Talk:Vishnu

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Edit request on Vishnu POV Pushing, Remove that content "A minor deity in the Vedas, Vishnu rose to ultimate prominence when he was identified with various local traditions and deities (Vasudeva-Krishna, Narayana, Krishna-Golpa) in the last centuries BCE and the early centuries CE" , even spelling is wrong, its is krishna Gopala, not golpa, Add to this in sub page of origin & development or textual Development page. all edits should be based on neutral point of view, see WP:NPOV,

In reality Vishnu is not minor deity, actually its a vamana avatar, there are many more verses which is enough to prove that the vishnu is not minor god in rigveda.

The Name of the vishnu at his vamana avatar was "vishnu" itself. vishnu took avtar as younger brother of indra. This is also mentioned in vedas that vishnu is younger brother of indra implying vamana avtar indirectly.

Vishnu means who, through his three steps, is all-pervading (i.e. he spreads in all directions)".

Vishnu who is one among the Adityas- one of the son of Aditi is not Lord Vishnu himself but the Vamana avatar which was born to Aditi, Vishnu name in rig Vedic samhitas are used for two different deities. One for adityas and other for lotus feet, Sudarshan bearing Vishnu.

Vishnu 12 among the Adityas is Vamana, while the yajnapati vishnu in rig Veda(Brahmana portion) is addressed to Laxmi Pati Vishnu, and Purusha Sukta is also addressed to Laxmipati Vishnu. ~2026-55802-1 (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: see WP:RS and WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:36, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Why you are pov pushing towards main page instead of sub page in origin and developement and textual source, follow guidlines of neutral point of view , please see WP:NPOV ~2026-57368-2 (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Why do you want to WP:CENSOR historical facts, in violation of WP:NPOV? Gonda (1954), p.1: "It is a matter of common knowledge that Vishnu, who in Hinduism is a divinity of the highest rank and who had already in the religion of the Brahmanas assumed a considerable importance, occupied but a subodinate position in the Rgveda."

This is an encyclopedia, not a faith-manual. "Vishnu" as we know him today is the product of a historical development, in which local traditions were linked to the Vedic worldview, elevating Rig Vedic deities to a higher position. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:10, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Vishnu is a pan-Hindu deity, not restricted to Vaishnavism. For Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, we need to introduce him in a pan-Hindu context. Similar treatment is given in other references Britannica, The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism p. 759, dictionary of Gods and Goddesses p. 342. [

Before your edits everything is fine, instead of keeping in sub page why you are add to main content. ~2026-60157-1 (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I took a look at the sources cited for this sentence, but they don't include any wording that supports it other than there being some change in Vishnu's importance. Beyond that, the sentence in the lead appears to be original interpretation and synthesis.

First, there isn't a scholarly consensus that Vishnu was a minor deity in the Vedas. Keay uses the word "minor" but Bhandarkar writes that "his personality is by no means unimportant" and is only "comparatively subordinate" (33). The sentence in the article should at least acknowledge this relativeness.

Second, none of the scholars establish a causal connection between identification of Vishnu with other deities and his importance relative to other deities. Gonda hedges his claim by saying "It...appear[s] to me" (163). And his claim is not about a change in Vishnu's importance, but how he became more humanized. When he says "The selfsame identifications were no doubt largely instrumental in winning for him the lasting devotion of many millions" (163) he is talking about devotion, not importance in comparison to other deities.

Klostermaier's work is similar - "Not only was Krsnaism influenced by the identification of Krsna with Visnu, but also Vaisnavism as a whole was partly transformed and reinterpreted" (204) - this does not specify that Vishnu rose in prominence because of this identification. Same in cited pages of Flood - he describes the identification of Vishnu with Krsna etc., but does not state that that is the reason for Vishnu's rise in importance.

