look Raj I apologize again for the simply wrong comment I did correct mistakes but I should have been more polite Now the reason for my impatience was precisely the Rudram precedent where you kept arguing for ages until it transpired that you were not familiar with the original text but basing your opinion on a rather dubitable translation MonierWilliams at least was working with the original texts When he talks about shipivishta  he knows he is talking about shipivishta and his comments are those of an impartial philologist not those of either a Hindu or a Christian Who says anything indeed Encyclopedicity is determined by notability and verifiability In matters of Sanskrit there is simply no way around MonierWilliams and for etymological questions Mayrhofer Note that I didnt touch any exegetical portions of the article     re god vs God we need a historical approach We need a section on Vedic Vishnu and one on Puranic Vishnu In the Rigveda he was a deva a solar god I believe an aditya In the Puranas he is God Same name different concept there is no problem