Talk:Brahmin/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Namasudra

The info below is copied from a thread on my talk page:

Begin copy Could not understand the comment of your last revision of claimants of Brahmin Status, I quoted from a book written by Dr.N.R.ray translated By John Wood ,Orient Longman::I have no account in Wikipedia.117.194.203.68 (talk) 03:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that there is a lot of socking going on at that article and some related ones. I cannot divulge why I was concerned that you might be another incarnation of User:Buddhakahika but I am prepared to tell an administrator by email. In any event, what you added said

The results of anthropological measurements and computations concerning the Namahśŭdras are quite remarkable. As far as bodily characteristics go they are of the same line as the Brāhmaņs of north India.

and your source was this. I cannot see that source but there are evident problems:

• The wording looks like you may have just copied the text from the source and is certainly not neutral
• The author, Niharranjan Ray, died in 1981 and the book itself dates from sometime before 1949 - that is old
• Anthropometry has since been rejected - it gave rise to such bizarre schools at scientific racism

• The whole Namasudra issue has been causing problems on Wikipedia for years because of POV-pushing by members of that community. If what you said is to be included then we're going to have to balance it with what everyone else says, which would be fine if Ray was reliable for the point.

I hope that this goes some way to explaining the issues. Feel free to raise it on the article talk page (Talk:Brahmin), where it might be seen by other people. Also, it probably would be advantageous for you to register an account: it isn't required but given the problems being caused by Buddhakahika and the unfortunate similarities between you and them, it might help to offset any possible future claims that you are in fact that person. - Sitush (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• • I am the same user ::

Haplogroup R1a1, which has originated either in South Asia[22][23][24] or Central Asia[25][26] or Eastern Europe[27] is the most prevalent haplogroup amongst the Bengali Brahmins. The haplogroup is associated with the spread of the Indo-European culture in Indian sub-continent. A very high percentage of 72.22% among Bengali Brahmins which is also one of the highest found frequencies within world groups hints at its presence as a founder lineage for this caste group.[28]

Is this not Scientific racism in a new form ?What does this sentence , "The haplogroup is associated with the spread of the Indo-European culture in Indian sub-continent.",convey? Is it not scientific racism? If this is true for a community banned for 1000 years due to Hindu Apartheid , then the data are unreliable!!! 117.194.203.137 (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I've no idea where you got that quotation from. As a general rule, it is best not to get bogged down in details about genetics in caste-related arguments. They tend to be used selectively, appearing used when a community wants to claim a high(er) status but not when it would be adversely affected. For that and other reasons, such as the often-speculative/small sample/highly qualified nature of the studies and the fast-moving technology, I'm always opposed to using them. - Sitush (talk) 09:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• • • I am the same user ::

Not only that when PNAS monitored the % of R1a1, was maximum 40% amobng Indians , and then it sored to 30% high for .......communities when indigenous studies began, same thing happened to anthropological studies also (under B.S,.Guha) and these data are used more often for these communities than not. Yes this is the Bengali Brahmin page of Wikipedia(they never mention their mtdna).Of course they are more advanced </ref>but I do not think it is for what they are claiming so; your logic is quite clear, but what is the use of screening a particular community then!!!::117.194.202.119 (talk) 12:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You've lost me here, sorry. Are you saying that you think the content should be removed from the Bengali Brahmin article, are you saying that what exists there somehow permits inclusion of the Ray stuff in the Namasudra article, or are you discussing some sort of generality? Apologies for the confusion: genetics stuff, in particular, can tend to make my eyes glaze. - Sitush (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• • • I am The same person::

Considering everything , I just added the book of N.R.Ray in reference.117.194.204.234 (talk) 05:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted you and am copying this thread to the article talk page, which is where it should have been in the first place. If you wish to discuss further, after reading WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS, then feel free to do so there. - Sitush (talk) 05:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

End copy - Sitush (talk) 05:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• • • • I am The same person.

This book this is the most documented and reliable and accepted History of the Bengali People.This article changed the attitude of The Bengali People.There are other sources also ,but I cannot find good English translations.Then came the Genetic studies.That also suported the claim.This is not a problem generated by the community members , the educated persons have highlighted this ideas. The "Vyavastha" signed by the Pundits detrmined many things at the time when it was written. The above Book is , till these days only reliable documentation of the pros and cons of the Bengali People.All the refrences you find here are either hearsay, mythology, scriptures, etc. , those are also same kind of documentations.However a section of the community is now demanding Avarna status, but that does not invalidate the past.117.194.200.132 (talk) 07:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• • • • I am The Same Person.

IF ANY ONE HAS ANY OBJECTION TO ADDING THIS ".....they are of the same line as the Brāhmaņs of north India."P. 28"History of the Bengali People: Ancient Period ;Chapter Two ,The Origins 3,penultimate para" by Niharranjan Ray ,Orient Longman,1994,ISBN 978-0-86311-378-9 [1] " as reference to namasudra as Claimants Of Brahmin Status may please give your opinion with reasons.117.194.211.207 (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I object and I've already said so. See the comments above. The opinion of five pundits is pretty worthless but interesting in the context of the vogue for sanskritisation at that period. Ray, though, isn't even interesting, let alone reliable. I've not even managed to fathom who took the measurements on which Ray relied, although I doubt it was him & it is was then I'd like to see a copy of his medical qualifications. I could live with including something about Ray's opinion if we can get the message across that his methodology (anthropometry) was discredited but I'm not sure how we can do that because it was the entire pseudo-science that was rejected, not Ray personally - don't forget, there were some odd people who swore by it. - Sitush (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

See perhaps Partha P. Majumder, B. Uma Shankar, Amitabha Basu; et al. (February 1990). "Anthropometric Variation in India: A Statistical Appraisal". Current Anthropology. 31 (1): 94–103. JSTOR 2743350. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link), which is pretty much a review of the past literature. Its conclusion is "the people of India cannot be classified into a fixed set of ethnic categories based on anthropometric data. Efforts at typological/'racial' classification should be abandoned, and research should concentrate on the sources of anthropometric variation." That's a fairly typical denunciation of the approaches that were commonly used in the first half of the 20C. - Sitush (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• • • • I am The Same Person.

Yes Ray himself collected data . I do not know how much you personally are aware of Indian Hindu or Apartheid Sociological structure (I doubt your knowledge is based on literature published only in English language , and now people are translating Sudra as Assistant to mislead the English language society) .The Sansktitisation is not a phenomenon of that period only, it was, it will be, political hegemony has a great role here and will also be in future .But the way you are thinking would lead only to "A is A".117.194.204.80 (talk) 09:10, 22 Novvember 2013 (UTC)

I would like to know what others think about this.Now their opinion is very important.At that time West raised the Racial identity in terms of Anthrppology , and it was so, now they are raising Y-Haplotype, so that has become obsolete or untenable, some day Y-Haplotype will be obsolete (I am sure of it) , now upper layer will be using the new data , but the hegemony wherever tumbles down , we will have our deepest suspect: It is known to everyone.117.194.204.80 (talk) 09:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• • • • I am The same person::

The Page "Nair" has started with some anthropologist's comment ; then why an acknowledged Historian , Anthropologist and Socilogist , Dr N.R.Ray's reference cannot be used in wikipedia , I do not understand your logic. If anthropological categorisation has become obsolete, then why is it being used there? 117.194.207.242 (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Nair has a quote from Kathleen Gough. The difference is, Gough's opinion of the Nairs as an umbrella group is still accepted by her peers whereas Ray's opinion about the Namasudras is not because it was based on discredited methods. - Sitush (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• • • • I am The same person::

