant caste." So this was not an "occupational identity" but a page for a modern-caste. Do explain since Talbot would clearly disagree with tagging these figures as part of the modern-Kapu community. Callofduty259 (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

What makes this more bewildering to me is that you clearly knew about Talbot's work at least in 2016 when you made the edits to the Kapu article referencing her work. Kudos to you - but explain the select ignoring of her work on the Telaga article and the Kapu article when it came to historical figures and events. Yet you trumpet her work on non-Kapu affiliated articles it seems. I had no idea Wikipedia exempted those two articles from have the scrutiny of Talbot's work. Looking forward to the explanation with all due respect, kindness, and courtesy. Callofduty259 (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

It says at the top of this talk page is for discussing improvements to the Kamma (caste) article. Please refrain from discussing the whole world here. If you want to raise questions about other articles, please do so at their respective pages. If you want to complain about my editing, please do so at WP:ANI. Should I ask for the third time: how does Benbabaali's work override Talbot's analysis? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I completely understand. But I hope you see how they are linked. It is hard to see this as an engagement based on factual principle when you have a history of selective applications. With that being said, we should reach consensus. We all have lives to lead. Therefore, we need to stop running around circles and get to work. What are some thing you would like to see adjusted in the section - without deletion in my mind. I can say right now that I will not agree as a fellow editor for full-sale content deletion because they are reliably sourced and I have presented in a balanced perspective, whether one likes it or not. If full-scale deletion is what you have in mind, I suggest a third-party be involved so they can analyze the full-picture without any preset notions. I never stated the Benbabaali overrode Talbot, but in her conclusions about when the Kammas as a caste identity came in, she clearly disagrees. In fact, Talbot is a really an odd-one out. Her conclusions in the book challenges the work of Stein on the Cholas and the late-Vijayanagara period, and the work of Nicholas Dirks, in addition to South Indian scholars, not just Telugus. Her work is a challenge that has clearly not attained mainstream consensus evidenced by Benbabaali and the likes of Vijaya Ramaswamy, Daniel Jackson, and Peter Berger/Frank Heidmemann written view the caste formations to an earlier day. No where do they even mention Talbot's view. Can you provide another scholar that concurred with her findings? I clearly state that Benbabaali's work does not override Talbot's but disagrees with it. It is not just her. However much you may like her work, which is a selective liking, Talbot is a minority opinion that is contradicted by her own international peers and ignored by Indian historians. In my edit, I clearly gave Talbot due credit because of her international standards - but what you are asking is to make her the only opinion on this topic, which is not only against Wikipedia rules, but you yourself do not adhere to that rule in edits. Callofduty259 (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush:, "Talbot is a minority opinion that is contradicted by her own international peers and ignored by Indian historians". What do you think? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, while this is being worked out, can you look at my other edits on the article. To avoid glorification, I have mentioned several times in the text that were mostly ordinary agriculturalists or involved in mercantile activities and lumped them into the larger pool of the 3-4 castes on certain aspects like Deshmukhis. Callofduty259 (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Notable members

The list is so small.There are many other prominent Kammas being left out like Mohan Babu,Mahesh Babu,Sujana Chowdary,PSG,Chandrababu Naidu,Vasireddy Venkatadri Naidu/Nayudu,Galla Jayadev,Kesineni Nani,K Haribabu,Pullela Gopichand,Ramoji Rao etc I appeal to add them under the respective section. Andhra sepoy (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Statement is inconsistent with Article

"The Kammas were largely reduced by the status of peasants in the post-Kakatiya period." This statement incorrectly implies that most Kammas were not involved in agriculture at an ordinary level before and during the Kakatiya era. My second point is that scholars have clearly showed that caste formation in Andhra took place during the Vijayanagara era. Finally, this is in the wrong section. I considered moving it to the post-Kakatiya era, but that section already mentions their agricultural roots with Velamas and Reddys. Would have been redundant and contradictory. That's why I struck it from the article. By LovSLif (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, good job. Harrison is just reproducing the Kamma POV (e.g., Bhavaiah Choudhry) in writing that line. It is not real and not important. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

"upper shudra" Should be replated with "Forward class"

As per the . The term "Upper shudra" in this document must be replaced by the "Forward class".

