Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:59, 31 March 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Raju article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

India: Andhra Pradesh / Karnataka / Tamil Nadu B‑class Mid‑importance

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

Template:Castewarningtalk

Quote from source

Provide actual quotes from the source provided for this statement "From the medieval period, the term "Andhra Kshatriya" has been used synonymously with Rachavaru, Rajus and Telugu Kshatriya." --Mayasutra (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

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

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

Recent edits by Sitush

This particular "Sitush" is wantedly removing the sources provided by people which are reliable.He had removed references by Famous Historians like Yashoda Devi & even K.S.Singh etc.Even he had recently removed the reference which is affiliated to Anthropological Survey in India.I Think this particular "Sitush" have personal grudge on "Rajus" Community as this particular Sitush belongs to "Kamma" caste of Shudra Varna.Do you think you can defame "Rajus" Community,even Britishers & Government has listed them as "Kshatriyas".On whatever castes you have grudge you are very particular about references.Then what about your "Kamma" page references, are they completely reliable ?? and accepted by foreign universities ?? "Kammavari Charitra (in Telugu language) by Kotha Bhavaiah Chowdary, 1939. Revised Edition (2006), Pavuluri Publishers, Guntur";"Telugu Vignana Sarvaswamu, Volume 2, History, Telugu University, Hyderabad";"A History of Telugu Literature, Chenchaiah Chowdary, B. and Bhujanga Rao, R. M., 1988, Asian Educational Services, p.50"??? and many more.You are very liberal in writing about your community and you have even removed their shudra varna classified by Britishers from that page.After i have entered in that page, you made it again appear on the page.As Rajus are Andhra Kshatriyas you are trying to defame them using wikipedia,it is your mere foolishness in thinking such way.You have provided books in favour of Dalits & Bahujans as references in "Rajus" page.They aren't reliable.You are talking about Sanskritisation & other topics etc. What is your knowledge in judging references, are you a social scientist or a great historian ??? Do You think that you can prove Kshatriya Castes as they are not Kshatriyas,you are after all a "Guano in a Ocean".Kshatriyas contain the gotras named after saptarishis & also other great sages i.e maharishis unlike the gotras of all other shudra castes.Kshatriyas don't need the acceptance of shudra caste person like you who have personal grudge on them.A number of communities claim the status of "Kshatriya Varna",but apart from "Rajput" they are very small.They are "Rajus"(Andhra Pradesh,Tamil Nadu),"Raghuvamsi Kshatriya"(Karnataka),"Kshatriya"(Kerala),"Koteyar"(Tamil Nadu,Karnataka),"Dal Kshatriya"(Bihar),"Aguri"(West Bengal) and "Kshatriya"(Orissa and Assam)-in all eight communities which are widely accepted in the references of "India's Communities" by K.S.Singh,Vol-V.p.1853,1856-1858","http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=A0O8UtD5Bo6IiQejnIHQCg&id=1lZuAAAAMAAJ&dq=india%27s+communities&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=aguri" This was the statement mentioned by K.S.Singh in his book.This statement of K.S.Singh is given as the Kshatriya Rajus asked their caste to be placed in Backward castes list in Tamil Nadu which can be seen in the following link "www.ncbc.nic.in/Pdf/Tamil%20Nadu/Tamilnadu-Vol2/7.pdf‎".You don't have the moral right for asking discussions & you should always feel ashamed of your heinous acts in editing caste articles with personal grudges.Please don't spoil the reputation of Misplaced Pages.Hence,it would be fair for you,if you don't vandalise this page any further. I am finally asking Misplaced Pages to take care in providing & maintaining articles especially castes articles in Misplaced Pages.Don't hand over these aricles for editing to the persons like "sitush" who have personal grudges on castes because of his low class mentality.

