Talk:Vishwakarma (caste)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Why ancient texts and purana / vedas not reliable sources ?

Original history of vishwakarma caste is available in purana / vedas in Hinduism there are many articles in wiki used ancient texts to improve the article why it is not acceptable for vishwakarma community ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.196.113.9 (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Just because another article fails to abide by our policies does not mean that this one should do so. The relevant policy for the issue in question is WP:RS. If you still think that these ancient, much-disputed, vague texts are reliable then you'll have to take it to the reliable sources noticeboard in order to gain community consensus for use of them. However, you'd be wasting your time because the consensus has long been that they are not reliable. Consensus can change but I've never known it do so when it comes to really old primary sources where even the authorship is uncertain. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, things such as the Puranas are basically retellings of mythology, while what we expect in sources is modern, peer-reviewed analyses.

However, if you can find such a modern source that is both reliable and says that the Vishakarmas believe that the Puranas etc say X or Y then we could incorporate that. In such circumstances, the phrasing would make it clear that it is a belief and not a fact. - Sitush (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

In My opinion all most all the content is belief and not a fact.because facts varies from region to region time to time. For instance history is history and whats granty that person who wrote is truther in his expression, its believe only.e.g:-British ruled India and they are very bad from one person perspective and not from other perspective because we can not go to that time to know the actual fact we have to believe only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.73.165.42 (talk) 05:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia and on Wikipedia we work within the policies established by consensus of the community. You don't have to agree with them but your choices are basically to (a) follow them, (b) attempt to change the consensus or (c) don't contribute. There is no such thing as a perfect system and no-one claims that Wikipedia is somehow different. - Sitush (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

http://www.indologica.com/volumes/vol15-16/vol15-16_art06_BROUWER.pdf is reliable source can you consider it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.73.165.42 (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I've no idea who Brouwer is but, yes, that looks like it might be a decent source. I'll do a bit of digging around. Please note that Brouwer seems to be saying that the claim of origin is just that, a claim based on myth. - Sitush (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hope you done digging also Please do check http://ebooks.tirumala.org/Product/?ID=735 and http://ebooks.tirumala.org/Product/Book/?ID=735 its published and maintained by tirumala trust and hope its reliable

In country like India all claims are Myth only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.73.165.42 (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Notables

Notables is completely WP:OR. Adi Shankaracharya is Vishwabrahmin if the reference really says it is WP:FRINGE, numerous refs call him a Nambudiri. For Vishwakarma, Maya and Nala, there is no explicit identifications in scriptures. I could not find any Varkari saints like Visoba Khechara, Changdev or Narahari Sonar mentioned as Vishwakarmas anywhere. I suspect others to be also the same. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC) Removed text:

• Vishwakarma - engineer of Devas.
• Mamuni Mayan - engineer of Asuras, father of Mandodari.
• Nala of Ramayana - Descendant of Vishwakarma who built the Rama Sethu.
• Bhogar - a Siddha who made the Muruga idol in Pazhani.
• Saint Visobha Khecher -(Guru of great Marathi saint Namadev).
• Saint Jalogi & Malogi Maharaj-(Two brother saint from Maharashtra).
• Saint Changdev-(Great saint from Maharashtra who believed to live for 1400 years).
• Saint Narahari Sonar-(Famous saint from Maharashtra, India).
• Saint Sri Potuluri Veera Brahmendra Swami-(AP, India. He is considered as Indian Nostradamous).
• Saint Sanari Viswaswara Swamy-(Ap.India.It is believed that from the past 100 years he is still in tapasya in Nallamala Hills, India).
• Saint Achalananda Yogi.
• Saint Bendapudi Swamula Varu( From Andhra Pradesh).
• Saint Eeswaramma Varu-( She is grand daughter of Veera Brahmam garu).
• Saint Tadakanapalle Ramayogi-( He is From Andhra pradesh).
• Saint Bodabonda Timmagurudu Govinda Swamy - ( He is from Andhra pradesh).
• Saint Shivarama Brahmendrula varu- (Great saint from AP).
• Saint Ramamadugu Brahmendra swamula Varu.
• Saint Mahayogi Yaganteeswara Swamy.
• Saint Cherukuri.Shivarama Brahmendra Swamula Varu.
• Saint Veeranarayanamma.
• Saint Rajupalem Sree Sree Balayogini Amma Varu.
• Saint Kommuri Balabrahma Ananda Dasu.
• Annamacharya - saint-poet who was an ardent devotee of Venkateswara, and wrote many songs about him.
• Adi Shankaracharya - As per Shankar Vijaya, Shankara sang I am a decendent of Twashter, ... I am a Brahmin of the Vishwakarma Caste.Journal of the Andhra Historical Society, Volumes 14-17\. Andhra Historical Research Society., 1953. p. 161. {{cite book}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
• BrahmaSri Kandukuri Rudra Kavi - He is one of the Ashtadiggajas of Sree Krishnadevaraya dynasty. He has authored one of te great books of Telugu language NIRANKUSHOPAKHYANAM.
• Brahmasri Repaka Ekamabaracharyulu .
• Sunkoji Devendrachary - Legendary writer Currently in USA.
• Harshavardhana - (The fourth pillar of Buddhism - Harsha belonged to the Vaishya caste. In Bengal, Vishwakarmas are classified as Vaishya and have the surname Kar.)
• Bimal Kar - A well known Bengali writer and novelist and winner of the Sahitya Akademi Award in 1975.
• Amarashilpi Jakanachari - A legendary sculptor credited with building many fine temples for the Kalyani Chalukyas and Hoysalas, including the famous sculptures at Belur and Halebidu.
• Bisu Maharana - (Vishwakarma Brahmins have Maharana as their last name in Orissa State. Bisu Maharana Is the prathana Shilpacharya of the world heritage temple KONARK).
• Ramappa Acharya - (Any one from telangana area of Andhra pradesh would have heard Ramappa. The Siva temple sculpted in 12th century is called as Ramappa temple).
• Shree Narayan Sonaodekar - (Famous artist who has created the statue of Swami Vivekananda at Kanya Kumari).
• Padmabhushan Dr. V. Ganapati Sthapati - (A great sage who had translated The Pranava Veda and has built the Thiruvalluvar Statue of kanyakumari).
• Gorasa Veera Brahma charylu - ( He is a living legend in AP author of MAYA VAASTHU book).
• Arasivilli Kameshwara charyulu - ( He is a well renowned vaasthu sidd