Thanks.117.194.207.75 (talk) 12:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Kayastha and other Demand :::: (UTC ^^^ refrence

That is Dohakoshpanjika by Adwaibajra , given in Bangla Sahityer Itihas by Sukumar Sen : I think you are an Indian British .Use your connections to know it:117.194.211.101 (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not and I've never heard of Sen. Given how much I've read around the subject, that itself is not a good sign. I'm am reverting you because the statement misrepresents the source as explained in my comment earlier today at the end of this page. - Sitush (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Then How do you actually do the editings , what about those written in Indian languages.The scientific racism , the issue that yuo raised , if that be what you really think, there cannot be any page named as "Brahmin" .This is also racism. They are by birth Hindu Priests. Do have any page By the name as jewish priests or of Chritian priests as "Fathers or Reverends" or as "Imams" for Islam. Are you not promitng racism, if this be not a tribal identiy .Is the new person who is in-charge instead of you anyhting different . Why do not leave these pages to the people of the land those know better.Even if there is POV others will oppose and there will be a solution ,tha was what Jimmy Welsh ideals were.17:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.207.25 (talk)

Namasudra claim to Brahmin status

I've removed Namasudra as claimants of Brahmin status. This issue has been pov-pushed for years by presumed members of that community on Wikipedia. The source that was cited notes on the preceding page that the community was desperate to rid itself of its Chandala affinity and claimed other statuses also, including that of Kayastha. The situation is far too complex for coverage in this article and, which is worse, even today the claim is not accepted by anyone other than the community itself. The Namasudra article is one that I've been trying to improve for some time and I'll be expanding it considerably - that is the place to expound on what is a very dubious association. - Sitush (talk) 10:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It belongs in the Namasudra article, not here. I just looked at the source and reverted again since it was overstating the source. Dougweller (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Namasudra Movements in Bengal (1872–1947): R.K.Biswas :ISBN 978-81-88006-19-9: 2010: Progressive Book Forum,33 College Row ,Kolkata-700 009 .This book contains copies of three Memoranda ; First one to The Lieutenant Governor Of Bengal In April ,1901 , demanding Namasudra or Kudar designation.( Kudar is a sect of Brahmin ,also called Debal, this was intially raised by Sri Harichand Thakur) .

It will not be out of place to mention that in 1900 census they were documented as 'Chandala'.

They again gave another memorandum on the 3rd August 1901 ( office memo no.2796) to The Lieutenant Governor Of Bengal ,demanding Namasudra designation in the census.

The third memorandum was submitted to The Lieutenant Governor Of Bengal and Assam , which included the annexed paper ,Vyavastha, signed by 41 Brahmin pundits, and demanded , Brahmin status , by name Namo-Brahmin, although they clearly mentioned that they were backward.

=== So it is a fact that they claimed Brahmin status and also that they were the only out of castes community ever to be certified by Chief Brahmin Pundits as of Brahmin origin.

===

It will also to be mentioned here that they never submitted 'Kaystha' demand officially to any authority.That was only a hearsay myth that spread over some easter districts of undivided Bengal and created lot of nuissance.

Most thesis on this community by aspirant scholars , do not include the part properly: they rather try to project their work to be categorised as subaltarn studies and to be contemporary.But they forget that Balkanisation is a recent phenomenon in Europe.How do they ignore their identity movement ,it is not clear:; it seemed to me more funny when I found one tea-shop-gossiping term of Calcuttans , Bhadroloke, becomes the Heading of a wikipedia page.Rnibaraj (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thailand

I think that the Thailand's notes were notable, for this page. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Fine, if you can find a decent source that says the two groups are the same. The problem with much of this article has been poor sourcing, pov-pushing by people of the Vishwakarma community and massive amounts of sockpuppeting by User:Buddhakahika. - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Found some[2], [3], [4]. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

As I found to my cost, there is a difference between Brahman (Hindu) and Brahman (Buddhist). That might need an article in itself but it is not this one, which is about a varna in Hinduism. I think we might need to get some people from the Buddhism project involved and try to drum up a new article. - Sitush (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, this article is related to buddhism, and even jainism as well. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Why? That is the type of argument that Buddhakahika was using and it has been rejected on multiple occasions and multiple articles. That this article still contains some Buddhist-related stuff is most likely entirely down to that person. We have Brahman (disambiguation), btw, but if we go down the road that you propose then we'll need Brahmin (varna) or Brahmin (Hinduism) and then this article will become a stub. Maybe we need to determine the focus first because the socking has messed things up big time. - Sitush (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, the page has been slowly diverted from Hindu subjects by the user. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference

Refrence no 3 refers to Buddhist scriptures according to text but it refers to something else.13:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.196.161 (talk)

The source says that its info comes from the Sona danda sutta. I've no idea whether that is a Buddhist text or something else. What is it? - Sitush (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

NPOV CHECK

This article really needs tidying.up with views of all contained - too much reference to mythological texts and without balance to modern westerm views — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evidence first (talk • contribs) 14:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The Term Brahmin actually refers to the religious practitioners or dealers, the people who used religion as their livelihood.In the true sense of the word Brahmin is a mosnomer , rather self-glorification. Their entire story is nothing but their genealogy which is nothing but mythology.For the practice of Varnasram or Casteism education became restricted to them only and the result is what we have got in Indian continent.Rishis are of pre-varnasram period terminology , they werer not Brahmin or Priest Caste.However now the better truth is success succeeds nothing.117.194.195.48 (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that say this or is it just another anti-Brahmin story? - Sitush (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

"Casteism", nice made up word, speaks enough that how trollish discussion you are aiming for.. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It's defined as "adherence to a caste system" in my Oxford English Dictionary, and mentioned in Caste system in India. Dougweller (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps not surprising, given that I'm perfect and a pig just flew past ... and insert that word all over the place. Similarly, "casteist". - Sitush (talk) 06:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyways, in the end, Brahmin is just a term for "teacher", "priest". Bladesmulti (talk) 06:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Are Pancha-dravida's Brahmin's?

Is there any reliable source of information that pancha-dravida refers to the Brahmin's of south India? I see it as a false propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunkumarbalakrishnan (talk • contribs) 04:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty. The article needs a complete overhaul but, for example, this, this, this, this and this all appear on the first page of my Google Books source and all refer to it. Why do you consider it to be "false propaganda"? Propaganda driven by whom? - Sitush (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks there are people who visit this page only for digging some anti-hindu bias, but when they find none they rage on these talk pages. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Without knowing the facts and terming the above concept as "false propaganda" is a bit rediculous and foolish!!? -Rayabhari (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the books reference Sitush. If Pancha-Dravida's refer to Brahmin's then why do etymologists have categorized Indian languages as Indo-Aryan and Dravidian. And ofcourse Sanskrit comes under Indo-Aryan language. Only if you dig deeper you can find the roots of Hinduism and casteism, till the advent of Buddhism there was no caste categorization in Hinduism, all educated were called as Brahmans. There were no untouchables, its only between 100 to 200 AD, when Upanishads and Puranas were written, casteism gained grounds by scholars who wanted their lineage to be called as Brahmana's or the educated. I'm not intended in making anti-hindu or foolish comments here, I thought it would be a healthy debate but I can see some souring over here too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunkumarbalakrishnan (talk • contribs) 08:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Blunders in the page

It is nice to see that this page is getting reverted to a particular version always and all the admins are trying to freeze the page in that stage. However, the version that these admins want to keep contain so many blunders.

