This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article was proposed for deletion by Ankush 89 (talk·contribs) on 10 April 2015 with the comment: This article does not meet Wikipedia Quality Standards and is just favoured and biased as an attempt to promote the fame of this caste
It was contested by Gene93k (talk·contribs) on 10 April 2015 with the comment: Deletion is too controversial for PROD. Requires discussion at AfD.
Brahmin received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.
The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below.
@Akshat sin1:, @220.127.116.11, @18.104.22.168: Welcome to wikipedia. The WP:AGF does not apply to content, only to your efforts to add content. The content must comply with WP:V and WP:RS guidelines, and we cannot accept blog-style direct interpretation of WP:Primary sources such as this and this and this edit of yours. Do you have a secondary or tertiary source for it? See also WP:WWIN why the Griffith quote does not belong in this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Vedic sources section citing Purusha Sukta is a candidate for Wikipedia:Fringe theories. The hymn referenced here does not contain a reference to the an actual (not even approximate) date when it was added to the original Rigveda. Also there seems to be no evidence found on the consensus over this later addition , as suggested by the original researchers and translators Ralph TH Griffith et al, to the referenced source Rigveda. Also this hymn added to this article creates a misleading interpretation to the Religious texts without citing substantial evidence of the truthfulness of original ideas, their chronological verifiability and consensus on them at the time. Requires more evidence and relevance to keep it as a part of this article.
@Akshat sin1: Per WP:NPOV, we do not take sides, just summarize WP:RS. The Purusha Sukta is not fringe, though it is controversial. The date of the Sukta's composition is indeed unknown, but then we also don't know the author or dates of most of Hindu/Buddhist/Jaina manuscripts, including the Vedas / Shastras / Sutras / Suttas. That is true for Christian/Jewish/Greek philosophy texts too. Lack of such knowledge makes none of these texts, or their ideas fringe. Please quit edit warring, and review wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
@Mamta Jagdish Dhody: Please do not edit war, per WP:BRD policy. Please explain this edit and why you consider hindubooks.org source reliable? Further, where do the sources you added support the quote "degraded", "secular", etc (or which Sanskrit word)? Most of the verses of Manusmriti relate to Brahmins, well over a 1000 of them. Why is this particular verse WP:Due in an overview wikipedia article on Brahmin? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)