• I redacted your title. Falsely accusing someone from vandalism is disruptive and you can be blocked for it. And "low class mentality", that's a personal attack. Comment on the edits, if you can, not on the editor. And please try using paragraphs. Drmies (talk) 05:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• We don't put varna in lead sections because it is outdated puffery, it is often contested (notably because of sanskritisation) and it is often a far more complex issue than can be done justice at the start of an article. For example, in this case, there were Brahmins who called themselves Raju, according to the sources cited in the article body. - Sitush (talk) 07:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You(Sitush) are willingly doing this,you don't want this article to get developed,and you also tried before to create Rajus as peasants later you again changed to ex-warrior caste.you are deleting gotras,then if you know gotras of rajus,then you may write in this page.Only Indian Historians can explain about surnames & gotras.Your main motto is not to develop the article by deleting.You are a culprit,low class scoundrel and a cold blooded bastard who is doing all this.But,remember no one can improve or degrade a person or community's status,if you think so it is you mere foolishness and the time will come and then you have to pay for all this.

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

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

Summary of thread: According to 117, Sitush is deleting sourced statements with reliable sources:

1. Kshatriya Varna

• Sitush is removing Kshatriya Varna.
• Please verify this paragraph:

"A number of communities claim the status of Kshatriya Varna, but apart from Rajput they are very small. They are Rajus (Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu), Raghuvamsi Kshatriya (Karnataka), Kshatriya (Kerala), Koteyar (Tamil Nadu,Karnataka), Dal Kshatriya (Bihar), Aguri (West Bengal) and Kshatriya (Orissa and Assam)."

• All eight communities are widely accepted in the references of K.S.Singh', "India's Communities", Vol-V., p.1853, 1856-1858

2. Gotras (clan)

• Sitush removed Gotras (clan) in that page.
• Gotras are provided from the following 2 references:
  • Suresh Singh (1997), Tamil Nadu Part 2, Affiliated East-West Press Anthropological Survey of India, p.774 : Rajus are of Kshatriya Varna.
  • Singh
• K.S.Singh is a great historian. These sources are reliable sources.

3. Kshatriya Rajus as Backward caste

• The Kshatriya Rajus asked their caste to be placed in Backward castes list in Tamil Nadu for the Backward Classes commission which can be seen in this link. This is a reliable source and sitush has removed this from the page.

Reply by JJ:

1. Kshatriya Varna - I'm sorry, I can't access this source. What I do find at Google books, though, is this: "In Andhra there is no real Kshatriya varna, but the locally dominant landed gentry known as Raju claimed Kshatriya status." Which is already being stated in the article.

2. Gotras (clan) - again, I can't access Singh.

3. Kshatriya Rajus as Backward caste - the link does not work, but Gopal K. Bhargava & S. C. Bhatt (2006), Land and people of Indian states and union territories. 13. Karnataka, p.145, does mention "Raju Kshatriya" as a backward class. Yet, this does not prove thet the Rajus were originally kshatriyas, does it?

I found something else: Sathya Sai Baba was a "Raju (Kshatriya)". See N. Suman Bhat (2005), Saints of the masses, Sura Books, p.82. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC) This can be seen in the following link: http://books.google.co.in/books?id=hPgqk2UgcmAC&pg=PP4&dq=N.+Suman+Bhat+%282005%29,+Saints+of+the+masses,+Sura+Books&hl=en&sa=X&ei=aeoTU5OYMIL8rAfl0YCABw&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=raju&f=false

Joshua Jonathan Sir,Rajus are described as Kshatriyas by Government of Andhra Pradesh and also a forward caste beacuse of their ancestry as Kings,rulers and warriors.But Kshatriya Rajus in Tamil Nadu due to their economic backwardness in the recent period asked themselves to be placed in backward class.What i mean to say is the statement given by K.S.Singh about 8 Kshatriya Castes is submitted to the Backward commission.I am saying that the article about 8 castes is deleted in this page not about the Tamil Kshatriya Rajus.Not about its usage i.e statements of book to backward commission.What i mean to say is these 8 communities are of real kshatriya varna .So,this statement of K.S.Singh is submmitted to Backward commission of Central Government. Sir, I am unable to enter the link here.But you can write it in google search as" Kshatriya Raju Backward class" then u will find the link for National Backward class commission at the first.You can download the pdf & see. If u beleive those are reliable u place only the paragraph of 8 communities of K.S.Singh in this Rajus page not the discussion in backward commission.

