Talk:Vishvakarma

message: Moved this excerpt that was posted to the main page here, so as not to lose it (I'm not the author of this excerpt):
In fact Viswakarma is not the son of Brahma, but he is the creator of the whole universe. Here the meaning of Viswakarma according to sanskrit is Viswasya Karmanah itiya Viswakarmanah.i.e The one who created this whole universe with his work. Here "Viswa" means "The Universe", "Karma" means work which refers to the Ominipotent creator. Also Viswakrma is also called as "Panchanan".i.e. Viswakarma with five faces. Also he is the creator of Brahama, Vishnu, Maheswara, Indra and Surya who are called as PanchaBrahmas.
Any suggestions and clarification plese mail to viswazna_0@yahoo.co.in''
--Vivek 19:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kindly read "Yajur Veda 4.3.2" I've changed the article. Kindly have a look at the same.BalanceRestored 05:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitary heading

message: The image on this page was removed as it did not belong to Vishwakarma but to Brahma !!
: I added new vishwakarma god's image with five rishis  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghu chandran (talk • contribs) 04:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of image 

message: OM Vishawakarma Parabrahma Jagada Dhaŕ Muklakaha | Tanmukhani Tuvai Pancha - Pancha Brahmo Tyuhradat (3.6.11)
This means Vishwakarm created 5 Brahma from each for his 5 Mukhas to create the Srusti (Universe)
BalanceRestored 11:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shloka in "Vasishtha Purana"

message: There is a quote which says "Vishwakarma in later mythology sometimes identified with Tvastr". This is wrong. There is a clear narration in the Shrimad Bhagawatam(here deva shilpi is coated and not virat vishwakarma)  the following.
Page 162
Tvaṣṭā was very angry with Indra for having killed his son(vishwarupacharya). He performed a homa and the invocation was: "Arise! Indrashatru come out and kill your enemy" 
after that Indrashatru starts to dictate his terms with devas and, then the devas after panicing meet Lord Vishnu
Page 163
For this lord Vishnu suggest to collect the devas to collect the bones of Rishi Dadhichi and tells to pray virat vishwakarma and take boon to guide and order deva shilpi.
"Out of his bones deva shilpi Vishwakarma created dreadful weapon and call it VAJRAYUDHA"BalanceΩrestored Talk 05:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, this makes it very clear that Vishwakarma and Tvastr are different deities if we refer Shrimad Bhagwatam. Now I do not understand what Monier-Williams is stating?BalanceΩrestored Talk 05:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

text: which publication of Monier-Williams is stating that. It will be great if you give a proper reference. Currently the reference is just stating Monier-Williams(1899). If you let me which book by Monier-Williams, it will help me read the exact narration, as it seems very interesting. BalanceΩrestored Talk 06:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Vishwakarma and Tvastr are not different

message: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10082.htm
Can someone help add/add details to the main content BalanceΩrestored Talk 12:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rig Veda HYMN LXXXII. Visvakarman.

message: Viswakarma is also credited with creating the missiles used in the mythological era, including the Vajra, the sacred weapon of Lord Indra, from the bones of sage Dadhichi. He is regarded as the supreme worker, the very essence of excellence and quality in craftsmanship.
vajara weapon was made by Tvastari is mentiond in hindu mythology, vedic and puranic by W.J Wilkins, page no.75.
And the refferance of anand K coormaswamy is not about this. that is about virat vishwakarma  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeshpn80 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Vajra weapon

message: This article is appallingly sourced, where it is sourced at all. It appears to rely extensively on primary material and it also shows a disregard for the provisions of WP:NOENG, Can anyone fix these issues? - Sitush (talk) 09:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Regarding the revert  citing overuse of quotes. The Wikipedia policy or guideline "WP:QUOTEFARM" says "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them". I guess those two quotes were the only ones in the article. So, why they felt to be an overuse of the WP:QUOTE. I intended to keep it for this reason "quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words" Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We had what amounted to an entire section comprising mostly unintelligible quotes, shown both in English and in Indic script and using primary sources. No way. You want to read a page of quotes, go buy a dictionary of quotations. BTW, there is no need to tell me every time you post something here. In fact, I would rather that you did not. - Sitush (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: How can Ralph T.H. Griffith's Translation on "The Rig Veda" be considered a primary source? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not quoting Griffith's opinion etc, but merely his translation. A primary source is primary in any language. And the quotes were meaningless/had no context. I suggest that you drop this: you are not going to get your way unless you massively adjust the contribution. - Sitush (talk) 08:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