Since the sources don't support this statement, it should foremost be removed from the lead. Then it should be dealt with nuance and accuracy in the body. Swirlymarigold (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Gonda 1954, p. 1 in non-ambiguous: "It is a matter of common knowledge that Vishnu, who in Hinduism is a divinity of the highest rank and who had already in the religion of the Brahmanas assumed a considerable importance, occupied but a subodinate position in the Rgveda." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:47, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Not same similiar to Shiva in the lead, why only Vishnu ?

The word Shiva is used as an adjective in the Rig Veda (c. 1700–1100 BCE), as an epithet for Rigvedic deity , Shiva as we know him today shares evolving as an amalgamation of various older non-Vedic and Vedic deities, including the Rigvedic storm god Rudra

Flood notes that Rudra is an ambiguous god, peripheral in the Vedic pantheon, possibly indicating non-Vedic origins.

According to Sadasivan, during the development of the Hindu synthesis attributes of the Buddha were transferred by Brahmins to Shiva, who was also linked with Rudra. The Rigveda has 3 out of 1,028 hymns dedicated to Rudra, and he finds occasional mention in other hymns of the same text. {{Sfn|Chakravarti|1986|pp=1–2}}

Britannica, The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism p. 759, dictionary of Gods and Goddesses

@Joshua Jonathan

@Swirlymarigold ~2026-61082-2 (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Not same similiar to Shiva in the lead, why only Vishnu ? - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but might be a good idea, though the difference is that Shiva clearly is non-Vedic & non-Aryan. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:06, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh, it already is:

Though associated with Vedic deity Rudra, Shiva may have non-Vedic roots,[28] evolving as an amalgamation of various older non-Vedic and Vedic deities, including the Rigvedic storm god Rudra who may also have non-Vedic origins,[29] into a single major deity.[30]

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:36, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I think the subsequent sentence on page 1 needs to be looked as it gives more context about Gonda's views, which states

...this fact is emphasized, but comment added by authors in order to elucidate the early historical development of Vishnuism does not always seem to give an adequate idea of the complex character of the problem arising from it.

Meaning, scholars mention that Vishnu had a minor role in the rigveda, but according to Gonda, it doesn't capture the complexity of the entire issue (the worship of vishnu). EM (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Gonda reviews several authors and ideas, including the textual references to the highest place, but also the question whether Vishnu has Aryan or non-Aryan origins, and concludes that there is simply to little textual evidenc to draw definite conclusions, but 'does not exclude the possibility that he had greater prominence among the Aryan and non-Aryan masses of the early Vedic times', as already added by me to the article. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:36, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

In the revision, Klostermaier and Bhandarkar cited for "A minor deity in the Vedas" still do not support the claim without nuance. In fact, Klostermaier makes no assessment on that point. Gonda is used for both parts- minor and possibly significant, but he's not the only voice. Prioritizing his view violates NPOV. The other scholarly views should be represented accurately. And putting the rise and identification in the same clause implies a link that isn't in the sources. The revised lead should just say something like Vishnu first appears in the Rig Veda and then his importance comparatively increased. Swirlymarigold (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Prioritizing this view violates NPOV. Content info related to vaishnavism page, can't understand why added to vishnu page by pov pushing ?!

WP:NPOV ~2026-63824-6 (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what WP:NPOV means; WP:CENSOR seems to better describe your stance. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:20, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Remove local traditions, worshiping deities not arise in india instance, its globally, not restricted by country or any region, Vishnu worshipping deities Linked to page for Vasudeva- krishna and Narayana in top as Vasudeva-krishna and Narayana just added link as Gopala krishna. ~2026-64869-0 (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

The current version does violate NPOV because it states single scholars' pov as a general fact when there are other scholarly povs that differ. These differences can be explained in the body, but for the lead "A minor deity in the Vedas but possibly already a significant non-elite divine figure in early Vedic times" should be replaced with "Although comparatively less hymns are dedicated to Vishnu than to other deities in the Rig Veda," because only one source (Keay) supports the original first clause wording and only one source (Gonda) supports the second clause. Swirlymarigold (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Funny, I count five sources for the first clause, and see no WP:RS indicating that Gonda's view on the relative importance in early Vedic times, despite the few mentions in the Rog Veda, is WP:UNDUE. But maybe you's ve got some sources reflecting "there are other scholarly povs that differ"? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