First of all, I would like to point out that the Nepali Brahmins is shown as a sub-sect of Pancha-Dravida Brahmins. This is absolutely wrong. No body wants any source for this blunder. The surprising fact is that, even though it is corrected a number of times, the 'intelligent' administrators reverts and brings the Nepali Brahmin section as a sub-section of Pancha-Dravida. Interesting, isn't it?. 'Nepali Brahmins' should be shown as a separate section. Not in Pancha-Dravida or Pancha-Gawda.

Next, the article presents 'Nambudiris' alone as the Brahmins in Kerala. This is a matter for laugh. And whenever I tried to add some information, it gets deleted or reverted without any proper justification or study. There are many other Brahmin and Lower-Brahmin castes in Kerala.

There are so may other blunders, idiotic sentences etc. in this article. Probably, the readers from India can understand. I am not mentioning them as that are not connected to my edits.

Sometimes I wonder, why this admin people are not even trying to read or learn something about the subject. The Kalhanas sloka and illustration was sufficient to remove the tag "This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2013)" from the major section Brahmin communities. But the admins deleted/reverted everything. Shame on you people. I know, you people did not like my comments, and you will start attacking me by justifications and Wikipedia rules. Whatever it may be, try to correct this article and provide something useful to the readers. Remember 'Half-told' is dangerous than 'Wrongly told'. What you are presenting is 'half-told'. - Prasanthnnamboothiri (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of people understand that this article is a mess and you can see umpteen comments to that effect above. Including a fair few from me. However, believe it or not, the thing is much better than it was a few months ago. There is no deadline, it takes time to research stuff and if you can comply with our policies regarding reliable sources etc then there is nothing to stop you improving it yourself. You perhaps do not realise how much of the time spent on Wikipedia by experienced editors is consumed by having to repeatedly fix poor contributions: if there were less of those, there would be much more time available to actually improve significant articles such as this. - Sitush (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You may keep on saying the policies. There are no policies like your policies or my policies. Now I am again trying to make a small step to improve this article by making Nepali Brahmins a separate section as they do not belong to Pancha-Dravida. Let me see what the so called 'experienced editors' are doing with their experience. I want to know whether they are will stand for improving this article or to spread mistakes to the readers. --Prasanthnnamboothiri (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Kerala Brahmins

@ Sitush, Other than Nampoothiris, there are so many Brahmin castes in Kerala. So many references are available. You may make a search. But, recent references will be practically difficult as now a days no body in Kerala writes about the Caste System. -Prasanthnnamboothiri (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of people in recent years have written of the caste system in Kerala - you see a few of them at, erm, Caste system in Kerala. There are loads more. I do understand that modern Keralites often prefer not to self-identify with caste, for historical reasons relating to the extremes of stigmatisation, but that does not seem to have stopped the numerous studies and it has not altered the fact that Kerala has one of the highest numbers of caste-centric political parties in the country. - Sitush (talk) 13:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Then why are you deleting the facts?--Prasanthnnamboothiri (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Nampoothiris is fishermen ( Mukkuvar ) according to Skanda Purana add that history in kerala namboothiri section. Gopalan Acharya (talk) 06:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

What bit of WP:PRIMARY do you not understand? We're not using these ancient religious texts. - Sitush (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY doesn't mean do not collect any information from ancient historical texts. Gopalan Acharya (talk) 07:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Give the lines stating Nambudiris as Mukkuvas in Skandapurana. Even if it is so, in Kerala, they were treated as Brahmins for Centuries and still they are being treated as Brahmins. That is enough. Being a Mukkuva is also not a matter of Shame. But the truth is reverse. Nambudiris were not treated in Kerala as Mukkuvas for the last 15 or 20 centuries. Even though minorities, Nambudiris were deprived off from the reservation telling that they belongs to 'forward class' where as Mukkuvas still enjoy all the advantages of reservations. Glory to India for her Caste-based-reservation system for preserving the Caste system in the new ages also. This caste-based-reservation system itself provide proof for Nambudiris are Brahmins - as per customs and practices they followed for years. Mukkuvas were beyond the Class(Varna) system- They were not included in the Varna (Class) system. They were known as Avarnas. --Prasanthnnamboothiri (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

There was no caste named namboothiri before 15 centuries, namboothiri is fake caste and not original brahmin in Hinduism Gopalan Acharya (talk) 07:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Even if it is so, the remaining 15 centuries of History of Namputhiris are enough to get inclusion in an encyclopedia. What about the so called 'Viswakarma Caste'. It can claim a history less than one century. All of us, including you and me, know 'Viswakarma Caste' is a fabricated caste. Not formed as a result of natural social process. You may continue to fight. But for what? In the past, the so called Viswakarma castes never enjoyed Brahminical Status. If you are fighting for a Brahminical status for the present, in the present Indian Social System, there is no use. The situation of Brahmins are very poor. Anyway, I request you to provide the lines, as you mentioned, in the Skandapurana stating that Namputhiris are Mukkuvar. I have some other uses with that if I can get such a reference. --Prasanthnnamboothiri (talk) 12:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Namboothiries are treated as brahmin or treated as poojari ? there is difference between poojari and brahmin, poojari is NOT brahmin in Hinduism, centuries before Namboothiri introduced we "Namboothiries" are brahmin, uneducated kerala people were not allowed to read vedas so they believe that fake information and they treated them as brahmin but Namboothiri has no brahminical status in hindu vedic texts. regarding vishwakarma caste and their claims discussing here Reliability of sources so please do not marge subject Gopalan Acharya (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Asari, that is what you are saying. Whatever it may be, whether mentioned in Veda-puranas or not, Namputhiris are Brahmins for centuries. That is enough. You and I know what is the actual situation. Your claim for Brahminical status for the fabricated Viswakarma caste will not stand. The emerged or fabricated Viswakarma caste don't have a history more than one or two centuries. You need not waste your time to teach me your false claims. You also failed to give me the lines from Skandapurana stating that Nambudiris are Mukkuvas. Even if it is there, that doesn't matter. If you can, provide me those lines from Skandapurana--Prasanthnnamboothiri (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC).

Yes Nambudiris are Mukkuvas read S N Sadasivan; A social history of India;Page 300 : ISBN 81-7648-170-X — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopalan Acharya (talk • contribs) 04:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Asari, there you are.. "A Social History of India" by S. N. Sadasivan is written in a biased manner-it is written purely for boosting the Ezhava-Thiyya cstes. The whole book is available in Google books. You are quoting a part of the book which supports the Parasurama Mithology. It is not history. Overall, nowhere in the referred Sloka, the term Namputhiri is used. It only supports some aspects of the Parasurama mythology - in Kerala, fishermen were converted to Brahmins by Parasurama. Not more than that. All the other things are interpretations of the author- and that also in a subjective manner. If you are quoting this book, then it is very easy to establish Nambudiris as Brahmins by simply quoting from Keralolpathi. It is also noticeable that the book Keralolpathi is also referred by S.N.Sadasivan. You cant claim much more authenticity to this book than that can be attributed to Keralolpathi. Hence, this book is not sufficient for establishing your arguments and claims. First of all, you see things objectively. Then study the things based on facts. Try to develop Scientific Attitude. --Prasanthnnamboothiri (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

S. N. Sadasivan has long been considered unreliable for Wikipedia purposes. He had no appropriate training and exhibited numerous biasses. It was discussed extensively at Talk:Nair etc. - Sitush (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

S. N. Sadasivan noted that point ( Nambudiris was mukkuvar ) from the Skanda Purana that was not his personal view @ Prasanthnnamboothiri and @ Sitush Gopalan Acharya (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

