Talk:Vishwakarma (caste)/Archive 1

History Of Vishwakarma ( Vishwa Brahmin ) Caste

The original Vedic conception of the cosmos was different from the later brahminic one. It was called 'Visvabrahmam' created by visvakarma, the demiurge of Brahma. It is interesting to notice that this cosmos was oragnised on the principle of 'five' or 'pancha'bootha ( Earth, Water, Fire, Wind, Sky ). Accordingly the Brahma/Visvakarma originally had five faces. He had five children from whom the five groups of the artisan community took birth. There were originally five Vedas with Pranava Veda as the last one. It was suppressed by the later brahmins but retained its essence as the one-word mantra of OM.

The various aspects of mundane life also came to be ordered on this principle of five. The land of Indus where they lived itself was Panjab, 'the land of five rivers'. They followed an egalitarian administration based on the rule of five called 'panchayat', which constitutes the basic unit of civil administration even at present in India.1I panchaguna (five qualities), panchakalyani (a peculiar horse), 'Panchavadyam' (five musical instruments), 'panchakarma' (five practices of Ayurvedic medicine), 'panchgavya' (a sacred food made of the five products of cow), 'pancharatna' (five diamonds), 'panchangam' (the Five-part Indian astrological calendar), 'panchamrutam' (food made of five sweet edibles), 'panchadukham' (five sorrows), 'panjaguna' ( sight, touch, hearing, smell, and taste ) and 'panjabrahmana' ( manu, maya, twoshta, shilpi, viswajna ) were some of the five-based 'panjagotra' ( Sanaga, Sanatana, Abhuvana, Pratanasa, Suparna ) aspects of this prelapsarian reality with the 'panjavedas' ( Rig veda, Yajur veda, Sama veda, Atharva veda, Pranava veda ).

Read More Visvakarma Community, Author(s): George Varghese K. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4414253 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghu chandran (talk • contribs) 06:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Viswakarma was not caste by birth, according to vedas Viswakarma caste known as Poursheya Brahmin ( who born with some creative skills ) it was not based on caste or religion but when caste system started in india then viswakarma brahmin people became caste by birth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.76.126.40 (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Brahmarishi mayan traveled from dravida kingdom to Iran / Mesopotamia via Balochistan ( still some Balochistan people are speaking dravida language ) before 10000 BC then he ( mayan ) teaches them vedic texts after they migrate to indian subcontinent then caste system started in india but both were part of "viswabrahmam" virad purusha ( vishwakarma ) was the atman

some people cant agree the supreme power of panja brahmana 1 Sanaga, 2 Sanatana, 3 Abhuvana, 4 Pratanasa, 5 Suparna so they ( sapta rishis ) became brahmana without knowing of arts & creativity they are 1 Vashista, 2 Bharadvaja, 3 Jamadagni, 4 Gautama, 5 Atri, 6 Visvamitra, 7 Agastya this 7 rishis or their descendants of later brahmins rejected Pranava Veda witch is belong to shilpa shasthra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.76.126.40 (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Vishwakarma Is Poursheya Brahmins ( Garbha Brahmin )

In general Brahmins are two types. Poursheya Brahmins & Aarsheya Brahmins

1). Poursheya Brahmins are the Brahmins from the ‘PURUSHA’ and we know the lord VISWAKARMA is the purusha in Vedas (this describes the purusha suktha, that suktha describes about viswakarma only. This is well known to all scholars) Poursheya Brahmins are ‘Manu brahma, Maya brahma, Thwashta brahma, Daivagna brahma, Viswagna brahma’. from these Brahmins, viswakarma generations are started.

2). Aarsheya Brahmins are from ‘rishis’ they are their ‘saptha rishis’. ‘kausika (son of a heap), jambuka(son of a fox), gouthama (son of a cow), vyasa (son of a fisher woman), vasishta(son of a bitch), gargeya (son of donkey), suka (son of a parrot), saunaka (son of a dog), Rishyasringa (son of deer), vaalmiki (a thief and hunter), saankhya (son of a dalitha). All these are their prime rishis. But they are wearing yagnopaveetham.

http://www.ramanuja.org/purusha/sukta-4.html

in purusha sukta 12

brAhmaNo asya mukhamAseet | bAhoo rAjanya: krta: | ooru tadasya yad vaishya | padbhyAm shoodro ajAyata || 12 ||

(asya) His (mukham) mouth (Aseet) became (brAhmaNa:) the Brahmin, (bAhoo) his arms (krta:) were made (rAjanya:) Kings. (yad) what were(asya ooru) his thighs, (tad) they were made into (vaishya:) the merchants, (padbhyAm) and from his feet (shoodro) were the servants (ajAyata) born.

purusha sukta is incorporates the 5 principles of meditation (upasana), knowledge (jnana), devotion (bhakti), and rituals and duties (dharma and karma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purusha_sukta#Content

The Purusha sukta gives a description of the spiritual unity of the universe. It presents the nature of Purusha or the cosmic being as both immanent in the manifested world and yet transcendent to it. From this being, the sukta holds, the original creative will (ldentified with Viswakarma, Hiranyagarbha or Prajapati) proceeds which causes the projection the universe in space and time. The Purusha sukta, in the seventh verse, hints at the organic connectedness of the various classes of in the society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiranyagarbha

'Hiraṇyagarbha Sūkta', suggesting a single creator deity(verse 8: yo deveṣv ādhi devā eka āsīt, Griffith:"He is the God of gods, and none beside him."), in the hymn identified as Prajāpati The concept golden womb is again mentioned in Viswakarma suktha Rg 10-82.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prajapati

Prajapati is a Vedic deity presiding over procreation, and the protector of life. He appears as a creator deity or supreme god vishvakarman above the other Vedic deities in RV 10 and in Brahmana literature.

Discuss More

Kindly discuss more about this community in South India.

I take exception to the opening sentence's description of the community as "known to be the direct descendants of Lord Vishwakarma." Considering that the majority of the world's population does not recognize this deity, it hardly seems a neutral statement.

This deity is well known in India and very famous there are lot of temples for the same. I understand there's not lot of research done in this direction. There are lot of narrations in Vedas (I've already mentioned), Upanishads about the deity which I will gradually mention.

1. http://www.hindunet.org/god/devatas/vishwakarma/index.htm
2. http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/web1/05nov03/state.htm
3. http://www.udupipages.com/home/temple/kara.html
4. http://www.indiantemples.com/Orissa/puri.html
5. http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1/weeklyx0.htm

Also, only after starting the article there will be development in a positive direction. I am sure there will be other people who will know more about this subject and will gradually collect evidence.BalanceRestored 05:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, do you have some links to help flesh out and provide references for the article? --Ginkgo100^talk 23:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The information those I've provided are known to Vishwakarma Communities from their families. There are lot of regional books from publishers all across India those mention in detail about these communities. We will need to wait for those to be published. The topic is only created only yesterday. BalanceRestored 05:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

At least in North India, Vishwakarma and Dhimans are neither recognised as upper caste nor as part of Brahmin community. Whether one believes in Vedas is irrelevant. As such all humanity maybe derived from sapt-rishi but that was not the basis of communities in ancient India. Besides, the word Vishwa brahmin itself is an oxymoron because no community suffixes the word to itself.Although these things may be irrelevant in urban India now, use of such arguments is pure distortion of historical facts.I can give more reasons why this is so, but I believe wikipedia is not the right forum for such discussions.-guruji 122.175.172.26 (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Gotras

The vishwakrama gotras and surnames are to be added to the main article.

Vishwabrahmins commonly have the following surnames (I know these two surnames, other editors are requested to mention all the other surnames here.)

1. Achari
2. Acharya
3. Chandaluru
4. Nuthakki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achariashok (talk • contribs) 21:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Acharya, Advani, Sharma, Stapathi, Dixit, Thakur, Achari, Chary, Pitroda, Mistry, Moharana, Choudhry, Das, Mishra.

Vishwabrahmin Gotras

1. Manu, gothra is "Sanaga brahmarshi"
2. Maya, gothra is "Sanaathana brahmarshi"
3. Thwashta, gothra is "AhaBhounasa brahmarshi"
4. Daivagna(Shilpi), gothra is "Prathnasa brahmarshi"
5. Viswagna, gothra is "Suparnasa brahmarshi"

The above are the main gothras(Pancha gothras)

Sanaga brahmarshi has 5 upa gothras they are

1. "Upasanaga brahmarshi",
2. "Vibhraja brahmarshi",
3. "Kasyapa brahmarshi",
4. "Manuviswakarma brahmarshi",
5. "Viswathmaka brahmarshi".

Sanathana brahmarshi has 5 upa gothras they are

1. "Upa sanaathana brahmarshi",
2. "Vaamadeva brahmarshi",
3. "Viswa chakshu brahmarshi",
4. "Prathi thaksha brahmarshi",
5. "Sunandha brahmarshi".

Ahabhounasa brahmarshi has 5 upagothras they are

1. "Upa bhounasa brahmarshi",
2. "Bhadradattha brahmarshi",
3. "Khaandava brahmarshi",
4. "Nirvikaara brahmarshi",
5. "Srimukha brahmarshi".

Prathnasa brahmarshi has 5 upagothras they are

1. "Upa prathnasa brahmarshi",
2. "Ruchidattha brahmarshi",
3. "Vaasthoshpathi brahmarshi",
4. "Kausala brahmarshi",
5. "Sanaabhava brahmarshi".

Suparanasa brahmarshi has 5 upa gothras they are

1. "Upasuparnasa brahmarshi",
2. "Viswagna brahmarshi",
3. "Paritharshi brahmarshi",
4. "Surasena brahmarshi",
5. "Saankhyayana brahmarshi".

santhimatha bramharshi - Tamiri —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.117.123 (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

BalanceRestored 05:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations for the Five main Gotras

1. http://www.theindianculture.com/states/AndhraPradesh/a.p(folk).htm#top
2. http://www.vedah.com/org/literature/yajurVeda/notes.asp

(TS (4.3.2) mentions the five ŗşhīs namely Vasişhţha, Bharadvāja, Vishvāmitra, Jamadagni and ::Vishvakarma; RV (10.137) mentions seven ŗşhīs: Bharadvāja, Kashyapa, Gotama, Atri, Vishvāmitra and ::Vasişhţha. During Sandhya worship, one repeats the names of seven ŗşhīs. The list varies from gotra ::to gotra. One version is: Atri, Bhŗgu, Kutsa, Vasişhţha, Gotama, Kashyapa, Angirasa. (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.)

Download Yajurveda and read 4.3.3 for the names of the sages mentioned above http://www.sanskritweb.org/yajurveda/keith.pdf (Translated by Arthur Berriedale Keith)

1. Citations are there in the book "The Theory of Citrasutras in Indian Painting: A Critical Re-Evaluation of their Uses and Interpretations"

1. ISBN-10: 0415391954
2. ISBN-13: 978-0415391955

Written by Isabella Nardi BalanceRestored 05:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources

BalanceRestored, you'll need to cite reliable secondary sources to support any information you intend to add to this (or any other) article. Among the sources you have listed above, only the book Nardi would qualify as an acceptable source but it is not clear what exact statement you are claiming the book as a reference for. Also please ensure that your writing maintains a neutral point of view. Cheers. Abecedare 07:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A valid citation.... is this good enough? Metalcraftsmen of India (Memoir - Anthropological Survey of India ; no. 44)

1. Publisher: Anthropological Survey of India, Govt. of India (1978)
2. Language: English
3. ASIN: B0006E12X4

BalanceRestored 09:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that looks like an acceptable reference. Now can you specify what statement you want to use this book as a citation for, and cite the relevant page number in the text ? Thanks. Abecedare 09:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you forgot to list the author Meera Mukherji in your citation. Abecedare 09:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The gotras mentioned above are clearly mentioned in this text. BalanceRestored 10:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you specify where in the text (page number) and preferably provide the relevant quote ? Abecedare 10:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Check page number 21. BalanceRestored 10:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It says the vishwakarma or vishwabrahmana caste was divided in to five gotras their names were Manu, Maya, Thwashta, Silpi, Vishwajana as they are mentioned above BalanceRestored 10:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Since that is verifiable information, feel free to add it to the article along with the reference. Similarly, if and when you find reliable sources for the upa-gotras, you can add that information too. As long as you base your edits on quality sources (such as this one) and only add information that is contained in the source (although you need to often rephrase it in your own words) you will be fine. Cheers. Abecedare 10:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Another citation.

The Mysore Tribes and Castes

By Hebbalalu Velpanura

Nanjundayya, L. Krishna

Anantha Krishna Iyer

Published 1935

Mysore University

Original from the University of Michigan

Digitized Jul 14, 2006

Mentions at Page 459 mentions

5 Vishwabrahmin/Vishwakarma Gotras

"Sanaga"

"Sanaathana"

"Abhuvanasa"

"Prathnasa"

"Suparnasa"

These rishis are also mentioned in the Yajurveda. 4.3.3 BalanceRestored 11:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi BR, I didn't find the "Sanaga" etc mentioned in this text on Google Books. Since you have access to the book, can you please quote exactly what the book says on page 459 in this regard. That way we can ensure that the article reflects the content to the text accurately. Abecedare 09:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. I found it. I'll edit the article so that it is more understandable to the general reader based on the above two sources. Abecedare 09:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Abecedare for your efforts. BalanceRestored 05:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Indiawale (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) From User Indiawale to User Abecedare This article is well referenced pointing to almost 10 sources (see the end section and various links.) It is well balanced since it talks about others' point of view (including Vishwakarma's prosecution.) India is a caste centric society, the Gods' statue building work in ancient India's temples was done by Vishwakarmas. This can be verified to this day (please refer to the landmark six-part documentary series for PBS and the BBC by Michael Wood http://www.pbs.org/thestoryofindia ) Let me know why you are claiming this article is inaccurate?

Yajur Veda

Now these Rishis mentioned are the linage of the Creator Himself. If anyone finds details. Kindly submit. This is a well know fact among the vishwabrahmin/vishwakarma communities. But to post the details here there has be citations BalanceRestored 12:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yajur Veda Citation

http://sacred-texts.com/hin/yv/yv04.htm

a The east of the quarters; the spring of the seasons; Agni the deity; holy power the wealth; the :::Trivrt the Stoma, and it forming the path of the fifteenfold (Stoma); the eighteen-month-old calf :::the strength; the Krta of throws of dice; the east wind the wind; Sanaga the Rsi.

b The south of the quarters; the summer of the seasons; Indra the deity; the kingly power the :::wealth; the fifteenfold the Stoma, and it forming the path of the seventeenfold (Stoma); the :::two-year-old the strength; the Treta of throws; the south wind the wind; Sanatana, the Rsi.

c The west of the quarters; the rains of the seasons; the All-gods the deity; the peasants [1] the :::wealth; the seventeenfold the Stoma, and it forming the path of the twenty-onefold (Stoma); the :::three-year-old the strength; the Dvapara of throws; the west wind the wind; Ahabuna the Rsi.

d The north of the quarters; the autumn of the seasons; Mitra and Varuna the deity; prosperity the :::wealth; the twenty-onefold the Stoma; and it forming a path of the twenty-sevenfold (Stoma); the :::four-year-old the strength; the Askanda of throws; the north wind the wind; Pratna the Rsi.

e The zenith of the quarters; the winter and the cool season of the seasons; Brhaspati the deity; :::radiance the wealth; the twenty-sevenfold the Stoma, and it forming a path of the :::thirty-threefold; the draught ox the strength; the Abhibhu of throws; the wind all through the :::wind; Suparna the Rsi.

f Fathers, grandfathers, near and far, may they protect us, may they help us, in this holy power, :::this lordly power, this prayer, this Purohita-ship, this rite, this invocation of the gods.

BalanceRestored 12:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

BalanceRestored you are making three fundamental errors here:

• You are using and interpreting the Yajur Veda which a primary source, which is not acceptable on wikipedia (see WP:RS)
• You are synthesizing information based on the Yajur Veda and another text, which is a strict no-no.
• You are readding POV content in unencyclopedic language even after it has been reverted by two editors and your mistake pointed to you.

