Talk:Vishwakarma (caste)/Archive 1

message: Kindly discuss more about this community in South India.
:I take exception to the opening sentence's description of the community as "known to be the direct descendants of Lord Vishwakarma." Considering that the majority of the world's population does not recognize this deity, it hardly seems a neutral statement.
::This deity is well known in India and very famous there are lot of temples for the same. I understand there's not lot of research done in this direction. There are lot of narrations in Vedas (I've already mentioned), Upanishads about the deity which I will gradually mention. 
# http://www.hindunet.org/god/devatas/vishwakarma/index.htm
# http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/web1/05nov03/state.htm
# http://www.udupipages.com/home/temple/kara.html
# http://www.indiantemples.com/Orissa/puri.html
# http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1/weeklyx0.htm
Also, only after starting the article there will be development in a positive direction. I am sure there will be other people who will know more about this subject and will gradually collect evidence.BalanceRestored 05:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, do you have some links to help flesh out and provide references for the article? --Ginkgo100talk 23:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The information those I've provided are known to Vishwakarma Communities from their families. There are lot of regional books from publishers all across India those mention in detail about these communities. We will need to wait for those to be published. The topic is only created only yesterday. BalanceRestored 05:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discuss More

message: No, all the 5. It is not just goldsmiths. BalanceRestored 10:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: the fifth (associated with the goldsmiths' gotra) being the "Pranava Veda"

message: Did you find citation for the same, there's lot more than that. If you did find the same, kindly cite BalanceRestored 05:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: look, there is no known text called the "Pranava Veda". You can say that it's a secret text that has never come to the attention of scholars, but what will that help us for the purposes of Wikipedia? Saying that this is a real text that simply nobody has ever heard of is not a falsifiable statement: how am I supposed to provide a "reference" that this is not the case? If you like, of course, "aum" is a text, just a very short one. dab (𒁳) 08:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Writing "aum" is a text, just a very short one. is certainly misinterpreting the facts. There are many writers who are just trying to hide many things, which seems very apparent from what I have been researching till now. There are large texts those are certainly trying to misguide many. There differences in the epics itself shows that there are certainly huge differences. If you do not know the fact about the very text is present or not kindly do not mutilate the fact at least. The text you have written is spreading a wrong message. The Vedas are being passed from the teacher to the student and from father to his son and could be very much alive with certain communities, again not everything is told to everyone. If the Government of India them self has checked the facts and is quoting the same, what is the problem mentioning it at wikipedia. What happens if it is mentioned that Pranava veda is a Hindu scripture?? It looks like people are desperately trying to hide and misguide the actual origin of the Veda.BalanceRestored 07:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like the some people want to actually subside the fact that Vedas are from Dravidian origin isn't it? Again there are evidences that there has been attempts to destroy the evidences by removing certain chapters too. BalanceRestored 07:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been too quoted by many of the Indian Leaders in the past. BalanceRestored 07:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that Pranava Veda is only known to original Indians and not among the ones who come later, the facts of the veda are purposely being stubbed so that people do not work on them.BalanceRestored 07:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BR, "Pranava Veda is a seperate Veda that's passed on for generations and is only alive among very few and they will not share the same. So the Veda was never known...." cannot be used as a reason to add/delete information from wikipedia. Please read WP:V. Abecedare 16:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: BR, the people who have this Veda want to keep it off WP because it's secret. The people who don't have it do not want it on WP because it is unverifiable. Just keep it off WP and everyone will be happy, ok? dab (𒁳) 11:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, that's a better Idea. It's not necessary that everything has to be around. BalanceΩrestored Talk 13:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: which is not a text but the notion that "Aum is the Veda".