But since Sadasivan has no relevant expertise, he is not qualified to assess the content of an ancient text. It is Sadasivan's lack of expertise that makes him unreliable, as I've already said. Look, Gopalan, your on-wiki mate Ganesh J. Acharya has just been indefinitely blocked for tendentious POV-pushing bordering on incompetence - please don't put yourself in the firing line, too. - Sitush (talk) 09:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of sources

Please do not use sources published by Gyan or by Global Vision, such as this one. Neither publisher is reliable and that has been a long-standing community consensus, eg: User:Sitush/Common#Gyan and WP:MIRROR both make mentions of the issues. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I added some texts from this book to inform Vishwakarma's 5 faces name because author of this book P. Sadanandam used Vishwakarma Purana which is part of rigveda to get this knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopalan Acharya (talk • contribs) 17:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter - it is not reliable, period. Self-revert, find something else and explain why the five faces are so important. - Sitush (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Brahmins were born from this five faces so this names are important matter in brahmin's history section, Brahmin history available in Purusha Sukta and Vishwakarma Purana is part of Rigveda 10th Mandala so its reliable, period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopalan Acharya (talk • contribs) 07:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

So you say. Do you have a reliable source that says it ... and why is this mythology important to their history? Perhaps you cannot see the wood for the trees but the majority of people are not Brahmins and statements such as this are meaningless without context. - Sitush (talk) 11:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Read this books also have this details ( Vishwakarma's five faces ( sons ) names )

1, People of India: Maharashtra - Part 2 - Page 928 2, Exploring India's Sacred Art: Selected Writings of Stella ... - Page 61 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopalan Acharya (talk • contribs) 17:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The second of those sources does not say what you reinstated in the article; the first is not reliable. Leave it with me and I'll sort it out. - Sitush (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I've had to revert you again. You are clearly pushing a Vishwakarma-oriented agenda here and you are getting it wrong. As with many things Hindu, there are various theories regarding Purusha. Please can you lay off this POV pushing because it is generally accepted that the Vishwakarma (caste) are not Brahmin and you are not going to try to persuade people otherwise by the back door. I'll be expanding the bit about faces etc but it will not give undue emphasis to the Vishwakarma claim. - Sitush (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Read purusha sukta if you want to know who is purusha, purusha also known as Vishwakarma

Purusha sukta - second anuvAka - Verse 1

adbhyassambhoota: prthivyai rasAcca

vishvakarmaNassamavartatAdhi

tasya tvaSHTA vidadhadroopameti

tatpuruSHasya vishvamAjAnamagre

Meaning : (adbhya:) From the waters and from the (rasAt) elemental essence of (prthivyai) earth (sambhoota:) was the bramhAnda, the Universe, born. (vishvakarmaNa:) As vishvakarma, the divine architect, did puruSHa, who is (adhi) more than that Universe, appear (samavartata). (tvashTA) As tvashTA, the divine smith he (vidadhat) establishes (tasya roopam) his form, that includes all the worlds (eti) and manifests it everywhere. (agre) In the beginning was (tat puruSHasya) that puruSHa's (vishvam) all, his vishva roopa, (Ajanam) formed.

The waters of destruction are again the waters of creation, and from them does the earth reveal itself after praLaya. From these elemental materials is the universe formed, and into these it dissolves. Ashes to ashes, and dust to dust. tvashTA was the smith who forges Indra's vajra, thunderbolt, from the bones of the RSHi dadeechi. Vishvakarma is the divine architect who planned and built, among other cities, Kubera's Alakaapuri and also Lanka, and Indra's city.

From the waters and earth

Does all appear

As a builder he builds,

As a smith he forges it..

He who was all

Before the all was.

@Sitush Read exact history before you post wrong statements about any community, wikipedia is not the place to post your stupidity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopalan Acharya (talk • contribs) 04:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

No. You should read WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY. Gopalan, you are not going to "win" in this discussion because you do not appear to have yet gained sufficient knowledge of our policies. Participation in discussions will, of course, improve your knowledge of policies if you are amenable to learning. However, you also seem to have an axe to grind. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that you should be limiting yourself to comments on this talk page rather than editing the article itself because you seem to have a conflict of interest and it is clearly affecting your use of sources. You are not the first and you will not be the last, so there's no need to feel bad about it: just learn. - Sitush (talk) 06:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk about above mentioned purusha sukta content that clearly show purusha is vishwakarma, edit with this details in article, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopalan Acharya (talk • contribs) 06:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems that you have not read the links that I provided, ie: WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY. - Sitush (talk) 09:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Read many reference here in Google Books these all explain Purusha is Visvakarman so try to understand the history that say The Designer is brahmin NOT Priest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopalan Acharya (talk • contribs) 07:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

We don't take search results pages as reliable sources. You'll have to be more specific because your search term will inevitably produce false positives. Better still, just drop the whole matter and go do something that doesn't involve the Vishwakarma caste connection for a few months. - Sitush (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I notice at Purusha Sukta#Content claims that there are several variant deities (?) to whom the Purusha name may relate, one of which is Vishwakarma. Since there are several, since the hymn is actually called Purusha ... and since it usually makes sense to follow the article title in naming disputes (on the assumption that the title will likely be the most neutral and common), it would seen that just showing Purusha in this article would be the way to go. Of course, Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, so I'm just throwing this out here for consideration. - Sitush (talk) 09:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Universe ( purusha ) emerged in the small part of big dark matter area ( hiranya ) as self designer ( vishwakarma ) who is the king of the universe ( prajapathi ) so this universe known with these different names — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopalan Acharya (talk • contribs) 09:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are talking in riddles and you've still not provided a source. - Sitush (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

1,Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta By Rene Gueno describes about this matter page 40 [...] see especially the purusha sukta of the Rig veda Purusha sukta 10.90 Vishvakarma, an aspect or function of 'Universal Man', corresponds to the 'Great Architect of the Universe' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopalan Acharya (talk • contribs) 11:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

2,The Strides of Vishnu printed in Oxford University Press page 98 By Ariel Glucklich Professor of Theology Georgetown University found something regarding purusha and visvakarma There was the monistic approch of yajna-valkya and uddalaka aruni from the rig-veda and the brahmanas : Agni, savitar, prajapati, vishvakarman, hiranyagarbha and purusha and the various ritual ideas that accompanied them...

3,The Secret Doctrine: The Synthesis of Science, Religion, and Philosophy By H. P. Blavatsky - Another book printed by cambridge university press shows purusha and visvakarman is same He ( Man 'purusha', or 'visvakarman' ) had seven enclosing logs of fuel and thrice even layers of fuel when the gods performed the sacrifice they bound the man as victm ... This relates to the three spentenary primeval races, and shows the antiquity of the vedas...Gopalan Acharya (talk) 08:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Helena Blavastsky is a fringe writer, and her books is only useful if we want to discuss theosophy here. She is not a reliable source for anything to do with Brahmins. CUP publishes a whole series of esoteric books[=Historic%2Btitles] none of which would be reliable sources for factual material. Your first book is published by a publisher specialising in Perennial philosophy books, again fringe material. I have no idea what your comments on the second book mean. Dougweller (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

We are finding the first brahmins names those who was born from "purusha's mouth" to add in brahmin history section, according to purusha sukta brahmins were born from purusha's mouth, continue read rig-veda... purusha sukta, hiranya garbha sukta, visvakarma sukta to get that first brahmins names Gopalan Acharya (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Above three references i added to inform Vishvakarman is Purusha, do you agree this ?Gopalan Acharya (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