Coming to the gotras of Rajus,see the following 2 links: (i)Tamil Nadu Part-2 Affiliated East-West Press Anthropological Survey of India, 1997. Kumar Suresh Singh, R. Thirumalai, S. Manoharan. 1997. p. 774. & http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=XM78UpaOGIulrQei84CYAQ&id=P3LiAAAAMAAJ&dq=kshatriya+rajus&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=gotras (ii)http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=UZAMU5WWGIyMrAecmYGICQ&id=1lZuAAAAMAAJ&dq=inauthor%3A%22Singh+K+S%22&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=chandravamsamu.Basically Kshatriya Rajus gotras are Vasishta,Dhanunjaya,Koundinya,Kasyapa,Pasupati & Bharadwaja which are gotras named after Saptarishis & also other great sages according to Hindu religion.Also u can find some common gotras between brahmins & kshatriyas.

Kshatriya varna is described in the reference 1 in the rajus page and also u can find in the reference 11 of Overseas development institute in that page.But it is not mentioned in that page.Government describes Rajus as Kshatriyas in its caste list but it is not mentioned.Also Kshatriya varna is mentioned in the following references of government as "Kshatriya(Raju)" in the links : (i)http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=Zz4QU42NH4uYrgfb6oHIAQ&id=WN4cAQAAMAAJ&dq=rachavaru%2Frajus&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=kshatriya+rajus (ii)http://books.google.co.in/books?id=bYIdAAAAMAAJ&q=raju+term+is+used+for+kshatriyas&dq=raju+term+is+used+for+kshatriyas&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ND8QU8CHFYiVrAfgvYHgAQ&ved=0CFwQ6AEwBw.Also Historians of British period described them as Andhra Kshatriyas and also following statements (i)"The Raju term is today used to refer to a Telugu Kshatriya caste in Andhra Pradesh" supported by refernce 1 is removed. (ii)"From the medieval period, the term "Andhra Kshatriya" has been used synonymously with Rachavaru, Rajus and Telugu Kshatriya" this reliable statement supported by reliable reference "http://books.google.co.in/books?id=ONSCAAAAIAAJ&q=A+History+of+the+Early+Dynasties+of+Andhradesa&dq=A+History+of+the+Early+Dynasties+of+Andhradesa" is also removed.You please develop the article by studing these & by adding them.

I'm really sorry, but none of those sources is accessible to me, due to the limitations Google has set on the use of Google Books. I did find a pdf for Kshatriya Raju Backward class, though. It does contain some information, on pages 6-9, on "Kshatriya Raju", or at least the opinions of Shri Venkatarama Raju, president of the "Kshatriya Raju Association", and quotations from Singh. The document cites Singh: "A varna category, there is no Kshatriya jati as such. However, a number of communities claim the status of Kshatriya. (p.8)" The documents says claim, not are. I'm afraid there's no more I can do. The only thing I can add, as a westerner, is that the value of people does not depend on their birth or jati, but on their being a human. But living in a rich society with equal opportunities for most people, it's easy to say something like that... Wish you all the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Those 8 communities are real kshatriyas so they say i.e claim which is expressed by K.S.Singh and remember they are not interpreting false statements.Ok and anyway thank you Mr.Joshua Jonathan for the efforts and also spending your valuable time in trying to analyse and develop this article :)

Singh may be used by the government of India but he is not reliable for Misplaced Pages articles. Furthermore, there have been thousands of changes to the government classifications in the last ten years alone: they're always been adjusted back and forth. Singh merely trotted out the determinations made by the scientific racists of the British Raj era & he is used selectively by caste groups appealing their status, depending upon whether he supports their claim or otherwise. The Land & People book is, IIRC, published by Gyan and is also not reliable.