Also note that you need to mention the citation in the article (see WP:Cite on how to do so), and saying "see talk page for citations" is not good enough! Your recent edits are disruptive, and you are liable to be blocked if you continue down this path. Abecedare 19:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean Yajur Veda is wrong ??? I did not know that.. I will be careful. BalanceRestored 05:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Can this be then cited as a valid reference???

The Veda of the Black Yajus School: Entitled Taittiriya Sanhita

• By Arthur Berriedale Keith
• Translated by Arthur Berriedale Keith
• Published 1914
• The Harvard university press
• Original from Harvard University
• Digitized Feb 2, 2007

BalanceRestored 05:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not a valid source for the kind of information you intend to add. Please see wikipedia's policies on primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Abecedare 05:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

the fifth (associated with the goldsmiths' gotra) being the "Pranava Veda"

No, all the 5. It is not just goldsmiths. BalanceRestored 10:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

which is not a text but the notion that "Aum is the Veda".

Did you find citation for the same, there's lot more than that. If you did find the same, kindly cite BalanceRestored 05:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

look, there is no known text called the "Pranava Veda". You can say that it's a secret text that has never come to the attention of scholars, but what will that help us for the purposes of Wikipedia? Saying that this is a real text that simply nobody has ever heard of is not a falsifiable statement: how am I supposed to provide a "reference" that this is not the case? If you like, of course, "aum" is a text, just a very short one. dab (𒁳) 08:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Writing "aum" is a text, just a very short one. is certainly misinterpreting the facts. There are many writers who are just trying to hide many things, which seems very apparent from what I have been researching till now. There are large texts those are certainly trying to misguide many. There differences in the epics itself shows that there are certainly huge differences. If you do not know the fact about the very text is present or not kindly do not mutilate the fact at least. The text you have written is spreading a wrong message. The Vedas are being passed from the teacher to the student and from father to his son and could be very much alive with certain communities, again not everything is told to everyone. If the Government of India them self has checked the facts and is quoting the same, what is the problem mentioning it at wikipedia. What happens if it is mentioned that Pranava veda is a Hindu scripture?? It looks like people are desperately trying to hide and misguide the actual origin of the Veda.BalanceRestored 07:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems like the some people want to actually subside the fact that Vedas are from Dravidian origin isn't it? Again there are evidences that there has been attempts to destroy the evidences by removing certain chapters too. BalanceRestored 07:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This has been too quoted by many of the Indian Leaders in the past. BalanceRestored 07:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Pranava Veda is only known to original Indians and not among the ones who come later, the facts of the veda are purposely being stubbed so that people do not work on them.BalanceRestored 07:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

BR, "Pranava Veda is a seperate Veda that's passed on for generations and is only alive among very few and they will not share the same. So the Veda was never known...." cannot be used as a reason to add/delete information from wikipedia. Please read WP:V. Abecedare 16:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

BR, the people who have this Veda want to keep it off WP because it's secret. The people who don't have it do not want it on WP because it is unverifiable. Just keep it off WP and everyone will be happy, ok? dab (𒁳) 11:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a better Idea. It's not necessary that everything has to be around. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 13:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Panchals Details

"Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics Part 18", By James Hastings, Page 599, states the following "Panchals have the Brahmanic sanskars, or sacraments, and perform their ceremonies according to the Vedic Ritual. Frequent attempts were made in the days preceding British rule to deny them the rights to these Brahmanic privileges; but when the decision of pandits, or religious advisers when referred to, was in their favor."BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 18:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The author James Hastings has referred the following books when quoting the above.

• BG xv 1883, xx 1884, xxii 1884, xxiv 1886
• Journal of Ethnological society of London, new i, (1869), iii 1871;
• A Steele, Law and Custom of Hindu Castes, ne ed, London, 1868;
• F. Buchanan, Journey through Mysore, Canara and Malabar do. 1807 i. 78, 251, ii 270, 476
• B. L. Rice, Mysore and Coort, Bangalore 1876-78, i 249, iii 211
• E Thurston, Castes and Tribes of S. India, Madras 1909, iii 108

BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 18:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I refrained from answering your response to my action without discussion, because I have decided to adopt a policy of non-cooperation with those who revert my actions without discussion. Now, as you admit your knowledge of Panchals, I am inclined to tell you this was my plan (I wanted to rename the article as Panchals and describe all the five branches), which I had briefly hinted in my email. It is erroneous to mention only one section out of five, and neglect the remaining four. But now I will keep away from this article, and it is your duty to find the ancient brahmanical sources which include Panchals among brahmins. Good bye. -VJha 19:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have access to Skanda-Purana Nagar Kanda, the details are given there. I will dig that out from there. This is all the hint I've got till now.BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 05:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've not accessed the Skanda Purana Nagar Kanda myself, but these are the detail that I've got. The Panchal came out of the Mouths of Lord Shiva (He who is Vishnu is Shiva; he who is Shiva is Brahma, the Father; the substance is one) viz Sadyojat, Wamadeo, Aghor, Tatpurusha, and Ishana.

Also according to Skanda Purana Nagar Kanda, Manu married Kanchana, daughter of Angira Rishi, Maya's wife was Sulochana, daughter of Prashara Rishi. Wife of Twashta was Jayanti, daughter of sage Koushika Rishi. Shilpi's wife was Karuna, daughter of Bhrigu Rishi. Daivadyna married Chandrika daughter of Jaimini Rishi. Details are from "The Castes and Tribes of H.E.H. the Nizam's Dominions, By Syed Siraj ul Hassan" Page 545. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 08:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a text known as Pranava vada by Gargyayana, from which one Bhagavan das quoted a lot about hindu philosophy. Similarly one brahmanam known as AthbuthaBramanam which is a part of PACHA VIMSHA BRAMANAM describing how to make smiling/crying idols. Any way the distortions of terms like VADA and VIMSHA are confusing.

Thanks for the info.BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 08:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Viswabrahmin

Per the above discussion, Viswabrahmin has been redireced to this article. The last version of that article may have material that would be useful here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Article issues

As asked by User:Indiawale, here are some of the issues I see with the article:

• Referencing
  • WP:V requires each statement that is likely to be challenged to be cited. Currently the lede, Different names of Vishwabrahmin and its meaning, Chitoor Judgement, Gotras, Pillars of Indian Culture and Civilization, Eminent Vishwabrahmin Individuals don't contain a single reference to a reliable source, while the referencing of the remaining two sections is incomplete
  • There are currently only 5 inline citations (not all to to reliable sources). There are 5 other sources listed in the References section, but they are not cited inline and include link to a webforum, which is not a reliable source.
  • The article does list some additional books in the Books on History of Vishwabrahmins but these don't seem to be used in writing the article, and their reliability remains to be verified.
• POV issues, WP:PEACOCK, and WP:SOAPBOX
  • Most of the article text is highly POV, and the content dubious/irrelevant/exaggerated.
  • "Vishwabrahmins are descended from five sons of lord Vishwakarma." This well may be a traditional belief but can hardly be stated as a fact
  • The Chitoor Judgement section contains statements like, "The brahmin community harrassed our community by claiming superiority.", "Mr. Gundappa attempted to show evidence from puranas, which was written by VYASA who was a not a brahmin (he is the son of a fisherman). But VEDAS are superior to secondary texts rewritten by vested interests.", "Mr.Achary provided logical arguments and bulletproof answers to the questions asked by the brahmins." - which are unsourced, POV and highly unencyclopedic.
  • The whole section "Pillars of Indian Culture and Civilization" needs to be deleted since it is based on the false premise that, "Vishwabrahmins are artisans. X is art, architecture etc. X was created by Vishwabrahmins". Note that the article stretches its claims to include even the Indus Valley Civilization!
• MOS issues
  • The article needs a thorough copyediting and wikification to comply to correct the language, grammer, tone and to comply with wikipedia's manual of style.
  • The article contains a long list of "Eminent Vishwabrahmin Individuals", which is misplaced here and unreferenced.

A previous version article was reasonably referenced and written, and it mey be best to revert to that version and slowly add sourced information instead of trying to clean up this mess. Abecedare (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Indiawale (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC) User Abecedare, following is my explanation:

• • POV issues and Referencing:
  • Origin of Vishwakarmas:
  • When one is talking about the origan of a people from antiquity, you wouldn't find birth certificate issued by the government to prove it! You have to rely on ancient texts. The origin of the Vishwakarmas can be verified from the following respected sources: 1) Vishwakarma Mahapuran 2) Vishwakarma Swaroop (Brahmavaivaryta puran, Krishna Janma Khand, aadhyaya 47) 3) Vishwakarma Sukt (10 mandal, sukta 81 and 82 from the rig veda) 4) Jangid Sukt (Atharaveda, 19 kand, sukta 34 (10 mantras) and 35 (5 mantras) 5) Vishwakarma Vanshawali (Skanda Purana - Kashi Khand, Skanda Purana - Prabhas Khanda, Vayu Purana - adhaya 22, Matsya Purana, Adhaya 5) (6) Vishwakarma Katha 7) Katha Brahmrishi Angira (http://www.jangidbrahminsamaj.com/katha/akatha.htm) 8) Suyash Chalisa 9) Vishwakarma Shatakam 10) Vishwakarma Puran

• • The premise that Vishwabrahmins are NOT temple builders, scluptures, engineering tools makers, artistic gold jwellery maker is completely absurd! To this day in India, September 17th (the Birthday of Lord Vishwakarma) is celeberated by industrial houses, artists and craftsman. The festival is observed on the Kanya Sankranti Day (September) which follows the Ganesh Puja. Following is a link from the higly esteemed national level Indian newspaper, The Telegraph, regarding this holiday (http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080917/jsp/calcutta/story_9844650.jsp). Please refer to the annual calendar published by the Government of India - Ministry of Personnel, that lists September 17 as Vishwakarma Jayanti. Following are more links regarding the engineering caste celeberating this festival:
• 1) www.india9.com/i9show/Vishwakarma-Puja-16037.htm
• 2) www.aryabhatt.com/fast_fair_festival/Festivals/Vishwakarma%20Puja.htm \
• 3) http://www.omkarananda-ashram.org/Vidya_Prabodhini/Issue_49/news3.htm

• • Regarding the Chitoor judgement, the person who wrote this needs to comments. But I disagree that this is a POV since it talks about the persecution and suffering of a people and hence cannot be POV.

• • The explanation offered here suffices to remove the POV tag from the article.

Please don't remove tags till you, or someone else, has actually addressed the issues above by editing the article, added references from reliable sources, or deleting unsourced sections, copyedited it and made the content and language neutral. Also please read WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV to understand what type of references are needed and what neutral POV on wikipedia means. Abecedare (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Indiawale (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Reader Abecedare, I will edit the article, add the references provided in the article and then remove the tag.

You are welcome to add references to the article as long as they comply with WP:RS, and they are correctly cited inline. Most of the links, you list above are not reliable sources, while others are primary sources, which can be used only in specific instances.

You should not remove the tags till a consensus is reached on the talk page that the article is indeed factual and neutral. You have previously removed tags several times, without addressing any of the issues and doing so again will be disruptive, and possibly lead to your account being blocked.

Also, as you were informed on your talk page, please sign your talk-page posts by adding the signature after the message. Abecedare (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Abecedare, I live in a democratic country, everyone has equal rights. You not being reasonable and logical would qualify as disruptive too and your account would be blocked for disruptive behavior. You had marked this article as POV without giving reasons. When I challanged you and asked for reasons you requested 24 hours time and then added your claims, after the fact. This is a hightly disruptive behavior Indiawale (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(Replied on your talk page since this does not concern the article. Abecedare (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC))

Indiawale, It's good that you have added a reference to the article. However citing Griffith's translation of Rigveda, the way you did doesn't help with the referencing issues. You need to specify, which sentence(s) in the article are supported by which verse(s) of the Rigveda. See WP:Cite#Inline_citations on how to do so, and in particular, read about the footnote system. If you need technical help, just ask. Abecedare (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Abecedare have patience, I was not done yet!

Regarding the rig veda book I mentioned, please refer to pages 591 and 592. The 10th mandal of rig veda has two suktas 81 and 82. Each of these have 7 mantras each, making a total of 14 mantras exclusively talking about Vishwakarma. Few examples, Hymn LXXXII, Mantra 1, and I quote here, "Vishwakarma who made the light that enables the eye to see, He engendered the water and the heaven and earth floating in the water." Mantra 2, and I quote again, "Mighty in mind and power is Vishwakarma, Maker, Disposer, and most lofty Presence, the highest image or object of spiritual contemplation."

I am giving you a few examples, since I cannot possibly types pages and pages of information, so I would request that you read these and other passages directly from the book.

The above quoted passges describe the importance of Vishwakarma and how he is the builders and architect.

In addition, please get the following books from the publisher Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt Ltd: 1) Brahmavaivaryta puran, please read, Krishna Janma Khand, aadhyaya 47 2) Atharaveda, please read 19 kand, sukta 34 (10 mantras) and 35 (5 mantras) 3) Skanda Purana please read Kashi Khand, Skanda Purana please read Prabhas Khanda 4) Vayu Purana please read adhaya 22 5) Matsya Purana please read Adhaya 5 6) Yajurved, please read adhaya 17, mantra 17 to 34. A few examples of these mantras are Mantra 1: Vishwakarma, the Omnific, is represented in this hymn as the universal father anf generator, the creator of all things and Architect of the worlds. He who sat down as Hotar-priest, the Rsi, our father, offering up all things existing, He seeking through his wish a great possession, came among men on earth as archetypal. Mantra 2: What was the placve whereon he took his station? What was it that supported him? How was it? Whence Vishwakarma, seeing all, producing the earth, with mighty power disclosed the heavens. Mantra 3: He who hath eyes on all sides round about him, a mouth on all sides, arms and feet on all side. He the sole God, producing earth and heaven, weldeth them, with his arms as wing, together. Mantra 7: Let us invoke to-day, to aid our labour, the Lord of Speech, the though-swift Vishwakarma. May he hear kindly all our invocations who gives all bliss for aid, whose works are righteous. Again, I would request you to directly read this from the book. The said articles should be referred to regarding the origin of the Vishwa Brahmins and also regarding them being Shilpis, engineers, builders, artist and architects. I would also suggest that you seek advise from someone who is an expert in reading and intepreting ancient text and it's language.

And one more thing! Someone has added more information regarding the Chittor judgement! Please refer to the following books in Telgu: Title is "Chittooru Zilla Adhalath Court Theerpu" Publishers: C.V KRISHNA BOOK DEPO, p.b no 1805, 121 AMMAN KOVEL STREET, SOWKAR PET POST, CHENNAI 600079, Price 30/- The above mentioned book was translated in Tamil too and published by K.P. Subbaian, Sri Lakshmi Jewellery, Big Bazar Street, Coimbatore, TN, India

I would suggest that the POV tag be taken out of this article. Indiawale (talk) 05:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I am in no hurry! I realize that at the current pace it will take a few months of work to bring the article upto the desired standard - but that is fine, since the maintenance tags warn the reader that the article contains dubious and POV information.

To address your specific points above:

• The Rigvedic verses you cite concern Lord Vishwakarma and are included in that article; they have little direct relevance to Vishwakarma (caste), which deals with a community of poeple and is not the subject of the verses.
• The point is not to list sources on the talk page that I and other editors read for our personal satisfaction. The aim is to cite sources inline in the article, so that any reader can verify for themselves that each-and-every article statement is backed-up by a reliable source.