4, "Visvakarman" as being identical with the deity of the "Purusha-sukta" Essays On Indo-Aryan Mythology - By Aiyangar Narayan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopalan Acharya (talk • contribs) 18:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Besides the fact that the book is over a century old, it doesn't actually say what you say it says. It says "the author regards...." - who is the author that is being referred to here? You do know that you can't just take a snippet like that and use it, I hope. The next sentence might be "Of course, this is clearly wrong." I've reverted your recent edit - among other things you made it appear to be in the two sources cited there.So far you have no reliable sources making this identification. If you do find one, bring it here but it will almost certainly need attribution. It's pretty obvious by now that if this identification is common you'd have been able to find sources that meet our criteria. Dougweller (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

That was not snippet, check my reference link again there you can read complete story, see that details "Visvakarman" as being identical with the deity of the "Purusha-sukta" brahmin history and first brahmins names you can read from the Rigveda Mandala 10 all this references are taken from academical sources not from century old ancient texts, anyway we are making article for century old history of Brahmins community so the first names of the brahmins is important in brahmin history section Gopalan Acharya (talk) 09:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Google Books shows different views in different parts of the world, so it may be snippet for one person but not for another. That said, you're still not going to get your way. As I've said before here, there is no agreement regarding Purusha connections and thus to suggest that the Vishkwakarma one is the only option out there would be incorrect. Best to leave it at what is agreed (ie: use "Purusha") and let the reader determine what the implications of that might be. I checked this out with someone whom I regard as something of an expert when it comes to issues on Wikipedia related to Hinduism - see User_talk:Redtigerxyz#Synonyms_of_Purusha - and I really do think that members of the Vishwakarma community active on this project now need to back off pushing their point of view at the expense of the views held by others. - Sitush (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree vaishnavas argument as vishnu is purusha ( brahma, vishnu, shiva, agni and varuna is different form of Purusha ) but we are discussing what is the names of first brahmins which is available in Rigveda Mandala 10, this is not pushing for vishwakarma caste, @Sitush there is many academical source says vishwakarma caste is brahmin but you are continue deleting this truth from the brahmin article, let me find some more details for brahmin history section. Gopalan Acharya (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Gopalan Aacharya.., whatever attempts you make to establish Viswakarma as Brahmin, it is true that Viswakarmas were never Brahmins. (Actually, there is no caste called Viswakarma. It is a term coined later to collectively call some castes of the working class - Shudra class). The castes now called as Visvakarmas neither enjoyed the status of Brahmin, nor obtained the status of Brahmin. In modern India, all these things doesn't matter. Even-though, you are trying to put Viswakarma as Brahmin Caste in this article. You may be able to put Viswakarma as Brahmin in Wikipedia by citing a lot of 'reliable'(? !!!) sources. But that will not become the truth. If you win in your effort to show Viswakarma as Brahmin in this article, it will be the failure of Wikipedia 'System'. Remember 'Truth alone Triumphs' सत्यमेव जयते - Prasanthnnamboothiri (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Prasanthnnamboothiri I agree there was no caste called Viswakarma in history but there was five brahmins born from virat purusha vishwakarma's face, you have to read vedas and purana to know who is brahmin and their works., according to vedas brahmin is designer not priest to know more read Chittoor Jilla Adalath Theerpu 15 Dec 1918 so now that vedic designers who was orginel brahmins called vishwakarma caste in modern india. Gopalan Acharya (talk) 06:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Whatever it may be, we are not in Wikipedia to recreate History as we wish. We cannot make who were known as non-brahmins in the History to Brahmins by using Wikipedia. It is true that there were no caste called Viswakarma. Whatever be the duties assigned to Brahmins by Vedas, irrespective of they performed it or not, there were certain castes who were treated as Brahmins for centuries . They are still treated as Brahmins in India, in her Caste-based reservation system. You may theoretically prove those who are known as Brahmins are not brahmins by definition. But it make no points. In our life, and practice, there were some castes who known as Brahmins. They are still continuing as Brahmins at least in the records. Don't try to establish Viswakarma(The fake caste) as Brahmin. It will not work. The castes now known commonly as Viswakarmas (such as asaris, kollans, tachans etc.) belonged to Shudra class (Class of Workers). --Prasanthnnamboothiri (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

First of you read Chittoor Jilla Adalath Theerpu 15 Dec 1918 to know who is original brahmins. Gopalan Acharya (talk) 07:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Shame! So, what do you want? Brahmin status? For what? What is the use? Whatever you say, Nambudiris are Brahmins according to Kerala Social System. Try to think and write what are suitable for an encyclopedia instead of filling it with claims. At lest show that much Brahminical nature if your claim is right.--Prasanthnnamboothiri (talk) 12:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not forum, you can discuss about my reference links, i was finding history of first brahmins names Gopalan Acharya (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

किं फलम्? (What use?). There are so many castes described in Manusmriti. Most of them are not existing in present society. Similarly, most of the castes that we know today did not exist in the period of Manusmriti. Hence, trying to establish false things and fabricating history by searching some words from Vedas or Puranas is idiotic. The actual course of Castes in India is different from that you can see in old Smritis/Vedas/Puranas. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia can only retain what really happened. This is not a place to establish your false claims. Even if you win to place Viswakarma as Brahmin in the Wikipedia page with the help or your 'reliable resources' it will not make any change in the history, actual course and you are no way going to get benefited by such false claims. Stand with facts. --Prasanthnnamboothiri (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Prasanthnnamboothiri Did you see there is one section in every wiki article that is called "History"., i was adding some details about the history of brahmins and birth of first brahmins and their names they are from the "Vishwakarma Kula" known as 1- manu 2-maya 3-thwshta 4-shilpi, 5-vishwajna and gotra name is 1-sanaga , 2-sanathana , 3-abuvana, 4-prathna, 5-suparnasa read brahmins birth from the veda's creation sections like purusha sukta, vishwakarma sukta, hiranya garbha sukta etc ... Gopalan Acharya (talk) 10:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

What you were doing, Gopalan, was continuing your attempt to push an opinion that is accepted only by members of the Vishwakarma community and in defiance of our policy regarding neutrality. You'd be better advised to contribute to articles here on Wikipedia where you do not have an obvious conflict of interest, otherwise you are likely to go the same way as Ganesh J. Acharya (talk · contribs). Of course, if your sole purpose here is to promote that claim then you'll not mind taking that risk. - Sitush (talk) 10:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not 'vishwakarma community members agenda' its history that is available in lists of "ancient history books", there is many academical study regarding this matter, vishwakarma caste was not caste in vedic times they were technical and designing skilled people by birth that they called brahmin in vedic Hinduism later in feudalism original low and hindu life style changed then bunch of artists became part of caste system they are known as vishwakarma caste in modern india, did you learn anything about this ? Gopalan Acharya (talk) 07:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks to the tendentious behaviour of you and Ganesh, I've learned a lot about the Vishwakarma. not from you but because of you, ie: I've done a lot of digging around in my attempts to verify your claims. Now drop it, please. I am sure that Wikipedia's > 4 million articles must include some other subjects that would interest you and if you spent some time on them then you might begin to understand what the problems are here. I cannot keep explaining the same thing to you over and over, and if you persist in putting me in a position where I have to do this then it will end up at WP:ANI and you'll go the same way as Ganesh. - Sitush (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Brahmin support for the Caste System

Brahmin support for the Caste System

Brahmins form the core group defending the caste system. Brahmins did not allow other castes to read, recite and teach.