Our article already points out the claim and puts it into context. That is in accordance with our neutrality policy and is as good as it is going to get. We can't ignore reliable sources but we must ignore unreliable ones. - Sitush (talk) 10:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Mr.Sitush! Listen point by point: 1.You can't blame K.S.Singh & his sources are unreliable.Because no source can be treated more reliable than Central Government of Indian Organizations like Anthropological Survey of India and also State Government Sources.Because they can't employ Historians with poor knowledge in preparing articles.Historians with poor knowledge may be present wikipedia to edit and delete articles with their personal reasons.Great Historians are used by Governement of India and State to develop caste articles based on survey.You(Sitush) being an Indian treating Government of India's Department like AnSI as unreliable is an insult to our country and unconstitutional.Government sources are the most reliable for castes articles as Government provides different types of benefits to different castes for their development.Treating Government Sources as unreliable is mere foolishness and it is left to your ethics. 2.Second thing is thousands of changes can't happen in castes list or castes.As it is stupidity in thinking that new castes will be emerged in recent period after 1947 and particularly last 10 years.Castes and their varnas and also their occupations are prepared according to their ancestral history and profession from medieval period,they are organized into different classes i.e OC,BC,SC,ST etc according to AnSI in different states of India. 3.Then,finally K.S.Singh's reputation is questioned by you.How foolish it is ?.After all you don't have the eligibility or status to comment on a Great Historian and an IAS like him and he also acted as Director General for Anthropological Survey of India.It is nothing but a type of character assasination.K.S.Singh had written many books like castes,languages and about cultures of different states and people of different states and many more.All are accepted by AnSi and also verified by Oxford University Press.AnSI don't accept false theories and this is also verified by Oxford University Press.Caste Groups can't try to do anything in favour of them.Because AnSI classifies real ritual varna of Hinduism i.e. Brahmin,Kshatriya & Vaishya Varnas.And Sanskritisation can't be done in AnSI because only castes which are of their own real varna are accepted there.I am saying this because you are always using the term "Sanskritisation",it really means that a caste of shudra varna tries to improve their status to the above three varnas.But it is not at all accepted by AnSI.K.S.Singh provided 8 castes of Kshatriya Varna which are real varna.You also commented on ALL INDIA KSHATRIYA FEDERATION that is a advocacy group.AIKF membership is given to groups not individuals.Also Castes which Government accepted as Kshatriya Varna are present in the Group i.e. Rajputs & Rajus etc.Also the 8 Communities explained by K.S.Singh are real Kshatriyas who have ruling ancestry and dvijas and also they contain gotras named after Saptarishis and also other great sages.The problem is there with you and you don't want people to get aware of the History of lineages,gotras etc of Rajus caste because you don't like them i.e. may be your personal reasons.So,you are wantonly doing this and using wikipedia as medium.I don't like to comment on you further beacause it is left to your ethics. 4.Finally,Remember people are not fools to accept everything what you say.Iam again repeating again,no person or caste's status can be increased or decreased because of false statements or theories if you think in such a way it is your foolishness. Therefore,notice that if Government of India's sources like AnSI is not acceptable as reliable,then the problem is yours not any one else,but if wikipedia don't accept Indian Government's sources then the problem is with wikipedia that no one can help. At last i'm tired enough to say as a conclusion,only one thing i can say,please maintain the reputation of wikipedia.It is good if you provide true knowledge in articles for readers,otherwise what remains is only disputes and bad reputation for fake articles.Please take care in editing different pages in wikipedia.Thanks for your contributions to wikipedia whether they are genuine or fake..but they are mostly fake

Government sources are often unreliable. The People of India has frequently suffered criticism from academics for being a political exercise. - Sitush (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Article needs to be developed

Alluri Sitarama Raju freedom fighter belongs to the Rajus(Kshatriya) is present in many google books.His surname is Alluri and he is of west Godavari District.One of the link shows: http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=znsUU_KNMoGNrQfg_IGgAw&id=OEowAQAAIAAJ&dq=alluri+sitarama+raju+was+kshatriya&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=kshatriya and also http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=VHwUU4YNwYauB9PWgagE&id=XqoeAAAAMAAJ&dq=alluri+sitarama+raju+was+kshatriya+raju&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=kshatriya -Shvrs (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The article already says this, as you know. However, bearing in mind the title that you have given to this section, we cannot assume people are members of a caste group just because they bear a particular name. Nor can we use GBooks snippet views as sources. - Sitush (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I have just provided only 2 references but almost all the google books are saying that he belongs to Kshatriya Raju family.How can you say that all references of google books are snippet views and can't be accepted.Then what type of reference is needed for you - Shvrs (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

One that we can read in context. It's dead simple: we don't use snippet views because we cannot read around more than a couple of sentences and thus we have no idea whether qualifications/developments of the statements are made. This has been discussed on umpteen occasions, including recently in a thread at WP:RSN. In the event that someone can see a better view, I'd appreciate a copy of the text because there is a ridiculous amount of POV-pushing and misrepresentation etc on caste articles - one of the reasons why WP:GS/Caste came about.