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

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

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

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

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

message: Can someone please explain how  meets our reliable sources policy. Who is/was the author? Who is/was the publisher? What other works have both author & publisher produced? Why does it have the appearance of being self-published? Is it a peer-reviewed book? Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 04:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious source - Dhume 

message: I have just restored an earlier, not very good version of the article. The subsequent contributor initiated a discussion on my talk page here but has now withdrawn from the conversation. In any event, that was not the appropriate place to resolve the problem, which is basically one of defining exactly what this group may be.
I do not deny that they exist but we already have numerous articles - eg: Panchal and Sunar - and there appears to be a massive overlap/duplication going on. It needs to be sorted out before people waste even more time. - Sitush (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone please explain the relationship between Vishwakarma and all of the various other names by which this community appears to be known. - Sitush (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As an example, we have articles about vansh, eg: Lunar Dynasty. Are the Vishwakarma akin to those, being connected by a common myth of origin? And we have articles such as Kunbi, so perhaps the connection takes that general form? Or it may be something else. Whatever it is, the relationship will define the content of this article and the extent to which detail is included here or farmed out to other articles. - Sitush (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed 

message: Orthodox Vishwakarmans follow a strict vegetarian diet. The following edit  was reverted. I have added further references. 
# "They are vegetarian and also claim to be teetotallers." - Rural population in Indian urban setting by Jakka Parthasarathy 
# "They wear sacred thread and also abstain from non-vegetarian foods." The Eastern anthropologist, Volume 21 
# "The high castes include Brahmin, Vishwakarma, Gowda Sarsvath and Lingayaths which have relatively high ritual status, vegetarian food habits and are traditionally associated with non-manual occupations." Hindu widows: a study in deprivation, by Godavari D. Patil, Godavari D. Patil 
# "The Brahmins, Vaishyas, Lingayats, Vishwakarmas, Jains, etc., are vegetarians" "Mysore State Gazetteer: Kolar District" 
# "Caste Factor It was found that most of the large farmers belonged either to ritually higher vegetarian castes such as Brahmins, Vishwakarma" Agricultural management and planning in India: Volume 1 by  Chugh Publications, 1992 - Business & Economics 
# "Caste Factor It was found that most of the large farmers belonged either to ritually higher vegetarian castes such as Brahmins, Vishwakarma, Satani and Lingayat, or to numerically dominant Vokkaliga caste. " Yojana, Volume 28, India. Planning Commission, India. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, 1984.
# "Vishwakarmas of the south are strict vegetarians." Metalcraftsmen of India, Meera Mukherjee, Issue 44 of Memoir (Anthropological Survey of India)"
# "They are popularly known as the descendents of Vishwakarma, the original sculptor and stone carver to whom all sculptors and carvers trace their origins. They are strict vegetarians and practise complete abstinence from liquor." Tribal arts and crafts of Madhya Pradesh, Authors	Aashi Manohar, Shampa Shah, , 9780944142714
I have added further reference to Vegetarianism. If more references are required please do let me know. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 04:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't need more citations, it needs less. Please take a look at WP:CITEKILL and consider pruning your contribution. Note also that your contribution does not reflect the sources: only one of them mentions teetotalism and that one is specific that it is a "claim" rather than a certainty. - Sitush (talk) 08:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have cut down on the citations and will try to add the references about teetotalism with better ones. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This section was removed ] and the following was cited "Diet:  remove: nothing from Gyan can  be relied upon, per consensus". Kindly explain. I had provided 5 references for the same. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As the edit summary says, nothing published by Gyan or its stablemate, ISHA Books, is reliable. They often mirror our content, they plagiarise, they breach copyright etc. Umpteen discussions at, for example, WP:RSN and WT:INB. - Sitush (talk) 10:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

text: I have added better references and have restored the section. Again, I have included "southern India" as the "vegetarian" citations were predominantly from southern India and also because Meera Mukherjee's, Metalcraftsmen of India, Issue 44 of Memoir (Anthropological Survey of India) cited the same.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am getting similar vegetarian details from other states as well. So, I will remove "southern india" eventually. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 04:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have quite substantially amended your edits & have done so in small stages so that you can see the issues clearly in the edit summaries. Please note that you should be using :Template:Cite book, since that was the prevailing citation method prior to your recent contributions. I suggest that you take a read of WP:Citing sources. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for fixing the edit. I will be using :Template:Cite book as per your suggestion. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 06:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Vegetarianism

message: Not for the first time, someone has cited the Andhra Historical Research Society. As on past occasions, the citation appears likely to be a snippet view of the source from GBooks. We really need more than this and, please, if you have access to more then I would appreciate seeing, say, a copy of the relevant page and the ones immediately before and after it. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you want scanned copy of this book ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.77.220.157 (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andhra Historical Research Society 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Original caste name 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Older Discussions held over Talk:Vishwakarma (caste) Page

