Talk:List of notable Kammas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Intercaste Marriages

What is the percentage of inter-caste and inter-religious marriages in the Kamma community? If it is less than 10%, aren't they anti-social?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maaparty (talk • contribs) 13:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Who is anti-social?

Is inter-caste marriage an indicator of positive social outlook? Absolutely not. Respecting another human being as an equal is the benchmark for social equality. Can we consider Americans anti-social just because they do not marry African-Americans? Social divisions are ubiquitous in every society including the most advanced countries.

First, "anti-social" is the wrong term.
Secondly, distinguishing between Americans and African-Americans doesn't make sense. Also, choosing the U.S as your example is unfair; it's hardly the most socially/racially/culturally integrated country in the developed world (rather the reverse).
Thirdly, there's a clear difference between individuals who do not intermarry with another group as a matter of personal choice (however racist or otherwise prejudiced that choice is) and a social group that refuses to do so.
Fourthly, you ask: "Is inter-caste marriage an indicator of positive social outlook?" Er, yes. Why on Earth do you think that it isn't? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Going by your definition, marrying within one's social/ethnic group is a matter of choice, which has nothing to do with social or anti-social attitude. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.141.12.195 (talk) 06:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

To whom are you replying? To which definition are you referring? If to me and to mine, then your reply simply doesn't follow from what I said. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It does. Your definition number three. Individuals from any social group (caste or religion) do marry out of their choice. This applies to Indian castes too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.141.12.195 (talk) 12:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

I didn't give a definition, I made a distinction. You need to read what I said more carefully; I didn't say that all decisions to marry are made by individuals. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List

Should this be a list? It looks like it could be one.--Rayc 06:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikification and clean-up

As it seemed that no-one else was going to do it, I overhauled the article:

  1. I formally made it a list, and renamed it appropriately.
  2. I copy-edited and wikified the summary.
  3. I removed every entry for which there was no Wikipedia article, in line with other lists of people. If someone is notable enough for inclusion on a Wikipedia list of notable people, then they should be notable enough for a Wikipedia article.
  4. I removed a long list of unformatted "references".
  5. I re-organised and renamed the sections.
  6. I categorised the article.

It now looks like a Wikipedia article at last. I've no doubt that there could be more entries, but the notability criteria should be applied. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr Etitis,
Because of the criterion you applied scores of famous names, including those internationally well-known, and about whom no one has placed any material in Wikipedia got deleted. Please revert to the original and appeal to the users not to include superfluous names. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.141.12.195 (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC).
It's impossible to tell which of the huge list of names is that of a famous person without considerable research. If someone is genuinely famous, then create an article first, and add the name to the list. The list as it stood was absurd; various anonymous editors seemed to be intent on adding every businessman, bit-part actor and actress, politician, etc.
In deleting names I was as careful as I could be without devoting my life to it; I tried different spellings, corrected the (many) mistakes of punctuation, spacing, and capitalisation, and sometimes searched Wikipedia articles. rather than replacing the mess, it's much more efficient, as well as better for Wikipedia, if we start with a goo-quality incomplete article, and slowly add to it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It sems to be taking a long time to sink in, but the anon. editor(s) who keep either re-arranging entries without explanation or adding non-notable (or, at least, unexplained and unsourced) entries will simply be reverted. In other words, there's no point. If you think that someone ought to be added, then explain why, and link to the relevant Wikipedia article. If there's no Wikipedia article, then start one, explaining why the person is notable (otherwise the article, too, will be deleted). If you think that the alphabetical ordering is wrong, could you explain that here? As it stands, you seem simply to be placing people in order of personal names rather than family name. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Where's NTR ?

Isn't he a Kamma ? Balakrishna and Chandra Babu Naidu are in the article. Where's NTR ?--Milki 22:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_notable_Kammas_3d7a.html"