Here is the diff of all the changes in the article since the tags were last added (for reasons listed above). Nothing has been done to address any of the sourcing, copyediting, or, neutrality issues yet; so there is absolutely no justification for removing the tags. As I said above, I know that the current article is in such bad state that improving it will take much effort, and I'm satisfied to wait patiently and even help as much as I can. Happy editing. Abecedare (talk) 06:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Abecedare, don't worry, I will keep on editing this. At the same time I need you to be reasonable and logical! I can wake up a person who is sleeping but cannot wake-up someone who is pretending to be asleep! The information provided regarding emenient Vishwabrahmin personalities is well cited. Just click the hyperlinks provided and checkout the detail articles regarding these individuals (including references.) Indiawale (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Indiawale, don't worry, there are lots of other editors who can detect original research, non WP:RS and handle bumpy stuff and personal attacks and revert irrelevant additions. OK? --Nvineeth (talk) 09:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I see, so now you have started using another login! As I said earlier click on the links provided, read them and then come back. Indiawale (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

User Abecedare, please check examples of some of the links I provided such as ones regarding Giani Zail Singh, Dalip Singh Saund, Harbhajan Singh, Monty Panesar, Gursharan Singh, M. K. Thyagaraja Bhagavathar, Brahmanandam, Jagjit Singh, Gulzar (lyricist), Veeru Devgan, Ameet Channa, Kulvinder Ghir. Please note that these are eminient individuals and nobody is making this up! For example, Giani Zail Singh was the PRESIDENT of Indial. As the link says, he had a humble start in life and his father was a CARPENTER who was killed in an automobile accident. Carpenters are Vishwakarmas! Please explain why you are sticking to the a position that the list of Eminent Vishwabrahmin Individuals is not cited correctly? Also, Dalip Singh Saund (September 20, 1899–April 22, 1973) was a member of the United States House of Representatives. He is quite a famous person since, he was the first Asian American, Indian American and Sikh member of the United States Congress! Please check the reference section of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalip_Singh_Saund . Indiawale (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, Lord Vishwakarma and Vishwakarma caste are directly related. GSB, Chitpavan and COBRA Brahmins don't follow Lord Vishwakarma and neither do the Namboodaripads. So your attempt to delink lord Vishwakarma from Vishwkarma caste and that too when it's well known that in India, people marry, vote in election and socially bond based on their hereditary profession/caste, is quite absurd. Indiawale (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you pls provide the citations? Because what you have written above has all the characteristics of a original research. Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 09:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I will provide links regarding the hereditary caste system in India and also that certain dieties are followed by certain castes. It's surprising that someone with an Indian sounding name and discussing India issues would pretend to be ignorant of the caste system. Indiawale (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

User Nvineeth, Wiki has page on the caste system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system There are more than 50+ references. Do you want me to retype these references here? Example of some of the references are: "Early Evidence for Caste in South India," p. 467-492 in Dimensions of Social Life: Essays in honor of David G. Mandelbaum, Edited by Paul Hockings and Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, Amsterdam, 1987.

Also regarding Vishwakarma being the deity of the engineers, artists and craftsmen caste, a few days back, I had provided the following information and more on this page. To this day in India, September 17th (the Birthday of Lord Vishwakarma) is celeberated by industrial houses, artists and craftsman. The festival is observed on the Kanya Sankranti Day (September) which follows the Ganesh Puja. Following is a link from the higly esteemed national level Indian newspaper, The Telegraph, regarding this holiday (http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080917/jsp/calcutta/story_9844650.jsp). Please refer to the annual calendar published by the Government of India - Ministry of Personnel, that lists September 17 as Vishwakarma Jayanti. Following are more links regarding the engineering caste celeberating this festival:

• 1) www.india9.com/i9show/Vishwakarma-Puja-16037.htm
• 2) www.aryabhatt.com/fast_fair_festival/Festivals/Vishwakarma%20Puja.htm \
• 3) http://www.omkarananda-ashram.org/Vidya_Prabodhini/Issue_49/news3.htm

Indiawale (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Abecedare, based on discussion on the List of Hindu scriptures article, can I assume that the Absence of Concensus is also not a valid reason to mark articles as POV? Please confirm this? Indiawale (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

As you have been told before, the tags can be removed once the various article issues listed above have been addressed so that the article complies with wikipedia's content policies. Abecedare (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The term Viswakarma might have been assumed it present form from the term like Karmakara and their vedic social groups like Viss. In vedic period these karmakaras were respected people among the general public.Rg 1V.35-5,6; IV.32-1.Atharva veda [paippalada vyakyanam] says’’ye takshano rathakara karmarayo maneeshina……..111.56[ref shudras in ancient India by R.S sharma] .A mere recitation form the vasthu shatra will not make anyone the Stapathi. Instead he should be well versed with the craft of installation also.In this reason Stapathies were emerged from Takshaka Karmakara communities. Vasthuvidyam says ‘’Viswakarmakacharyo gurutvat viswakarmanam sthapathih sthapanam kurvan iti silpir vidhiyate’The famous Brahadisvara temple of Raja Raja Chola I (tenth century) has the name of the architect proudly engraved on it by the master craftsman himself as ‘Kunjaramallan Raja Raja Perunthachan. the Chebrolu inscription of 1118, the Nadindla inscription of 1141 and the Tellapur inscription dated 1417, all state that the smiths and sculptors belong to the Vishwakarma kula., another inscriptional record (dated 1177) from Macherla in Palnad taluq, Guntur district of Andhra Pradesh links the Vishwakarma to Brahma the divine creator.35 The record refers to the smiths as ‘Vishwakarma Kulaja’ [ref VISHWAKARMA CRAFTSMEN IN EARLY MEDIEVAL PENINSULAR INDIA by VIJAYA RAMASWAMY] More over there are verses like’’Viswakarmasutha pruthae pancha srushti pravarthika, kruthethu manasa srushti thriyanam drushtisadakam’’ in Moola skanda puranam Nagara khandam 5.

Notability

The non-notable names and those which do not have wikipedia articles are required to be cleaned up in this article --Sureshmaran (talk) 06:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The Visvakarma Worldview

There are some interesting points in this article http://www.ignca.nic.in/ps_01011.htm it will be great if someone adds them to the main article.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 10:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Vishwakarmas of Kerala

Someone feels the need to obscure the fact that the Vshwakarmas of Kerala fall way down the caste hierarchy and were generally considered as lower castes by the other prominent caste groups namely the Nairs and the Ezhavas who are themselves very low in the caste order.This fact need not be hidden anyway, however embarrassing it maybe or however highly, might we consider our antecedents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mksuraj (talk • contribs) 19:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Difference between Vishwakarma and Kammalar?

Looking at a few resources, some places are indicating that Vishwakarma and Kammalar are two names for the same group of five craftsman communities. Are these terms synonymous, and the articles need to be merged? If not, what is the distinction? MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Dubious source - Dhume

Can someone please explain how Sinai Dhume, Anant Ramkrishna (1986). The cultural history of Goa from 10000 B.C.-1352 A.D. Ramesh Anant S. Dhume, 1986. p. 37. meets our reliable sources policy. Who is/was the author? Who is/was the publisher? What other works have both author & publisher produced? Why does it have the appearance of being self-published? Is it a peer-reviewed book? Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 04:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Clarification needed

I have just restored an earlier, not very good version of the article. The subsequent contributor initiated a discussion on my talk page here but has now withdrawn from the conversation. In any event, that was not the appropriate place to resolve the problem, which is basically one of defining exactly what this group may be.

I do not deny that they exist but we already have numerous articles - eg: Panchal and Sunar - and there appears to be a massive overlap/duplication going on. It needs to be sorted out before people waste even more time. - Sitush (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please explain the relationship between Vishwakarma and all of the various other names by which this community appears to be known. - Sitush (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As an example, we have articles about vansh, eg: Lunar Dynasty. Are the Vishwakarma akin to those, being connected by a common myth of origin? And we have articles such as Kunbi, so perhaps the connection takes that general form? Or it may be something else. Whatever it is, the relationship will define the content of this article and the extent to which detail is included here or farmed out to other articles. - Sitush (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ariya and Dravida

Vishwakarma is Ariya Shilpy ( Deva Shilpy ) but "Maya" who is son of vishwakarma is Asura Shilpy so there is Ariya Dravida mixing and some fake story created after ariya migration to south india.

There was one more veda called "Pranava Veda" i think "Vyasa" destroyed it and then classified the Vedas into four parts

1, Rigveda 2, Yajurveda 3, Samaveda 4, Atharvaveda

5, Pranava Veda

Vishwakarma Caste following this 5 vedas till now, What is the real story behind this 5th veda?

Read this article in discover magazine about south Asian ancestry and vishwakarma brahmin ( Tamil vishwakarma ) who was the part of "Maya". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.107.114.176 (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

What are the academic credentials of the author whose article you have linked? - Sitush (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Brahmin communities who identify their gotras to Sapta risi are later descends of Lord Brahma, they are called Manas putras. The Vishwakarma community on the other hand have altogether 5 different gotras and each of them are direct decendents of Vishwakama (who is again the eldest son of lord Brahma ref. rigveda)
2. Mayasura on one hand is son of Kashyap rishi (refer Ramayana [1] and Mahabharata [2]. On the other hand Mamuni Mayan is son of Vishwakarma. Vishwakarma has a son named Maya.
3. There have been lot of differences between same family members all over India and else where. The connection between Vishwakarmas to their Vedic seers and those of Sapataris decendents and their Vedic seers clearly shows Indian communities are of the same family. So, the Invasion theory seems clearly false to me. Yes people follow different lingual scripts here but instead of seeing the differences see the similarities. Again, Pranava Veda is in old Tamil. Vishwakarma's descendants speak Tamil (Again, I have been informed that Vishwakarma's root language was originally Sanskrit, but I am yet to ascertain its validity) but Saptarishi descends speak Sanskrit. So, obviously Vedic literature got translated from Tamil to Sanskrit, or from Sanskrit to Tamil or both languages could have been connected 10000s or more years ago. The truth only GOD knows for sure. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Your statement made above regarding Sanskrit language is not valid. Sanskrit(cassical) was never a spoken language.Prakrit was spoken language.No communities in Indian ever spoke Sanskrit.They always spoke Prakrit.Nijgoykar (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

To be honest I have not gone into Sanskrit, Prakrit and Tamil relations deeply yet, I have only commented to what I was informed. I already cite "but I am yet to ascertain its validity". Thanks for updating information w.r.t Prakrit. I will try to look into it as well. Also w.r.t. Sanskrit speakers I indirectly meant offshoots and neighbors of the languageGanesh J. Acharya (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR and note that this page is for discussion relating to improvement of the article, not random general discussion concerning the article subject, research trends etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I have been asked to explain my message above but it seems to me to be crystal clear. What further explanation is required? - Sitush (talk) 07:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion was in context to the concerned article. WP:OR is it applicable even with the talk pages? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 01:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You were supposed to be discussing improvements to the article, for which purpose original research is of no use. Engaging in OR on talk pages of caste articles often leads to unnecessary and heated arguments: it is best to stick to what you can verify. - Sitush (talk) 09:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I have cited WP:OR material to enable other contributors with valid references come forward. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I have written "On the other hand Mamuni Mayan is son of Vishwakarma.", it should be "Vishwakarma has a son named Maya".Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Vegetarianism

Orthodox Vishwakarmans follow a strict vegetarian diet. The following edit [3] was reverted. I have added further references.

1. "They are vegetarian and also claim to be teetotallers." - Rural population in Indian urban setting by Jakka Parthasarathy [4]
2. "They wear sacred thread and also abstain from non-vegetarian foods." The Eastern anthropologist, Volume 21 [5]
3. "The high castes include Brahmin, Vishwakarma, Gowda Sarsvath and Lingayaths which have relatively high ritual status, vegetarian food habits and are traditionally associated with non-manual occupations." Hindu widows: a study in deprivation, by Godavari D. Patil, Godavari D. Patil [6]
4. "The Brahmins, Vaishyas, Lingayats, Vishwakarmas, Jains, etc., are vegetarians" "Mysore State Gazetteer: Kolar District" [7]
5. "Caste Factor It was found that most of the large farmers belonged either to ritually higher vegetarian castes such as Brahmins, Vishwakarma" Agricultural management and planning in India: Volume 1 by Chugh Publications, 1992 - Business & Economics [8]
6. "Caste Factor It was found that most of the large farmers belonged either to ritually higher vegetarian castes such as Brahmins, Vishwakarma, Satani and Lingayat, or to numerically dominant Vokkaliga caste. " Yojana, Volume 28, India. Planning Commission, India. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, 1984.
7. "Vishwakarmas of the south are strict vegetarians." Metalcraftsmen of India, Meera Mukherjee, Issue 44 of Memoir (Anthropological Survey of India)"
8. "They are popularly known as the descendents of Vishwakarma, the original sculptor and stone carver to whom all sculptors and carvers trace their origins. They are strict vegetarians and practise complete abstinence from liquor." Tribal arts and crafts of Madhya Pradesh, Authors Aashi Manohar, Shampa Shah, ISBN 0944142710, 9780944142714

I have added further reference to Vegetarianism. If more references are required please do let me know. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 04:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't need more citations, it needs less. Please take a look at WP:CITEKILL and consider pruning your contribution. Note also that your contribution does not reflect the sources: only one of them mentions teetotalism and that one is specific that it is a "claim" rather than a certainty. - Sitush (talk) 08:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I have cut down on the citations and will try to add the references about teetotalism with better ones. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This section was removed [9]] and the following was cited "Diet: remove: nothing from Gyan can be relied upon, per consensus". Kindly explain. I had provided 5 references for the same. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

As the edit summary says, nothing published by Gyan or its stablemate, ISHA Books, is reliable. They often mirror our content, they plagiarise, they breach copyright etc. Umpteen discussions at, for example, WP:RSN and WT:INB. - Sitush (talk) 10:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I have added better references and have restored the section. Again, I have included "southern India" as the "vegetarian" citations were predominantly from southern India and also because Meera Mukherjee's, Metalcraftsmen of India, Issue 44 of Memoir (Anthropological Survey of India) cited the same.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I am getting similar vegetarian details from other states as well. So, I will remove "southern india" eventually. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 04:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I have quite substantially amended your edits & have done so in small stages so that you can see the issues clearly in the edit summaries. Please note that you should be using Template:Cite book, since that was the prevailing citation method prior to your recent contributions. I suggest that you take a read of WP:Citing sources. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the edit. I will be using Template:Cite book as per your suggestion. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 06:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Not a reliable source

On what basis is this [10] revert done. The reason cited is "Sri Aurobindo Kapāli Sāstry Institute of Vedic Culture"'s source being unreliable. Kindly explain why is this source unreliable.

• Title Kr̥ṣṇayajurvedīya Taittirīya-saṃhitā
• Kr̥ṣṇayajurvedīya Taittirīya-saṃhitā, Rangasami Laksminarayana Kashyap
• Volume 2 of Kṛṣṇayajurvedīya Taittirīya-saṃhitā : complete text in Devanāgari with translation, English translation
• Author Rangasami Laksminarayana Kashyap
• Publisher Sri Aurobindo Kapāli Sāstry Institute of Vedic Culture, 2003
• Original from the University of Virginia
• Digitized 21 Jun 2008
• ISBN 8179940055, 9788179940051

This source was used to show the relation between Yajur Veda TS (4.3.3) and Vishwakarma Gotra rishis. The source cited the following "TS (4.3.2) mentions the five ŗşhīs namely Vasişhţha, Bharadvāja, Vishvāmitra, Jamadagni and Vishvakarma; RV (10.137) mentions seven ŗşhīs: Bharadvāja, Kashyapa, Gotama, Atri, Vishvāmitra and Vasişhţha. During Sandhya worship, one repeats the names of seven ŗşhīs. The list varies from gotra to gotra. One version is: Atri, Bhŗgu, Kutsa, Vasişhţha, Gotama, Kashyapa, Angirasa. (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." further excerpts from the same book [11] Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Does not appear to be a mainstream publisher etc and you seem also to be using it to engage in synthesis with primary sources. - Sitush (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I did not understand what you ment by WP:SYNTHESIS, the source clearly cites "(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." it would be nice if someone explains the same.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

This same reference is used at more places, but other eminent editors did not object them?Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

And in fact the very author has a wiki page Rangasami_L._Kashyap dedicated to him (visit for further details about him http://www.vedah.com/about-vedanga-vidwan-dr-r-l-kashyap). To me from no angle this source seems unreliable.