Quora is not a reliable source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Varna status dishonest

Varna status is being mentioned in other caste pages such as velama and reddy but they also mention ruling powers in South India never accepted four fold varna such statements must be added here also otherwise remove the whole statement about varna to ensure that there is no arbitrariness especially when caste and varna are sensitive matters in South India and they must be mentioned as Forward or General category as per government classification as it is the case with other caste pages. Dhoomaketu (talk) 08:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

Information to be added or removed: From “During the British Raj, the Kammas were considered to be "upper Shudra", along with the Reddy and Velama castes, under the varna system.” to “During the British Raj, the Kammas were considered to be Sat-Shudra or "upper Shudra", along with the Reddy and Velama castes, under the varna system. However, as South India doesn’t have a distinguished or rigid four Varna system, ruling or military classes were often classified as Sat-Shudras. The Kammas, like the Reddies and Nairs, hold a status that is analogous to Kshatriyas. Moreover, The Kammas claim that they are Kshatriyas, and they protested when they were labeled as Sat-Shudras during the British Raj.”

Explanation of issue: There are several issues with the old version. Firstly, it doesn’t explicitly say that Kammas claim Kshatriya status, which they do. Secondly, their status and that of the Reddies and Nairs are the same. However, the Reddies and Nairs have a “analogous to Kshatriya status” in their wikipedia page. To ensure parity and a fuller understanding on the Kamma page, this should be included to have all POV be heard. Finally, it is important to note that Kammas protested their status classification during the British Raj which adds historical context on the result of their classification. Though there is debate on Wikipedia to get rid of varna articles for all South Indian castes, since other similar and prominent South Indian castes, like Reddies and Nairs, have a mention of their Kshatriya claims or analogous to Kshatriya status, it is important to give all POV a place and state that in the Kamma article as well.

References supporting change:

To support that Kammas have a status analogous to Kshatriyas, since they, Reddis, and Nairs were classified as Sat-Shudras:

Lohia, Rammanohar (1964). The Caste System. Navahind. pp. 93–94, 103, 126

M. P. Joseph (2004). Legitimately divided: towards a counter narrative of the ethnographic history of Kerala Christianity. Christava Sahitya Samithi. p. 62. ISBN 978-81-7821-040-7.

Shah, Ghanshyam (2004). Caste and Democratic Politics in India. Anthem Press. p. 83. ISBN 978-1-84331-086-0.

To Support Kammas Claim Kshatriya Status:

Gajrani, S.. History, Religion and Culture of India. India, Isha Books, 2004. Page 29 (“The Kammas consider themselves as Kshatriyas in the Varna hierarchy, and recall their privileged position in the reign of the Kakatiya Dynasty” )

Harrison, Selig S.. India: The Most Dangerous Decade. United States, Princeton University Press, 2015. Page 295. (“Brahmans dismiss them as Sudras, but the Kammas and Reddies have never accepted this.”)

Narayana Rao, Velcheru. Text and Tradition in South India. India, State University of New York Press, 2017. Page 285 (“In premodern Andhra, as stated earlier, the Shudra king acquired Kshatriya Status, legitimized by the Brahmin poet. When the British occupied the role of the king, the non-Brahmin casteses were left with no hope of becoming Kshatriyas . . . However, the younger generation of landed castes - Kammas, Reddis, and Kapus - went to Western schools, as the Brahmins had done.”)

Yamada Keiko Page 371 (“In his autobiography written in the 1960s, he [Ranga] openly and proudly enunciated Kamma caste identity not as Kisans, but as Kshatriyas”) [1]

Yamada Keiko (Page 378) “As far as the Kammas themselves are concerned, the issue of their Kshatriya status is no longer under dispute: they were, and are Kshatriyas.” [2]

To Back-Up the Claim that Kammas protested their Sat-Shudra Status during the British Raj:

Yamada Keiko Page 363 (“They [Kammas in 1916] soon gathered at Kollur village to hold a public debate with local Brahmins to assert the Kshatriya status of Kammas, Velamas, Reddis, and others, and demanded the right to learn the Vedas and wear sacred threads.”) .[3]

|}

Editors like sitush they want to portray kamma caste in negative light. Dhoomaketu (talk) 08:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Large additions