1. REDIRECT [[5]]
   

Annihilation of Caste (New York: Columbia University, 2004) [1MB, 56pg, pdf]

However, due to the efforts of social reformers such as Dr B.R. Ambedkar, Jyotiba Phule and others, more and more lower caste people are now getting eduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terasala (talk • contribs) 21:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2014

202.164.57.188 (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2014

sir, I have been researching on Human resource department on what can be done to modifying the name to fit in the present era of technology to every single field. I have seen the names having Sharma which comes from the Brahmin category having the value of a simple man.The main psychology of the world for the surname Sharma is considered as a common and simple man or a middle class worker in the Indian society. So what if an entrepreneur or other person wit different work personality want to decide a new name of Sharma as a surname , which of course not suit on his work personality, so please mention the new name or modified surname of sharma as shramson as it suits the work personality for the entrepreneur. And the rest work personality will tell you there need of giving or changing name which suits on them . Thanking you, please mention in your article that above written things. Nyleshramson (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2014

112.196.23.66 (talk) 10:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Pushkarna Brahmin

Pushkarana is one of the Brahmin communities in India. The Pushkarnas primarily hail from Sindh (Pakistan). Most of the Pushkarana Brahmins migrated from erstwhile Bharatvarsh to Jaisalmer, pokhran and other part of india. by this we are not only connecting the entire pushkarana samaj but also introducing about their traditions and religious values, so grow with us. Pushkarana belongs to Sanatan Vedic Dharma, the oldest religion of the world, by this website we are connecting the enitre pushkarana samaj residing in every corner of India and Abroad also with their History, Culture and about their ancestor [clan, place of origin etc.] Origin Brahmans the first and foremost caste of Hindu Society and its Caste System is the most talented intellectual class. They were known as Maharishies in the ancient times, who led a very austric life in the meditation, the dhyan yoga and tapasya. They gave Vedas and Upanishads and other ancient religious or spiritual literature. Brahmans are the descendents of these Maha-rishies, who are their gotras and parvars. The Caste System is oftenly being criticised by some without going deep in its merits and demerits. It is actually based on principle of Division of Labour. Considering the society as a whole just like human body. Brahmans being intellectual class occupy the place of head or brain with their higher intellect, knowledge and understanding. Khatries as arm which is meant for protection of the body. Vaish or Merchant class are just like stomach, which receives food, digests and transforms into blood and circulates it through out the entire body. They are supposed to bring the every day use commodities from their place of origin, where they are produced and supplied to the society with reasonable price including costs and theirs normal profit. The Shudras are not un-touchable, But labourers, a very important class responsible for production in the Country. They are thus compared with legs upon which the entire structure of the society stands. The caste is determined by two factors Birth and Action or Karam after Birth to maintain it. Theory of Karma or Transmigration of Soul clearly shows that caste in which Jiva gets birth is determined by the Prarbadh Karams, which mature at the time of his birth. Jivatma gets birth due to his past good deeds and as a Brahman he still needs much more good deeds or Karmas. Only individual souls with best past record of good karmas can get birth as Brahmans. After birth the second and the most important factor is the action or Karma performed by the individual. By combination of two completes the determination of Varans or caste of individual. As pointed out in chapter 1, Shlok 8 of Brahman Utpatti Martand, in the beginning all Brahmans were of only one kind. Subsequently, those who resided on the northern side of Vindhyachal Mountain were known as Goads and those residing in the South as Dravidians who were mostly of black colour, but in them too those who were descendents of Maha rishi Vashishtha and other fair colour rishies were of fair colour. Historians in some cases have not done full justice with Dravidians in naming them, as Unaryans. Dravadians were actually most civilized as they were connected with ancient civilization of Mohen Jo Daro and Indus Valley civilization. Thereafter five classes of each goad and dravads came into being, to name as 1. Sarswat 2. Kanyakubja 3. Goad 4. Utakal 5. Maithali from goads and 1. Karnataka 2. Tailang 3. Dravid 4. Maharashtra 5. Gurjars from dravads. From these 10 kinds of both Goad and dravads so many classes of Brahmans emerged. Some say the 84 classes, while others say that number was still more. Some even claim that 84 classes pertain to only Gurjar Brahmans of Dravads, But classification shows that it includes Darvads as well as Goads also. Pushkarna Brahmans were originally Sindh or Sindhwarni Brahmans included in the S.No.5 Gurjar of Dravads. These Sindh or Sindhwarni Brahmans are very old ones and were settled on the banks of Indus river who subsequently earned the blessings of Durga Devi and were named as Pushtikar or Pushkarna Brahmans (Those who strengthen the religion ) on Shranwan Shukla Tryodashi. The day is still being celebrated by Pushkarnas as Pushtikar or Pushkarna day every year. Word Pushkarna emerged from Pishtikar. They were settled in Sindh right from Multan,Bahawalpur upper Sindh Shikarpur , upto Hyderabad,Karachi and Thatta. Classification From the main 10 classes of Brahmans more than 108 kinds of Brahmans came into being which are found in various parts of Indian Sub-continent. Let us narrate the names of all such kinds. They are 1. Tolak 2. Oadicha 3. Shrimali 4. Bhagad 5. Sindh or Sindhwarni later known as Pushtikar or Pushkarna 6. Trivedi Mahod 7. Chaturvedi Mahod 8. Mal Mahod 9. Irgyashan Mahod 10. Dhenoja Mahod 11. Khadayate 12. Baj khedwal 13. Bhitar Khedwal 14. Jharola 15. Autar vedi 16. Janbu 17. Bayda 18. Kandol 19. Galav 20. Uneval 21. Girnari 22. Guguli 23. Shree Goad old 24. Shree Goad New 25. Medatwal 26. Odumbar 27. Kapith 28. Vatmool 29. Sragalvat 30. Pal 31. Sotale 32. Shirpatan Motala 33. Karnataka 34. Six kinds of Tailang 35. Niyogi 36. 15 kinds of Darvads 37. Maharashtra 38. Chit pawan Konkunsth 39. Karashtra 40. Trihotra 41. Dasgotra 42. Dvatrishdgram 43. Patityagram 44. Mithunkar 45. Belanjigram 46. Gorashta 47. Keral 48. Tulav 49. Naiburu 50. Haivo 51. yambradri 52. Kaidav 53. Kodhar 54. Shivali 55. Dishaval 56. Bhat Mevadi 57. Trivadi Mevadi 58. Choryi Mevadi 59. Six kinds of Bad Nagar 60. Visnogre 61. Satho Dave 62. Chitode Nagar 63. Bharad Nagar 64. Prashanore Nagar 65. Goad, 12 kinds of Malvi Goad 66. Shri Goad 67. Ganga Putra Goad 68. Haryana Goad 69. Vashishtha Goad 70. Soarabh Goad 71. Dalbhya Goad 72. Mukhesain Goad 73. Bhat Nagar Goad 74. Surya Dhwaj Goad 75. Mathura ke Chaube 76. Valmik Brahman Gujar Samapardayi 77. Rayakval 78. Gomtri 79. Dayma 80. Sarswat 81. Mitra Goad 82. Kapil 83. Talajiye 84. Khetuve 85. Nardi 86. Chandar sar 87. Baladre 88. Gayabal 89. Odye or Utkal 90. Abhir 91. Palivas 92. Letvas 93. Sanodiya 94. Parashar 95. Kanya kubja 96. Sompura 97. Kambodh sidh 98. Nadorya 99. Bharti 100. Pushkar 101. Garudgalya 102. Bhargva 103. Narmodiya 104. Nandvare 105. Maithila 106. Maitrayani 107. Abhil 108. Madhyandinya Parasher Brahmans are found at Pushkar Lake who are working as Tirath guru at Pushkar Tirath.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Change in "Requirement of being Brahmin"

Referred reference never concluded what was written. I changed it to the correct one. Any one willing may refer to the given reference. Kirtimaansyal (talk) 09:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Question: How are you citing Requirements based on a buddhist version? It would not be a neutral/unbiased view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.61.23 (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Query: Under heading Practices

It is written that, "Male members of all Brahmin sects wear the Yagnopaveetham (Hindi:जनेऊ or sacred thread) that is a symbol of initiation to the Gayatri recital. This ritual is often referred to as Upanayana. This marks the learning of the Gayatri hymn. Brahmin sects also generally identify themselves as belonging to a particular Gotra, a classification based on patrilineal descent, which is specific for each family and indicates their origin"

This practice is observed in all Varnas (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/618595/upanayana). I dont see the reason of specifically being mentioned in this article. Sorry but i dont get a point, why it is referred only in Brahmins article.

