Talk:Pemmasani Ramalinga Nayudu

Identities
, you say we don't say Gandhi was a "Hindu bania politician". But the page does say in the lead, "Born and raised in a Hindu merchant caste family in coastal Gujarat". See also More examples can be found I am sure. I don't see us having hard-and-fast rules about mentioning identities. It all depends on the role they play in the notability of the person. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Jai Singh II, "Hindu Rajput ruler of the kingdom of Amber" (a rather in-your-face mention of identity),
 * Adikavi Pampa, "a a Kannada Jain poet" of whom it is said, "his grandfather was Abhimanachandra who belonged to the Brahmin caste and hailed from Vangiparru in Kammanadu, Guntur district"
 * Ala-ud-Din Bahman Shah, "Zafar Khan was a Turkic noble in the employ of Muhammad bin Tughluq" or
 * Nizam-ul-Mulk, Asaf Jah I, "a nobleman of Indian and Turkic descent".


 * Gandhi's article doesn't introduce him as a bania leader in the very first sentence (or even the first paragraph): Vivek987270 added the caste identity to the very first sentence of the article. As mentioned in my edit, we don't mention this "unless sources indicate that it was an important part of person's identity". For example, B. R. Ambedkar being introduced a Dalit leader makes sense, Gandhi being introduced as a bania leader doesn't. utcursch &#124; talk 22:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the caste identity is indeed important to the notability of this man. The Vijayanagara empire is where the modern Telugu caste system got solidified. The armies of the empire seem to have been organised along caste lines, at least as far as the Telugu castes were concerned. A quote from Wagoner:
 * and another:
 * While in the first quote he is mentioned separately from the Kamma nayaks (a "Son of the Eating Dish"), the second quote makes clear that he was their general.
 * The M. Rama Rao source says right off the bat, Pemmasani Ramalinganayaka, a Kamma chief, offered to attack the enemy with a small force. (This was a different battle, no "pleasures of heaven" here.)
 * So, I think it is clear that the Kamma identity is crucial here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Also posting here the entry in the index, which records that the Kamma was identified as kulam in the original:
 * "Reddi" wasn't referred to as a kulam. (It was obviously an honorific at that time.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Also posting here the entry in the index, which records that the Kamma was identified as kulam in the original:
 * "Reddi" wasn't referred to as a kulam. (It was obviously an honorific at that time.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Reddi" wasn't referred to as a kulam. (It was obviously an honorific at that time.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Undiscussed page move
, you have moved the page to "Nayaka" again. Did you check the citation given for the name? Or the quotations from Rayavacamu given above? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Primary sources?
, I believe you are quoting primary sources attributing them to historians. For example, an you please provide the url or quotation for this source?

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * These are not primary sources, but the work of Sakkotai Aiyangar.

https://archive.org/details/cu31924024120150/page/n151?q=Pemmasani+Ramalinga Please check above link. It takes you to the full book where these quotes are clearly attributed to Sakkotai and not primary sources, such as inscriptions. &#32;By LovSLif (talk) 09:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The first quote is attributed to the Rayavackyamu, so I will edit that in. But, the second quote of the Battle of Raichur was an addendum added bby Sakkotai. The second quote is his own.&#32;By LovSLif (talk) 10:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The word "Sources" in the book title means historical texts. The entire volume contains extracts from historical sources, which are all WP:PRIMARY. So, you should not use this volume at all.
 * Further, you should also not use any local historians who treat these sources as if they are authentic, because Wagoner has clarified that these are all fictitious, having been written almost a century after the actual date of the purported events.
 * There is no evidence that Ramalinga Nayudu existed in the time of Krishnadevaraya at all. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We had similar issue with Pallavas where some local (Indian) historians that I cited were not included. Anyways, I have wrote what the texts says. Sakkotai is a well renowned scholar on Vijayanagara topics. His work has influence. The second quote is clearly derived from Sakkotai's interpretations and have attributed as such.&#32;By LovSLif (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, we did not have any "issues" at Pallavas article. But you know the drill now. Please include full citations, urls for sources, and quotations where the sources are not available on line. Author, title of the work and date are always required. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would rather not relitigate that Pallava discussion in this page. I will find full textual citations and quotes to reinstate the work. By the way, Burton Stein uses the Rayavachakamu several times in The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara. Much of what we know about Vijayanagara comes from such sources or Kavyas, including Allasani Peddanna's work. Moreover, this is what Em Kulasekhararavu, stated in regards to the Rayavachakamu: "Rayavachakamu' is written in the spoken language of the day. Perhaps, the writer did not bother about the literary importance of the book, since he merely wanted to record important historical events of his times." It is highly regarded. In fact, Siba Pada Sen writes "It is interesting to note that the Rayavachakamu resembles Nuniz's account in several details." The accounts of Nuniz were heavily used by Robert Sewell. &#32;By LovSLif (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Wagoner got it wrong
, you added this sentence to the lead paragraph:

I am afraid this is wrong based on the much more thorough research into Gandikota carried out by Sriramamurty, whose full account can be found in his PhD thesis: (The "Pemmasani Family" chapter seems to be a reproduction of that you have been using from the Andhra Historical Society.)

Three kinds of involvement of the family members with Gandikota are found in this narrative:
 * Commandants of the Gandikota fort (which might have been an important position because Gandikota seems to have been a strategic fort bordering on the Kondavidu kingdom and later Gajapati domains).
 * Governors of Gandikota sima (district). This was given to the Pemmasanis only during the rule of Venkatapatiraya. See Talk:Pemmasani Nayaks
 * Other members of the family who served either in the capital or in other provinces, but probably regarded as being representative of Gandikota.

The Ramalinga Nayudu of this page is Ramalinganayudu II on page 267 of the thesis chapter. Sriramamurty did not find any evidence of Ramalinganayudu ruling in Gandikota (as either commandant or governor). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I have removed that quote from Wagoner and a statement sourced from another text, this one written by an Ashtadiggaja. Thanks &#32;By LovSLif (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, Krishnarayavijayam is the same content as Rayavacakamu in verse form. See . Its author is likely from the 17th century, and certainly not one of the Ashtadiggajas. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Bugga Ramalingeswara temple
I am not confident that this Ramalinga Nayudu was the builder of the Ramalingeswara Temple. It must have been his grandfather, who was based in Tadipatri and built a fort there (according to Sriramamurty). The grandson seems to have spent most of his time in the capital, being in the inner circle of Krishnadevaraya and participating in his many campaigns. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3. Thanks for highlighting this. I will strike that from the main-article. It seems that the confusions stems from the lack of historians differentiating between the various Ramalingas with either a I or II. &#32;By LovSLif (talk) 02:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)