And to add some more:

• Richard H. Davis (2024), Religions of Early India, Princeton University Press: "Vishnu , a minor deity in the Vedas who rises to supremacy among all the gods, at least for the Bhagavatas"
• Cornelia Dimmitt, ‎Johannes Adrianus Bernardus Buitenen (1978), Classical Hindu Mythology: "Vişnu , a minor deity in early Vedic times"

And to repeat:

• Gonda 1954, p. 1: "It is a matter of common knowledge that Vishnu, who in Hinduism is a divinity of the highest rank and who had already in the religion of the Brahmanas assumed a considerable importance, occupied but a subodinate position in the Rgveda."

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:30, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Swirlymarigold and Joshua - I don't see this as an issue with WP:RS or not including scholarly views - seems more about WP:LEAD / WP:UNDUE in the lead. Lead currently says this:

"A minor deity in the Vedas but possibly already a significant non-elite divine figure in early Vedic times, Vishnu rose to ultimate prominence in post-Vedic times and was identified with various local traditions and deities (Vasudeva-Krishna, Narayana, Gopala-Krishna)"

Do the sources use the word "minor" in the same sense (e.g. minor, subordinate, comparatively less prominent, fewer hymns etc - with language e.g not unimportant, at least for the Bhagavatas etc)? And do the sources agree that Vishnu was unimportant or not prominent early on? And it seems sources do not agree that identification with other local traditions and deities resulted in his later prominence. It just seems reading WP:LEAD / WP:DUE, these interpretive (and different) scholarly views are currently mixed up in the lead and better explained with context/attribution in the body. Asteramellus (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

As far as I can see, a wide range of sources agree that Vishnu was a minor deity in the Rgveda. Gonda adds thoughtfull observations to this, arguing that the Rgveda does not necessarily reflect the full spectrum of Indo-Aryan religiosity, but was restricted to elite practices and beliefs, proposing that Vishnu was more relevant than reflected in his minor appearance in the Rgveda. That's quite relevant, I'd say, for those who prefer traditional beliefs, e.g. 'Vishnu has always been important'. Obviously, not so. That's relevant, noticed for decades, and argued about by scholars, and thus WP:DUE, as it is a major point of view. Not mentioning that violates WP:NPOV. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:29, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

yes thanks. But do you see those sources using the word minor in the same sense (seeing that they use words e.g. subordinate, comparatively less prominent, fewer hymns etc with language e.g "not unimportant", "at least for the Bhagavatas" etc)?Asteramellus (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Reading the sources again, it seems they do not use the word "minor" in the same sense - so if you also see it same, do you think such nuance matters for including such details in the lead per those policies. Asteramellus (talk) 13:26, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

In what sense are they using it then, you think? The point is, statements like "relatively few hymns" imply that Vishnu already had the high status he had today; it obfuscates historical facts. If found it quite enlightening that Vishnu did not have that high status back then, and that it is the result of a historical development. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:08, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

There is scholarly consensus on historical development, but not on the nature of that development. The quotes are not synonymous. For one, the descriptions of Vishnu (minor, no means unimportant, little importance, not major) are not synonymous. Two, the context (Rgveda, vs Vedas vs Vedic times vs early Vedic times/period) is not consistent. To present these all as having a single meaning in the lead implies a uniformity not present in the sources.