I've added Adi Shankara's caste after explaining it here [1], [2],[3]. I have added Nala being a Vishwakarma as it is referenced in Ramayana. [4]. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I have added ADI Shankara's reference back. I have also quoted reference for Nala being a Vishwakarma as well from Ramayana. Many other notables quoted above are from Visvakarma community itself, someone should try finding appropriate references for those as well. I too will try. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Being a son of Vishwakarma does not mean Nala belongs to a caste named Vishwakarma. This is OR. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

People of Visvakarma caste historically quote Lord Vishwakarma as their ancestor... so when Nala is Lord Vishwakarma's progeny what else should his caste be? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Do deities and vanaras have castes? Is Lord Vishwakarma or Nala called a Vishwabrahmin in the scriptures? This is WP:OR as I said. To elaborate, OR based on a WP:PRIMARY ref. Please find a WP:SECONDARY ref to back it. Someone claiming to be descendants of Vishwakarma does not make them Vishwabrahmins. Many architects/sculptors say they regard Vishwakarma - the divine architect - their ancestor, that does not make them Vishwabrahmins. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

How did you decide this? Visvakarmas, and Visvabrahmans are the same [5]. Kindly check these references wrt Nala [6], [7] Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 02:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Redtigerxyz wrote "Someone claiming to be descendants of Vishwakarma does not make them Vishwabrahmins"? How else are castes/races and descendants of every other community in India and elsewhere in the world otherwise decided? Is everyone quoting the same historically? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 04:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

God vishwakarma made everything with his 5 sons they are known as vishwabrahmin / vishwakarmas / panjal etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.66.51.240 (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

still none of any other castes are not allowed to make statues , ornaments and all other temple works what about history ? so decedent of vishwakarma god those who build every art works related to temples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.67.133.238 (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

"still none of any other castes are not allowed to make statues , ornaments and all other temple works what about history" 106.67.133.238 who ever you are were your hands and legs tied up? Who stopped you from devising your own methods? or from correcting yourself? Did someone stop you? Does America and England teach you how to make an "atom bomb"? or will they allow you start research or thinking on that direction??? They teach you only things that don't threat their own existence. When India tried to test atom bomb did they put sanctions? "still none of any other castes are not allowed to make statues" kindly provide references to these and stop making baseless allegations to divide and rule India. AFAIK there are many other castes who know to make statues and ornaments. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Vishwakarma caste is making statue, ornaments for the temples its ceremony ( other caste members can make all this items but vishwakarma caste only making this things because its traditional ceremony ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.14.44.76 (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

There are some rituals to be performed with the statue and ornaments those only the Visvakarmas know. Other wise no one has restricted people from making statues and ornaments. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Brahmin vs Claim being Brahmin?

Sitush You have replaced the opinion of Dr. Rangasami Laksminarayana Kashyap [8] who in 2003 has received ‘Vedanga Vidvan’ award instituted by Maharshi Sandipani Vedavidya Pratishthan (Ujjain), an autonomous body of HRD, Govt. of India, and also he is director of "Sri Aurobindo Kapali Sastry Institute of Vedic Culture" and favored a general report i.e. collection of a common opinion by George Varghese K? In such matters are expert opinions are to be considered or common opinions to be considered? You have also ignored the view of Alfred Edward Roberts (Proctor of the Supreme Court of the Island of Ceylon, Member of the Ceylon Branch of the Royal Asatic Society.) and have favored the common opinion introduced by George Varghese K? Alfred Edward Roberts has done a ever more comprehensive research and have explained the reasons why Visvakarmas are Brahmins? Why did you choose to let go of two expert opinions? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 08:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Despite appearances, Kashyap is not an expert in my opinion (he is a scientist/mathematician by training and a translator of Vedic texts/involved in a minor institute on the side). Roberts certainly is not reliable. You are well aware that the Brahmin status is accepted more or less only by the community itself and indeed you seem to refer to it above as the "common opinion". You are also well aware that I have explained the problem with Kashyap and that I have indicated a need to rephrase the content so as to show all sides of the Brahmin claim. Furthermore, on-wiki discussion - eg: here - and an email that you have sent me make it obvious that you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. This is not the place to right great wrongs and we are obliged to present things neutrally.

I've done some reading of the sources currently in the article and can easily supply many others which confirm the Brahmin claim to be a minority position. I intend to present the full story when I've had a think about presentation, weight etc. Until then, what we certainly do not do is show a completely one-sided view. - Sitush (talk) 10:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"Roberts certainly is not reliable." on what basis did you quote that? Kindly present your findings. It looks like you have cross checked all of them already. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 10:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I have a lot of experience of evaluating sources in this particular topic area, yes. Please list a few modern academics, published by quality presses, who cite the Raj amateur Alfred Edward Roberts. - Sitush (talk) 10:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

How many refutations of Alfred Edward Roberts are found in the last 104 years? Why are there no critical reviews around? This is a very famous book?? Even you know the author's full name?? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Ganesh, I do not have to prove a negative. If no-one nowadays is citing Roberts then he is obviously not considered reliable. There are many tens of modern books available to me in preview mode on GBooks - you would expect a few to mention him if he is such an expert. I really do think that you would benefit from contributing to some other articles because it is becoming apparent that you have a conflict of interest here. - Sitush (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"If no-one nowadays is citing Roberts then he is obviously not considered reliable." Under which wiki guideline or international standard? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I tried to scan what you just narrated. It is referred by Nelson H. H. Graburn, University of California Press [9] and many more writers & publishers. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute, The Institute, 1912 [10], University of California, Berkeley. Center for South and Southeast Asia Studies, Publisher Center for South and Southeast Asia Studies, University of California [11]. So many are around. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk)