User:lovSLif, I am a bit concerned about the large additions you have been making in the last few months. They seem mostly to be sourced to stuff that is not available online (so it is difficult for me to verify things) but originate in Andhra itself, eg: books published/written by Telugu faculty. We know from experience that a lot of pseudo-history, glorification etc exists among Telugu academia and so I'm not sure how valid those sources actually are. I realise you will argue that they are best placed for study but the Kamma caste has a certain notoriety regarding self-promotion etc, so I think it probably would be better if you either use alternate sources or prove beyond doubt that the sources you are adding are in fact recognised as authoritative by showing that they have been cited by other, non-Telugu academics. - Sitush (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Sitush (talk). Attached links to sources as much as I could so other editors can duly verify like I do. The problem you mentioned with Indian faculty I agree with. Have seen it while editing the Deshastha + Vokkaliga page also. The information from Westerners seemingly glosses over medieval periods, leading us to utilize Indian sources. Did my due diligence and reported what was written in papers discussing these topics - - from numerous professors, written in different periods. For now, the most authoritative work on Kammas has been done by Dr. Benbabaali so will place citations from her work as well when I access it. By LovSLif (talk) 09:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) An example of one that seems likely to be ok is B S L Hanumantha Rao. He was a member of the Indian History Congress and there are six papers written by him available on JSTOR and published by the IHC. All the other 13 JSTOR mentions of him seems to be procedural (IHC member lists etc) or also published via the IHC. The IHC is of course a huge organisation but its Proceedings are effectively working papers, not finished products - almost all conference papers suffer from the problem of not really having much peer review prior to presentation, which is why they are presented as works in progress. On the other hand, one of his works (Social Mobility in Medieval Andhra) is cited in passing in Images in Asian Religions: Text and Contexts by Phyllis Granoff (2007, University of British Columbia Press) and a co-authored work (Buddhist Inscriptions of Andhradesa, published by Ananda Buddha Vihara Trust, 1998) is used in Language of the Snakes: Prakrit, Sanskrit, and the Language Order of Premodern India by Andrew Ollett (2017, University of California Press). So he has been cited by other academics outside the Telugu region. - Sitush (talk) 09:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

In response to your comment that I have just conflicted with, Cynthia Talbot is one "westerner" whom I think deals with the medieval stuff & springs to mind. But I'm not saying they need to be western authors. - Sitush (talk) 09:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Sitush Certain that Prof. A. Satyanarayana (Adapa Satyanarayana)is also fine. Teaches at Osmania University and published around 40 research papers in various national and international journals. He is also an activist for Dalit/Bahujan rights (videos on YouTube) so I doubt he would glorify landed castes with a gruesome history of casteism. His work is on JSTOR through IHC. Work is also cited by Amarjit Kaur in "Indian Labour, Labour Standards, and Workers' Health in Burma and Malaya, 1900-1940" - - published by Cambridge University Press. He is cited by numerous Western professors also. (eg. 'Society, Economy, and Polity in Modern Andhra is cited by Brian Stoddart in "Water, land, language and politics in coastal Andhra, 1850–1925"). By LovSLif (talk) 09:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Sitush reinforced an existing source and added links to source that could be hard to find for verification. Will have a look at Cynthia's work as well. Thx. By LovSLif (talk) 09:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Sitush, I saw you removing comments mentioning real shudra castes as shudra in your history. But you want to mention kamma as upper shudra please don't use Wikipedia to portray your perversions here. Dhoomaketu (talk) 08:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Protected

I've semi-protected this article as we have been seeing persistent removal of sourced content by anonymous editors. Anyone who thinks they can remove content they don't like in this fashion, please take note that this is all you have achieved - you have prevented anonymous editors from editing it altogether. If you want to make changes, discuss them here first and await consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)

Many suggested honest discussions with cited sources are not being entertained please read them and permit appropriate changes else remove the protected status. Dhoomaketu (talk) 08:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Please remove mention of varna status entirely

I have come across many articles about several castes which do not mention anything about varna. The following pages about castes entirely has no mention of Varna: Kallar,Agamudayar,Devendrakula Velalar, Pallar,Vellalar. It would be odd if only some castes have their varna status mentioned while others are left unmentioned.