In any event, these items would be a list of notable Rajus, not a means to push the kshatriya agenda: it is not unheard of for some families to adopt a varna that is not adopted by others of the same community. In fact, that is how sanskritisation begins. - Sitush (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

K why have u removed Krishna Rao source when it is already used in other sentence. -Shvrs (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

B. V. Krishnarao is not reliable for statements of fact. I don't mind leaving in his statement that the Rajus believe themselves to be descended from X, Y and Z (because, I presume, he spoke with them) but Krishnarao was of the Hindu nationalist school of history that toyed with the Vijayanagara stuff in order to politicise the masses. See this for some background to the problems of with the historiography of Andhra Pradesh. There are similar issues with many sources of that pre-independence period concerning Orissa. As a general rule, we don't use sources from the Raj period or earlier because they simply are not reliable. - Sitush (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Then if you feel so in many of your articles you have provided such sources.And these statements were lasted for so long in this page.You can't delete them whenever you don't like. -Shvrs (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

why aren't you answering on talk page ? -Shvrs (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Problems and solutions emerge all the time on Misplaced Pages because there is no deadline. I've explained some issues regarding the history of this article etc on your talk page and I urge you to self-revert your latest reinstatements and continue discussion here. The alternative is to be blocked and/or to find the article protected, preventing further contributions. Neither outcome is desirable. - Sitush (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

why i have to revert,what you won't like,can't be deleted,this article needs to be developed,if you can help then allow it,oherwise remain silent,but you can't delete the sourced statements with reliable sources if you don't like them.Every editor has the equal right to develop the article -Shvrs (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Because you are not understanding our policies. There is all sorts of crap on Indian caste articles but that is not an excuse to perpetuate it here. Sources have to be reliable, not merely extant. By the way, here's a recent comment about pre-1945 sources from someone who has a lot of experience in the area. - Sitush (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Fine,then it depends on the case,but that doesn't say that that they will not be definitely accepted.If sources are reliable and clearly explains that they are to be accepted.You don't need to be worried about that. -Shvrs (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC) This article's version is very clear and also reliable.So,you can remain cool about the article. -Shvrs (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not cool about the article. It is pseudo-history and nonsense pushed by self-glorifying people who wouldn't know neutrality if it slapped them in the face. So please don't tell what I need or need not be worried about. You'll be reverted in due course, I'm sure. and if you reinstate again then you'll be blocked. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I know that how much so called neutrality you are following in each & every article in wikipedia.You even know about your edits that the reasons provided by you are genuine or not.You should also remember that you don't have the right to threaten any editor.This version is reliable and it is accepted even by you.you don't need to get over exited.Your personal opinion is immaterial.K then discuss it with other editors.Only your opinion about any article on wikipedia is not final,your personal likes or dislikes can't be satisfied by any one,there is no need of it even.Remember you are not monarch.If you feel it is not reliable take the issue to wikipedia sources noticeboard,but remember you don't have the right to delete anyone's article if you don't like them.The version is reliable. -Shvrs (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Now I'm getting really worried. The current version is not accepted by me and that you think otherwise makes me wonder whether you are proficient in reading English, let alone analysing sources. - Sitush (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I have found out an other reliable source explaining about Rajus.This is a reliable source accepted by wikipedia which is also provided in Kapu(caste) page to explain about their varna category.The book is "Fertility and Familial Power Relations: Procreation in South India" By Minna Säävälä.This book explains that "Raju" caste as "Higher Caste of Traditional warriors and rulers;Kshatriya". -Shvrs (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