Ganesh, that something appears in a bibliography, as per your links, means nothing. For all you know, they could have criticised the cited work in their text. The guideline for "If no-one nowadays is citing Roberts then he is obviously not considered reliable." is WP:CONSENSUS - it is how we have dealt with such issues for caste-related articles over a prolonged period. - Sitush (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Have you read its criticism? That is what I questioned you earlier. Has anyone refuted it? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I have already explained that I do not have to do so. The default position for old Raj sources is that they are unreliable unless proven otherwise. This is because they were mostly written by confused gentleman-scholars as a sideline to their main jobs. But, yes, plenty of more recent academic authors have queried the claim to Brahmin status, as apparently have the Brahmins themselves. - Sitush (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Only a person who is aware of Vedas and its principles can quote is someone a Brahmin or not? Is there any dispute about this? So, on what basis you write "You are well aware that the Brahmin status is accepted more or less only by the community itself". Only religious scholars who are aware of Vedas can accept those? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea. We write according to what reliable sources tell us. You are not going to get your way here, Ganesh, so you may as well learn to live with it. The article is going to show that the Vishwakarma believe that they should be considered brahmin and that they have failed to convince people that their belief is correct. Per WP:NPOV, period. - Sitush (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"We write according to what reliable sources tell us." Ok... You have already cited above "Please list a few modern academics, published by quality presses, who cite". The reasons as per your own statements. When Vedanga Vidwan Dr. R. L. Kashyap quotes "The Vishvakarma Brāhmins..." here [12] what is the problem in quoting it back at the article??

Kindly note all the Opinion on his books: -

• Jagadguru Dr. Shivaratri Deshikendra Mahaswamyji of Sri Sutturu Matta unveils all the 4 vedas in 24 Vols.
• Swami Gabhiranandaji, Ramakrishna Math, Kochi - This work on the Taittiriya Samhita will go a long way in spreading the knowledge of the Vedas correctly.
• Indian Express - By conducting researches on Vedas, interpreting them in a language easily understandable by the common man and thereby helping them impart it in their lives, R. L. Kashyap and Sri Aurobindo Kapali Sastry Institute of Vedic Culture (SAKSI) are trying to demystify the Scriptures’ presumed abstractness.
• Times of India - Dr. R. L. Kashyap has set up an Institute which aims to demystify ancient Vedas, with a modern-day perspective.
• Rand Hicks, Director, IKSC, USA - We are grateful to Kashyap for revealing that roughly one-third of the Krishna Yajurveda Samhita is composed of mantras from the Rig Veda.... Professor Kashyap, with a fresh and straight-forward translations, opens us to the hidden significance of this ancient collection. His clear mind and scholastic skills are a national treasure.

kindly visit this link to read the rest of the opinions. [13]Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Look, you can keep posting this stuff as long as you like - we are still going to be showing both sides of this situation. Which bit of WP:NPOV are you unable to understand? And, by the way, almost none of the quotes you provide above attest to the acknowledged expertise of Kashyap. Indeed, some work against him.

You've had similar lengthy discussions in the past with MatthewVanitas regarding this article - you were wrong then and you are wrong now. Much more of this and I will be proposing that you are blocked from editing for a combination of tendentiousness and incompetence. You cannot keep ignoring alternate sources just because you do not like what they say. - Sitush (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding here. I have not ask you to remove the source, but only trying to understand why are you removing the sources I am adding instead of helping fix the same? I am taking all the pains to find them? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOR "Indeed, some work against him." looks like Original research to me. Even then, those quoted above have opinionated positively about the books written by him? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 02:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"Maharshi Sandipani Vedavidya Pratishthan (Ujjain)" works under "Ministry of Human Resource and Development, Gov of India" http://msrvvp.nic.in/default.htm The ‘Vedanga Vidvan’ award was instituted by them, So then there is no reason for you to say "Kashyap is not an expert in my opinion" Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 03:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand this at all. The organisation appears to have vague responsibilities for awarding grants related to Vedic study, for which it has vague oversight by the HRD ministry. The website is appalling, so I'm struggling here. Where is the award mentioned? Is it as corrupt as many other things in India? In any event, we're still going to show that the claim is disputed. - Sitush (talk) 08:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"The website is appalling" Kindly check http://www.nic.in/ that is the home page for all the subdomains. http://msrvvp.nic.in/ is a subdomain. Only Indian Government related sub-domains are being hosted under [14] nic.in. The website does not publish the list. What is the reason to suspect his award? Which country on this earth is not corrupt? Is your country perfect? Are you asking this question to all your awards in your country? Are you perfect? Let me clarify... I am not perfect. So, kindly do point out if I make a mistake. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

... and your answer to my query is? I'm well aware of NIC's role, thanks, and that they host content but do not design all of it. - Sitush (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"Where is the award mentioned?" "The Vedanga Vidvan award was given by the Government of India for his three volume translation of the Krishna Yajur Veda Taittiriya Samhita." [15] Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

He is awarded for the very source we are discussing. So, there should be no doubt now about the source. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

What does the award recognise? That is, for example, there are prizes for such things as "best first novel in English in 2013" and such as thing really wouldn't mean a lot in this context. Also, to save a bit of time, can you find me the precise quote from the source? It is fundamentally a translation of a primary source and it is incredibly confusing (something that we have discussed on a couple of occasions in the past: we are here to inform the world, not to provide some sort of official stamp for something that your Vishwakarma community already believe). - Sitush (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"Vedanga Vidvan" (i.e. An expert in limbs of the Veda) is precisely from the source itself? The source need not provide an English translation. Do you mean it is necessary for every primary source to provide translation towards every language that wikipedia hosts? ("we are here to inform the world", I am trying to inform the world, and not trying to seek an official stamp as well. An official stamp is already present in the Veda "brAhmaNo asya mukhamAseet bAhoo rAjanya: krta: ooru tadasya yad vaishya padbhyAm shoodro ajAyata") Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

No, sorry, I meant a quote from his translation not a translation of what the award title means. That is, please can you identify exactly what it is from Kashyap's writing that you wish to use. You have previously linked to a webpage containing it but the thing was a confusing mess and I could not spot what it was you were wanting to use. You may need to be aware that we do not usually use religious texts directly in articles - we prefer commentaries on those texts.