BTW, what is the context for "the Vedic poets, whose attention and energy were almost absorbed by the worship of other gods"? Swirlymarigold (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Swirlymarigold for the clarification. It seems sources are not using "minor" in same way, and for a reader, "minor" would then be ambiguous as to what the sources mean? Asteramellus (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

It's not a clarification, it's clutching at straws. Tell me what's ambiguous about minor? Three sources use it. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:43, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

It is ambiguous to a reader because, as I have mentioned, the sources are not using "minor" in the same sense - they give the label "minor" (or variants e.g. "not major") based on different criteria. Asteramellus (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Of course, minor alone isn't ambiguous. But the other sources don't use it, and in fact Bhandarkar and Gonda suggest differently. The three sources that use minor aren't the only reliable ones. Swirlymarigold (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Just want to note that source 13 (Klaus K. Klostermaier (2000). Hinduism: A Short History, p.83-84) has been used as a reference to support "A minor deity in the Vedas." However, this is not supported by the cited source/out of context of what Klostermaier has written on p.83, which is:

Only five hymns out of the 1,028 contained in the Rigveda are addressed to Visnu, and only in a few other instances is Visnu mentioned in other hymns. Nevertheless, we are not justified in concluding from this that "Visnu was a minor deity" when the Samhitas were composed. The Rigveda is representative of only a section of the religion of the Vedic Indians, containing hymns used at the highly developed and important Soma sacrifice performed by Brahmin orthodoxy. It is correct to say that Visnu did not figure prominently at the Soma sacrifice, but the attributes given to him allow us to say that he was important. Together with Indra he is invoked as the saviour from Vṛtra and is called "the greatest." He has the very important function of being "supporter" of heaven and earth, providing living-space for all beings.

Additionally, source 14 (Bhandarkar 1913 p. 33) has also been used as a reference to support "A minor deity in the Vedas." But on the page it reads:

Visnu is a Vedic deity. There are but few hymns addressed to him in RV.; but his personality is by no means unimportant. The long strides which he takes, and the three steps by which he measures the universe, are always described with an enthusiastic spirit

.

So using these sources to quote "A minor deity in the Vedas", is misrepresenting the sources because both scholars are stating that even though there are only few Rigveda hymns dedicated to Vishnu that doesn't make him unimportant.

This can probably be discussed further in the Origins section to present all scholarly views. And taking these views into consideration, agree with Swirlymarigold, lead should be broader to say "Vishnu first appears in the Rig Veda, where he is mentioned less frequently than other deities; in later Vedic and post-Vedic literature his religious role becomes more prominent, and by the last centuries BCE and early centuries CE he was identified with various local traditions and deities such as..." The nuances can be discussed further in the Origins section, because it seems there is overall scholarly consensus that there are few hymns in the Rigveda for Vishnu but then scholars have different views as far as what that means for Vishnu's importance. EM (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks; I've made some adjustments. Let me note, though, that Klostermaier argues in the same publicatin that the Indo-Aryan immigration theory has been debunked; as a Dutch Indoogist noted: 'why should we take serious a scholar who defends such ideas?' Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:10, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks EM and Joshua. I am ok with wording suggested by EM - but for the adjustments, Joshua, I was wondering - is there a reason to keep in the lead "Though not prominently represented in the Vedas" instead of what EM has suggested or maybe "...mentioned in few hymns."? It seems prominence is what scholars are interpreting differently. Asteramellus (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Correct wiki link in lead for vasudeva krishna as Vāsudeva, which is other page vrishni page not krishna father vasudeva, diacritical mark over in a, its page link is Vāsudeva , not vasudeva. Correct as Vāsudeva ~2026-68167-2 (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Still not corrected, link is just as Vāsudeva, not full as vasudeva krishna, add like this link lead

Vāsudeva, link refers to krishna parent vasudeva not his regional deity, it is Vāsudeva Only. ~2026-68647-1 (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Correct wiki link in lead for vasudeva krishna as Vāsudeva, which is other page vrishni page not krishna father vasudeva, diacritical mark over in a, its page link is Vāsudeva , not vasudeva. Correct just as Vāsudeva only.

@Asteramellus

@Eucalyptusmint

@Joshua Jonathan

@Swirlymarigold

@Rasnaboy ~2026-76240-5 (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

just want to confirm bc it's a little hard to follow, are you suggesting to change the text "Vāsudeva-Krishna" in the first paragraph of lead to "Vāsudeva"? EM (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

They meain the target; Vasudeva is th eking, the father of Krishna; Vāsudeva is the deity. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:24, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I see you already had fixed it (which I had missed). EM (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Regarding this edit diff, edit-summary restoring to unlinked version since per MOS:OL "words and terms understood by most readers in context are usually not linked" and linking everyday words is considered overlinking, I dare to be pretty sure that this complex process of identification is not easily understood by "most readers," as it is not used as an "everyday word." See also WP:UL: "Relevant connections to the subject of another article that help readers understand the article more fully." Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:40, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

To my understanding, the primary meaning of identification is to identify someone/something with something else. That is exactly what is being described as explained in the sentence. Swirlymarigold (talk) 13:09, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Putting MOS:OL aside, the History_of_Hinduism#Roots_of_Hinduism section doesn't seem like a relevant link within the context of the sentence on this article as it doesn't mention anything specific about the historical identification of Vishnu with the specific deities mentioned in the sentence (Vāsudeva-Krishna and Gopala-Krishna and Narayana). The discussion in the target section also seems to focus on early Vedic time frame vs. last centuries BCE and the early centuries CE (as mentioned in the sentence in question). Based on this, the link could be left out as it doesn't seem to add any additional contextual clarity. EM (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Good point. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:49, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

But at second thought: "and the emerging bhakti tradition" [hindu synthesis), plus "in the last centuries BCE and the early centuries CE" (Vishnu) versus "between 500–200 BCE and c. 300 CE" (hs). So, part of the same process. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:55, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I was also thinking about accessibility, though, as MOS:OL has specific guidelines for frequency of links in the lead when they are so close together ("Too many links can make the lead hard to read.") Also, similar to what EM mentioned, the Hindu synthesis section is so broad that it would confuse a reader rather than clarify the specific process relevant to the Vishnu article (because there is nothing on that page that explains the specific mechanism of Vishnu identification). Swirlymarigold (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Joshua that "identified" refers to a "complex process ..not easily understood by most readers" - and if keeping this sentence requires such clarification or synthesis to be understood, then per MOS:INTRO (sorry for one more policy reference in this discussion!), the sentence does not seems "accessible" to the reader. The issue is (as discussed in the other topic discussion) that interpretive (and different) scholarly views are currently mixed up in the lead and better explained with context/attribution in the body. Asteramellus (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

The fact that Vaishnavism developed as a fusion of several regional traditions is so basic that it does belong in the lead. The energy invested in opposing usefull additions would be better spent in further explaining this process in the body. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:23, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Joshua - I agree about energy better spent elsewhere - I mentioned the other topic/thread here because "identified" is part of the lead sentence wording being discussed there and not because I am questioning the basic historical points. Also, this is not about opposing useful additions - it is more about concerns raised in the other thread. We can continue that discussion there. Sorry for bringing that discussion in this thread. Asteramellus (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

@Asteramellus: if we are to believe the section on Vaishnavite theology, Vaishnavism is actually a disguused form of Advaita Vedanta, e.g. "Advaitic theism." This seems highly dubious to me; what do you think? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:21, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

yes thanks for the changes in that section - it is more readable. Also, just read the earlier version and it did sound like "Advaitic theism". I will read the cited sources, but seems some of the Bhagavata Purana content sounds Advaita derived - maybe it is reflecting scholars' interpretations of the text. Asteramellus (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Vishnu. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Remove "Out of these ten, Rama and Krishna are the most important."

In Gavin Flood — An Introduction to Hinduism (Cambridge University Press, 1996), Flood notes that the avatars “are not uniform across texts or sectarian traditions” and that “different Vaishnava communities elevate different manifestations of Vishnu as supreme.” Shreyanshbhargava (talk) 07:22, 14 February 2026 (UTC)