Talk:Vishwakarma community

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 September 2025

Add a new subsection under "Notable people" with the following text: "Notable Vishwakarma personalities include: - Vishwakarma J. Rao, Indian engineer and educationist [cite reliable source] - Shankar B. Acharya, economist and policy advisor [cite reliable source]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtark999X (talk • contribs) 09:19, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please provide the reliable sources. RegentsPark (comment) 14:31, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2025

Ranjithvishvakarma (talk) 14:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change:

In the opening paragraph, replace: “They claim to be Brahmin or of high-status in the caste hierarchy, although these claims are not generally accepted outside the community.” With: “Members of the Vishwakarma community are identified as Brahmins in many regional traditions, and are often referred to as Ādibrahmaṇas (Adi Brahmins) and Jangid Brahmins. Although some orthodox Brahmin groups have historically opposed this recognition, the Vishwakarma are mentioned in the Rig Veda (10.82–10.81) as the divine architect and craftsman associated with creation and sacred ritual.

In modern times, courts in Andhra Pradesh, including those in Chittoor District, have upheld the right of Vishwakarmas to perform Vedic rituals and officiate within the mūlasthāna (sanctum) of temples. These rulings have been cited by the community as affirmation of their ritual authority and Brahminical status.”

In the ‘Origin myths’ section, replace: “The origin myths of the Vishwakarma community were first consolidated in the early 18th century, during the British colonial rule.” With: “While some written compilations such as the Vishwakarma Purāṇam were consolidated in the early modern period, oral traditions and references to Vishwakarma as a divine creator appear much earlier in Vedic and Puranic literature.”

Completely remove the passage describing the ‘Magnetic Fort’ legend and the related “seduction by women” story, as it lacks reliable academic sourcing and portrays the community in a disparaging way.

Replace “Their claim to Brahmin status is not generally accepted outside the community...” With: “Although some orthodox Brahmin groups have historically opposed the Vishwakarmas’ recognition as Brahmins, the community continues to maintain and practise Vedic rituals and temple rites, and has received judicial affirmation of its right to perform ceremonies within the mūlasthāna (sanctum) in parts of Andhra Pradesh.”

Remove or reword: “...a fragmented, incoherent community that has often suffered from internal differences of opinion.” Replace with: “Despite regional diversity and variation in traditional occupations, the Vishwakarma community retains a shared spiritual and cultural identity rooted in the worship of Lord Vishwakarma and the pursuit of skilled craftsmanship.”

Replace “implausible achievements” and “anti-Brahmin tirades” with a neutral phrasing: “Some early 20th-century community historians offered interpretations of Vishwakarma heritage emphasizing its antiquity and independence from later caste structures.”

References:

Rig Veda, Mandala 10, Hymns 81–82 (translation: Griffith 1896).

Andhra Pradesh District Court records (Chittoor, 20th century and later) Jan Brouwer (1995), The Makers of the World: Caste, Craft and Mind of South Indian Artisans, Oxford University Press.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Changes of such a substantial nature will require prior consensus. Day Creature (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 November 2025

Please add the following line to the first section of this page.

“ They present themselves as a single caste of craftsmen all claiming Brahmin status. it became clear that none of them were considered to be Brahmins by the vast majority of the other castes. In fact, the. Brahmins strongly reject the Visvakarmas' claim”

- source

R.De, Ridder; J.A.J, Karremans (1987). The Leiden Tradition in Structural Anthropology. Netherlands: E.J Brill. ISBN 9004085173 page-161. https://books.google.com/books?id=bQcVAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA161

 Not done. This is copied directly from the source. A copyright violation. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 17:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 November 2025

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please add the following line to the first section of this page.

“Today they generally promote themselves as a caste of artisans who claim Brahmin status. At the same time, it is a fact that the vast majority of other castes do not consider any of them to be Brahmins. During the caste system, they were considered an impure class outside the caste, and the Brahmins strongly rejected the claim of these Vishwakarmas.”

- source

R.De, Ridder; J.A.J, Karremans (1987). The Leiden Tradition in Structural Anthropology. Netherlands: E.J Brill. ISBN 9004085173 page-161. https://books.google.com/books?id=bQcVAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA161

@NotJamestack: @Sitush: ~2025-37384-34 (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-35824-59 (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that basically what the lead says already? Primefac (talk) 11:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But the content has not been added to the page yet.. Requesting that it be added to the first part. And most of the sources say the same. ~2025-37473-92 (talk)~2025-37473-92 (talk) 08:04, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a meaningful difference between "not generally accepted" and "generally rejected" which could be captured here. We could add something like the italicized text: "They claim to be Brahmin or of high-status in the caste hierarchy, although these claims are not generally accepted outside the community, and those in the Brahmin caste generally reject the claim.[1]
— Rtrb (talk) (contribs) 19:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC) — Rtrb (talk) (contribs) 19:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Closing this request since it's been open for over a month and the claim is supported by a source we already cited. Seems like a relatively minor change to me and I don't really know more discussion is needed. — Rtrb (talk) (contribs) 04:53, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rtrb, Thanks for your contribution to the talk section. Does the phrase "generally rejected by Brahmins" complies with WP:NPOV? I believe the earlier version, ‘but these claims are not generally accepted outside the community,’ was a much safer NPOV and was also acknowledged by user Primefac, but was interpreted differently by the unregistered user. E.Saravanan (talk) 06:29, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@E.Saravanan, I think this change is compliant with WP:NPOV, since it does not provide WP:UNDUE weight to the Brahmin claim. It does highlight a minority viewpoint by the Brahmins, but that viewpoint is significant in the article since it counters the Vishwakarma claim by the very people the Vishwakarma community claims to be associated with. The change also differentiates between the amount of support the claim has: something being "generally not accepted" implies a higher level of support than "generally rejected", even if the amount of support is still low.
The cited source actually makes this statement even more boldly: "[N]one of them were considered to be Brahmins by the vast majority of the other castes. In fact, the Brahmins strongly reject the Visvakarmas' claim." That claim might be a little extreme to make in the article since there is literature indicating some acceptance of the Vishwakarma claim (as cited in the Position in society section). — Rtrb (talk) (contribs) 17:11, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree the cited sources make the statement "strongly reject the Visvakarmas' claim". However, the word "rejected" does not meets WP:NPOV, I suggest the following,
generally rejected by Brahmins to generally disputed by Brahmins. This will be the much safer and sounds good as per NPOV. E.Saravanan (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

  1. ^ R.De, Ridder; J.A.J, Karremans (1987). The Leiden Tradition in Structural Anthropology. Netherlands: E.J Brill. ISBN 9004085173 p. 161.

Vandal edit

after Discuss and added content to the talk page. The someone editor is vandal edited should be restore.~2026-41316-6 (talk) ~2026-41316-6 (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify what you mean? What discussion? Which editor? What should be restored? Primefac (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@E.Saravanan:@Rtrb:The part I have given below here is where the destruction took place.~2026-41316-6 (talk) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vishwakarma_community&diff=prev&oldid=1333730067 ~2026-41316-6 (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vishwakarma_community