Talk:Vaishnavism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

delete[edit]

i think the krishna section in this article and others should be removed or supply an reliable refrence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.179.171 (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swayam Bhagavan uner Principal historic branches[edit]

Should red letter page Swayam Bhagavan listed here, be Svayam Bhagavan?

This is not an article on Vaishnavism. It is about the sectarian perception by a contemporary organization (ISKCON) of Vaishnavism. It should appropiately be referred as an article on ISKCON (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Society_for_Krishna_Consciousness) and its particular dogmas and phylosophycal positions. I am new to wikipedia so I do not know how exactly the process goes to review these articles to help improve their neutrality. Does someone review tha information? Who finally decides what stays and what goes? Saludos

Jose Ignacio Lopez — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseignaciolopez (talk • contribs) 20:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rig Veda extract[edit]

Does the quote from the Rig Veda really belong in the lead? Is this actually the generally accepted translation and interpretation? 70.75.233.253 (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously do, source added. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The IP is right: that interpretation of the Rigvedic verse may well be the ones preferred by Vaishnava devotees, but it is not the "standard" one. Vishnu is mentioned in the Rigveda but only as a minor deity. Bladesmuti, can you provide the exact quotes and context from the source you added. I couldn't access it on Google Books. Abecedare (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

Jbgfour (talk) 03:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously this entire article is written by ISKCON : — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbgfour (talk • contribs) 14:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Since the 1900s Vaishnavism has spread from within India and is now practiced in many places around the globe, including America, Europe, Africa, Russia and South America. This is largely due to the growth of the ISKCON movement, founded by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada[reply]

Wut? Weeabo-kun2198 (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vaishnavism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Vaishnavism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal: Krishnaism into Vaishnavism[edit]

Done. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 02:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

It seems to me that Krishnaism more or less covers the same topic as Vaishnavism. Having two articles on the same topic is rather confusing. There's a lot of duplicate information, while the overview of the various sects could be clearer. I'd like to improve the article; it's weird that such an important topic is covered in such a confusing way. Having one article on the topic would make it easier to make the topic more accessible. The Vaishnavism article also draws about ten times more visitors, and has at least four times more page-watchers. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:27, 5 April 2016 (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.

Three sections and the continued improvement of this article[edit]

@Joshua Jonathan: I like your edits. Are there specific sub-sections you would like me to focus on, among those marked 'expand section' (just wanting to avoid edit conflicts and duplicated work)? There are three subsections I would like to suggest: Vaishnava Upanishads, doctrinal differences/similarities between Vaishnavism-Shaivism-etc, Tantra in Vaishnavism. The last would clarify a few of the current subsections. If you are already planning to work on these, I will hold off. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JJ: Aren't some images difficult to read, poorly done? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch: I'd like to add more info on the various traditions; so far, Flood will be helpfull. The three topics you mention are out of my comptence c.q. knowledge, so go ahead. And yes, some images, c.q. schemes, are difficult to read. But when they're given a bigger size, they dominate the article too much. Reader scan enlarge them themselves, though, by clicking on them. Thank you for your additions! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan: The tantra in Vaishnavism part is probably best included in individual sub-traditions, where applicable, because it varies with each. I have woven in a bit of the tantra part in the Sri Vaishnavism section. If you think there is an alternate better way, let me know. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ref-fixes[edit]

@JJ: The harv cites to Welbon 2005 and Hiltebeitel 2013 do not link anywhere. Please check. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Hiltebeitel. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced content[edit]

@Dm51c: Why remove reliable sources and sourced content? What verifiable evidence do you have that the scholarly publications are sectarian? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User talk:Ms Sarah Welch#Vaishnavism
You did change sourced info, and removed sourced info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

.These articles have become battleground b/w isckon and south indian vaishnavas.i havent changed info to reflect my stand .i have collected the info relating to its denomination and coherently divided it into its major schools relating to the historical development of this sect and by contemprary belivers It improves the readability of into .those source i have removed were not against my view,they only described differnt schools of vaishnavism and some even vindicated it.hastily i removed them as they had syntax error..Thanks~~dm51c — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dm51c (talk • contribs) 22:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