You've also completely misunderstood by "we are here to inform the world". We need to use words/phrasing that are comprehensible to an average reader of English or else explain concepts that are technical in nature. People within your caste would probably already know but the vast majority of our audience would not. - Sitush (talk) 09:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

"what it is from Kashyap's writing that you wish to use", in the article its written "These five rishis are mentioned in Krishan Yajurveda (4.3.3)." with regards to "Sanaga, Sanātana, Ahabūna, Pratna and Suparņa who are the rishi or gotrakara (founders of gotra, lineage) of the community's five divisions." in this article where [citation needed] tag is present. If we look up "72 topics in the Taittiriya Samhita" here [16] you will see parts of the book [17] that was used as a reference earlier. It quotes "(4.3.3) mentions five ŗşhīs Sanaga, Sanātana, Ahabūna, Pratna, Suparņa. The Vishvakarma Brāhmins who build temples and sculpt the forms of deities trace their lineage to these five ŗşhīs.".Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 10:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

:There are loads of better sources than that, and using them does not involve cross-referencing other sources (which might be considered a form of synthesis). I was going to use the Varghese source, whose language is far more accessible to the average reader. - Sitush (talk) 10:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

What is not understood to you when you read "(4.3.3) mentions five ŗşhīs Sanaga, Sanātana, Ahabūna, Pratna, Suparņa. The Vishvakarma Brāhmins who build temples and sculpt the forms of deities trace their lineage to these five ŗşhīs."? This is written in plain English? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I am quoting what ever I think should be mentioned. You quote what you want to. If things are wrong or unclear I request you to get it clarified instead of deleting it. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Sitush I have mentioned 100% of what Rangasami Laksminarayana's source says. Let me know if this is appropriate now. To me it looks perfect now. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Sitush Why did you revert it now? [18] Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It was far from perfect and I have reverted you per WP:BRD. It was not neutral because it showed only the pro-Brahmin claim and it was poorly phrased, demanding a knowledge that most readers would not have. It probably did look perfect to you but that is because you have a POV and because you are a member of the caste & therefore understand the arcane terminology etc. Give me some time and I'll present a much clearer version. - Sitush (talk) 12:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

"and because you are a member of the caste" I don't understand this, why will an outsider know about Visvakarmas' more? Why will a Non Physics graduate know more about Physics? Why will an Non-Indian know more about India? The person living in the country and its dynamics will know better about the country or an outsider will know? Same goes with caste? "because you have a POV" obviously I will know better my family members than an outsider? How can anyone consider an outsider's POV to know more about a caste? Specially when it is 100% clear when only the Visvakarmas have still retained the old past and rest have quit it? Why will anyone agree, all then have to reply why they don't belong to Visvakarma caste, don't they? When the RigVedic Rishi clearly says "Father who made us, he who, as Disposer, knoweth all races and all things existing," [19] why consider views of quitters others? Obviously stories will be made to cover things up. So you want to go by those and distort the truth? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, I'm getting fed up of this. I am not even Indian, from India or a Hindu but I am blessed with a reasonable degree of intelligence and a fairly decent education. What you are writing is gibberish to me and I think that may be in part because you cannot see the wood for the trees. And the reason why you cannot comprehend the denseness is because you are too closely attached to the subject matter. You have a massive conflict of interest and it is showing. I think it might be wise if you confine yourself to commenting here and not actually editing the article in future, per our guidance on conflicts of interest. It is not as if this is the first time that you've shown an inability to approach this article in an encyclopaedic manner and your intent here throughout seems solely to have been to attempt glorification of your community regarding the Brahmin claim; for example, I've not seen you expand on any other aspects of this article even though there are plenty of sources out there and you appear to be aware of at least some of them. You might want to read WP:GS/Caste because this attitude is becoming tendentious and could land you in trouble. - Sitush (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

And stop quoting primary sources that are ancient religious texts, please. They may be "truth" to you but they certainly are not truth to people who do not believe in that faith. - Sitush (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

" but they certainly are not truth to people who do not believe in that faith." Exactly!!!. Which is why I am asking you to consider views about the people from the community. How can you consider POV of others when they do not believe in that faith? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

"glorification of your community regarding the Brahmin claim" simple. That is the truth I have been narrated since childhood since I was born in this lineage? What do you expect me to do? Please see the world from my end as well. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR. The more you say here, the more obvious it is that you are unsuited to editing this article. - Sitush (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've had a go at turning the "Origin" section into decent English. I've deliberately not dealt with the Brahmin claim there - it is complex and will require expansion of the "Position in society" section. Have I got the "Origin" section wrong? - Sitush (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

You made me tell you all this over the talk page? I was avoiding it right? I emailed you to understand the dynamics first. You do what you think is correct. All of us have to answer someone in the end. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