text: You also edited this passage earlier  citing "remove gibberish". Which wiki policy was that? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 03:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Gibberish is gibberish and needs no policy. If it makes no sense, lacks any context or is merely a collection of indiscriminate "facts" then it has no place in the article. Even India-based contributors at WT:INB have noted that it is quite common to find abysmal writing in India-related articles, usually because of the language comprehension issues. People naturally think that they are ok writing in English but really they are not. Sometimes the writing can be copyedited, and sometimes it cannot. Occasionally, it is so bad that after a while the contributor finds themselves being guided towards one of the many Indic language Wikipedias, where their input might be of more benefit because they would be using their native language. - Sitush (talk) 08:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote Farm 

message: On 17th September (Kanya Sankranti Day), every year.124.247.213.35 (talk) 08:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vishwakarma Puja 

message: According to Krishna (black) Yayur Veda VII.1.5 Vishvakarman is identified with Prajapati then with the boar, which lifted the earth out of the waters, which means with Vishnu. There is also stated that he as Vishvakarman wiped the earth after the deluge.--91.17.206.44 (talk) 07:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vishvakarman = Vishnu 

message: Ankith2005 (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. If I have misunderstood your request please reopen it with further clarification. —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2018 

message: I want to merge it into this article (all vedic info about him in the Vedas section) because:
* According to the following sources, "Puranic" Vishvakarma and "Vedic" Tvastar are identified to be the same god (according to this source , the craftsman deity version of Vishvakarma was referred as Tvastar in Vedic literature. Also as per source, Tvastar was Vedic version of Vishvakarma, similar to other Vedic-Puranic pairs like Saranyu-Samjna, Savarna-Chhaya. In some Puranas, another deity emerged with the name Tvastar and this is why there's so much for confusion. The article Tvastar is about the Vedic deity, so Vedic Tvastar=Vishvakarma)
* The article Tvastar has multiple problems and is badly sourced
* Tvastar is too short too
* Vishwakarma is Common name and gets far more page views. 
* See,  and  (last one is a later addition to the proposal)
Regards, .💠245CMR💠.•👥📜 06:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose Tvashtar and Vishvakarman are two distinct deities. They have different origins and are only occasionally conflated in later texts due to both being involved in craftsmanship. Vishvakarman is not just Puranic deity, but is also a Vedic deity. Just because the Tvashtar page is in a poor state does not mean it the correct decision to merge it with only a tangentially related deity. The second source you put is by absolutely no means WP:RS, and is easily discarded. The third source also states he is Vishvakarman is only sometimes identified with Tvashtar. The fourth source is also only about the Puranas, and makes no mention of the entire history of the deity. The fifth source also reiterates my statements about conflation in later times. User:245CMR, you cannot always be pushing a Puranic view of these deities, as evidenced by behavior on many similar pages. The Puranic versions and myths of Hindu deities are not the official versions of them, and you cannot put them on a pedestal over all other traditions. The other earlier traditions are just as notable as the epic and puranic traditions, and deserve equal weight, not just be relegated to the back by claiming the Puranas are the standard. Tvashtar and Vishvakarman are separate deities and notable in their own rights, and it would be incorrect to merge the two, as that would just be adhering to a certain religious traditions narrative (Puranic) and not recognizing they are separate and notable deities. Chariotrider555 (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Chariotrider555 If you oppose this, then it's ok. But you can't put a personal attack on me. There is no such "authentic version of a legend" in Hinduism as it is not just a history, but a culture of beliefs and faiths. Puranic ones are equally important and authentic while talking about Hinduism.  .💠245CMR💠.•👥📜 18:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Repeating the prior statements, the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh sources you provide still state that this identification between the two deities is only occasional and in the Puranas. As for the 7th source it indeed states that Tvastri was known as Vishvakarma in early times. However, I heavily doubt whether we should give greater weight to the testimony of this book, as it is a tertiary encyclopedia of all ancient deities, and its authors are not Indologists with credentials required to analyze Hindu deities. However, noted Indologists Monier Monier-Williams and Arthur Macdonell both state that in the Vedas, Vishvakarman is more closely identified with Prajapati, not Tvastar. They reiterate that this was only in later mythology (Puranas) that they were both identified with each other. To merge the two articles despite would be to subscribe to the Puranic identification of the two, meaning that the Vedic seperateness is not notable somehow, and that rather the Puranic version is more notable. This would possibly be a violation of NPOV, as we would be suscribing to a particular religious sect's pov rather than another religious sect's POV. A good precedent for this merger would be how Yahweh, El, El Shaddai, and God in Judaism all have separate pages. While they were after a point conflated and identified with each other as being the same deity, they had different origins and editors recognize that they're individually notable before their conflation. The previous problems about Tvastr have been fixed, with the article being rewritten with top-notch reliable sources from experts in the field, and it still has room to grow. Thus, the article should not be merged on the grounds that Tvastr is only occasionally identified with Visvakarman specifically in the Puranic tradition, and that Tvastr is notable in its own right and has a properly sourced article that has room and sources to grow. Chariotrider555 (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: :The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Moved  User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Vishvakarman →  – The  common name of this deity is Vishvakarma not Vishvakarman, for sources see  .💠245CMR💠.•👥📜 03:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Indifferent They are just different grammatical forms of the same word, as the third source illustrates. Different sources will use the different form of the word, and as long as both are clear in the lead sentence, it doesn't really matter that I know of. Note: I do not know Sanskrit grammar and cannot comment on what would be the normal tense of the word. Someone who is familiar with Sanskrit grammar hopefully can comment on what would be the default state of the word. Chariotrider555 (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Vishvakarma, Vishwakarma and Vishvakarman are just different writing styles in English. Eg पूजा is written like Puja or Pooja, लक्ष्मी - Laxmi or Lakshmi. Vishvakarma is more widely used than Vishvakarman. .💠245CMR💠.•👥📜 05:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Relisting comment: Would like more participation before closing considering the large amount of watchers.  (Non-administrator comment) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 00:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 9 March 2021 