This is about the author of the book : http://www.vaestoliitto.fi/in_english/population_research_institute/contact_information/minna_saavala/ -Shvrs (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that source is reliable. It doesn't alter all the crap that you've reinstated, though, and it doesn't alter what the article already says. Therefore, it isn't needed. - Sitush (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I have already said that only the reference is to be checked whether it is reliable or not.But, i don't need the permission of you to develop the article because of your like or dislike.What an Indian Author Sathyanarayana,said about the caste is mentioned,then why can't a much better and great Anthropologist like Minna Säävälä be mentioned in this page. -Shvrs (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell Sitush never removed Säävälä from the article. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• Thank you Mr.Drmies for your contributions about Kakatiya Dynasty to this article and i wish a senior editor like you to involve in the further development of this article -Shvrs (talk) 04:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The quote you gave is from the glossary (p.xvi); it does not explain about "Raju". At page 15 the author speaks about "Raju (warrior caste)". "Caste" as in "varna", or as in "jati"? An author mixing up such basic notions raises my doubts about his reliablility on this topic. It looks more like he simply took over existing local interpretations, without contextualising or explaining them. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Mr.Joshua Jonathan, the anthropologer Minna Säävälä has clarity about it, she described Rajus caste as traditional rulers and warriors and are Kshatriya that means they are of Kshatriya Varna and you can see that in her book, she also describes Rajus caste as "Raju Kulam(Kshatriyas)" in one sentence in that book.Here Kulam,jati,caste are synonyms.Kshatriya is their varna.In Ancient India,there are only four varnas or castes.But in present India,there are thousands of castes because many castes originated in shudra varna as they have classified due to their profession.In present India,there are castes of Brahmins,Kshatriyas,Vaishyas,Upper Shudras,Shudras,Dalits & Tribals/Adivasis.You can find these in many books.In present India,there are different Brahmin,Kshatriya & Vaishya castes that means those are the castes which comes under those three varnas.And the castes of those varnas will classified according to their respective varnas and they are called as Brahmins,Kshatriyas & Vaishyas.For example,Rajput & Rajus are Kshatriya Castes that means those are different castes but comes under Kshatriya Varna,that means they are called as Kshatriya Castes i.e. Kshatriyas.Also you can notice that gotras of Brahmins,Kshatriyas & Vaishyas are different from shudras.Also those three varnas are dvijas i.e. possess sacred thread and they also possess gotras named after rishis whether they are saptarishis(7 great sages) or other rishis(sages).Many Indian & Foreign Anthropologers made analysis about all these.Minna Säävälä-She is one of the great anthropologers who had written many books and analysed the castes of India. -Shvrs (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Mr.Joshua Jonathan,I request you to please revise your edit because you have taken into consideration and given importance to the Indian author who wrote book in the favour of Dalit & bahujans.He stated that Rajus & Komatis claimed Kshatriya & Vaishya status.Even he did not provide any explanation or detailed reference and he simply said the statement that they claimed Kshatriya status because of author's idea to create them as they are not real Kshatriyas.You please analyse that Satyanarayana's Book.Thank You -Shvrs (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

According to AnSI, the Kshatriya Raju population is also distributed in Maharashtra State i.e. in Aurangabad,Beed,Jalna,Latur,Nanded,Osmanabad & Parbhani.This can be seen in the following link in Page No:583: http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=QsMfU6D0CIr9rAep54DgBw&id=bfAMAQAAMAAJ&dq=communities%2Csegments&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Aurangabad. So,Maharashtra State is added.Thank You -Shvrs (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

valid proofs

What is more valid than the Government of Andhra Pradesh and Government of India which recognise rajus as Kshatriyas. Dear sitush,I am editing again with valid proofs. Just study them and if you have any doubts let me know. I doubt satyanarayana's standards and beleave in sherringHarshavardhanvarma (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The kshatriya bit is the least of my concerns right now. I've given you some links regarding problems with this stuff on your talk page. You'd be well-advised to spend a little of your two-day block period reading those links. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