message: 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)
replies: text:  I have fixed Gotra part as it was mentioned in the reference originally. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Panchal Movement to Reclaim Brahminical Right" and "Distribution" also have [6] etc.  --Redtigerxyz  Talk  17:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Origin and gotras 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Proposing for deletion

message: 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)
thread_title:   Shilpy and Vishwajnya Page 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Artisan  vs Craftsmen  Architects  Engineers? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Sanaga, Sanatana, Abhuvana, Pratnasa and Supernasa Rishi 

message: “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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Poursheya Brahmins and Arsheya Brahmins 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Vishwakarma caste is not only 5 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  Some vishwakarma community members follow brahmin lifestyle  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.15.136.197 (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still trying to find sources that would support or deny this proposed merge. Has anyone else found anything yet?  - Sitush (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 1. Please check this strange 23 June move  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)
replies: text: 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  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 3. User:Sitush has put a provocative statement here  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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. 
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)

text: 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.  Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: i am not the sock puppet/meat puppet of User:Sitush he may used some others as sock puppet/meat puppet @ User:Ganesh J. Acharya Gopalan Acharya (talk) 07:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this response really clarified any issues of sock/meatpuppetry, since I don't believe anyone suspected you of being a sock of Sitush, what with you having different perspectives and all. What you might want to clarify unambiguously, is whether you and Ganesh Acharya have any direct relationship and/or whether you are editing with a specific purpose.  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: my name maintained here as sock/meatpuppetry, i dont know any editors directly, i have doubt somebody is using multiple account to prove their argument in vishwakarma section keep watching all these "experienced editors"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopalan Acharya (talk • contribs) 06:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Moderators Please check User:Sitush: Divide and rule policy is still existing