EruTheLord (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The lack of information in one, two, three, or even four articles does not suggest that there was a conscious effort to exclude the content from those articles. There could be a number of reasons why thos articles don't have that info, including, but not limited to: an editor didn't bother to add it; an editor added it, but it was unsourced and removed; an editor added it with sources, but it was reverted for some good reason, like that the source was poor; an editor added it with quality sources, but somebody came by and deleted it for pernicious reasons like to carry out ethnic-warring, politics, etc.; or possibly some vandal removed the content.

As you can see, there are many reasons why it may not exist in those articles. Why don't you ask at Noticeboard for India-related topics to see what their opinion is on the inclusion of varna status. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Harrison

Harrison's reproducing Choudhary's POV about the classification. No evidence to suggest that Kammas had a significant presence in Kakatiya Court. Talbot's work clearly shows modern caste identities evolved during Vijayanagara. Any work relating to Choudary is highly suspect. Harrison himself concedes that Choudary has an "axe to grind". It's better to replace that POV pushing with an elaboration on the general role of Sat Shudras in South India. Open to other views. By LovSLif (talk) 09:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The current article reeks of caste glorification

While the information on socio-economic status is predominantly mentioned in the lede, there is no mention regarding the other aspects of the community. Andhra based historians are known to be biased and can't be taken as authoritative unless backed up by non-Telugu academics. The article is especially conspicuous in the absence of any mention of the Karamchedu massacre where many Dalit lives were lost. Some people in the community are notorious for their casteism even on Wikipedia. For example, the name of the Wikipedia article on Pemmasani Nayakas was moved to Pemmasani Kamma Nayaks by a Wiki user!! It would be sad if the editors on Wikipedia give in to their propaganda and have a caste glorification article instead of a well-rounded one. Reo kwon (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 February 2022

Kammas are not agriculturalists, they are landed-gentry 139.57.223.206 (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 June 2022

The Kammas are descended from feudal overlords of the Kammanadu region not agriculturalist. As a member of the community, it is incredibly disrespectful to change our history. Please change it ASAP. 172.97.143.236 (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Change the word "agriculturists" to "feudal landlords". This citation can be added as a source; Upadhyaya, Sanjay. “Origin of Kamma.” Pdfcoffee.com, PDFCOFFEE.COM, https://pdfcoffee.com/origin-of-kamma-pdf-free.html. It is from University of California, Los Angeles. Please change it because it is a misrepresentation of history. BruceCarasala (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Please consult WP:RS for what reliable source means. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The woman in the photo does not belong to Kamma caste. She belong to "musu kamma" subdivision of "Balija" caste. Please delete it. Refer this source https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.56741/page/n137/mode/2up?view=theater Wolfraya (talk) 07:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request

The woman in the photo does not belong to Kamma caste. She belong to "musu kamma" subdivision of "Balija" caste. Please delete it. Refer this source https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.56741/page/n137/mode/2up?view=theater Wolfraya (talk) 10:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Musu kammas belong to Balija caste. They are not Kammas Wolfraya (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2022

Give me a accurate source where Kammas are said to be agriculturalists? It is a well known fact in Telugu society that they are landed gentry; they didn't till the land by themselves; they hire labourers to do that. 198.91.147.104 (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Recoil (talk) 10:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2022

Good morning or whatever time it is where you are. Catholicism should be added to the religion category as many Kamma families converted in the 1700's. I come from a Kamma Catholic family. Samineni Arulappa; the archbishop of Hyderabad for example is a Kamma Catholic. 172.97.152.174 (talk) 06:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You'll need to provide reliable sources discussing a notable amount of Catholics in the caste. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Application of optical fibre

ex plaination with p df 103.92.103.40 (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Add Tamil Nadu Kammas in notable people.

GD Naidu, A scientist. Dr. G.K. Devarajulu, LMW founder. Narayanasamy Naidu, All india Farmers leader. Bollini Munuswamy Naidu, Madras presidency CM. S. Ramasamy Naidu, Social reformer. Vaiyapuri Gopalsamy, A politician parliament tiger. Rajasankar.K (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)