INTRO[edit]

have checked the encyplopedic material on this subject by various authors.i hadnt removed sourced content as source itself was missing in some instances.Historically Bhagavta tradition of krishna predtates current vaishnavism and vaishnavism is not a monolithic whole but is categorically divided into major cults each attributing supremacy to a differt deity so it should be relected in the intro .I had added verifiable refrences pinpointing to page no of eminent scholars to sustain it .Hence i am reverting that change.ThanksDm51c (talk)dm51c —Preceding undated comment added 22:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dm51c: You are repeatedly removing "while Krishna, Rama, Narayana and Vasudeva are the most popular". Narayana temples are common in many parts of India, such as Karnataka. Your changes are over-emphasizing Krishna in the lead and article (the article already uses "Krishna" over 150 times). That violates NPOV. Please note that the past editors of this article already cite the sources you allege you are adding. Matchett, for example, is already a much cited harv source. You allege your edit is supported by "add verifiable refrences [sic]". Not so. To the contrary, the added sources confirm what the lead and main article already state. Lets take one item at a time. Why are you deleting Narayana, Vasudeva, poornavatar paragraph and increasing the emphasis on Krishna? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ms Sarah Welch."Why are you deleting Narayana, Vasudeva, poornavatar paragraph and increasing the emphasis on Krishna?"Reason as narayan is considred not an avatar but the name of vishnu himself.similarly vasudeva is name of krishna.that paragraph was simply incorrect.
emphasis onkrishna is increased since 3CENTURY bc monotheistic tradition based on krishna/vasudeva as supreme deity developed ,ad most of the alvars were devootees were of krishna and uniquely venerated him.
"To the contrary, the added sources confirm what the lead and main article already state." the added source clearly divided the vaishnava into variou schools depending upon theology of supreme deity.its crystal clear.thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dm51c (talk • contribs) 23:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ms Sarah Welch.You can read the origin section of this article which explains how krisna traditions were parallel to the panchartara tradition and have historical exmaples from both north and south Dm51c (talk)dm51c —Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dm51c: The words Vasudeva/Narayana/etc are important to mention, because they are regionally important "and" because the reliable sources use them. We already state "Vishnu is the Supreme Lord" in Vaishnavism in the lead para. There is no need to repeat this. Theism, whether mono/pan/panen is a complex topic, and the article discusses it in "Theism with many varieties" section, with WP:RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ms Sarah Welch:i agree they are regionally important but narayana is not said to be avatar of vishnu.it along with hari is used interchangbly for vishnu.using it as an avatar is misleading.
And for overemphasis of krishna ,vaishnaviam has 4 major sects(CONTEMPRARY -PRESENTLY FOLLOWED).
1)Sri vaishnav -Vishnu
2)madhva-vishnu
3)nimbarka-krishna
4)vishnuswami and vallabh - krishnaSo adding krishna on the intro vindictaes the accepted definition of it based on the variations in theology.you can matchet book from page 199 you can read the conclusion of this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dm51c (talk • contribs)
I see your first point. Perhaps, the lead can be clearer on avatar. On your second point, the article already covers this in Krishna etc sections, mentions Ramanuja, Madhva, Gaudiya Vaishnava, Nimbarka and Vallabhacharya traditions. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can reach consensus.I mentioned krishna explicity because about half of present day and even historical vaishnavism regard him as deity in itself.the traditions around krishna are not limited to just isckon.as you can hover down and read the table of sects around half of them are exclusive focused on krishna.the adherents of there cults are in sizeable amount to waarnt change in intro.Even historically bhgavata tradition focused exclusively on him which eventually got syntheised(not collapsed) with vishnu cults.Matchet has clearly researched deep into this issue and have maintained that vishnu/krishna both can be mentioned as supreme from historical examples and presnt day foolwers.We should agree on his conclusion.Source matchet book pg 199 "to read it type conclusion as key word followed by book name in gbooks"THanks.
You mentioned jaganatha which also falls in krishnaite tradition.And i believe it shouldnt be included in the intro as it worship has regional flavour and we cant include regional dietiies like vithoba,jaganaatha on the intro.only rama,krishna and vishnu have pan denomination presence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dm51c (talk • contribs) 00:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dm51c: I reviewed the Matchett conclusion that begins on page 199. We already include late Freda Matchett's views and use some of her review. For balance, we can't rely exclusively on Matchett's primary research, and ignore all other scholars. Over-emphasis or exclusive emphasis on Krsna will make this article weaker. Joshua Jonathan and other editors, quite rightfully, merged Krishnaism into this article. Regional Vaishnavism are significant views and aspects of Vaishnavism, and per WP:NPOV policy we must present the significant majority and minority aspects of this subject. Let us wait for other editors to share their views. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avatars: partial and full[edit]