"The British Raj misunderstood the Indian caste system as being an inflexible concept based on varna, ignoring all evidence of caste creation and disintegration caused by processes of social fission and fusion." I have went and researched around this. Most agree to it but most do not as well. As per many the caste system is fixed. The Brahmins who still remember to be are born from Purusha are told to be POURSHEYA Brahmins" and Brahmins whos ancestors have quit or forgotten due to unforeseen natural causes other Brahmins are AARSHEYA Brahmins. Here the AARSHEYA Brahmins perhaps have their own system, I have nothing to comment about those. What ever they do it should be as per the Vedas. None can violate the Vedas Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

What ever the fact is, nobody has the rights to come and pull other's legs it is the worst of the character displayed if at all. If a person is lost, one must show them way. This is my personal philosophy. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

You see, you are doing it again. Wikipedia does not care about your personal belief or faith etc. All it cares about it stuff that is verifiable by use of reliable sources. The Vedas are not reliable sources for our purposes, although you are welcome to give them the utmost credence off-wiki. As for your caste system point, it is precisely because the Brahmin elite still hold the dogma of rigidity that a reference is made in that very section of them advising the Brits. The Brahmins were a part cause (along with scientific racism etc) of the warped British interpretation of caste, an interpretation that is widely agreed to differ from reality. There were 1100 or so castes identified in 1901 and there are well over 4,000 now - where the heck did these come from if the system is rigid? - Sitush (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Slight differences in interpretations that comes over ages. One wants to follow one set of interpretations and another the other. Both are seeing the context from their ends. Both are correct and want to follow their own truth. There can be many reasons. Why are there so many school of thought with Bible followers? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Same reason, and that is why the Bible is also not reliable as a source. Find me an article here that says as a fact that the world was created in six days and on the seventh the creator rested. I'm pleased that you seem now to be recognising that there are other interpretations - that is precisely why we cannot do things as you were doing. - Sitush (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

1 day (day only) of Brahma = 1 Kalpa = 1000 Mahā-Yugas. 2 Kalpas constitute a day and night of Brahma, 8.64 billion human years. So 6 days of Brahma = ? (Who's days are they? Human's days or GOD's days) (GOD of Genesis i.e. GOD of RigVeda created the heaven and earth? Refer Genesis 1.1. and RigVeda 10:82:3)... (Kindly see Hindu units of time) Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 08:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

"I'm pleased that you seem now to be recognising that there are other interpretations" but that does not mean necessarily there are no perfect systems. I have replied to you the reason why there are so many school of thoughts. Not everyone are able to reach to perfection. But that does not mean no one reaches. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

"Find me an article here that says as a fact that the world was created in six days and on the seventh the creator rested" India practiced lot of encoding decoding systems, I find lot of articles which cite people in the past used to encode real truths. Veda is told to have many levels of meanings in it. How to know for sure what it exactly means? I have read some Bible, I personally believe there are many hidden contexts in them. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

"precisely because the Brahmin elite still hold the dogma of rigidity" not true. Vishwamitra rouse to become a Brahmin. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

There are two types of extreme people in this society. One who will not try to rise up in life and try to pull others down. Another type of people who will rise to the top and push others down. Both suffer from the similar sickness. And there is a third important type of sickness, that is people who want to control the world they will notice people with this two extreme sickness and start feeding them self destructive ideas. They will not bother correcting these sickness but will only see how to take advantage of them. I needed to mention this since certain comments seemed to be favoring this type of behavior. Dividing tasks is important faculty for any system as it makes work and life easier. Instead of trying to pull push are there no other alternatives like dividing the system on multiplying?? Also when increasing the size one must remember the size should not grow irresponsibly. The members must access the damage done to the environment and the surroundings. At no point of time a rightful aspirant should be let behind others. In any society there will be people who inherently like monotonous jobs, they hate switching jobs. On the other hand there are some who frequent jumpers. These people are habitually explorers. They love to keep checking newer activities. These people should be put on tasks those require exploring, researching etc. It is the duty of nation administrators, planners, HR managers to check nature of a person and provide tasks accordingly. Also, if Viswakarams want to retain their old knowledge let them retain it. Why should others bother about them? Everyone has their own freedom and belief systems? Instead of comparing kindly stick to your own systems. If you are not accepting the belief systems start others but don't pull other's legs. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 06:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

As interested as some people may be in discussing your theories of Life, The Universe and Everything, this talk page exists for the discussion of improvements to the article. Nothing more, nothnig less. - Sitush (talk) 09:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

User:RegentsPark Kindly take a look at this case filed at [20]. The final verdict by the judge. "The profession followed by the plaintiffs, who are the descendants of the five-faced Visva Brahma, are on the contrary, according to the Yajur Veda the support of the whole animal creation, even unto such insects as ants. It may therefore be safely believed that the plaintiffs, are the real Brahmins." this pictures are from the book I have with me. Alfred Edward Roberts (Proctor of the Supreme Court of the Island of Ceylon, Member of the Ceylon Branch of the Royal Asatic Society.). Visvakarma, and His Descendants. Ceylon Visvakarma Union, Colombo, Ceylon, 1909. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Also if you carefully check this case's background, even the Village Panchayat after a carefully analysis did declare the Kammalars the real original Brahmins. Which means even the people at large saw the Kammalars as the real Brahmins. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 02:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Position in society

(copied from Igan's talk page) I think beyond the discussion . The contents in that category complete ly discriminate s our community . Wen we try to show those contents to our children s it create some unpleasant images. Still our legal system try to wipeout the caste racial discrimination in our country but this article throwbacks a bad impression to the next generation. This is modern era everyone developing on their own way so we are in the position to support them to grow as a respectful people s . While they try to read this article it creates a violation and hatred.

Igan Shankar (talk) 04:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi user:Igan Shankar

I hear your concerns.... and first off- removing the material the way you are is not the way to change the article... it can get you blocked.