reliable source

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

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

Recent edits by Sitush #2

Please don't change the article according to your likes.Your personal opinions or likes are immaterial & the article is according to the sources provided. I know that you are editing the article wantonly,why had you removed the word "Kshatriya" from "Raju(Kshatriya)" which is written about satya sai baba which is clearly stated in reference and many more edits you have done and provided fake reasons.The version created by Joshua Jonathan is the best version.Don't spoil it repeatedly,if any one adds new material analyse it and if it is not reliable then discuss it with senior editors(but not you alone) and remove it, but don't spoil the previous version.Definitely,your each & every edit for this article will be challenged by me if they are not justifiable.Because i personally feel that you can't develop this article,but the better don't spoil it.There are many senior editors that i believe can develop this article like Drmies,Joshua Jonathan etc., but i don't accept any of your edits which are mostly unjustifiable.You are not giving a chance for any other editor.You are simple making them get blocked and delete the sourced materials and by providing fake reasons.I am warning you for the last time and it would be fair if you don't repeat such type of acts.Thank You. -Shvrs (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

If you can source it then that's fine; it you cannot then it goes. And trying to pepper the word "kshatriya" all over the article is typical of a POV-pushing single-purpose account. We don't need people like that editing this or any other article. If that is your purpose on Misplaced Pages then I suggest you find some other hobby. - Sitush (talk) 07:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Before asking me i have provided clearly sources of anthropological survey sources for infobox and then you are repeatedly removing pusapati kings which is an offence as i have clearly stated many times.

K then first answer my question, you please see your Kamma (caste) page,there you have provided no source of info box(the source there is not valid) and also you have stated non-sense in Medeival History without sourced statements.If you really have moral values and you are a genuine editor you should definitely remove all the history of that page.As you were very particular about references in other caste pages and very interested in deleting sources of others.Then you first clean up that Kamma (caste) page completely.I know your poisonous mind won't accept the truth.

But,remember this issue will be prolonged and i will take the dispute to the WP:RSN and also WT:ANB.

Also remember,Misplaced Pages's caste articles can be taken to court and legal action can be taken against you.Thanks -Shvrs (talk) 09:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, no article is mine. Secondly, other stuff exists and there is no deadline. Thirdly, you can't take something to WP:RSN if it is unsourced - RSN is for evaluation of sources and so, by definition, cannot assist you. Fourth, I think you mean WP:ANI, not WT:ANB, but if you go there then I can tell you now that your rationale here means that you'll not get much satisfaction there. (People regularly take me there, they're almost always clue-less and it has gotten to the point where someone has actually set up WP:AN/S, a humourous page created because of the number of bad reports filed about me at ANI.) Finally, please read WP:NLT - say that again and you'll be blocked for chilling this discussion. It is your right to pursue legal action but you cannot contribute to Misplaced Pages while you do so.

Frankly, when someone mentions legal action in relation to caste-related articles here, it almost always means they've reached the end of the road and have no desire to follow the Misplaced Pages "way". And, obviously, we don't need contributors like that because they are inherently disruptive. So, by all means go sue Misplaced Pages or myself but it is unlikely that you'll be accepted as a good-faith contributor at this article again and you'll not win your legal action because, even if the courts accept your ludicrous claim, I am not in the jurisdiction of the courts of India. Actually, your best bet might be to hope that the BJP win the forthcoming elections and decide to block Misplaced Pages access in India entirely on the grounds that it hosts "illegal" maps of India. - Sitush (talk) 10:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Suman N. Bhat - Saints of the Masses

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

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

Ethnonyms

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

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

Sitush Wantedly Removing Rajus History Added

Sitush Wantedly Removing Rajus History Added with all documents published and proofs,

He is editing raju wiki page from last 4 r 5 years, wantedly removing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.250.118.227 (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes,he has been doing it from 2011 because of his personal reasons i.e. hatred on Kshatriya Castes like Rajputs,Rajus etc. -Shvrs (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

For Sitush

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

I suggest you read WP:NPA and WP:OWN. Dougweller (talk) 08:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• B-Class India articles
• Mid-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Mid-importance
• B-Class Andhra Pradesh articles
• Low-importance Andhra Pradesh articles
• B-Class Andhra Pradesh articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject Andhra Pradesh articles
• B-Class Karnataka articles
• Low-importance Karnataka articles
• B-Class Karnataka articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject Karnataka articles
• B-Class Tamil Nadu articles
• Low-importance Tamil Nadu articles
• B-Class Tamil Nadu articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject Tamil Nadu articles
• WikiProject India articles