@Dm51c: In the larger list of 22 avatars, Narayana is one of them. In Sikhism, Narayana is one of the Chaubis Avatar (24) of Vishnu. On a different topic, why do you keep deleting the paragraph about full avatar in the Puranas subsection? Full avatar is relevant and due here, see this for second source. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sects mentioned there are exclusively krishnaite and the word followed after that are clear misinterpretation .you can check there theology in their official sitesDm51c (talk)dm51c
@Dm51c: The main article already covers the various sects/sub-traditions, including the Krishna-related ones. Visnu has been a direct major focus in many parts of Indian subcontinent in the 1st millennium CE. Visnu-Sri remain major in Sri Vaishnavism in south, Jagannatha (with links to the Buddha) major in Odisha, Jharkhand and few other areas, Vithoba is major in parts of Maharashtra and north Karnataka. There are others. Yes, there is relationship between all these, Krishna, Rama etc. But we can't suppress or shadow out all this, and make this article 100% Krishna. The article does and should summarize mainstream competing reliable sources, peer reviewed scholarship. Please see WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is Vaishnavism a sect or a religion?[edit]

Let's start by defining sect and religion, SECT- a group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong. RELIGION- a particular system of faith and worship.

As you can see, these 2 definitions are not mutually exclusive, One can therefore define Islam as an Christian sect, or an Christian as an Jewish sect, simply based on which group has the greater numbers at an certain time.

Consider also that the largest organized group of Vaishnavism the Hare Krishna Movement, does not mention themselves as an "sect of Hinduism" and regularly makes distinction between themselves and "Hindus"

see source https://deshika.wordpress.com/2010/09/06/hinduization-of-iskcon-what-do-you-mean-exactly/

http://resource.download.wjec.co.uk.s3.amazonaws.com/vtc/2017-18/17-18_2-21/_eng/wjec/09-iskcon-a-legitimate-form-of-hinduism-ao1.html

http://www.krishna.com/are-hare-krishnas-hindus

https://www.quora.com/Do-hare-krishnas-consider-themselves-hindus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.132.99.144 (talk) 02:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Separating Krishnaism article from Vaishnavism article[edit]

The merging of Krishnaism article and Vaishnavism article is wrong. Hinduism has five old notable sub-sects - Suryaism, Shaktism, Shaivaism, Ganapati-ism, and Vaishnavaism. Krishnaism is a new sub-sect and it spreads misleading information about Hinduism, which seems like the truth at first. Krishnaism and Vaishnavism is not the same thing. In Vaishnavism, Vishnu is the supreme God, while in Krishnaism, Krishna is the supreme God. Due to mass propaganda spread by ISCKON (a.k.a Cult of Hare Krishna), Vishnu and Krishna seems like the two names for one god/lord, but it is not.

According to Vaishnavism, lord Vishnu has ten primary 'avatars/avataras', Krishna is the eighth of those, in which form, lord Vishnu was partially present (a strand of hair). But ISCKON tells that, Krishna is the supreme God, and lord Vishnu is one of Krishnas many 'secretory gods who works for Him' (summary of their teaching).

This is evident from the naming itself. In Sanskrit, one can't just give a name to something (object, group et cetera). There are certain rules, which I am omitting for the sake of shortening this discussion as much as I can. Even if one does not know Sanskrit, a simple observation is enough. The sub-sect of Hinduism which worship Surya as the supreme God, is called Saura. Similarly, Shakti-Shakta, Shiva-Shaiva, Ganapati-Ganapat and Vishnu-Vaishnab. One can clearly see that the root of the name of the worshiped God is present in the name of sub-sect. So according to the rule, people who worship Krishna as the supreme God, in Sanskrit they are called 'Karshnava's (Karshna means 'related to Krishna' is Sanskrit).