The purpose of the article is a bit like a history book- to not take sides- but to report facts. I will look at it and see if there is a more neutral way to word it. TantraYum (talk) 04:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

It is just the usual POV pushing by the community. It has been going on for years and has involved socks, meats etc. Fairly typical in caste articles where the community is desirous of presenting a glorious image - sanskritisation might be a useful read. - Sitush (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Recent revert

Hi Rajv442000 and ശ്രീകല ശിവശങ്കരൻ, I see that you have both made fairly substantial changes to this article recently. Were those changes actually a reflection of the sources or were they submissions of what you know to be "true"? While some of them were minor rephrasings, others seemed to deviate from the sources given, which have been discussed a lot in the past. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 05:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

42.106/107.x.x's edits

The anon editing from the Vodafone address has been repeatedly removing the sourced statement that like the Yadav caste, the "Vishwakarma" community was created by combining several distinct castes.

The reasons given by the anon for this removal are as follows:

• 42.107.133.93: "correction"
• 42.107.133.93: "source doesn't mention Yadavs"
• 42.106.194.160: "Vishwakarma has no relation with Yadavs"
• 42.106.226.208: "Source doesn't mention any relation with Yadavs, the new source which you added from jaxtor is locked and not available for users"
• 42.106.226.208: "give the link to the source"

These arguments are not sound for several reasons:

• The source also seems to support the previous sentence, and it's removal is unwarranted
• The source does mention the Yadavs and Vishwakarmas in same context
• The article (or the source) doesn't claim that the two are related: it states that the two are examples of a similar phenomenon, an assertion supported by the source
• Just because the anon cannot access the JSTOR link doesn't mean it should be removed

utcursch | talk 19:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

And now that the anon has been able to access the source, the argument for removal is that it's "false information from the author". Frankly, I'm getting tired of this -- the next time the IP-hopping anon tries to remove this without engaging in discussion here, I'll semi-protect the page. The ref or the text it supports wasn't added by me, so I'd argue WP:INVOLVED doesn't apply here. utcursch | talk 15:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Position in society

Try to change the words tht creates discrimination. If u tell that every caste needs a glorious image not other side means . Can u put other side of each and every community in this country. Ur trying to suppress a particular community . Igan Shankar (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Kammalar (caste)

The two are apparently synonymous and I think Vishwakarma' is the more common name in sources. Sitush (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. A Google Books search suggests they are different names for the same social group. utcursch | talk 15:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. Vishwakarma is a generic term used by diverse artisan communities throughout India of different ethnic origins which includes the Tamil Kammalars of Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka, Kannadiga Panchalas of Karnataka, Punjabi Panchalas of Punjab, Badhai of Madhya Pradesh etc who are connected only through mythological origin. It is the same as merging Yadava article with that of Konar who is one of many communities tracing their mythological origin to the Yadavas. Xenani (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

In the rare event, that I disagree with Sitush around this locus, Xenani is right.∯WBG^converse 06:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

So why does the Kammalar article say Kammalar is a generic term that in Sri Lanka comprises the communities of Kannar (brass-workers), Kollar (blacksmiths), Tattar (goldsmiths), Tatchar (carpenters) and Kartatchar (sculptors) but also say that they are known as Vishwakarma? I'm quite happy to have separate articles if they are distinct communities but Xenani seems to want separate articles when it suits their Sri Lankan Tamil POV and not have them when it doesn't. I've raised that particular issue in a new thread at WT:INB today. We do not maintain separate articles for synonymous subjects because it can involve massive duplication, which means massive unnecessary maintenance. It is all becoming very confusing because, since this trend of emphasising Sri Lankan Tamil castes has come to the fore, there appears to be little consistency in treatment. - Sitush (talk) 08:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

WHAT DOES ANGIRASA GOTRA HAVE TO DO WITH VISHWAKARMA? THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO LINK!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.107.11.113 (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The word "myth" in inappropriate. Lowers standard of wikipedia.

"According to a popular myth recorded in the Vishwakarma Puranam, the five children of the god Vishwakarma served the gods as artisans, and possessed the ability to create things by simply imagining them."

The meaning of myth "a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events."

Cave people may find usual things they didn't notice yet supernatural. There is nothing supernatural about visualizing a beautiful woman in the center of the place where you are. Just command "visualize a beautiful woman in the center of room." people will actually see her. A vishwakarma knows these.

Visualize a unicorn next to her. A honest will consider all practical aspects before consider something a lie or a myth. I sometimes feel like laughing considering the standards around. But, it is bad to do so. I can understand, humans come out of ignorance is stages. So, control myself. SoloWonder (talk) 09:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

But our article Myth says "Myth is a folklore genre consisting of narratives or stories that play a fundamental role in a society, such as foundational tales or origin myths. The main characters in myths are usually gods, demigods or supernatural humans.[ Stories of everyday human beings, although often of leaders of some type, are usually contained in legends, as opposed to myths." This looks like a classical Origin myth and the source mentions origin myths of the Vishwakarama twice. The source is Vijaya Ramaswamy from the Jawaharlal Nehru University, Centre for Historical Studies. Go argue with him. Doug Weller talk 09:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

But why is it allowed here? If people at Jawaharlal Nehru University by mistake write 2+2=5, does the standards at wikipedia allow contributors to write even that as well while informing about addition? Won't that create confusions among readers who try to understand what's addition? Does wikipedia consider authorative sources are not prone to errors? Are obvious errors to be considered encyclopedic? SoloWonder (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

"But our article" can people have definitions as and when they wish? Will that not create confusions for future generations while they try to read wikipedia? Is allowing such also among wikipedia standards? I just cannot control laughter, but I am some how controlling. SoloWonder (talk) 01:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It's just your opinion that what we consider to be a reliably published source is wrong. Christian academics write about Christian mythology for instance. We go by what the academic sources say, not what editors think they should say (note that you are considered an editor). Laugh all you want, that's the way we work. Doug Weller talk 05:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It is bad to laugh. So, though I feel like, I am bound to control. I notice sources are getting rejected as well. So, what criteria do you follow? If the academic source is pro your country/friend etc it is considered reliable? Or do you all follow a particular epistemic system? If you follow pro country it is bound to bring disgrace to your country? I guess you know the answer for that. Or when more for people around you stare at you, you consider the source reliable? I am asking that here since, I know when I was attacked by people around me when I stuck with truth. It is not easy to write truth at times when there are strong sentiments. But still it is necessary write truth since it will bring disgrace to my country India if I don't. SoloWonder (talk) 06:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Caste is Vishwa brahmin and God is vishwakarma