message: The article contains lots of unsourced content which I am going to remove, but anyone can re-add it if they can find a reliable source to verify that statement. Also, there are many statements attributed to poor sources that are inappropriate for an article about a deity, such . The reasons are given in the edit summaries, and feel free to discuss here on the talk page. Some poor sources include primary religious texts (which qualifies as original research, and sources attributed to people who have no credentials to be writing in the field they did. Chariotrider555 (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: How are you determining whether a person has the appropriate credentials "to be writing in the field they did"? And how are you determining which statements are "attributed to poor sources" and what is "inappropriate for an article about a deity"? Please don't be so eager to remove material that you feel is currently unsourced, I am sure there is much on Wikipedia that is equally unsourced, that you don't seem as eager to remove. Could it be that you aren't approaching this article from a neutral perspective?  48Pills (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: First, unsourced material is unsourced material. Those are the many paragraphs that do not have a source attributed anywhere within them. 
Someone with unqualified credentials would be Coomaraswamy. He was trained as a geologist and mineralogist, yet is being used as a source for a deity. He is not qualified to be used as a source here, and it would be much better if someone who is a religious scholar, historian, Sanskritist, Indologist, etc. 
Btw, if you look at my edit history you will find I spend most of my edits removing and reverting unsourced content, it is not out of the ordinary for me to remove content that violates WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:OR. If you wish to retain such content, it is your burden to find a reliable source for it. Chariotrider555 (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

text: It is your WP:BURDEN to find a reliable source if you want to retain unsourced content and poorly sourced content. Coomaraswamy is not an ideal source, but if you want to keep him one could make an argument for it. However, the other unsourced content and content attributed to a primary religious text must go for now, and you can re-add it when you find a reliable source for it.Chariotrider555 (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

text: @User:Saraffakarsh, that is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is based upon reliable sources. If it is unsourced or sourced to a primary religious text, that qualifies as original research, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. If you want to keep the content, it is your burden to find a reliable source(s) to back up those claims. In the meantime, it shall be removed. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources, verifiability, and original research. Chariotrider555 (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced and poorly sourced content.