This matter is fatal and therefore Wikipedia should have separate articles for both sub-sects as Wikipedia is now seen as an authoritative figure for 'true information' in these days. People who are not familiar with Hinduism much, may not understand the difference between Vishnu and His avatara Krishna. Just like 'The Father' and 'The Son' are both God (or part of God), but they are not the same (or equal), according to Hinduism, Vishnu and Krishna are also not the same, while both of Them, along with every creature of this universe, are the parts of the Paramatma or Supreme Soul. The difference between Vishnu & Krishna may seem pointless at first, but it has huge effect in Hindu practices and belief. All the scriptures and teachings related to Vishnu is spiritual and philosophical. While mythologies related to Krishna contains inappropriate contents like stealing clothes from women, adultery, killing his own clan (on earth) et cetera.

I think the point is made why there should be two separate articles on both topics.

--Kawrno Baba (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, Welcome to wikipedia. Instead of personal views and preferences, it would be more productive if you present the arguments for your proposal(s) citing multiple peer-reviewed scholarly sources. Without such an effort, and with WP:CFORK concerns, I oppose. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ms Sarah Welch: Could you please inform me, besides books and research papers, exactly what else is considered as 'scholarly sources' in Wikipedia? - Kawrno Baba (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:RS for more details. You may also find good quality guidance to this and other related questions you may have at the WP:TEAHOUSE. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A materialistic and arrogant assault on spirituality[edit]

This article -in its current state (16 January, 2021)- is highly offensive.

To the ardent materialist, a spiritual person is living in a dream world. The converse is also true.

The writers of this article have abused the forum, making a critique and denial of the majority of accepted facts about Indian and Vedic knowledge, but also of that culture's exceptional epistemological methods, which have self-preserved information via authoritative discipleship from pre-history.

To repeat, this article degrades both the seeker of truth and the so-called scholar that vomited up the latest fashionable whims of the false ego.

The nature of the self, the quality, forms, and pastimes of God, the sheer inconceivable cosmic multitude of His creations, and our duties as eternal servants are in this article completely ignored in favor of a catalogue of falsehoods, all to serve the personal gratification and false egos of its authors.

Bona fide, authoritative understanding of Vedic culture is delivered to The West and all through Srila Prabhupada.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.123.42.190 (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That 1st century deity Bhaga is the basis of Bhagawat, is wrong. Bhagawat comes from Bhagwan or Supreme God.[edit]

That Nara, the water deity is the basis of Narayana is wrong. The true meaning is as follows: Nara+Yana = Narayana (God, the vehicle or carrier of mankind). Lak0610 (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supposed Vedic roots[edit]

@DayakSibiriak: Dalal was misrepresented, while the other source on supposed Vedic roots was given undue weight. Clearly, someone gave a biased view on the origins of Vaishnavism; you correctly noticed the bias. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's good that you double-check the sources, Wikipedians voluntarily or unwittingly can be wrong. Regards too. DayakSibiriak (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested merge with Ayyavazhi[edit]

  • Oppose Merge - Ayyavazhi is a significant tradition in Hinduism. Also it may be regarded as an independent religion in its own right.

Redtigerxyz Talk 11:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics[edit]