Kindly name the caste name as vishwa brahmin Vijender.sriramoju1 (talk) 07:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The name is mentioned. Please see WP:COMMONNAME. - Sitush (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2020

Most of the datas in your article is against the Vedapramaana?Who gave you the Permission to write against?What is source of your information to claim that Viswakarma or Viswabraahmana is not wearing sacred thread and below the AArusheya Braahman??How many references you want from the Vedasand Puraaanas??Dont promote and Propagate the rubbish,falseand fabricated statement.shame on you Drsajinthrijanandan (talk) 05:32, 22 August 2020 (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. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Recent changes

@Krishna 050493: Please note that Wikipedia does not publish original research. Your changes, that include your conclusions drawn from your study of the vedas, is the perfect example of original research. Please find reliable secondary sources, preferably academic ones, that support your conclusions. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Primefac,

Can you please let me know what do you mean by unsourced changes?

The references mentioned by me are the books published by renowned authors. One of the author has Wikipedia page too. Please find the Wikipedia page of Ananda Coomaraswamy here. Dr.Konduru Veera Raghavacharya is a renowned author in this domain.

My intention is just to better this page. Though I tried my best to include references that are available online, there is very minimal/no academic/secondary sources available online that can be considered as a potential reference as per Wikipedia guidelines. Hence I was forced to provide offline references from renowned authors in this domain.

Let me know if you would like to go through the content in these books, I can share you relevant pages from the books I mentioned under references. Also, please let me know if I have done some mistake in quoting the references and I shall rectify the same.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishna 050493 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

In my edit summary, I said possible OR, unsourced changes/text, etc.. There were some changes that were nearly the same as what was originally reverted, some bits that were unsourced, some that were both. At this point (as I suggested in the latter part of my summary) we should be discussing the proposed changes here on the talk page before changing the content significantly. Primefac (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Primefac,

Thanks for your message.

The current content is mostly based on sources corresponding to a single author. Whereas, the modifications I intend to make are based on multiple academic sources.

I wish to restructure the content with appropriate headers to keep the page much clear, relevant and understandable. I also believe it makes sense to add additional headers to include important events of the community.

However, during this process, I will have to edit few paragraphs to ensure story flow. Like suggested by you, I can share the revised article content over talk page and hopefully we can arrive at a conclusion before I can edit the page. Please let me know if it's sensible for me to do this. Thank you. Krishna 050493 (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, your proposed changes should be posted here for discussion. Primefac (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

History of Vishwakarma People

History of Vishwakarma People

Above 5000 Years , The Vishwakarma People are Well Known as Main Seed of All Arts, Architectural Intelligents and Creators of Hindu Religion and Temples in Entire India. They are coming from Sri Vishwakarma's Five Sons Inheritance. Their names are Manu(Black Smiths), Maya(Carpenters), Thuvasta(Tin Smiths), Deva Sirpi(Sculptors) and Vishwaknaya(Gold Smiths). From First Invader Greek Alexander to All Invaders, Foreign Visitors and Foreign Touristers have been Amazing and Wondering about their Creations Such as Temples, Sculptures, Weapons, Golden, Metal made and Wooden Things.

But Now-a-days, 90% of this Vishwakarma People Felt into Poverty, Illiteratcy and Regular Jobless. Because they forget to worship their Main Gods Sri Vishwakarma and Sri Gayathri Devi. These are Pointed out with very sorrow by Swamiji Maharaj SriSri Vishwakarmaputra Maharishi, Utterpradesh.

Some Vishwakarma People asked Doubtly the Question, Who are We? Saiva? or Vaishnava?. Truly Vishwakarma People are Not Both Saiva and Vaishnava. Basically Hindu Dharma or Religion Includes Many More Religions, Regoations into Itself. They are Saiva(God Siva's Own Religion), Vaishnava(God Vishnu's Own Religion), Ganapathya (God Ganesh's Own Religion), Sowmar (God Sun's Own Religion), Gowmar (God Karthikeya's Own Religion), Sakkiya (Goddess Parvathi's Own Religion) and Such as More Religions and several Rogations are now organized Under the Name Of Hindu Dharma or Hindu Religion. As Like As Vishwakarma is not only Meaning of Separate Race also Special Religion and This is No.1 Religion of Hindu Dharma. Basically we Forgot this or are Forgotten this. That Mistake is the Main Hole Of their All Troubles.

Vishwakarma People are indicated in Vedas as Speical Creation. They are not Created by Sri Brahma who creates other People, Animals, Birds and Etc. Vishwakarma People are Created from five heads by Sri Vishwakarma who Creates All Gods and Whole Universe. They have Separate Identities, Rites, Rogations and Individual Heritage. If They Follow the Procedures as they can, They can Make New History like as their ancestors. Prasadmarur (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

accepted connection not required

The Vishwakarma community, also known as the Vishwabrahmin although having no generally accepted connection to the Brahmins. In this paragraph you comparing vishvakarma with other brahmin which giving lower or upper sentimate which amounts be racism. remove this sentence immediately. Prasadmarur (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2021

The Vishwakarma community, also known as the Vishwabrahmin although having no generally accepted connection to the Brahmins They are considered as poursheya brahmins.in which brahmins do contains different sects,the hindu scriptures assign that vishwakarma brahmins are garbha brahmins(born brahmana),so please change this text as soon as possible Chandra16456 (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