Kirtimaansyal (talk) 09:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It is mentioned in this article because it applies to Brahmins. Nowhere is it mentioned that only Brahmins are required to follow it and mention it in their Wikipedia article. If it doesn't appear in articles of other castes and your own, it doesn't mean we have to take down ours. Add it to whichever articles you want to but PLEASE DON'T whine about it here. Tejasc1990 (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Utkala Brahmin

Utkala Brahmin simply means a Brahmin from Orissa state. Also the article has no references and information thus, is not reliable. Notability as stand alone article is doubtful Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 13:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It is reasonable to assume that there are Brahmins in Orissa, so even though the article is unsourced it would be ok to redirect it to here. - Sitush (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Bhumihar claims of Brahmin status

Please do not insert content relating to the Bhumihar in this article. They are not Brahmins, except in their own heads. This has been discussed time and again across countless Wikipedia articles, including at Talk:Bhumihar itself. Repeated reinstatement of inaccurate material and defiance of our attitude towards consensus on Wikipedia constitutes disruptive editing. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Some obvious things

This article should address some of the basic things that articles like Sikh cover. Like how do observant Brahmins look? What do they dress like? I've heard for example that male Brahmins grow out their hair long like Sikhs and wear some kind of thread on their body. What does the typical female Brahmin look like? Somebody who knows these things should add them so that the philosophical stuff that has been covered to an undue extent can then be cleaned up. --107.167.103.222 (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Provided that we do not stereotype, of course. My suspicion is that, aside from basics such as the sacred thread, there may well be little commonality. - Sitush (talk) 05:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The thread (janeyu) is not specific to Brahmins and a lot of other castes also wear it. A long time ago before Muslim invasion, Brahmins were simply people who pursued education, ran universities and maintained libraries. They may or may not have been philosophers - which was dominated by sadhus ans ascetics. In such times Brahmins have been described as people who were bald with single braid/choti, wearing minimalistic (looking kind of like Gandhi). No such stereotype exists now, though some orthodox Brahmins may frown upon rest of them for not following the tradition.--115.113.118.50 (talk) 10:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Response to the editor (Naved2015)

It’s very much clear from the editing that the person (i.e., Naved2015) -

(1) either does not have any idea about the subject. Nor does he seem to put any efforts to acquire information about the subject from any authentic reference source, or
(2) has tried to distort the concerned pages just out of his/ her prejudices or disgruntlement against the subject, or
(3) has made an attempt knowingly or unknowingly to warp the image of the subject community at the behest of someone else.

Since there is no credible indication of importance I, therefore, would undo the editing done by Naved2015.

Lomasha (talk) 07:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Suggested rephrasing.

I suggest rephrasing the line "liaison with the God". to "liaison with Brahman [God]. Brahman is mentioned earlier but for clarity, my change is clearer grammar. There is a possibility "liaison with the God" could have been a typo regarding "liaison with their God" which sounds non-secular, and inherently, would not have been the intention of the author to write anyway, I feel. So; that original phrase I've indicated seems to be an editing oversight. --Sudaama90 (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sudaama, I agree with you to an extent. Specifically, the need for rephrasing. There is a tendency in many Hinduism articles to replace etymology with understanding from the perspective of practitioners. I would certainly support a separate section dedicated to, as an example, "Traditional explanation for the meaning of 'brahman'", preceeded by an etymology established by scholars in linguistics. Svabhiman (talk) 10:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

A New Understanding of the word.--Floyd Chaterji (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Brahmans or Brahmins were / are those in pursuit of 'Brahma-gyan' or the knowledge of Brahma - the creator. In effect it encompasses all who were /are in pursuit of the knowledge derived from the studies of science. The work of Brahmins today are Researchers, Scientists, Engineers, Doctors, Teachers,. Brahmins are the intellectuals and those whose primary tool is the mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floyd Chaterji (talk • contribs) 20:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hussaini Brahmin

I intend to include a section about Hussaini Brahmins. Before I start my work, I ask for help and would reconsider my intention if reservations from either side are placed on this talk page. Thanks. Nannadeem (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nannadeem, I respect your perspective about the possibility of a section for "Hussaini Brahmins"- however, I'm not sure it would be consistent with the conventional understanding of the term "Brahmin" whenever that term is used. As you might have seen from the article itself, there is a TREMENDOUS amount of work before us just consolidating the identity and history of this term in the context of the Vedas and Hinduism, without our expanding its definition beyond that. Just my two cents, but you can hit me at my talk page if you like. Svabhiman (talk) 10:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Scriptural references to the term "Brahmin"

Hello, I intend to add a new section near the start of the article that lists, in a systematic way, as many references to the term "Brahmin" as I'm able to. I will try and add subsections ennumerating, with full references, as many as I might find. This is woefully absent in the article as it presently stands. Svabhiman (talk) 10:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Svabhiman: That would be great, but be careful with the Brahman, Brahma and Brahmin difference in various texts. I deleted two WP:PRIMARY quotes from Rigveda where the difference Brahman and Brahmin was incorrectly interpreted with OR, without secondary WP:RS, as same. John Lochtefeld's encyclopedia on Hinduism, David Lorenzen's Who Invented Hinduism (pages 174-175), and Patrick Olivelle's Ascetics and Brahmins are good starting points on the difference. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Weird sentence

We say The Manusmriti recommends that a Brahmin's occupation must never involve forbidden activities, and lists six occupations as proper for a Brahmin:. This doesn't read very well: does it forbid all but the six? Is it really just a recommendation and, if so, how can they possibly be forbidden - one word is advisory, the other proscriptive. - Sitush (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Citation stylel

Where is the consensus for the recent mass change of citation style? - Sitush (talk) 11:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources

@Akshat sin1:, @120.59.161.228, @192.8.193.101: 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)

Fringe theories

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.

The New Kid 18:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshat sin1 (talk • contribs)

@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)

non-RS and wrong translation

@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)

Varna and jati

Brahmin is a varna, not caste , then what is jati ? Brahmin is not a jati , it is varna so what is the jati of Brahmin ? Pandit4580 (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

This page is for discussion of improvements to the article, not general queries about the subject matter. I suggest you take this to WP:REFDESK. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Caste = jati , not varna , Tell me jati of Brahmin varna Pandit4580 (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

You are misguiding with different concept of articles , hence better remove Brahmin as a caste , because it is varna . Pandit4580 (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It is common to call both jati and varna for caste. If anything is is most commonly used for varna, at least outside of India.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Fake Brahmin?