message: The page smacks of conspiciousness of brahmin caste being high and any other caste being low.
Firstly, the caste system was made by learned man who kept on changing the original knowledge of caste to his benefits and whims and fancies.  However, if Vishwakarma existed in vedas and puranas and the point is not disputed that vishwakarma is in-law of surya deva (the sun god) then any descendentants of vishwakarma are pre-vedic.  The brahmin gothras are only based on rishis who got veda from gods, so definetely vishwakarma don't need brahmin for their survival.  This is not a question of superiority in caste system.  The vishwakarma only take pride in being helpful to the mankind in five ways of working which keeps the day-to-day life going for every human being in this world.  God bestowed everything in this world for living being to live a meaningful life but in no purana or veda or any other texts it is clearly told that brahmana caste is superior and others are inferior.  God don't need any offerings.  It is only the shlokas created by conspiracy by learned scholars at later days in sanskrit that try to give importance to brahmana caste.  There is no superior human being than being good and useful to others and god don't need bridges between god and living beings.  Be happy to be given respect by ignorant people.  If Pranava Veda says anyone can pray god and hear and learn veda and natya shastra then there is not divide in the society but only divided by learned scholars who hid this veda from getting known to comman man.
Finally, the time has come for us to know that the religion, caste and community has no meaning unless it is beneficial to common man irrespective of religion, race, caste, color, or even animals need to be shown respect as a living being in god's creation.  We don't need huge purana, veda or any spiritual texts to know this truth.  Internet is more than enough to change this world order....Thanks who ever contributed for this technology evolution which disseminates evety bit of information and separates thrash and theories from belief systesm that are practical applicability of better living. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.235.236 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 6 February 2014‎
:I wonder why User:Sitush who generally removes forum based discussions has allowed this one here. Its written "If Pranava Veda says anyone can pray god and hear and learn veda and natya shastra" even if its quoted do all follow what they read? Why do all not follow what is being read? It is because some want to follow those instructions while some don't. Why this is so? It is because some want to enjoy life over the cost of giving pain to others and some would listen to their conscience and abide by the same. Hence a wide demarcation of vivid nature of people becomes necessary to provide them appropriate tasks. Do one give the red button of atom bomb to the one who inherently is found disruptive in nature? It has to be only given to the one who is naturally suited for the same. Also, a part of nature of an individual is adopted genetically, it is a fact whether one likes the same or not, again it is not that the same cannot be overcome or improved over. Request Admins to remove this section if it is not required since it is presented more or less like a forum discussion. Please see WP:FORUM Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 06:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ganesh, I'm about ready to bring you to ANI if you don't stop taking jabs at Sitush. It's completely unnecessary and it is not civil and does not assume good faith. You obviously have a beef with Sitush for whatever bias you perceive, and I've pointed out a few times already how to deal with it, but you've been quick to dismiss my suggestions. We are presumably all adults, and sometimes we don't get our way and we have to take a breather to recalibrate. But if you're going to keep dropping these passive-aggressive queries-to-the-clouds (I wonder why the user did XY or Z but didn't do ABC! Conspiracy? Meatpuppet?) in the talk section of this article, I feel like the only way to adequately communicate to you that this is inappropriate is to invite admins to comment. But I'm starting to get the sense that maybe you're not even receptive to the idea that you could be wrong in this scenario, and that worries me, because collaborative works require participants who can yield as easily as they assert. I'll say it again, the talk page is for discussing ways to improve the article, not for venting, ranting, or excoriating other users. Please stay on topic. And I probably wouldn't delete a section that you dominated with a rant. I'd let a disinterested party make that call. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Passive aggressive is right. You're asking an anonymous group of strangers for an answer of what Sitush's intent was in his edits, why he did what he did, wrote what he wrote. None of us are mind readers and we all have articles and areas of Wikipedia to work on besides this. I can see that you care a lot about this particular article but you are seeing conspiracies that aren't here and then asking other editors and/or admins to do something about them. Well, you're actually kind of demanding that something be done, but what exactly, is not clear. And, again, as Cyphoidbomb says, this Talk Page is for discussing edits to the article, not other editors. If you have issues with Sitush, go to his Talk Page and discuss it there. But, better yet, instead of focusing on other people, work on a different article and use your time to make it better. Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The talk page is purely devoted for improvement of concerned article only. First step, if there's a dispute for adding/removing info or a source, it can be taken to WT:IRS or WP:RSN. Secondly, if dispute with another editor it can be taken to WP:DR or WP:ANI. This may be followed by the concerned editors, instead of doing the same thing here. If so, i believe the issue could have seen a better solution quite earlier. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 14:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It has already been to ANI, where Ganesh was blown out. There is no doubt about the reliability issue but if he wants to take it to RSN then he is free to do so (and be blown out again). The real issues here are WP:TE, WP:IDHT and WP:CIR. - Sitush (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  YES, Sitush and admin team blewn me out. I went before an administrators board and claimed that Sitush was editing disruptively but my claim was laughed out of court User:Sitush_plus_a_group_is_possibly_trying_to_put_communities_in_India_to_a_fight Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vishwakarma (caste) (new section) 

message: some racist contents removed from 'Position in society' The Modern Anthropology of India: Ethnography, Themes and Theory quoted contents from M N srivasan's book, it is not reliable source and that book doesn't have academical credential. Gopalan Acharya (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the person who wrote the article in THe Modern Anthropology...' - both the book and the author pass our criteria for reliable sources. And how you can claim that  is not a reliable source is beyong my understanding. I've replaced the material. Take it to WP:RSN if you wish to argue they aren't reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

message: @ (User :Sitush) Words "This claim to Brahmin status is not generally accepted outside the community" i can not see this type of content in that book, first of MN sreenivasan's sanskritization research was in karnataka vishwakarma people, not about all indian vishwakarma community. 
Vishwakarma brahmin is different from 'poojari brahimin' ( purohit brahmins )but somewhere in india ( karnataka ) a few viswakarma caste members may trying to become purohit brahmin that may the research topic of M N Sreenivas sanskritization., this has no any relation with all indian vishwakarma community.
Vishwakarma caste members are refer as purusheya brahmin ( born with designing skill ) not purohit ( poojari ) brahmin., these two type of brahmins are exist in Hinduism both are using same surnames, this is the major misunderstanding in many historians like MGS , vijay ramaswamy and M N Sreenivas etc.. they thought its sanskritization of vishwakarma caste. read page number 559 Gopalan Acharya (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant! All these various academic historians that you mention are wrong ... and you are right? Please see WP:OR and drop this stick that you and others have been carrying around for many months now. - Sitush (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This claim to Brahmin status is not generally accepted outside the community