Talk:Vishwakarma (caste)

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)

What is the meaning of Vishwabrahmin ?

we have to add detailed meaning of Vishwabrahmana / Vishwabrahmin is this short name of Vishwakarma brahmin ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.66.143.211 (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The first born of lord vishwakarma are praised by Vedas as PURVA RISHI they are the gotra rishies of the present vishwakarma Brahmin community of universe. http://akhilbhartiyavishwakarmamahasabha.org/aboutus.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.76.225.224 (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Vishwabrahmin is the short word of vishwakarma brahmin

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 [1],[2] 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 [3])" 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;"[4]) current reference ("The Vishvakarma Brāhmins who build temples and sculpt the forms of deities trace their lineage to these five ŗşhīs.") [5] 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 [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)

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? [7]. 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 [8], 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)

Notables

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

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

I've added Adi Shankara's caste after explaining it here [9], [10],[11]. I have added Nala being a Vishwakarma as it is referenced in Ramayana. [12]. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

How did you decide this? Visvakarmas, and Visvabrahmans are the same [13]. Kindly check these references wrt Nala [14], [15] Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 02:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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" [16], [17], [18], [19], [20].

• 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 [21] 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 [22] 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" [23] 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[24] 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." [25]. 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)

Brahmin vs Claim being Brahmin?

Sitush You have replaced the opinion of Dr. Rangasami Laksminarayana Kashyap [26] who in 2003 has received ‘Vedanga Vidvan’ award instituted by Maharshi Sandipani Vedavidya Pratishthan (Ujjain), an autonomous body of HRD, Govt. of India, and also he is director of "Sri Aurobindo Kapali Sastry Institute of Vedic Culture" and favored a general report i.e. collection of a common opinion by George Varghese K? In such matters are expert opinions are to be considered or common opinions to be considered? You have also ignored the view of Alfred Edward Roberts (Proctor of the Supreme Court of the Island of Ceylon, Member of the Ceylon Branch of the Royal Asatic Society.) and have favored the common opinion introduced by George Varghese K? Alfred Edward Roberts has done a ever more comprehensive research and have explained the reasons why Visvakarmas are Brahmins? Why did you choose to let go of two expert opinions? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 08:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I tried to scan what you just narrated. It is referred by Nelson H. H. Graburn, University of California Press [27] and many more writers & publishers. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute, The Institute, 1912 [28], University of California, Berkeley. Center for South and Southeast Asia Studies, Publisher Center for South and Southeast Asia Studies, University of California [29]. So many are around. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

"We write according to what reliable sources tell us." Ok... You have already cited above "Please list a few modern academics, published by quality presses, who cite". The reasons as per your own statements. When Vedanga Vidwan Dr. R. L. Kashyap quotes "The Vishvakarma Brāhmins..." here [30] what is the problem in quoting it back at the article??

Kindly note all the Opinion on his books: -

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

kindly visit this link to read the rest of the opinions. [31]Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The website is appalling" Kindly check http://www.nic.in/ that is the home page for all the subdomains. http://msrvvp.nic.in/ is a subdomain. Only Indian Government related sub-domains are being hosted under [32] nic.in. The website does not publish the list. What is the reason to suspect his award? Which country on this earth is not corrupt? Is your country perfect? Are you asking this question to all your awards in your country? Are you perfect? Let me clarify... I am not perfect. So, kindly do point out if I make a mistake. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

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

"Where is the award mentioned?" "The Vedanga Vidvan award was given by the Government of India for his three volume translation of the Krishna Yajur Veda Taittiriya Samhita." [33] Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

"what it is from Kashyap's writing that you wish to use", in the article its written "These five rishis are mentioned in Krishan Yajurveda (4.3.3)." with regards to "Sanaga, Sanātana, Ahabūna, Pratna and Suparņa who are the rishi or gotrakara (founders of gotra, lineage) of the community's five divisions." in this article where [citation needed] tag is present. If we look up "72 topics in the Taittiriya Samhita" here [34] you will see parts of the book [35] that was used as a reference earlier. It quotes "(4.3.3) mentions five ŗşhīs Sanaga, Sanātana, Ahabūna, Pratna, Suparņa. The Vishvakarma Brāhmins who build temples and sculpt the forms of deities trace their lineage to these five ŗşhīs.".Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 10:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Sitush Why did you revert it now? [36] Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

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

"and because you are a member of the caste" I don't understand this, why will an outsider know about Visvakarmas' more? Why will a Non Physics graduate know more about Physics? Why will an Non-Indian know more about India? The person living in the country and its dynamics will know better about the country or an outsider will know? Same goes with caste? "because you have a POV" obviously I will know better my family members than an outsider? How can anyone consider an outsider's POV to know more about a caste? Specially when it is 100% clear when only the Visvakarmas have still retained the old past and rest have quit it? Why will anyone agree, all then have to reply why they don't belong to Visvakarma caste, don't they? When the RigVedic Rishi clearly says "Father who made us, he who, as Disposer, knoweth all races and all things existing," [37] why consider views of quitters others? Obviously stories will be made to cover things up. So you want to go by those and distort the truth? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:RegentsPark Kindly take a look at this case filed at [38]. The final verdict by the judge. "The profession followed by the plaintiffs, who are the descendants of the five-faced Visva Brahma, are on the contrary, according to the Yajur Veda the support of the whole animal creation, even unto such insects as ants. It may therefore be safely believed that the plaintiffs, are the real Brahmins." this pictures are from the book I have with me. Alfred Edward Roberts (Proctor of the Supreme Court of the Island of Ceylon, Member of the Ceylon Branch of the Royal Asatic Society.). Visvakarma, and His Descendants. Ceylon Visvakarma Union, Colombo, Ceylon, 1909. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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" [39]. 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 [40]. 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)

Why ancient texts and purana / vedas not reliable sources ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 [41] 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 [42] 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. [43]

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. [44][45] Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Vishwakarma (caste) (new section)

{{request edit}} has been deprecated. Please change this template call to one of the following:

• For edit requests relating to a conflict of interest, please use {{edit COI}}.
• If you are partially-blocked from editing the page, please use {{edit partially-blocked}}.
• If the page is protected, use one of the following:
  • {{SPER}} for semi-protected pages
  • {{EPER}} for extended-confirmed protected pages
  • {{TPER}} for template-protected pages
  • {{FPER}} for fully-protected pages
  • {{IAER}} for interface admin protected pages

If you simply need to ask for help in making an edit, please change the template to {{help me}}.

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