@2405:204:10a:c45b:2d6d:752b:c65f:19df: Welcome to wikipedia. Please do not remove sourced content. Please review and follow WP:RS and WP:WWIN wikipedia guidelines. The content you are edit warring over is OR and website-based personal interpretation. That is not acceptable. Please explain your concerns. Your cooperation is requested, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2017

2405:204:94:DC1F:F802:DBED:16C0:75B9 (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

True Brahmin as per 'Bhagavad Gita'(http://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/4/verse/13) shows the categorisation of 'Brahmins-Kshatriyas-Vaishyas-Shudras' considering the 'division of labor' or Varna & NOT by birth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:94:DC1F:F802:DBED:16C0:75B9 (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

 Not done That is not a reliable source, according to wikipedia WP:RS guidelines. The verse 4.13 of Gita (चातुर्वर्ण्यं मया सृष्टं गुणकर्मविभागश: | तस्य कर्तारमपि मां विद्ध्यकर्तारमव्ययम् ||) does not contain the word Brahmin, leave aside "True Brahmin". We can't blindly trust websites, and the puzzling opinions / prejudice / wisdom people share in blogs or unreliable sources. A request for you: please quit edit warring with multiple editors, and respect community agreed content guidelines for this and other articles. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hindupedia

@Blazearon21: Please review WP:RS, and Hindupedia does not qualify. Please do not edit war with different editors, try to discuss and gain consensus before re-adding the same WP:UNDUE content into this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch:Why has no one tried to add the genuine criticism of this community in this article both from historical and modern sources and those that are added are removed immediately like the humiliation of the maratha emperor shivaji 3-4 hundred years recorded by historians and what about the treatment meeted out to eklavya and karna by these same clergy of India.Why is the criticism of India's clergy wrong by the editors and contributors of this article.The clergy of every civilization has committed horrible crimes why hide the historical crimes and atrocities committed against the people of India.

Blazearon21 (talk) 12:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Blazearon21: Wikipedia project as a collaborative community is about creating quality encyclopedic articles. It is not to mirror unreliable sources to bash up a "this community", "this race", "this religion" "this gender", "this nation", "this living person" or "this whatever". Please see WP:SOAP on WP:WWIN guideline page, as suggested to you already. Critical view or historical commentary is acceptable, but only if comes from reliable sources, which in this article generally means non-fringe and peer reviewed scholarship. We cannot rely on blogs nor newspaper opinion pieces, nor do original research in this article, such as you have been edit warring over. Undue, insignificant, your personal wisdom / prejudice / opinion about alleged "horrible crimes in Indian fiction / mythologies" is irrelevant in this article, as is a website or some other non-WP:RS you read somewhere. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Take also note pf WP:TRUTH. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Why in your opinion is Hindupedia not a WP:RS? Nothing on the WP:RS page would eliminate it as a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.212.131 (talk • contribs)

It is promotional, SPS, with unclear editorial standards. Many articles cite no sources. See this June 12 2017 version of its Temples article, for example. It reads like a blog. Those are some of the reasons to treat it as non-RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Misleading information - Brahmin as per 'Bhagavad Gita'(http://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/4/verse/13) is through 'varna'(profession) & NOT birth

Misleading information - Brahmin as per 'Bhagavad Gita'(http://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/4/verse/13) is through 'varna'(profession) & NOT birth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandra.prc (talk • contribs) 12:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. --regentspark (comment) 17:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brahmin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926224314/http://www.orissa.gov.in/e-magazine/Orissareview/may2005/engpdf/mahima_dharma_bhima_bhoi_biswanathbaba.pdf to http://www.orissa.gov.in/e-magazine/Orissareview/may2005/engpdf/mahima_dharma_bhima_bhoi_biswanathbaba.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Brahmin and Priestly duties

I am surprised that in the LEDE, there is no mention of being priest as the major occupation of brahmins. Yes, being the only literate caste (with the exception of CKP and Kayastha, a significant number of them historically may have been involved in administration of hindu and islamic rulers,nevertheless, their primary role was as priests.Please comment. thanksJonathansammy (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, ritual duties are mentioned towards the end of the lede but it should be really at the beginning.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2017

Calling duties as "peculiar" gives a negative touch/feeling, a better accepted word or sentence would be "dana prati-graha (accepting and giving gifts) are some of the duties of brahmins", gives it a more better approach. Jesterguy (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2017

In the first part the word "Till" should be replaced with "Until". Contractions are inappropriate and no one is tilling soil. As in: "Until India became independent..." 174.95.172.102 (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Done SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 22:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2017

Minor edit for readability, I suggest changing "Stephanie Jamison and Joel Brereton, a professor of Sanskrit and Religious studies[...]" to "Stephanie Jamison and Joel Brereton, professors of Sanskrit[...]", since they are both professors.

0nameless1 (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2018

Tyagi Brahman are basically Aadi Gaud Taga Brahmans who were the earliest Brahmans of Haryana and West UP ie Kuru Rajya. They were ministers of Vedic / Hindu rulers and major landlords of this region. 117.240.213.162 (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

South Asian

Military purpose of torture?

ASG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.185.7.98 (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2018

Require changes in this virtues of Bramhins

Be always truthful Conduct himself as an Aryan - this line to be deleted Teach his art only to virtuous men Follow rules of ritual purification Study Vedas with delight Never hurt any living creature Be gentle but steadfast Have self-control Be kind, liberal towards everyone Non-violence to be added Shantanu Chakravarty (talk) 06:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 07:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

No etymology?

No etymology? --82.132.230.74 (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Modern economic condition of Brahmins

Hello, I want to make a semi-protected edit request, but I'm posting on the talk page first to see if others think it's a good idea. If others agree (or if no one responds) I'll go ahead and add the edit request template.

In subsection 3.4 (Modern demographics and economic condition), the following short paragraph, presumably covering the "economic condition" part of the subheading, appears:

According to a Wall Street Journal report, an estimated 65 percent of the Brahmin households in India, with about 40 million people, lived on less than $100 a month in 2004; this number dropped to about 50% in 2007. Brahmins have also included wealthier and politically successful members.

So, while this is none of this is inaccurate, I think it could be augmented in order to improve it. The main problem is, given that Brahmins are a specific demographic within India, their economic condition must be explained with respect to the average and/or other demographics. This paragraph, despite being the only part of the subsection explicating economic condition, fails to do that. None of this information is incorrect per se, so I don't think it should be removed entirely, but I think other information needs to added — otherwise it is unclear whether or not the economic hardship described is specifically related to being Brahmin, as opposed to just being related to living and working in India. (It's also worth noting in particular that to most readers, this paragraph seems to imply that Brahmins have an especially destitute economic condition relative to other demographics in India, which isn't really accurate. However, that's still really a result of not having the contextual relevant figures, the inclusion of which should solve any such problem.)

So, my proposal is to insert the following at the beginning:

This would also remove the need for the final sentence ("Brahmins have also included wealthier and politically successful members"), and so it could thus be deleted. The source for all the above data is page 17 of this report from 2018.Emptybathtub (talk) 06:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I support this. The present content may suggest that today's Brahmins are economically weak. Actually on average, they are at par with other Forward Castes. The article may also include their political representation as in their share of MPs etc. 39% of Brahmins were graduates in 2007, in 2011 only 8.5% of Indians were graduates. See for number of MPs and also percentage of graduates. WikiLoner (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The statistics used in this section are taken from a Wall Street Journal article referencing a study from the Centre for the Study of developing societies which can be found at [6]. This article has an infographic which shows that while 65% of brahmin households make less than $100 a month, 74% of other upper castes, 74% of other backward castes, 91% of other scheduled castes and 86% of Muslim households make less than $100 a month. The proper conclusion from the statistic is that a higher percentage of Brahmin households make more than $100 a month compared to other households. This is misrepresented in the current form of the article. I request that this be rectified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhil77 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)