• In 2003 he has received ‘Vedanga Vidvan’ award "Maharshi Sandipani Vedavidya Pratishthan (Ujjain)" an autonomous body of HRD, Govt. of India, and also director of "Sri Aurobindo Kapali Sastry Institute of Vedic Culture"
• During his 33 years at Purdue, he has guided 50 students for Ph.D degree.
• He has published more than 250 research papers in advanced scientific Journals and delivered more than 200 papers at National and International conference, including several keynote speeches.
• Kindly see the "Opinion on his books" section [12]

Hope a better explanation is provided.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 03:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Adi Sankaracharya

Anyone read "Sankara Vijaya" to explain the truth,

Adi Sankaracharya was the son of a Vishwakarma (Twashtha). In Sri Sankara Vijaya there is a sloka "Acharyo sankarao nama, Twostha putra nisamshaya, Viprakula gurordweeksha, Vishwakarman thu Brahmana." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.200.223.228 (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, There is a citation in the Shankara Vijaya. Shankaracharya himself has sung that.

• Title Journal of the Andhra Historical Society, Volumes 14-17
• Authors Andhra Historical Research Society, Rajahmundry, Madras, Andhra Historical Research Society
• Publisher Andhra Historical Research Society., 1953
• Original from the University of Michigan
• Digitized 30 Mar 2006
• Subjects India
• Preview:- [13]

I've often wondered whether that journal is is fact a reliable source. It has been used to substantiate some pretty odd things here on Wikipedia, ofen running counter to general academic consensus. I'll have to rack my brain for some examples. - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Only a Time Machine can walk us through a past that is 100% reliable. But, again there will be some critics who would say, "Why should I believe what the time Machine is showing is true". Again, truth is truth. What has happen, has happen... it does not change. When GOD wants the truth will come out. *But only when GOD wants* Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 02:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, There is a citation in the Shankara Vijaya. ***As per Shankara Vijaya, Shankaracharya himself has sung that.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but (a) God - yours or anyone else's - has nothing to do with my query and (b) you seem not to have answered it. If you have then I am obviously not understanding something. - Sitush (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Then how did the Idea to question me sprout in your mind? Please keep questioning these "Hows" infinitely you will reach an end where you would not know why, these ideas sprout. When the right time comes the truth to the above question will come out. I was after the Shankara Vijaya citation for last 4-5 years, but only yesterday I could find it..? Why not some day earlier? Any way.. why are you finding this source unreliable and other sources reliable. And what would make you find this source reliable? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean in most of ^ that message, so will ignore it on the basis that it seems likely to be someone pushing their religion opinions down my throat, which is inappropriate on a talk page.

As for querying reliability, well, it is an old source. Furthermore, when I last looked at it, the journal does not seem often to be cited by academics, I could find out little about the Society that publishes it, and - as I said above - their publications have been used in the past to support some very odd statements that contradicted mainstream thought. Who was the author of the article? That is, what sort of credentials did/do they have? - Sitush (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC) (forgot to sign)

Sitush regarding your remark "the journal does not seem often to be cited by academics"... how did you check that? Andhra Historical Research Society, Rajahmundry seems to be pretty well known. They have been referenced by almost all the main stream research and are pretty reliable.

• In Google Books, "Journal of Andhra Historical Research Society, Rajahmundry", gets 109 results "Andhra Historical Research Society" gets about 35,100 results, Andhra Historical Research Society, Rajahmundry gets 17,700 results, and using "JAHRS" or J.A.H.R.S. I am getting far many results from main stream research.
• Government of India use references from "Andhra Historical Research Society, Rajahmundry". [14]
• The Government of Andra Pradesh [15] website (Department of Archaeology & Museums, Government of Andra Pradesh) importantly references the Journal '"Apart from this several rare and old departmental publications are also available which includes Annual reports of H.E.H., the Nizam’s Dominion, Journal of Andhra Historical Research Society, Epigraphia Andhrica, etc.."' [16]
• They are popular enough to have their own abbreviation JAHRS or J.A.H.R.S.- Journal of the Andhra Historical Research Society, Rajahmundry. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 10:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Your first search link produces 20 results here, some of which are books published by Gyan etc and thus Wikipedia mirrors. Let me do some more digging: I did say "when I last looked at it", which was a few months ago. - Sitush (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Please trying googling for J.A.H.R.S. Andhra Historical in google books. Most researchers use J.A.H.R.S. OR JAHRS instead of the exact name. It should give you a better picture.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• "Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire (The New Cambridge History of India)", Publisher Cambridge University Press, Page No. 215. "Cambridge University Press" Has used it's reference. Sitush I can show you many more if you want. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Add screenshot of the shankara vijaya page with this shloka to add shankaracharya's image in vishwakarma caste article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.196.136.116 (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Sub Caste

Sub Caste - Sculptor, Black Smith, Brass Smith, Carpenter, Gold Smith & Priests.

Andhra Historical Research Society

Not for the first time, someone has cited the Andhra Historical Research Society. As on past occasions, the citation appears likely to be a snippet view of the source from GBooks. We really need more than this and, please, if you have access to more then I would appreciate seeing, say, a copy of the relevant page and the ones immediately before and after it. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you want scanned copy of this book ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.77.220.157 (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Original caste name

What is this caste name ? commonly using Vishwakarma but Vishwakarma is god, so people using Vishwakarma Caste as common and some Vishwakarma caste people are following through traditional path they are known as Vishwabrahmana but the original name of this caste is Brahmin

According to vedas there is 4 castes ( varnas ) only, 1 Brahmana, 2 Kshatriya, 3 Vaisya, 4 Shudra., so why Vishwakarma caste is brahmana ?

• 1, Purusha Sukta is describes about birth of 4 castes or varnas
• 2, Purusha is Vishwakarma God
• 3, Brahmin born from purusha's face
• 4, manu , maya , thwosta, shilpy, vishwajna is the five brahmana from purusha's face

so orginal caste name is Brahmin according to vedas other castes are not brahmin cause there is no evidence like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghu chandran (talk • contribs) 03:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The article is about a modern group of people; we are not in the position to judge whether or not they are truly descended from one of five faces of a deity in the ancient past. What we can do, however, is see what the community is referred to by modern scholars and journalists. We cannot simply choose personally to advocate for their categorisation as Brahmins, we can simply report the variety of opinions, with primary weight being given to the academic consensus. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Editor MatthewVanitas (talk) quoted "We are not in the position to judge" How would anyone judge that? You expect contributors to bring Video recordings of these happenings from the past and that too with proof of no tampering? Now if editors start asking about every other genealogy recorded everywhere (including wiki) in the world considering these questions you are quoting here? With what rationale are you questioning these? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Please refer to the link below:- http://viswakarmasuvarnakar.jimdo.com/chittoor-zilla-adalat-theerpu/ if you guys cant trust the content from this 3rd party website you can get data from those cases fought in the court from the court database. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.73.165.42 (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting reference about Sanskritisation and status of this caste

This book has several interesting pages about this caste's efforts to assume Brahmin customs and adapt their social identity. This could be a useful source of citations: http://books.google.com/books?id=sBgLb8XIGR8C&pg=PA128&dq=vishwakarma+caste&hl=en&sa=X&ei=g4e_UZfqHtC40gGVloH4Cw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=vishwakarma%20caste&f=false

I'm also wondering if Vishwakarma might be a more common term for this caste, and whether the current choice of title is POV. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Sanskritisation ? genetic code says the truth, vishwakarma brahmins are original brahmins according to ethnic database read this http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/03/genetics-as-the-myth-buster-indian-edition/#more-10576 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.67.133.238 (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Zack Ajmal are you holding the scale upright or reversed? The oldest human gene turned out to be from TamilNadu and Kerala? "In neighboring Tamil Nadu, geneticists testing DNA of local peoples, genes have been found from 50-60,000 years ago." http://www.drsheedy.com/early-humans/up-to-12-000-years-ago.php ?? So now you decide?? Would Vedas which is told to be naturally occurring and was narrated by Purusha's face Sadyojataya, Vamadevaya, Aghoraya, Tatpurushaya and Esanaya who's children are Manu, Maya, Tvastar, Shilpi and Visvajna also known as Sanaga, Sanatana, Abhudana, Pratnasa and Supernasa who are the gotra Rishi's of all the Vishwakarmas would it go from Old to NEW or from New to OLD? Also Genetic Puzzle Solvers are you SEENING BLOOD IS RED and common among all? Another fact... how did you arrive at who's in a Brahmin among all? Without the availability of that Zack Ajmal how did you arrive at such a conclusion? Also beyond India there are no traces of Vedic practice among the Europeans? I never got any answer for this question so far from anyone? Also Krishna Yajur Veda followers (predominantly south indians) are older to Shukla Yajur Veda (predominantly north indians). Zack Ajmal this is the most under researched report ever seen This is an under researched report. There are so many determinable parameters missing in your report. The No.1 characteristics of a Brahmin is they will not speak or think ill about others. In the end one is naturally bound to save oneself. How does the DNA report of your distinguish these characteristics i.e. "they will not speak or think ill about others"? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 08:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

A blogger's personal analysis does not outweigh scores of published books by professional scholars. Have you actually tried seraching "Viswakarma" and "Brahmin" on GoogleBooks? Plenty of scholars, Indian and Western, make reference to the fact that this is a artisan caste which sought to re-define itself, apparently without too much success. And Wikipedia is not the place to attempt to popularise a socio-political advocacy movement. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

GoogleBooks says that writers personal analysis so read the Vedas to understand who is brahmin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.67.133.238 (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Reading a millenia-old book and trying to guess what modern people it applies to, or taking as fact any group's claim of direct descent, is pretty clearly a bad idea. While we can certainly explain in the article that the group offers this as their history, we are by no means obligated to take them at their word, and should cite the works of reputable social scientists who study such communities as their profession. If you don't believe in WP:Verifiability, and want to use ancient scriptural documents to comment on modern communities, I don't think you're going to be happy with proper Wikipedia articles. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

"Plenty of scholars, Indian and Western, make reference to the fact that this is a artisan caste which sought to re-define itself, apparently without too much success. " MatthewVanitas you should be GOD knowing everything. If Visvakarmas on records were not taught all of the ancient texts and were just an "artisan caste" how do they know all of what they know? Magic? A plain ignorant artist would know how to erect these statues like Thiruvalluvar@Kanyakumari, and all the 1000plus-year-old temples, forts those still stand tall timelessly width-standing all the rains, floods, and even TSUNAMIs/Earthquakes [17],[18] Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 08:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

First off, editors haven't provided any authoritative references for "the V. caste built all/most/many of the temples in India". So we can't take that as a given if folks don't provide sourcing. Further, even if we proceed assuming they built a large number of quality temples, that doesn't necessarily support any claim that they are Brahmins, or descended from gods, or in some unbroken lineage since the time of the Vedas. While we can certainly record the community's impression of itself, with proper academic sourcing, we can't go around quoting Vedas as though it explains history unbroken for thousands of years following. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Facts are facts, whether they are recorded or not recorded or something else other than the fact gets recorded does not change the "facts". So, why insist so much on "physical" records for literally everything? Do they really prove the fact?

Also, it looks like you want records from the time this universe started? Next is you want physical records? What is the rationale behind the same? If I ask whether human brain evolved first or whether the reason for the brain to evolve evolved first? Then its obviously the "reason" that should evolve first. So, it is very apparent we souls should have survived without a physical body for a huge amount of time only until this physical world would have formed? If you want to know the facts should everyone not consider the non-physical aspect of this universe? So, if a history existed in the non physical universe, where communication only could happen perhaps with "feelings". What physical evidence to those would you find now? What ever is historically "communicated" is in front of you. How would you judge "what is what?" with a materialistic approach? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 04:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

As Deviprasad Chattopadhyay observes, at one point in Indian civilization the working class and working hands enjoyed great dignity for that was the early stage of civilization when man was still conquering the world and gaining control over the world.

.......i am a Vishwakarma and once upon a time we were the most respected people on this earth and these Brahmins did injustice to us? Or should i engage my entire life in resurrecting the Vishwakarma culture which the brahminical supremacy snatched from the Vishwakarma people? How regressive and stupid that would be. The real thing to be done is de-casting the society.

interesting read http://acrazymindseye.wordpress.com/2011/10/17/de-brahminising-the-mind/ ( Sankritization. The theory was formulated by one M.N. Shrinivas and his case study was that of Vishwakarma community. )

For both of y'all:

• Note the policy: WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Wikipedia is not here to solve the ills of the caste system, reform society, restore a culture's reputation. What we do here is compile existing research into an accessible format for the readership. There are a million places on the internet you can use for advocacy, reformation, etc. This is not one of them.
• Ganesh: Your incredibly abstract arguments and accusations are not helping in the slightest. Nor are your strawman arguments such as Also, it looks like you want records from the time this universe started? You know full well nobody is literally asking for the amazing proofs you pretend are being required of you. What we want is simple footnotes to existing scholarship. Not caste-advocacy sites, not "some guy who lives in Brisbane and says he knows a lot about the Vishwakarmas and I think his stuff is really cool." If you are not able to provide decent citations for your arguments, I really don't see why we should be taking your opinion into account for anything about this article. Either you follow the precepts of WP:Verifiability and eschew WP:Original research, or else you simply don't have anything to contribute. Your call, I'm tired of dealing with these circular arguments which involve me pulling clear citations, and others just making sweeping and uncited statements in rebuttal. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly you are repeatedly bringing in WP:FRINGE as per the community statements in that case. If I ask you to physically prove those references and only introduce those? Will you be able to prove those references? In that case you are not ready to do the same. You simply write down "I'm not here to get into some grand philosophical argument with you". And in-spite of not responding to my comments (since you never had an answer for those) you come and continue these? Remember indications are not proofs and there can be gaps and flaws about every other "theory". An incident needs to be proved. It is very easy for any uncultured/misguided individual to write and introduce a bias. Also as far I know every other community/family and society in the world has warred/quarreled with one another at some point. So, it is very likely every opposite community will start scribbling about other one over wikipedia and the journals. Also a third community who has an advantage with inter-community quarrels will most importantly write down these and will try to affix those. Now, do you want to introduce these references and put all the community in India at war? The blood bath India went into after partition is not enough that you are trying to pickup issues here?

If you really are honest about WP:Verifiability first answer the queries I put to you. Or you can continue with your dishonesty. The questions you dogged as "philosophical argument" are "rational" ones. Since you agree to the same you don't want to answer those. Now you wanted proofs for happenings right at the start of the universe, when souls could have been formless (time before big bang should also exist?) "assuming a person is born in a real world (you skipped this argument since you want to "believe" in people and are not ready to "verify" this [19])" it becomes must to raise the queries those I raised and it becomes a must to answer those queries those I raised. The reason to raise these were, you have asked below in this talk page YV passage in the main body "connections between Topic A and Topic B" i.e. You are asking for connections between the "current happening in the ancient records". So, when you want to ask questions such as these should you not answer those queries as well? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 03:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, MatthewVanitas is this book titled a "...Theory"? Where authors are speculating? Why are you bringing in WP:FRINGE material which is not inline with the community understandings?

Another part MatthewVanitas writes "You know full well nobody is literally asking for the amazing proofs you pretend are being required of you". So why is this written down by the respectful editor "Is there something about the YV that binds those rishis to the Viswakarma caste"? Is the editor not expecting for current (2013) genealogical evidence in the ancient YV records even while Dr. Rangasami Laksminarayana Kashyap's ("During his 33 years at Purdue, he has guided 50 students for Ph.D degree. He has published more than 250 research papers in advanced scientific Journals and delivered more than 200 papers at National and International conference, including several keynote speeches. He was also the associate director for the centre for intelligent manufacturing;"[20]) current reference ("The Vishvakarma Brāhmins who build temples and sculpt the forms of deities trace their lineage to these five ŗşhīs.") [21] was already presented? Would it be appropriate to ask "Is there is any thing written in Bible or Torah that proves current Jews are Jews and so on?" would references to current Jews appear in the ancient Bible or Torah or in the records written in subsequent later documents?? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 08:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move (modified 23 June)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move to Vishwakarma (caste). Now, I'm going to request that you all be more careful about this kind of thing in the future. While an article had begun to develop at Vishwabrahmin in parallel, the main article on this topic had long been at Vishwakarma (caste). For reasons unknown to me, about a month ago, the Vishwakarma (caste) article (with its longer history) was changed to a redirect to the Vishwabrahmin, which was then expanded in the following weeks. And then, just a few hours ago, someone effectively performed a cut-and-paste move back to Vishwakarma (caste). This, of course, is not how moves and merges are supposed to take place, and fixing this problem is annoying, problematic, and confusing. What I did was keep the history of Vishwabrahmin from before about May 30 (only 46 revisions) at that article's history. A redirect is now in place to the current article, which contains all 2200+ revisions from Vishwakarma (caste) from before that date, the 119 revisions from Vishwabrahmin after that date, and, due to technical limitations, the roughly 8 revisions from Vishwakarma (caste) after that date. Yeah, annoying. Moral of the story: please don't do cut-and-paste moves. -- tariqabjotu 14:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Vishwabrahmin → Viswakarma (caste) – For a while we had parallel articles developing, but eventually an editor blanked Vishwakarma (caste) and Viswakarma and redirected them to this title. However, with even some basic GoogleBooks look searching the various terms (and with "caste" to be sure I was getting the group and not the god) it really seems that Viswakarma is the popular spelling for this group. I'm also concerned that the title "Viswabrahmin" might be close to POV as a promotional name for the caste, given that apparently a lot of other castes don't agree with their usage of the term "brahmin". I suggest that the past Talk page of Vishwakarma (caste) be merged into this one since it has a lot of good/detailed past discussion, and then this whole lot be moved over to Viswakarma Viswakarma (caste) as the most common term per WP:COMMONNAME. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support - while appreciating the caste's ambition for self definition as Vishwa Brahmins, Vishwakarma is the more standard and neutral term in print sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Redirected Viswakarma to Vishvakarman, the deity. Common spelling of the deity. Vishwakarma (caste) will be ok if Vishwakarma is the common name. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support; more neutral title, as the wise In ictu oculi suggests. bobrayner (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support Viswakarma should be about Lord Viswakarma, and a different page Vishwakarma (caste) or Vishwabrahmin should be about the community. Mentioning Vishwakarma (caste) or Vishwabrahmin within Lord Viswakarma's page will make the article very lengthy as this community is very old and has lot of history around it. Visvakarma's Caste or Vishwakarma (caste) is more appropriate as this community has historically quoted to be progeny of Lord Visvakarma's so obviously the most appropriate term, since the community belongs to the caste same as that of Lord itself. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 03:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: Per input, modifying proposal to Viswakarma (caste). MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Probably, the old name Vishwakarma (caste) may be better. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The only thing is, I'm getting more GoogleBooks hits for "Viswarka caste" than "Vishwakarma caste"; am I looking at it wrong somehow? And wherever we move it to, we really need to do something about merging this talk page with that of Vishwakarma (caste). Though the articles developed somewhat in parallel, so we can't exactly do a full-merge (as I understand it), their respective Talk pages are both discussing the same group, and we lose a lot of past discussion if we don't incorporate Talk:Vishwakarma (caste). Are we all pretty much agree that Vishwabrahmin is somewhat of a POV/fringe title for this community? Not saying that nobody calls them that, just that it's a term used for political advancement rather than a broadly-accepted name. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It is interesting to see User:Malik Shabazz redirecting the originally developed Vishwakarma_(caste) to Vishwabrahmin [22] article quoting no reasons. Also, surprising to see of none of the knowledgeable editors trying to fix the same or asking for reasons? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Zzapinercor asked me to delete Vishwakarma (caste) because its content was duplicated in this article. Instead of deleting the other page, I redirected it here because it seems like a reasonable search term and it's linked to by dozens of articles. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Because an alternate article existed you deleted the original article within 13 mins? [23]. Also User:Zzapinercor had added a template which says "This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a recently created article with no relevant page history"??? Vishwakarmas who are known for 1000s of years have no relevant history? Very strange! Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 04:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I request moderators to check if User:Zzapinercor is still active or is the account hacked. Since the profile page quotes "RETIRED This user is no longer active on Wikipedia as of August 2011." Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 05:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I have created the original page Vishwakarma (caste) again and have redirected Vishwabrahmin to this article since everyone has voted in favor of the same.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Wait, did you just cut-paste the entire article and put it into Vishwakarma (caste)? That's totally not how to do it. The way you've done it, you just lost the entire history of how the article developed, which as I understand is also in violation of Wikipedia's licensing policies. Completely not the proper way to do a move. Please don't move anything any further, and we need to find an admin or something who can help us straighten out the tangled mess that this has become. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Everyone needs to stop editing this article until the issue of where it should be and how we sort out all the old history problems are fixed. It is going to take some poor admin quite a while to fix this mess and I'm tempted to seek full protection of all possible relevant titles until it is all resolved. - Sitush (talk) 05:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I did redirect it the way I thought it was correct. If it is not the right way, I would let an admin do the same. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Text from Vishvakarman

An user has replaced text from deity article with text about caste [24], which can be incorporated here. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Older Discussions held over Talk:Vishwakarma (caste) Page

References to older Discussions at this article were originally discussed here Talk:Vishwakarma_(caste)/Archive_1.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Origin and gotras

These sections seem to copied from some wiki page with [1] references and [citation needed] tags. Can someone fix it. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed Gotra part as it was mentioned in the reference originally. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

"Panchal Movement to Reclaim Brahminical Right" and "Distribution" also have [6] etc. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I found an earlier version that had this material still properly footnoted, though I'm still dubious of its utility: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vishwakarma_%28caste%29&oldid=315873025#Origin .MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Horrible convoluted nature of the development of this article

This page has been bounced around several different titles in the past few years, and due to some sloppy moves (and apparently totally undiscussed ones) there's been some sloppiness with page histories, such as that there's not a clear continuous thread of evolution of the title. The article has also been pretty abjectly horrible through much of its history, and is currently getting a lot of IP attention to the point that I'm wondering if this is yet another Orkut "hey guys come save our caste from defamation on Wikipedia!!!" campaign.

In whatever case, we need to move this current version to a decent title, then go through it with a fine-tooth comb to get rid of the junk. Also my initial pokings are leading me to wonder if this whole caste isn't just a fancy name for Panchal, and maybe a lot of this can be more properly grouped under a different title. I went in today and cut out more ridiculous phrasing like "many beautiful temples are due to this blessed caste", but this one is going to be a handful, and if IPs keep tampering this may need page protection as well.

Anyone have suggestions on how to get an admin to help us do some History merges and also merges of alternate Talk pages so we can try and get all the history and all the discussion into one unified body? MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Vishwa Brahmin is the caste name this name is using around India, you can see this caste everywhere in india or where hindu people are living because vishwa brahmins are making the statues temples etc it is important in hindu traditional life style, title confusion is the main problem because vishwa brahmin called other names in local language

Economic and Political Weekly Article About Vishwa Brahmin History

Read above link to get real history about vishwa brahmin caste — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.66.242.147 (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

other brahmins are trying to destroy history of vishwabrahmin

i suggest the title Vishwabrahmin ( Vishwa Karma Caste ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.67.165.119 (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The term Viswakarma caste gets the most hits on GoogleBooks, so for the time being I'd suggest that should be the main title. Next, a goodly number of academics comment on the term "Viswabrahmin" and indicate that while it may be the community's preference, it is Sanskritisation and not necessarily actual historical fact. A few examples:

• Although the Lingayats in rural Kamataka seem to have managed to claim high caste status, if not one higher than Brahmin, the Vishwakarma appear to have failed to do the same. link. The Modern Anthropology of India: Ethnography, Themes and Theory. edited by Peter Berger, Frank Heidemann
• Adoption of the ways of life of Brahmins and other Non-Brahmin dominant castes. 5. ... Similarly, the smiths (lower caste) in Mysore call themselves Vishwakarma Brahmins and wear sacred threads and have Sanskritised some of their rituals.link. Caste and Race in India. By Govind Sadashiv Ghurye
• Adoption of the ways of life of Brahmins and other Non-Brahmin dominant castes. 5. ... Similarly, the smiths (lower caste) in Mysore call themselves Vishwakarma Brahmins and wear sacred threads and have Sanskritised some of their rituals. link. A Comprehensive Study of Education. By S. Samuel Ravi

These are just a few examples of many, many, many such academic belief that "Vishwabrahmin" is a title chosen to socially advance the group, rather than a long-standing one. Maybe the Viswakarma have been Brahmins, maybe they are descended from a deity, however the bulk of academic writing appears to indicate that a lot of this is caste politics, and we have to go with the academically verifiable theory or theories. An outstanding Wikipedia essay to understand the nature of caste politics on Wiki is Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers; essentially, it's great for us to record caste politic controversies and changes over time, but it is not okay to play caste politics and attempt to rewrite history or push a caste agenda on Wiki. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Please read this article if you are looking for academical credential about "Vishwabrahmin" name was not chosen by this caste http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4414253?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102491790607 this article is writen by George Varghese K for jstor

Acording to vedas Vishwabrahmins are the only brahmins who born from purusha's face, you can read 5 vedas for reference

We do not trust destroyers articles, lets find Veda to get original information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghu chandran (talk • contribs) 15:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Vishwabrahmin monthly google search count is 3600 Vishwakarma monthly google search count is only 1600 check via google keyword tool https://adwords.google.com/o/KeywordTool

so change the title to Vishwabrahmin ( Vishwakarma Caste ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.14.227.105 (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

A regular Google search tally isn't as useful as GoogleBooks; the former is just general people looking around, the latter is seeing how often published books use a term. On GoogleBooks, "Vishwabrahmin" gets 96 hits, "Viswabrahmin" gets 2,400 hits, "Vishwakarma caste" gets 2,290, and "Viswakarma caste" gets 17,900 hits. So to me that speaks well for using the last. And again, the academic research seems to show that "Vishwabrahmin" is a politically-loaded term, so for Wikipedia to use it as the main title may violate WP:NPOV by implicity supporting the community's legendary background rather than what they are called by scholars. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Also I fail to see how the JSTOR article y'all are linking supports your case: the very title of it is Globalisation Traumas and New Social Imagery: Visvakarma Community of Kerala. Not "Viswabrahmin", though it does reference that term. Also, it does not at all say they are Brahmins, rather it notes they call themselves Brahmins. If I'm missing something or there is clearer detail later in the article, please quote whatever sentence here that you think proves your case. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Vishwakarma Caste & Vishwabrahmin both are using in many government websites so use this two words in the title as Vishwabrahmin ( Vishwakarma Caste ) http://www.keralapsc.org/scstobc.htm and http://censusindia.gov.in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.67.133.238 (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

We don't put two names in a title; for example the article is not called Kolkata (Calcutta). We can certainly make Vishwabrahmin (and its alternate spellings) redirects to Viswakarma (caste), but it's not really Wikipedia method to add alternate terms in the very title. Again, I feel people are advocating a stance, pushing of the "-brahmin" term, that has WP:POV implications we should avoid. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes Vishwakarma is common better use Vishwakarma Caste, most of this caste members are not using brahmin word the reason is government reservation, this caste need social status and government reservation same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.79.123.128 (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

106.79 raises an interesting point which used to be covered in the article but disappeared over the many convoluted drafts. There's been some political complications with (if I recall right) some in the community claiming Brahmin status and others wanting OBC in order to get better opportunities for their disadvantaged members. If I recall right, there are similar cases of self-identified "Rajput" groups who find themselves caught between claiming Rajput status, but also wanting to make use of caste reservations to secure college spots, etc. It really is fascinating politics, and by just hand-waving "they're Brahmins" we're really being unfair to the reader and even the community by endorsing a santised/POV version of history rather than exploring the complications. Thanks for bringing that up 106.79! MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible interesting sources

• George Clifford Whitworth (1885). An Anglo-Indian dictionary: a glossary of Indian terms used in English, and of such English or other non-Indian terms as have obtained special meanings in India. K. Paul, Trench. pp. 237–.: Older book, but interesting for perspective: check out the entries for Panchala and Vishwakarma, as it refers to the "Kanarese" (Kannada) five-caste system, contrasts with Marathi Panchal, etc.

Regarding Adi Shankara

ADI Shankara is a Visvakarma and the same is quoted in Shankara Vijaya. The reference was brought out by the research organization Andhra Historical Research Society in this Journal commonly abbreviated as J.A.H.R.S. Respectable Organizations like Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) do importantly refer to findings from "Andhra Historical Research Society" [25], [26], [27], [28], [29].

• According to the Shankara Vijaya, when Adi Shankara visited Masulipatam, the Devakammalars became angry at his claim of being a Jagatguru believing an impostor was trying to assume a title that was their own exclusive property. Questioning Shankara his right to the distinction, he sang in reply: "Acharyo Sankaranama Twashta putro nasansaya Viprakula Gourordiksha Visvakarmantu Brahmana" i.e. "I am a decendent of Twashter, [...] I am a Brahmin of the Vishwakarma Caste." - Andhra Historical Research Society, Rajahmundry, Madras, Andhra Historical Research Society. Journal of the Andhra Historical Society, Volumes 14–17. Andhra Historical Research Society, 1953. p. 161.". The same can be seen here [30] Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Also from this same reference another important fact becomes clear that in those times only a person belonging to a Vishwakarma (caste) could become a Jagatguru. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 07:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The Beatles sang I Am the Walrus. No-one suggests that any of them were in fact a walrus. I know that an acid trip was involved on that occasion but there are plenty of people who have sung plenty of songs that label themselves as being this or that without any real veracity. Songs are generally works of fiction. - Sitush (talk) 10:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Almost every hagiography of Adi Shankara is called Shankara Vijaya. Please add author of this hagiography. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I have removed ADI shankara's reference as of now, since after rechecking carefully, it is apparent J.A.H.R.S. is not making those assertions. 11:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

In fact J.A.H.R.S has quoted the Shankara Vijaya portion from the book, "Visvakaram and his descendants" written by Alfred Edward Roberts. I did check this book from Alfred Edward a copy of which I have with me, it only mentions "Shankara Vijaya" and not who authored the "Shankara Vijaya". The reason I removed the reference is, Sri A. Padmanabhan Bangalore questioned J.A.H.R.S, regarding the "Shankara Vijaya" Alfred Edward's Visvakarma quote was mentioned in. The reply to the same by J.A.H.R.S is not yet found by me. Since only part of the snippet was seen so I misunderstood J.A.H.R.S having published the Visvakarma reference. But again, Alfred Edward (Proctor of the Supreme Court of the Island of Ceylon, Member of the Ceylon Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society) has written the book, so the reference is perhaps in a Shankara Vijaya. This book "Visvakaram and his descendants" arrived to me very recently so I would be mentioning the same only now. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

As an interesting parallel, if you note Talk:Rumi, there's ongoing feuding as to his nationality, and the pro-Turk side always loves to bring up some line where he says "I am a Turk". But then other folks point out that the actual context of the poem is that he's saying "Human beings are all the same thing", in the sense that being a Turk or an Inuit are fundamentally equivalent. In any case, I am skeptical if the argument for his being a a Viswakarma is a song he did. And the claim that "only Viswakarmas could be jatgurus" only undermines the argument, as it gives more reason that he could've simply been claiming that caste for political reasons to justify his role. Fundamentally, I'm just not sure that mentioning him really adds to our understanding of the caste. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

"Acharyo Sankaranama Twashta putro nasansaya Viprakula Gourordiksha Visvakarmantu Brahmana"

Acharyo Sankaranama = Acharya sankara name

Twashta putro nasansaya Viprakula Gourordiksha = I am The son of "Twashta" who is high status caste

Visvakarmantu Brahmana = Vishwakarma brahmana

Vishwakarma brahmana = five vishwakarma gotra they are manu, maya, Twashta, shilpy, vishwajna and founders of gotra of the community's five divisions. These sons were: Sanaga, Sanātana, Ahabūna, Pratna and Suparņa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghu chandran (talk • contribs) 02:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

YV passage in the main body?

User:MatthewVanitas has questioned "why bother mentioning the YV passage in the main body?". The reason is, the source specifically quotes, "The Vishvakarma Brāhmins who build temples and sculpt the forms of deities trace their lineage to these five ŗşhīs "Sanaga, Sanātana, Ahabūna, Pratna, Suparņa" are mentioned in Yajur Veda TS (4.3.3). Should readers not know where are the five ŗşhīs mentioned in Yajur Veda Taittiriya Samhita? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

What I'm saying is: why is it important for the reader to know that the rishis are mentioned in the Yajur Veda? Is there something about the YV that binds those rishis to the Viswakarma caste, or are you just noting "The Viskwakarma claim descent from these five rishis. Incidentally, these five rishis are mentioned in various books, one such book si the Yajur Veda."

The way it's written it's just not clear at all what the relevance is of these five rishis being mentioned in a particular book. You have to recall that these articles are written for a global audience, so you really need to provide some context since readers might not make connections between Topic A and Topic B which may be obvious to someone who has been around that caste all their life. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You mean in the Yajur Veda Taittiriya Samhita the Vedic rishis seeing the "future" should quote, "so and so people staying in so and so places will be the progeny of the five ŗşhīs and they would be called Visvakarmas"? Why would they? Currently is there a practice where parents or administration write down... who the future generation would be and where they will stay in the future? MatthewVanitas (talk) what is the reason to expect such? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You're making a strawman argument; I did not demand that the Vedas describe the year 1947 in clear detail. What I asked for is that you explain why a reader wanting to understand the Vishwarka caste needs to be told that the rishis, from whom the caste claim descent, are discussed on Page such-and-such of the YV. I'm not accusing, there's no need to be defensive, I'm sincerely asking whether that sentence helps the reader or not. Also does the "TS" mean "Taittiriya Shakha"? If so, you should wikilink it for readers not familiar with book-verse citings of Vedic scripture.

I'm not saying we can't have the sentence, I'm saying we can't have it without giving the reader some understanding of why he should know the rishis are mentioned in a certain page of a certain book. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The honorable author has abbreviated Taittiriya Samhita as TS. I will update it back at the article. Gentleman isn't it better to rather point out what part of my above argument is an Straw man's informal fallacy and most importantly "why?", as that would help fixing things appropriately.

"What I asked for is that you explain why a reader wanting to understand the Vishwarkar[ma] caste needs to be told that the rishis, from whom the caste claim descent, are discussed on Page such-and-such of the YV", Which is why I presented Dr. Rangasami Laksminarayana Kashyap's reference [31] to understand the current scenario and questioned you whether the reference to current lineage of five ŗşhīs "Sanaga, Sanātana, Ahabūna, Pratna, Suparņa" would be present in the ancient YV or will narrations about the current lineage will be quoted in current documents? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 12:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

In fact MatthewVanitas Original brahmins mutilated the Brahma,and expelled him from the pantheon,and now worshiping other gods. Viswakarmas still follows the duty of brahma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.14.111 (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

their namesake Vishwakarma

User:Redtigerxyz 1. Why did you introduce the word "namesake" [32] and 2. Why did you remove parts of the original epigraphic writings that stated Lord Visvakarma ancestor to the Visvakarma Caste is Lord Vishvakarma who is son of Brahma, father-in-law of Sun. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vishwakarma_%28caste%29&diff=563245585&oldid=563198362 stating WP:UNDUE. Are you not aware that there are multiple (around 10-12, updated by a very reliable source) different Visvakarmas in Vedic History? The source "Andhra Historical Research Society" that quoted epigraphic writing has specifically clarified[33] parts of the epigraphic contents as "The record says that Visvakarama, son of Brahma was the proginator of the achitects and father- in-law of the sun Visvakarama is stated to have converted the rays of the sun, his son-in-law into devine weapons e.g. discus of Vishnu." [34]. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

vishwakarma is not son of brahma in rigveda verse 17 In the beginnning, Bramha said to the puruSHa, "You are who was before me..

http://www.ramanuja.org/purusha/sukta-5.html

Vishwakarma is visualized as the Ultimate reality in the Rig Veda. from whose navel all visible things emanate. The same imagery is seen in Yajurveda purusha sukta, where the divine smith Tvastar originates from Vishwakarma. This concept developed later in the puranic period as Padmanabha. As he is invoked as AJA the unborn. He is the primordial personification of the upanishadic abstract concept Parabrahman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishvakarman#In_the_Vedas

vishwakarma is the creator of all gods - Mr. sarvapalli radha krishnan formar prasident of india : INDIAN PHILOSOPHY volume-1 in pages 89 to 90

http://vdeploy.in/drupal-7.12/?q=node/18

Ganesh J. Acharya, 1. "the term is often used for a person or thing actually named after" the caste is named after the deity. Right? 2. This article is NOT about Vishwakarma the deity. Information about Vishwakarma should be added in that article, not here so WP:UNDUE. Never have I said that Vishwakarma is not father-in-law of Surya, not a god, not in Vedas etc. Don't assume what I have not said. The relevant part about the community and its founder, the deity is retained. The article has already made it clear we are referring which Vishwakarma. It is unnecessary to confuse a non-Hindu by talking about multiple Vishwakarmas of Vedic history in the article text.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

"You are who was before me.." thanks for updating the wonderful information, I knew Visvakarma is commonly told to be the root GOD, but was not aware of the precise reason. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposing for deletion

I am proposing this article for deletion. This article has never given any proper and thorough information on the Vishwakarma caste. From the time the article was created (2 July 2007) till now, no effort has been made to improve and clean up the article to make it more understandable for people who don't belong to the Vishwakarma caste. It does not look like anyone is going to improve it either in the near future, so hence my action. 59.92.143.66 (talk) 06:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the PROD. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. The community exists, it is covered in various reliable sources and thus it passes our notability guideline. It would be nice if we could improve the article but one of the problems of late seems to have been point-y attempts at puffery to boost the image of this community. Based on my past, quite extensive experience of caste articles on Wikipedia, I rather think that your deletion proposal was an extension of that effort, ie: if you cannot have it your way then it should not exist at all. I may be wrong but it is an approach that some people adopt and if it was your purpose then it is not helpful. There is no deadline but it would be great if you or others could assist in improving this thing. - Sitush (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

"make it more understandable for people who don't belong to the Vishwakarma caste" it is a strange question ... who would that be? RigVeda HYMN LXXXII. Visvakarman. 1. THE Father of the eye, the Wise in spirit, created both these worlds submerged in fatness. Then when the eastern ends were firmly fastened, the heavens and the earth were far extended. 2 Mighty in mind and power is Visvakarman, Maker, Disposer, and most lofty Presence. Their offerings joy in rich juice where they value One, only One, beyond the Seven Ṛṣis. 3 Father who made us, he who, as Disposer, knoweth all races and all things existing ... The waters, they received that germ primeval wherein the Gods were gathefed all together. It rested set upon the Unborn's navel, that One wherein abide all things existing. 7 Ye will not find him who produced these creatures: another thing hath risen up among you Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 08:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

But today only the Vishwakarmas still continue to address "Vishwakarma as the father who made us" whilst why rest quit this RigVedic notion only GOD knows. Perhaps GOD could have been testing all. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 08:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Ganesh, this article is intended for the world, not just members of the caste who (presumably) mostly already understand themselves. The quotes that you give above are going to be gibberish to most people and I'm not at all sure why you have raised them. You are, I hope, aware that the purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to the article and it is not a forum for general discussion about the community. - Sitush (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Please refer lists of Books details below to know history of Vishwakarma Caste that will helps wiki article

• Roberts, A.E. (1909). Visvakarma and his descendants. Calcutta: All-India Vishvakarma Brahman Mahasabha.
• Dr. Gnanananda, G. (Ed.) (1981). Sri Visvakarmayaya bhushanam (Kannada) original by K.P. Dixit (1878). KGF: Jnana *Bhandara.Kashyapa Shilpa Shastram,Brahmeeya Chitra Karma Shastram.
• Sharma, A.S. (1989). Visvakarma Smaj ka sankshipt itihas (Short history of Vishvakarma Society). New Delhi: Visvakarma Institute of Research and Education.
• Chinmayacharya, K. (2002), Devudu Manavudu, East Godavari.: Ramesh Kumar, K.
• Shilpashastra (शिल्पशास्त्र In Marathi). It was written on Shake 1165 that is more than 700 years back & was published by B.S. Sutar (Igatpuri, Nasik 1906).
• Vaddepati Niranjana Shastry. Vishwakarma Brahmana Vamshagamamu. Lang.: Telugu.
• Swarna Subramanya Kavi. Vishwabrahmanulaku Prathama Satkara Arhatha. Lang.: Telugu.
• Phanidapu Prabhakara Sharma. Vishwabrahmana Gothra Gayathri. Lang.: Telugu.
• Bharatiya Viswakarmajar:Edava Somanathan:Analytical study of the Indus Valley Civilisation
• Vishwabramma Puranam: V.Kathiresan Achari: The history of Vishwabrahmins: Lang: Tamil
• V. N. Gajandran chennai Viswabrama vamsham,gothram,puranam lang : Tamil
• "PANCHA MANUSHY MOOLA VARGA NJANAM" Compiled in Malayalam by 'A.K.V.Suvarnakar' (A.K.Velayudhan),Kannankulangara, Thrissur 680007, Kerala
• "SREEMAT MOOLASTHAMBAM PURAANAM", compiled in Malayalam by Dr.Dharmananda swamikal Published by Viswakarma Samskarika Samithy Alappuzha. Ph : 0477 2237087 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.196.113.4 (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Shilpy and Vishwajnya Page

create Shilpy and Vishwajnya page ( Vishwakarma's 4th and 5th sons ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.196.113.6 (talk) 10:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Artisan vs Craftsmen Architects Engineers?

I do not know what are the intention of many writers who have written about this community. This community has not just been traditionally into just some small crafts and artistic work, but have been Architects and Engineers to many massive accomplishments. So, certain malice intent is very clear with certain sources, or these sources have horribly flawed research practices. Request editors to check sources very carefully from this angle or it is not the community that will be effected in any way, it is the intent of the writers getting exposed in front of the world. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 08:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Give me a chance, please. You are aware that I am expanding this thing and that I am using very high-quality sources, ie: ones that have been peer-reviewed and published by academic presses. - Sitush (talk) 09:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Sanaga, Sanatana, Abhuvana, Pratnasa and Supernasa Rishi

The article is missing a critical information about Sanaga, Sanatana, Abhuvana, Pratnasa and Supernasa that is the 5 rishis in Krishna Yajur Veda Taittiriya Samhita 4.3.3. Also there are persistent narrations found w.r.t The five faces of Visvakarma — Sadajata, Vamadeva, Aghora, Tatpurusa, Isana — gave rise to the Panchabiahmans i.e. Sanaga, Sanatana, Abhudana, Pratnasa and Supernasa Rishis "The makers of the world: caste, craft, and mind of South Indian artisans Author Jan Brouwer". The book Visvakarma and his descendants by Alfred Edwards Roberts also mentions "His five faces were differently named as Sadyojataya, Vamadevaya, Aghoraya, Tatpurushaya and Esanaya and from each of these he begot a son from Sadayojata Manu; from Vamadevaya Maya; from Aghoraya Twashtar; from Tatpurushaya Shilpi and from Esanaya Visvajna; known also as Sanaga, Sanatana, Pratnasa, Abhuwansa, and Supernasa Rishis respectively;"Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 03:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is it "critical". Do we have articles for those things? Have you comprehended anything that myself and Matthew Vanitas have been saying to you over the last few months? - Sitush (talk) 09:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

From some of your statements I clearly notice you are harboring a prejudice after reading materials from sources outside the community. I guess wikipedia guidelines say otherwise. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 10:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is it "critical":- because they are main Rishi's of the people of Visvakarma community. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

As Ganesh ji stated it will give clarity on the origin of the community hence in my opinion to provide more information

it is good to mention it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.73.165.42 (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Lot of distorted and bogus information

User:Sitush This article does not consider views and opinions from any of books written by the 18 crore Vishwakarma members and is purely relying on Non-Vishwakarma members? All the sources chosen are either from Christians writers or from Non-Vishwakarmas members? This is like editing articles on Christianity but choosing the views and opinions of Muslims and Non-Christian writers? Hopelessly written according to me.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 06:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it does. I'd begun expanding with info from Edava Somanathan even though it is my opinion that he is a fringe theorist. I'm in two minds as to whether it is worth retaining it but, for now at least, it is there and it will be developed further. - Sitush (talk) 09:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd request you to primarily focus on sources written by members purely from this community only. You need to consider the apparent bias with researchers. Kindly don't lean the article to non community members. Kindly remember with this article anything from non-community members are a fringe theory. Example, Muslims write a lot about Christianity which is nothing but a fringe theory for the Christians.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Example just because both Islam and Christianity cite to be Abrahamic religions, it is appropriate if Islamic perceptions of Christianity are primarily written over Christian's articles? Or because Moses Noah and Manu have similar history should I start writing and leaning Hinduism Manu into Christianity Moses Noah related articles? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

A more specific and related example will be about Romanian Catholic Church and Russian Catholic Church. Would it be alright writing Romanian Catholic Church's views about Russian Catholic Church when editing articles related to Russian Catholic Church?? So, please request editors only to write articles or views primarily from Hindu Visvakarma Community members only. Because to be honest when I read this article, I am amazed, it does not match any view I have been narrated since childhood. :) Ganesh J. Acharya (talk)

The reason to point this out is also to make readers and editors realize that Vishwakarma_(caste) has an entirely different customs and practices when compared to other Hindu communities. There are important differences with regards to initiation of the yagnopaveetham and its practice there after, practice of the Vedas, marriage ceremony, ... the list goes on ..., and finally the death rituals. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a strawman argument; nobody is insisting that we pick arbitrary POVs and favour their view of the Vishwakarma. What we want is the broad academic consensus on the Vishwakarma, the same neutral and detached perspective we want covering every issue on Wikipedia. Your demand only to write articles or views primarily from Hindu Visvakarma Community members only is completely out of sync with Wikipedia values. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

MatthewVanitas you wrote you go with "broad academic consensus" what was your reason to agree with "broad academic consensus" people tend to harbor prejudice e.g. see Asch conformity experiments "Overall, in the experimental group, 75% of the participants gave an incorrect answer to at least one question while only 25% never gave an incorrect response."? See this Youtube "Asch Conformity Experiment" [35]. What was your reason? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Poursheya Brahmins and Arsheya Brahmins

“who were the original Brahmins?”

The case was between Viswa Brahmins [also known as Poursheya Brahmins] and Arsheya Brahmins. The court is reported to have delivered3 judgement [case no 205, Chitoor District Court, 15/12/1818] in favour of Viswa Brahmins based on the Gotras of the Brahmins.

Castes in the court

In general Brahmins are two types. Poursheya Brahmins & Aarsheya Brahmins

1). Poursheya Brahmins are the Brahmins from the ‘PURUSHA’ and we know the lord VISWAKARMA is the purusha in Vedas (this describes the purusha suktha, that suktha describes about viswakarma only. This is well known to all scholars) Poursheya Brahmins are ‘Manu brahma, Maya brahma, Thwashta brahma, Daivagna brahma, Viswagna brahma’. from these Brahmins, viswakarma generations are started.

2). Aarsheya Brahmins are from ‘rishis’ they are their ‘saptha rishis’. ‘kausika (son of a heap), jambuka(son of a fox), gouthama (son of a cow), vyasa (son of a fisher woman), vasishta(son of a bitch), gargeya (son of donkey), suka (son of a parrot), saunaka (son of a dog), Rishyasringa (son of deer), vaalmiki (a thief and hunter), saankhya (son of a dalitha). All these are their prime rishis. But they are wearing yagnopaveetham.

Chittoor zilla adalat theerpu

Add above maintained details — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.66.185.72 (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

We are not using court rulings, we are not using Wordpress-hosted blogs and we are not using advocacy websites - see WP:RS. We are also not using original research, so I'll ignore things like "we know the lord VISHWAKARMA is the purusha in Vedas". This article is also not about Brahmins in general. - Sitush (talk) 09:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Sitush in my opinion you don't need to consider the content to draw to conclusion but while explaining about the position in the society you could add up this judgement mean why other communities are silent on vishwakarmas claim and how vishwakarma community proved over of its claim, hope it will give more information about the community too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.73.165.42 (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Vedas and "Purusha suktha" describes about "Viswakarma" only as "Purusha" this is well known to all scholars — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.15.131.85 (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Vishwakarma caste is not only 5

Vishwabrahmin Gotras

• Manu, gothra is "Sanaga brahmarshi"
• Maya, gothra is "Sanaathana brahmarshi"
• Thwashta, gothra is "AhaBhounasa brahmarshi"
• Daivagna(Shilpi), gothra is "Prathnasa brahmarshi"
• Viswagna, gothra is "Suparnasa brahmarshi"

The above are the main gothras(Pancha gothras)

Please find works and details about upa gothras, their names added below

Sanaga brahmarshi has 5 upa gothras they are

• "Upasanaga brahmarshi",
• "Vibhraja brahmarshi",
• "Kasyapa brahmarshi",
• "Manuviswakarma brahmarshi",
• "Viswathmaka brahmarshi".

Sanathana brahmarshi has 5 upa gothras they are

• "Upa sanaathana brahmarshi",
• "Vaamadeva brahmarshi",
• "Viswa chakshu brahmarshi",
• "Prathi thaksha brahmarshi",
• "Sunandha brahmarshi".

Ahabhounasa brahmarshi has 5 upagothras they are

• "Upa bhounasa brahmarshi",
• "Bhadradattha brahmarshi",
• "Khaandava brahmarshi",
• "Nirvikaara brahmarshi",
• "Srimukha brahmarshi".

Prathnasa brahmarshi has 5 upagothras they are

• "Upa prathnasa brahmarshi",
• "Ruchidattha brahmarshi",
• "Vaasthoshpathi brahmarshi",
• "Kausala brahmarshi",
• "Sanaabhava brahmarshi".

Suparanasa brahmarshi has 5 upa gothras they are

• "Upasuparnasa brahmarshi",
• "Viswagna brahmarshi",
• "Paritharshi brahmarshi",
• "Surasena brahmarshi",
• "Saankhyayana brahmarshi".

Vishwakarma caste is group of artists / technician / artisans in the vedic time divided by the number five,

they had knowledge about five elements - ion , wood , brass , stone , gold — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.196.113.7 (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that the five-fold concept has a significant role to play here. The problem is, there are so many people turning up here from the community all of a sudden that I'm having to limit my expansion of the article, which would cover things such as the panch concept. I'm pretty sure that this sudden activity is because of an appeal made to the community - please be aware of WP:MEAT. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Independent view

Sitush asked me to step in here so that's what I'm doing. Ganesh, if you don't like that, that's perfectly fine and you can ignore this and go for some other, more formal, sort of dispute resolution. I do hope, however, that we can figure things out at a lower key here since you both are excellent editors. My reading of the situation is as follows. Broadly speaking, Ganesh feels that the description of the Vishwakarma caste in our article does not match what he knows about the caste (as a member and from various religious texts). More specifically, there is a claim, sourced to various religious texts, that people of this caste are Brahmins and that the article should state that. Sitush, and earlier MatthewVanitas, on the other hand, relying mainly on secondary sources state that the Brahmin identification is claimed by the caste itself but is not necessarily the reality and that the article should therefore use the adjective claimed along with the Brahmin identification. Is that a reasonable summary? --regentspark (comment) 20:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

That is one aspect, yes. More generally, Ganesh is wanting the article to reflect what the community says rather than what independent sources say. I've got a couple of emails from Ganesh that make this even more explicit than is evidenced here but I cannot really show them to you or quote from them without his permission. He's refused to discuss them on-wiki and I refused to reply to them off-wiki. Put simply, he wants the article to be censored for reasons relating to off-wiki, real life concerns. Those concerns may indeed exist but, of course, we are not censored. - Sitush (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

In India there are various belief systems coming from the Same Vedas, we respect all of them since they are deviations and realization of the same Vedas. But then we have our own independent views and those we have maintained. Islamist say they have purer view about Jesus Christ and the happenings there after. But would Christians accept them? Christians says they have more purer views about Bible than the Jews, will the Jews accept them? Again Jews say they are the purest. So, I request to maintain the root beliefs told by Visvakarmas as it is.

In the end there is only 1 GOD, but then one has to respect every belief system and respect their views. Forced views outside the communities are fringe theories for respective communities. Unless and until a consensual and unforced merging of all the communities in the world does not happen request everyone to respect every view. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

A simple query ... http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/theological/qur-chrs/ are Christians ok with "Qur’an promotes exceptionally negative views of Christians and Christianity" put up on their respective pages? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Here every recall of Islam's negative approach I am sure Christians deal them as a fringe. So, Sitush and respectable editors request to be careful and unbiased. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 03:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Ganesh, I agree with you that religions have various competing belief systems and that religious texts often contradict each other. But that is precisely why we look to secondary sources for interpretations of those texts and rely on them rather than on primary sources. But, all this is too complicated for us to deal with here so, perhaps, the easiest way to start is for you to propose a specific change in the article, along with sources. Pick one or two sentences in the article and propose an alternative phrasing. --regentspark (comment) 12:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I am in touch with qualified writers and knowledgeable seniors in my community. If you are all ok, I will start picking up right information and provide them to you. If every body agrees to it. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 14:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree. They are not independent and thus far you have provided no evidence that they are even reliable. Furthermore, unless their comments are published somewhere then they are unacceptable. Honestly, Ganesh, I'm struggling to understand how you have been around Wikipedia for as long as you have and yet still seem not to have a grasp of such basic policies as WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. In any event, this article is not going to be chock-full of community propaganda: it is going to reflect the range of opinions as stated in published reliable sources. If you refuse to grasp this and continue to post reams of WP:TLDR irrelevancies then you really are getting close to being sanctioned per WP:GS/Caste. That a bunch of anons have recently turned up to do similar things as you wish is also of concern and I suggest that you get that message across to your community before they find themselves trying to edit a semi-protected article. - Sitush (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's see what Ganesh comes up with Sitush. I'm asking for something to be proposed here on the talk page, not something that will be directly incorporated in the text. Once he's proposed a couple of sentences, we can examine the sources and figure things out. --regentspark (comment) 14:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Fine but I don't want him to waste his time - the views of "knowledgeable seniors" will count for nothing unless published. - Sitush (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

These are already published views. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

regentspark You can kindly take a look at the link my above comment to understand what sources (point 8) are needed to be to avoided when discussing this community. With Puranas the community only references certain Puranas and not all. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Just propose something Ganesh otherwise we'll never get to the bottom of this. Give the exact text you'd like to see and remember to use secondary sources rather than primary ones.--regentspark (comment) 15:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I will publish more pages from the book... Give me a moment. Also this is a secondary source and not the primary one. The secondary source Visvakarma, and His Descendants, 1909 has published the 15th Dec 1818 Dist Chittor Court's Case details and its hearing. Kindly read the rest of the portion things will become clear. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you going to propose something here or not? - Sitush (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please go through the details presented here [36]. I published two more missing pages here which was missing with earlier link since the background information was not provided which is necessary to understand what happened with a marriage function that Vishwakarmas were trying to host. On page 47, point number 8 please read the Judge's verdict. All negative information originating from those 2 primary sources must be not mentioned into Visvakarma Caste. I respect LORD Krishna's words but not the mischief from other human beings. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Words of Vedas are final and Visvakarmas have no objection about those and only respect Vedas. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Ganesh, that doesn't qualify as a specific proposal. You need to do the following. Identify one or two sentences in the article as it is now written. Present an alternative text that you believe should replace those sentences. Present sources that back up that text (no editorial comments are necessary along with the sources, they should speak for themselves). Then we'll have something we can evaluate. Right now, all I'm seeing is a bunch of loosy goosy philosophical statements that are not actionable. --regentspark (comment) 18:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I still cannot see a proposal; all I can see is you mentioning sources that you have repeatedly asked me to check out over many months. I cannot read your mind regarding what you are proposing. Please note that, as you have been told in the past, court rulings are not reliable sources - one ruling out of potentially many in one court out of definitely many in one region out of definitely many is just the start of the problem. We know nothing of the particular details regarding the case, we know not whether a subsequent case superseded the ruling, and even if we could resolve all of these issues we are still not qualified to interpret the thing. - Sitush (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I have already put up the community requirements as it was mentioned during the court proceedings in 1818. Whether or not the the main page truths matches to actual truth or not really matters me or my community as we are already aware of them. Whether truth is important to others wikipedians or researchers I will leave it to their conscience. I am right now constrained into further participation. Thanks regentspark, and Sitush for your useful participation till here. Lets await other contributions. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I am going to go back to developing the article content using sources from JSTOR and academic presses etc. I see no point in prolonging the misery if you are not proposing anything. - Sitush (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess I have answered as much I could till here. Thanks Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Vishwakarma people are brahmin by birth other brahmins are not brahmin by birth because vishwakarma people have ability in design and arts this is their inborn talent because they are the descendants of "Virad purusha vishwakarma" who made this designed world, this details read in Tenth Mandala of the Rigveda and check other brahmins gotra they are not brahmins by birth, Other brahmins are the descendants of brahma not Vishwakarma their generations are not brahmin by birth cause brahma is the creator of world "life" after Vishwakarma made design brahma placing "life" ( consensus ) vishnu is for "stay" ( living ) shiva is for "samhara" ( death )

Anyone can become "pujari" but nobody can be "designer" through the practice or reading, learn mantras to become pujari but you cant be artist by reading / learning you should need inborn skill to be designer so all the pujari people read vedas and lows that written by vishwakarma and his descendants ( five vedas narrated from vishwakarma's five children ( manu, maya, thwashta, shilpi, vishwajna ) manu smrithi by manu who is first son of vishwakarma, maya samhitha by maya who is second son of vishwakarma ...etc

Still vishwakarma generations are involved in creativity e.g advitha vedantha by shankaracharya also check in modern india sam pitroda who was behind indian it revolution pranav mishri who was behind idea of google glass project .... there is lists of creative people belong to this community with designing skill,

read purusha sukta, hiranyagarbha sukta and viswakarma sukta which is part of rigveda to get clear information about arasheya brahmin vs purusheya brahmin,

let me clarify this : design is inborn skill so designer is purusheya brahmin of the world ( purusha ) they are using 5 vedas ( 5th veda is about design ) chanting is not inborn skill anyone can become pujari so they are called arasheya brahmin using 4 vedas only, 5th veda ( pranava veda ) is worth less for pujari because thats describing about design.

designer born in any caste, place they called purusheya brahmins pujari also born in any caste they called arasheya brahmin later this 2 groups became part of caste system, this was not caste in the vedic to king ruled times at the beginning of feudalism this two groups fight for supreme identity many people killed because of this matter. add this information in history / origin section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.196.113.9 (talk) 08:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

http://www.jangidbrahminsamaj.com/vansh/index.htm link may help out in sorting out the ambiguity about the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.73.165.42 (talk) 05:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Chari (caste)

Vishwakarma/Vishwabrahmin/Asari/Achary and etc., are quite synonymous. Hence this article may be merged to the given article. Balablitz (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment The article isn't properly cited/sourced. Can you provide any support for the synonymity? I can well believe that it is likely but ... - Sitush (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Better to mention different surnames of the community and merging all of them in one single article like archarya/sharma/panchal..etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.73.165.42 (talk) 11:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The synonymity is found in external links/sources of previous topics/issues discussed in this talk page. A example is, these Chari (caste) were off-shoot of Vishwakarma Manu Maya, came to goa just before the portuguese set hold in Goa and helped them in construction and finally settled there. Even the Goa government seems to consider chari on par with Viswakarma. It is better to pool all the sub-castes/divisions under one article. --Balablitz (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

HM. The problem with most messages on most caste-related talk pages is that they do not provide reliable sources. Your link doesn't work here, sorry, but if it is a document that rehashes the official lists (ST, OBC, SC etc) then it is not reliable: it is well known that those lists are ambiguous and, indeed, organisations such as the NCBC even explicitly state them to be. - Sitush (talk) 10:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Achary/Chari are same as Vishwakarma; hence Chari article may be deleted/merged with Vishwakarma article. But, there is one more usage of Chari (group of people) in South India, which is not related to Vishwakarma, but related to Brahmin. - Rayabhari (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Some vishwakarma community members follow brahmin lifestyle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.15.136.197 (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm still trying to find sources that would support or deny this proposed merge. Has anyone else found anything yet? - Sitush (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Please go through the page 567 in "Vishwakarma craftsmen in early medieval peninsular india by Vijaya Ramaswamy" book in support of this merge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.73.165.41 (talk) 07:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I'm convinced and will do the merge, since no-one else has had an issue with it other than me. - Sitush (talk) 05:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Hope you will do the same with page Acharya too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.4.125.25 (talk) 10:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Moderators Please check User:Sitush: Divide and rule policy is still existing

I suspect certain users here are participating in wikipedia in such a way that Communities in India would start quarreling against each other. User:Sitush and a huge bunch of other editors are persistently referring to sources those that are presenting a biased opinion from misguided writers... and they want only misguided writers opinions? Why? Also the dating of Eastern articles through out wikipedia is being reduced from the actual. I think wikipedia project should stop if it is here to present only hidden agendas. Please check the comments on this page. Please check what User:Sitush cited on Adi Shankara's Talk page. I think wikipedia is moving ahead in a very unhealthy manner. I request moderators to intervene. I am not a regular editor even though I have been participating for couple of years now. Even though I have been providing sources after sources editors like User:Sitush are reverting the same. All Indians should fight and die reading these opinions is that what you all want? And then meatpuppets/ Sock puppets come and support the same. All this is well planned... I do not know if A-Z all the editors around are here for the same what User:Sitush and group is upto. Request Moderator intervention. Why are datings of Indian articles being made one sided? Why are sources only following what the people in the west want to follow about history in the east? Why are other opinions removed persistently? Aryan Dravidian theory.... this nonsense was brought in and injected into the Indian communities and they are being brain washed... DO you know how many deaths have happen so far... Indians do not have mentality of getting into the quarrels of people in the west... Should people start identifying past quarrels of communities all through out the world and start highlighting those and act as though we are helping communities settled down with each other? This is what British did in India. NO .... we are here to want peace among-st all.. We are not like you... We cannot think the way crooked you are thinking... Don't disturb people here.... and be in peace.

Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 04:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, random editor here, responding to your help request. I can't tell what you are asking. What is your specific question that you need help with? If you have a content dispute over the inclusion of a specific piece of information, and the dispute is between you and one other editor, you can ask for a third opinion on the matter. If the dispute is between you and a number of editors, you can open a Request for Comment to get input from members of the community. I'm not going to bother trying to figure out what you mean when you write about "biased opinion from misguided writers", but I will point out that Wikipedia requires content be submitted from reliable sources, which typically means printed or otherwise published mainstream sources, and not fringe content. I don't know the background of your argument, but if you are submitting reliably sourced content that is still getting removed, your remedy would be a third opinion or a request for comment. Be careful about making unsubstantiated claims about editors having ulterior motives; Not everything is a conspiracy. If you have a specific complaint about another editor's actions being in violation of Wikipedia's community guidelines or policies, you can take the matter to the Administrator's Noticeboard, but understand that in doing so there is always the risk that your complaint, if irrational or unsubstantiated, could boomerang and cause you to become the object of negative attention, instead of the other editor. Try to avoid editing emotionally, and try to avoid using words like "crooked" to describe other users' way of thinking. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no time to get into all of this. I am not a news reporter, editor or lawyer. If wikipedia does not have time to investigate into all of this why is the project up and running while it has the potentials to cause wars and unrests? For example if I know your family history and past quarrels with other community and if the other community has already written articles about your community, I will only have to start posting those community writings into the article about your community. My job is done you and your rival community will start quarreling... as you will start noticing names of editors of your rival community? and what was it all about? Something that has happen 1000s of years ago. And fools among both the community will start fighting over that matter which would cause unnecessary casualties. British has been doing the same, it put in war all the communities in India. The communities would not think about there being a better past prior to the old quarrel as well. I have reported this matter here since I only have basic understanding about all of this. If there are editors who are really sincere and are here to manage wikipedia wihtout any hidden agenda please look into what is happening. Or I am requesting Senior wikipedias to close wikipedia if it is unmanageable. I suspect there is a team here which is lobbying. If you want to investigate please do the same. All of this is going hopelessly. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 09:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I post neutral articles from more communities outside of Visvakarmas and User:Sitush picks up the negative ones and puts them back... This is been going on for a long time. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 09:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

A stated by another editor above, you have not specified exactly what changes you want, beyond a vague rant accusing others of doing things that you don't like. The general impression is that you want Wikipedia to reflect your preferred point of view, and that, like many people convinced that your point of view is RIGHT, you see all editing that does not support that point of view as a wicked conspiracy against THE TRUTH, but rally beyond that it is impossible to tell what changes you are asking for. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

If you had read all of it sincerely you would have seen. I post my remark at 09:26 and by 09:45 you inferred it to be a "beyond a vague rant" JamesBWatson? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 10:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Why would it take any longer to read and understand what you wrote? No one is going to shut Wikipedia down on the basis of your complaints, and I expect that you know that. What you seem to be saying is that your views should prevail. Have you read WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 11:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Its written "A stated by another editor above, you have not specified exactly what changes you want" have I not clearly mentioned above the changes those that were needed? Why should this question arise if everything on this page and the edits/reverts were systematically studied? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

1. Please check this strange 23 June move [37] I have already put my remark above It is interesting to see User:Malik Shabazz redirecting the originally developed Vishwakarma_(caste) to Vishwabrahmin [6] article quoting no reasons. Also, surprising to see of none of the knowledgeable editors trying to fix the same or asking for reasons? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC) Why such move was required? Why no moderators objected this move? Was there a hidden agenda? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You are making a conspiracy out of something that doesn't appear to be a conspiracy. Firstly, there are no "moderators". Wikipedia is comprised of editors just like you. There are administrators who oversee technical matters and disputes and such, but administrators don't, and can't, watch all of the 4.4 MILLION articles at Wikipedia. So not all edits/reverts are "systematically studied" as you seem to imagine they are. Secondly, if at the time you wanted to know why @Malik Shabazz: made a change that you considered controversial, you should have asked Malik Shabazz on their talk page. Thirdly, and lastly, the user already answered your question in the very link you cite in your comment above. Why are you asking us to answer questions that have already been answered? A discussion took place, a determination was made, and the issue has been resolved. What else do you want? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

2. Dr. Rangasami Laksminarayana Kashyap's source was indisputable, yet User:Sitush made me debate all that I have quoted above. Why all that was required? Why after I was done he strangely posted what he posted at Adi Shankara's page? For what? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You made a request for help, but nowhere did you say "I would be grateful if someone would help me by doing XYZ." You made fairly unclear complaints about other editors with whom you disagree, but nowhere did you specify what you wanted the person responding to your request to actually do. What I can make out is that you wish certain articles to reflect your view of what is true, and that you think other editors who disagree are wrong. I can also see that you impute dishonest motives to editors you disagree with. However, I still cannot see anything that actually tells us what help you were asking for. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

3. User:Sitush has put a provocative statement here [38] Talk:Adi_Shankara "BTW, for anyone who enjoys the idea of having bleeding eyes, feel free to read" What for? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

4. He further writes "That claim has been pushed tendentiously on Wikipedia by self-identified community members, usually by citing Roberts, and we really do need to put a stop to this." He is actually requesting people on the talk page to revolt against Visvakarmas? What was User:Sitush's intentions in writing this? How did he make up his mind on what was correct? And why is he provoking people who are editing that page? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This isn't the place to have this conversation. The article talk page is for discussing ways to improve the article, not for complaining about other users. I've already advised you that if you have a problem with another editor you can bring up their actions at the Administrator's Noticeboard, but I would be very wary of doing so if I were you, because you are coming off as conspiratorial and irrational. It would be a risky proposition to take the user to WP:ANI unless you are willing to accept the possibility that the community could find you to be absolutely wrong. So either do that, or figure out some sort of compromise with the editor, or just drop it. But please stop posting these off-topic complaints here; they're inappropriate. Good luck. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

5. JamesBWatson who has just participated has also corrected a vandalism of a user User:MatthewVanitas who is found irrationally lobbying on this page on multiple occasions. He you can notice has lobbied with yesterday's discussion within few minutes and presented a biased opinion. SO I suspect he is a meat puppet/ sock puppet. [39]

Cyphoidbomb To push the complaint at WP:ANI would be isolating these provoking intentions from the readers who should be reading the biased article and have been creating biased outlook. Let readers know what is going on in here. Why isolate this incident? Also how do I know how big is this lobby? Is the incident going to be treated in an unbiased manner? What if all the members of this lobby start posting at WP:ANI and create a fabricated opinion? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 09:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I have corrected above... sock puppet & sock puppets to sock puppet/meat puppet & sock puppets/meat puppets. I initially assumed multiple users deliberately lobbing as sock puppetery initially. Later checking the article carefully I realized it is termed meat puppetery. [40][41] Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

i am not the sock puppet/meat puppet of User:Sitush he may used some others as sock puppet/meat puppet @ User:Ganesh J. Acharya Gopalan Acharya (talk) 07:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this response really clarified any issues of sock/meatpuppetry, since I don't believe anyone suspected you of being a sock of Sitush, what with you having different perspectives and all. What you might want to clarify unambiguously, is whether you and Ganesh Acharya have any direct relationship and/or whether you are editing with a specific purpose. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

my name maintained here as sock/meatpuppetry, i dont know any editors directly, i have doubt somebody is using multiple account to prove their argument in vishwakarma section keep watching all these "experienced editors" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopalan Acharya (talk • contribs) 06:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Vishwakarma (caste) (new section)

The page smacks of conspiciousness of brahmin caste being high and any other caste being low.

Firstly, the caste system was made by learned man who kept on changing the original knowledge of caste to his benefits and whims and fancies. However, if Vishwakarma existed in vedas and puranas and the point is not disputed that vishwakarma is in-law of surya deva (the sun god) then any descendentants of vishwakarma are pre-vedic. The brahmin gothras are only based on rishis who got veda from gods, so definetely vishwakarma don't need brahmin for their survival. This is not a question of superiority in caste system. The vishwakarma only take pride in being helpful to the mankind in five ways of working which keeps the day-to-day life going for every human being in this world. God bestowed everything in this world for living being to live a meaningful life but in no purana or veda or any other texts it is clearly told that brahmana caste is superior and others are inferior. God don't need any offerings. It is only the shlokas created by conspiracy by learned scholars at later days in sanskrit that try to give importance to brahmana caste. There is no superior human being than being good and useful to others and god don't need bridges between god and living beings. Be happy to be given respect by ignorant people. If Pranava Veda says anyone can pray god and hear and learn veda and natya shastra then there is not divide in the society but only divided by learned scholars who hid this veda from getting known to comman man.

Finally, the time has come for us to know that the religion, caste and community has no meaning unless it is beneficial to common man irrespective of religion, race, caste, color, or even animals need to be shown respect as a living being in god's creation. We don't need huge purana, veda or any spiritual texts to know this truth. Internet is more than enough to change this world order....Thanks who ever contributed for this technology evolution which disseminates evety bit of information and separates thrash and theories from belief systesm that are practical applicability of better living. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.235.236 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 6 February 2014‎

I wonder why User:Sitush who generally removes forum based discussions has allowed this one here. Its written "If Pranava Veda says anyone can pray god and hear and learn veda and natya shastra" even if its quoted do all follow what they read? Why do all not follow what is being read? It is because some want to follow those instructions while some don't. Why this is so? It is because some want to enjoy life over the cost of giving pain to others and some would listen to their conscience and abide by the same. Hence a wide demarcation of vivid nature of people becomes necessary to provide them appropriate tasks. Do one give the red button of atom bomb to the one who inherently is found disruptive in nature? It has to be only given to the one who is naturally suited for the same. Also, a part of nature of an individual is adopted genetically, it is a fact whether one likes the same or not, again it is not that the same cannot be overcome or improved over. Request Admins to remove this section if it is not required since it is presented more or less like a forum discussion. Please see WP:FORUM Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 06:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Can I delete this section?Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Ganesh, I'm about ready to bring you to ANI if you don't stop taking jabs at Sitush. It's completely unnecessary and it is not civil and does not assume good faith. You obviously have a beef with Sitush for whatever bias you perceive, and I've pointed out a few times already how to deal with it, but you've been quick to dismiss my suggestions. We are presumably all adults, and sometimes we don't get our way and we have to take a breather to recalibrate. But if you're going to keep dropping these passive-aggressive queries-to-the-clouds (I wonder why the user did XY or Z but didn't do ABC! Conspiracy? Meatpuppet?) in the talk section of this article, I feel like the only way to adequately communicate to you that this is inappropriate is to invite admins to comment. But I'm starting to get the sense that maybe you're not even receptive to the idea that you could be wrong in this scenario, and that worries me, because collaborative works require participants who can yield as easily as they assert. I'll say it again, the talk page is for discussing ways to improve the article, not for venting, ranting, or excoriating other users. Please stay on topic. And I probably wouldn't delete a section that you dominated with a rant. I'd let a disinterested party make that call. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Passive aggressive is right. You're asking an anonymous group of strangers for an answer of what Sitush's intent was in his edits, why he did what he did, wrote what he wrote. None of us are mind readers and we all have articles and areas of Wikipedia to work on besides this. I can see that you care a lot about this particular article but you are seeing conspiracies that aren't here and then asking other editors and/or admins to do something about them. Well, you're actually kind of demanding that something be done, but what exactly, is not clear. And, again, as Cyphoidbomb says, this Talk Page is for discussing edits to the article, not other editors. If you have issues with Sitush, go to his Talk Page and discuss it there. But, better yet, instead of focusing on other people, work on a different article and use your time to make it better. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The talk page is purely devoted for improvement of concerned article only. First step, if there's a dispute for adding/removing info or a source, it can be taken to WT:IRS or WP:RSN. Secondly, if dispute with another editor it can be taken to WP:DR or WP:ANI. This may be followed by the concerned editors, instead of doing the same thing here. If so, i believe the issue could have seen a better solution quite earlier. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 14:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It has already been to ANI, where Ganesh was blown out. There is no doubt about the reliability issue but if he wants to take it to RSN then he is free to do so (and be blown out again). The real issues here are WP:TE, WP:IDHT and WP:CIR. - Sitush (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

YES, Sitush and admin team blewn me out. I went before an administrators board and claimed that Sitush was editing disruptively but my claim was laughed out of court User:Sitush_plus_a_group_is_possibly_trying_to_put_communities_in_India_to_a_fight Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Provide link's

Please provide link's to karmakar,lohar, and Rathakara.

irrelevant content on position in society field

I request editor to read the complete book and populate appropriate content and not irrelevant content.

In the reference provided it is clearly mentioned more than once about the position as some what "The status or position of the Kammala(vishwakarama) is mixed/confused and varied periodically from Higher than Brahmin to lower shudra periodically."

links that may help to update position:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathakara http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karmakar

incomplete info on origin

only godly origin(south Indian side) is populate how about human origin followed in north, east,west side of India please do update in this regard also.

links that may help update origin:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathakara http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karmakar

Regarding sanskritisation

Is it relevant?how? anyway The respective author(reference provided) in successive pages clear tells that he dont have answer/proof regarding this theory so...... e.g:- sanskrition products like madwa, smarta,vaishnavas and lingayats had madwaacharya,shankaracharya, ramanuacharya and Basavanna to convert but no such single entity for this community and that too all over the country is found and also period they had under gone sanskrition??

Position in society

some racist contents removed from 'Position in society' The Modern Anthropology of India: Ethnography, Themes and Theory quoted contents from M N srivasan's book, it is not reliable source and that book doesn't have academical credential. Gopalan Acharya (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

This is the person who wrote the article in THe Modern Anthropology...' - both the book and the author pass our criteria for reliable sources. And how you can claim that [42] is not a reliable source is beyong my understanding. I've replaced the material. Take it to WP:RSN if you wish to argue they aren't reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

My dear editor kindly let me know where in the book it is mentioned as "This claim to Brahmin status is not generally accepted outside the community, despite their assumption of some high-caste traits, such as wearing the sacred thread, and the Brahminisation of their rituals" and "Their position as a left-hand caste has not aided their ambition" also I really dont know why Lingayat are being coated here who are unknow in Rajathan or north states.Please do let me know do you have any hidden agenda?

however, In my understanding according to the book M.N.srinivas provides reason why vishwakarma call themself vishwakarma Brahmins and reason is left hand caste and hence brahminical life style, however i have added exact sentences for book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.107.36.209 (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The statement was cited, right there in the article. And I'm bewildered to see you removing it as Gopalan Acharya did and yet supporting Srinivas as a reliable source when GA didn't seem to think it was. Of course, it *is* a reliable source but if you want to push the issue then do as DougWeller says above and take it to WP:RSN for further input from the community. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 18:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

If so can you please do let me know page number and stance in the book exactly. I never told it *is* not a reliable source but of understanding skill of the editor ho misunderstanding the content.According to the book M.N.srinivas provides reason why vishwakarma call themself vishwakarma Brahmins and reason is simply left hand caste and hence brahminical life style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.107.134.183 (talk) 02:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This page alone is full of people trying to claim that Vishwakarma are Brahmin. Can you see page 128 of the cited source? If not then I'll have to do a lot of typing. And if you're still not happy then I'll add some more sources. This is not a contentious issue, except among self-interested members of the community who continue to campaign for something that is simply not accepted by everyone else. Those people are not going to get away with using Wikipedia as a soapbox or to right great wrongs. - Sitush (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

when and where did I told vishwakarmas belong to brahmin caste? why are you try to run away from the actual topic please don't do that. My point is vishwakarmas belong to left-hand caste and all left-hand caste like Devanga, Daivgnas use Brahmin word along with there caste name in order to provide message to society that they belong to left-hand caste and follow brahminical life style.

Regarding page 128 My dear liar editor where it is mentioned as "This claim to Brahmin status is not generally accepted outside the community, despite their assumption of some high-caste traits, such as wearing the sacred thread, and the Brahminisation of their rituals" and "Their position as a left-hand caste has not aided their ambition"

I am unable to find even words like ambition, accepted...etc please let me know in which paragraph it is present in page 128. please don't run away from the actual topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.203.159.68 (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

since liar editor is silent and have no courtesy to put back correct information I am putting back the right information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.202.92.191 (talk) 10:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Derrett, John Duncan Martin. Essays in Classical and Modern Hindu Law: Dharmaśāstra and related ideas. pp. 45, 46. Please updated as per this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.4.125.25 (talk) 10:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view(WP:NPOV)so modified. By the By is above is valid?

This claim to Brahmin status is not generally accepted outside the community

@ (User :Sitush) Words "This claim to Brahmin status is not generally accepted outside the community" i can not see this type of content in that book, first of MN sreenivasan's sanskritization research was in karnataka vishwakarma people, not about all indian vishwakarma community.

Vishwakarma brahmin is different from 'poojari brahimin' ( purohit brahmins )but somewhere in india ( karnataka ) a few viswakarma caste members may trying to become purohit brahmin that may the research topic of M N Sreenivas sanskritization., this has no any relation with all indian vishwakarma community.

Vishwakarma caste members are refer as purusheya brahmin ( born with designing skill ) not purohit ( poojari ) brahmin., these two type of brahmins are exist in Hinduism both are using same surnames, this is the major misunderstanding in many historians like MGS , vijay ramaswamy and M N Sreenivas etc.. they thought its sanskritization of vishwakarma caste. read page number 559 Gopalan Acharya (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant! All these various academic historians that you mention are wrong ... and you are right? Please see WP:OR and drop this stick that you and others have been carrying around for many months now. - Sitush (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

dear freinds, why any confusion about status in society, we should take attention in our society that how our society running successfully. who make the instrument for all member the human society for there living as many occupencies. only Vishwakarma (Carpenter & Blacksmith the name of profession wise in british ruling time) make the all instrument for all. and its not a issue that who is brahamn and who is vishwakarma, vishkarma is also a respected legend of society.

while division the society in four cast as manu smriti as Brahmin (who is master of knowledge), Kshatriya (master of power), Vaishya (master of business) & shudra (master of services), there all professionals of society divided in this four type categories. where not only Pandit is brahman due to his devotional knowledge but vishwakarman is also is brahman due to his scientific and artistic knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:C18C:7AE5:B128:A481:45EA:FA31 (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)