Kridha The IP user raised a good point. Can you prove those figures to be correct? Anyone can come up with any figures but we need to know what methodology they used and if the said figure is widely accepted. Agletarang (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, reference is provided for the estimates mentioned in the article. Kindly check page 26 of attached reference. Thanks. Kridha (talk) 05:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dāsānudāsa, Redtigerxyz, Chronikhiles and MRRaja001 as you all have contributed to this article I am tagging you all for your views regarding the addition/removal of paragraph related to 2010 estimates of different Hindu traditions. "According to a 2010 estimate by Johnson and Grim, Vaishnavism is the largest Hindu sect, constituting about 641 million or 67.6% of Hindus." The trend and figures for the same is available in attached reference. But, Agletarang is opposing the addition of this information as probably he/she is not satisfied with the methodology of the sampling. Though despite this, reference definitely comes under the category of WP:RS. As this content is significant, I am inviting you all for the discussion on this matter to reach a final consensus. Also, besides the tagged editors, any editor can join this discussion and share their respective views regarding this specific matter. As far as my view is concerned, I am in favor of addition of this paragraph as this information is significant and is well supported by a reliable reference. Thanks. Kridha (talk) 06:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop canvassing the users and answer the raised concern in your own words.
Do you have any proof that "641 million or 67.6% of Hindus" have identified themselves as Vaishnav? 103.249.233.126 (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a reliable source. I find that the source is cited in articles, theses, and books on Research Gate, in quantitative, as well as qualitative research. I think it is well within the yardstick of a credible citation. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282158875_The_World's_Religions_in_Figures_An_Introduction_to_International_Religious_Demography Chronikhiles (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Citing the same reference won't prove a thing. We need more than just a typical handwave. 103.249.233.126 (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kridha and Chronikhiles should read WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:BURDEN.If you have found a source for supporting a strange figure, it doesn't mean that we need to include it. If you can't prove the methodology this source has used then you should not use the source at all. The source also lacks expertise in Indian religions per WP:IRS. Agletarang (talk) 07:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read them. I would like it to be pointed out that your belief that it is a "strange figure" does not make it any less reliable. I would appreciate it if you could refer me to an existing guideline that states that the methodology of a demographics research must be identified and corroborated for inclusion in an article. As far as I can see, there is none. Feel free to differ, but I do not see how the citation falls under any of the criteria under WP:EXCEPTIONAL OR WP:BURDEN. It is also neither questionable, self-published, nor circular. The cited source clearly supports the material as presented in the article. It is not an exceptional claim, and hence does not require an exceptional source. Chronikhiles (talk) 10:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, I meant that it is not an extraordinary claim, and hence not require an extraordinary source. Chronikhiles (talk) 10:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a common claim then we must know their methodology too. Agletarang cited WP:IRS which clearly say "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible." 103.249.233.126 (talk) 12:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Chronikhiles for taking out your time to reply. Now, waiting for other editors for their opinion on this matter to reach the final consensus. Kridha (talk) 09:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what is remotely "strange" about an estimate that some two thirds of Hindus are Vaishnavas; it's about what I'd expect. In what way is the source provided not reliable? I agree with Chronikhiles that the claim is in no way exceptional, and anyone with a passing familiarity with Hinduism would know that. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its a strange estimate because no other reliable source supports it and we don't know what methodology this single non-expert source has used. Now see WP:OR because it does not matter what you believe or what anyone with "passing familiarity" believes.
The better source is Pew Research Center, according to which Because of a lack of census or survey data on subgroups of Hindus in most countries, however, reliable estimates of the size of the traditions are not available.[1] Now let's stick to this and avoid any exceptional estimates. Agletarang (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From a quick scan, scholars such as Michael York, Steven Rosen and Joshua Greene, as well as the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies repeat the claim that Vaishnavas make up around two thirds of Hindus. We can say that it's difficult to estimate, but that those who do put a number on it routinely give a similar percentage. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 07:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One source says 70% and others say two-thirds which is 66%. This shows discrepancy. They have provided passing mention and haven't provided the methodology they used. The Pew Research Center's statement is still undisupted. Agletarang (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They say around two-thirds, not exactly. (It would be very hard to be exactly 66.66666666 etc percent of anything.) 70% is around two thirds. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 10:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change a picture and add devotees worship God Vishnu in large section[edit]

in every sect there is worshipped deity has shown, it needed changes and it it is similar image of God Vishnu in Wikipedia 2409:4071:4DBD:495E:3CBC:4981:2671:6DE6 (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change image for Vaishnavism article.[edit]

Vaishnavism means worshipper of Vishnu in Hinduism, but there is no such worship images,

Devotees worship God Vishnu
Vaishnavism

see another traditions, they add God worship images, but this article no good works, kindly request change this image add this below one and this current image add to Avatar Wikipedia.

@Chariotrider555: @Joshua Jonathan: @Krsnaquli: @Redtigerxyz: Vinay viniyl (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vaishnavism&oldid=1221043482"