. Chandra16456 (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2021

The Vishwakarma caste also known as Panchal brahmins belong to the general category which has to be mentioned citing news articles and other references. They don't necessarily belong to the OBC. Vipul Vishwakarma (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2021

They follow 5 types of vedha like i shown down below.. how will people gather information if you deleted main content bro?? They worship various forms of this deity and follow five Vedas—Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samaveda, Atharvaveda, and Pranava Veda. 2409:4070:4895:ADF1:23FB:5FED:7487:175E (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

References

“Followers of five Vedas”

Tamilan India Ekdalian Sitush

See the recent edit history for the topic of discussion — narrowly, whether the claim that this community “follows five Vedas” belongs in the article. Conventionally, the claiming that a Brahmin community “follows” a Veda means that they possess a historical recitatory tradition of transmitting a given rescension of that Veda, whether or not that tradition is actually extant. But no such tradition has ever been documented anywhere for this group, the explanation for which is obvious.

The editor who would like to keep this material also maintains that this group are the original compilers of the Vedas and Brahmins of some unusual type. Wikipedia is not emic, however, and none of these claims are sourced anywhere, including in the additional source that the editor added, visible in the edit history.

Hölderlin2019 (talk) 05:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Hölderlin2019. Ekdalian (talk) 06:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2022

i have a lot of study report which have valid source and reference and i wand to update it in Wikipedia RajammalAchari123 (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Allow me to edit i willnot upload any false information RajammalAchari123 (talk) 20:04, 18 February 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2022

Vishwakarmas are vedic Brahmins. They are parusheya Brahmins. Not Go-Brahmins 2409:4073:2111:B444:0:0:24:A0AC (talk) 05:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Please provide a source for the changes you want to make. Primefac (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Evidence: Vishwakarmas are Brahmins

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/db/bk06ch02.htm "On returning to his home, Indra thought that he had done his duty in slaying his powerful enemy. It did not pass in his mind that he had committed the Brahmahattyâ sin (i. e., that he had killed a Brâhmin). When Vis'vakarmâ heard that his virtuous son had been killed, he became very angry (in his mind) and said that as Indra had killed his qualified son engaged in asceticism without any offence, he would create another son to kill Indra." Ref: https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/db/bk06ch02.htm 2405:204:20AF:B78D:D898:CFA5:E831:FEAA (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

This source from Devi Bhagavad Purana was around for this long time and still the main article is the way it is. Kindly care read this in the earlier chapter "Vis'vakarmâ was a powerful Brâhmin and belonged to the gods' party; his son was stronger." this is written clearly in the earlier chapter. Those who read the shastras dutyfully know this fact very well. Ref: The Devi Bhagavatam: The Sixth Book: Chapter 1 - Sacred Texts https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/db/bk06ch01.htm 2409:4040:D17:3544:593B:3A51:FA1E:82F (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The God Vishwakarma is the architect of devas and his sons are Brahmins. The Vishwakarmas believe to be the sons of lord Vishwakarma and hence they are brahmins Dheeraj L D (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Viswabrahmin misleading

Some communities claim of kshatriya status , claim themselves kshatriya , kings or brahmins. So such self claiming should be removed. Viswabrahmin word in first para is misleading and should be removed 128.164.107.226 (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

"misleading ", "should be removed" why?

"Vis'vakarmâ was a powerful Brâhmin and belonged to the gods' party; his son was stronger." this is written clearly in Devi Bhagavat Purana. Those who read the shastras dutyfully know this fact very well. Ref: The Devi Bhagavatam: The Sixth Book: Chapter 1 - Sacred Texts https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/db/bk06ch01.htm

"On returning to his home, Indra thought that he had done his duty in slaying his powerful enemy. It did not pass in his mind that he had committed the Brahmahattyâ sin (i. e., that he had killed a Brâhmin). When Vis'vakarmâ heard that his virtuous son had been killed, he became very angry (in his mind) and said that as Indra had killed his qualified son engaged in asceticism without any offence, he would create another son to kill Indra."

Ref: The Devi Bhagavatam: The Sixth Book: Chapter 2

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/db/bk06ch02.htm

2405:204:21AC:723F:6909:FAAA:1CD3:55F4 (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Having no general connection to the Brahmins, they use the term 'Brahmin' at the end of their community name

The statement "having no general connection to the Brahmins, they use the term 'Brahmin' at the end of their community name" should be removed as it is no where confirmed of so. This just creates confusion and hatred among the community. So unless there is no valid proof to it such statements should be removed immediately. 223.190.111.179 (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

No, not at all; why should this create "confusion and hatred among the community"? You know, almost every caste in India including SCs either claims or uses terms like 'Brahmin' or 'Kshatriya' as a tool for caste glorification! Wikipedia doesn't support caste glorification & caste promotion in any way; hope you understand! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree Wikipedia doesn't support caste glorification & caste promotion in any way and I appreciate that But they should consider the evidence from Hindu scripture.

We can providing you many evidences from Hindu scriptures to support the fact that Vishwakarmas belong to Brahmin Varna. Hope wikipedia respects the Hindu scriptures not individual thoughts about a caste.

Book - brahmotpatti-martand

https://archive.org/details/brahmotpatti-martand-in-brihat-jyotisharnava-skandha-6-hari-krishna-shastri/page/n573/mode/2up?view=theater

Skand Purana - विश्वकर्माभवत्पूर्वं ब्रह्मणस्त्वपरा तनुः ।

त्वष्टुः प्रजापतेः पुत्रो निपुणः सर्वकर्मसु ।।

(स्कन्दपुराण/खण्ड-४(काशीखण्ड)/अध्याय-८६/ श्लोक - ३) 121.244.202.71 (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2023

The page is clearly showing degrading statements towards the community, it requires to edit and publishing appropriate and authentic information. Ganavarapu (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

And you are clearly showing you are only here for caste promotion. Bishonen | tålk 13:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC).