Talk:Vaishno Devi

message: Even the link quoted doesn't say she is Goddess Mahalakshmi. It only says she was devotee of Vishnu.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srismiit (talk • contribs) 07:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Vaishno Devi is not a devotee of Vishnu. this is a bogus story started up by vaishnavis. vaishno devi is form of goddess Durga and the three pindis at vaishno devi temple represents Mahakali, mahalakshmi and mahasaraswati and these three mahashaktis are consorts of Shiva as mentioned in Durga Saptashati, Shiv purana, devi bhagavatam. Adi Shankaracharya also mentions in prapancha sara tantra that mahakali, mahalakshmi and mahasaraswati are the shaktis of shiva. In the Varaha purana, its mentioned that all vaishnavis are consort of Shiva. I will add more references for this into this article. 2001:569:7E24:6200:F986:5BE6:2E50:9A8D (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Yes they all are same. These are her different names.  Keshavv1234 (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Vaishnodevi is Shivpatni Uma . Shiv puran tells that Mahishmardini Mahalakshmi is Shivpatni. Don't be confused with Vishnupatni Mahalakshmi. Mahalakshmi is an umbrella term . Kamalika Basu (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Give clear references with page number where your points are mentioned in those references. AarushSinha10 (talk) 10:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Vaishno Devi Goddess Mahalakshmi or Goddess Durga? 

message: In many articles we see differrent claims about number of visitors. I will copy and paste some from wiki pages. Please compare them.
1. Vaishno Devi:- Million of pilgrims visit the temple every year and is the second most visited religious shrine in India, after Tirupati Balaji Mandir.
2. Tirupati:- It is the richest and most visited temple (of any faith) in the world[1].
3. Sabarimala:- Sabarimala is one of the most visited piligrim centres in the world with an estimated 4.5-5 crores devotees coming every year. The world's second largest annual pilgrimage, after Haj in Mecca, is reported to be to Sabarimala.
4. Hajj:- It is the largest annual pilgrimage in the world.
5. Vatican City:- Vatican is one of the most visited places of worship in the world with more than 25 million devotees coming every year.
Can anyone help with correct statistics???
Rajeev madhavan (talk) 05:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps not, considering that the numbers for each site are collected by adherents of that site's religion. I suppose one could dig up putatively authoritative numbers for each site and rank them. Not me, though. --Thnidu (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Not right. There's no deny that tirupati is one of the most significant not only in India but in the entire world even. Tirupati Balaji is one of the top 5 or maybe second most visited temple in India but not first. I respect all of them. Kedarnath is also excessively visited. It maybe 3rd only but 1st rank goes to Vaishno Devi Temple with no doubts as visitors here are more than 17 million annually which also makes it the most visited temple worldwide and most visited pilgrimage as well. And I'm saying this as per tourists/devotees numbering which is checked and confirmed in many many surveys.  Keshavv1234 (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most visited religious places in the world 

message: The history section that is now in the article should be renamed Mythology, and a real history section added. This section should contain things like: How long has the temple been there? Who built it?
Sivert45 (talk) 05:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: The following coordinate fixes are needed for the temple:
 33°1'50.62"N, 74°56'56.65"E
—Enqach (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: . It looks as though someone altered the latitude and longitude by one degree each back in September 2011 and the vandalism was not caught at the time. Thanks for pointing it out. Deor (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinate error 

message: I propose that Vaishnavi (deity) be merged into Vaishno Devi. I think that the content in the Vaishnavi (deity) article can easily be explained in the context of Vaishno Devi, and the Vaishno Devi article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Vaishnavi (deity) will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not the same goddess. Vaishno Devi is not Vaishnvai, the Matrika and shakti of Vishnu. --Redtigerxyz  Talk  04:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please look at the footnote in Vaishnavi (deity).  That footnoted source discusses Vaishno Devi.  Is that footnote incorrect?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

text: There are multiple 'Vaishnavi's in Hinduism. Though Vaishno Devi is Sanskritised as Vaishnavi, they are not essentially the same goddess. Read  which talks about Vaishno Devi, and how this goddess was associated with Vishnu, Vishnu's shakti - the matrika Vaishnavi, Vishnu's consort Vaishnavi as Lakshmi. The matrika's legend is captured primarily in the Devi Mahatmya. --Redtigerxyz  Talk  10:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your helpful comments.  I have accordingly clarified these two articles, and now this merger request is withdrawn.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: I just stumbled in here while in the neighborhood,  so to speak. In view of all the spam edit-warring by anonymous IP(s), would it make sense to protect this page against edits by unconfirmed editors, at least for a while? --Thnidu (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The last problematic IP edit was almost a week ago, and such edits didn't seem to be too frequent anyway, so that problem may be subsiding. However, if IPs return to play with the page again, such action could be warranted. Dl2000 (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I guess that makes sense, and I'm sure you have a much better sense of such situations than I do. It sure seems like a single malefactor, with the same spamtext every time. --Thnidu (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  protection? 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
----
Vaishno Devi →  – per WP:COMMONNAME MeraHBharat (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: For the benefit of people not familiar with the subject matter can some evidence be provided that the proposed name is in fact the commonly used one.--67.70.24.141 (talk) 01:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  please check search results also news results or whichever thing satisfies you, you may check. --MeraHBharat (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

text: How can you judge it by yourself that whether we need this adjective or not, please cite reliable sources or wikipedia policies.--MeraHBharat (talk) 07:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 19 September 2021 

message: @Ipigott An entire section is missing citations, as such, I've modified the rating to C — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's a good compromise. Start class was obviously too low.--Ipigott (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating 

message: Request for protection of this article
It has been seen in recent days that this article is being deliberately spoiled by some users. Therefore I request that it should be protected under semi protection to stop vandalism for a long period of (UTC) 103.199.226.76 (talk) 10:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for semi protection of this article 

message: Please protect the article and remove disputed information. Until proper references are provided. AarushSinha10 (talk) 10:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for protection  

message: recently it has been noted here that many vaishnavas are trying to manipulate this article by posting fake claims. this article should be protected from such people who have and are always trying to convert this highly glorified shakta temple into a vaishnava temple. vaishno devi temple is a shakta temple from 1000s of years and still is its dedicated to supreme hindu mother goddess sri durga mata. however these days vaishnavas are trying to hijack this temple by claiming that vaishno devi is consort of vishnu and an incarnation of lakshmi and that vaishno devi will marry kalki avatar of vishnu. all these claims are fake and nothing about this is mentioned in our scriptures. what the vaishno devi temple believes and by which way they worship the divine mother actually matters. ive been to the temple many times and all the puja and worship is done for maa durga and all mantras and ways are taken from durga saptashati only. vaishno devi temple claims that maa vaishno devi is combined avatar of mahakali, mahalakshmi and mahasaraswati with the main qualities of mahalakshmi and in the durga saptashati scripture as well as in devi bhagavatam, mahabhagavat, shiv puran, etc its clearly mentioned that mahakali mahalakshmi and mahasaraswati are avatars of maa durga alone and all these three devis belong to sadashiva. its clearly written in durga saptashati, devi bhagavatam, mahabhagavat, shiv puran that the 18 handed mahalakshmi mahishasura mardini is the consort of shiva and avatar of shakti (maa durga). therefore vaishno devi claimed as lakshmi avatar gets totally debunked. if kalki avatar has to marry vaishno devi then the information about this should have been given in scriptures and not even in kalki puran its written that kalki will marry vaishno devi. this all is a bogus concept started by vaishnavas to convert this highly glorified shakta temple, this spam concept was first started by disciple of sri nimbarkacharya to destroy the legacy of this temple. the same way they are doing on mahalakshmi kolhapur temple. ive a lot more information to share on this which will expose all these fake concepts started by vaishnavas. i will never let this temple to be converted. these vaishnavas will be exposed. vaishno devi temple is a shakta temple only not a vaishnava. the temple has links with shaivism not vaishnavism. vaishno devi is mahalakshmi as temple claims and as per this claim its clear that she is consort of shiva. dont be confused between words 'lakshmi' and 'mahalakshmi'. the term is for vishnu's consort and the term mahalakshmi refers to mahishasura mardini avatar of maa durga. mahalakshmi mahishasura mardini is consort of shiva as mentioned in durga saptashati. shiv purana also says that one of the names of maa durga is ambika mahalakshmi. hence dont be confused between lakshmi and mahalakshmi. both are different. more info can be found in saptashati. hence vaishno devi is mahalakshmi and is mother of vishnu as temple itself claims. mahalakshmi is consort of sadashiva. hence vaishno devi having all same qualities of maa durga is consort of shiva only and vishnu is her devotee; says the temple. i can show the video proof if required. kindly protect this article from spammers. 2001:569:599C:4200:CDE5:7F85:7F71:ADFB (talk) 05:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, thanks for starting this discussion. Just want to note that this page is about the goddess and not about the temple so any thoughts related to that should be taken to the talk page for the Vaishno Devi Temple. Additionally, information in this encyclopedia is based on reliable sources and not editors' beliefs, opinions and experiences. That being said,@Sagrika14 as well, I encourage you to use this page for discussion if there are differing views with other editors rather than edit warring over content or adding poorly sourced information and calling it "fake claims". And if there are two different views that are widely supported by reliable sources and not WP:FRINGE then perhaps both can/need to be included on the page as separate sections? Just a thought. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @OmieDomie can you point out which sources you are referring to when you say "accurately sourced"? More importantly, the section about Fake Claims is barely sourced with reliable sources and has a lot of issues with WP:NPOV and original research. To give one example of this, the first sentence in the section is written as:  There's no reliable source cited for this nor is it written in a neutral tone, so are these your personal views? Again, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and information is based on reliable sources and not editors' beliefs, opinions and experiences. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This statement is absolutely in a neutral tone because I have addressed a situation with the reason provided being the convoluted and minimal proof of her existence in scriptures, leading to many misconceptions. Then, I further go and solve such misconceptions with proper scriptures, ślōkas, and references to each ślōka. If you check again, you will see all the scriptures I have quoted with verses. This is not based on beliefs, this is based on proofs. Most of the spam edits being made on this page are personal opinions forcefully being applied to this topic and valid sources and information is being removed. OmieDomie (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling other info that may not agree with your pov "convoluted and fake" and that has otherwise been supported with reliable sources isn't maintaining a neutral point of view and neither is  drawing your own conclusions to "solve such misconceptions" and presenting them as facts without references to WP:SECONDARY sources. This means that simply adding the verses as "sources" isn't enough, have you read WP:RS? Also, Wikipedia is WP:NOTOPINION and WP:NOTADVOCACY so can you explain why you removed sourced information here and here? Eucalyptusmint (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  free the article from fake claims of vaishnavas 

message: @Sagrika14: Stop adding unreferenced content and using misleading edit summaries. Discuss here before doing something similar again. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding unreferenced content 

message: the article should be protected. vaishnavas are trying to add their bogus information without any evidence here. to solve this we can create two sections in this article - "view of shaktas & shaivas" and "view of vaishnavas" 
in these sections, shaktas can post their belief while vaishnavas can give post their belief.
generally, vaishno devi is worshipped as Mother Durga, everyone knows.
after this gets done, we have to do comparison and authenticate the information, which ever side gives more and more reliable evidences from scriptures as well as acharyas, their belief should be priortized. till then keep this article to the current version only. (vaishno devi, a local goddess and a manifestation of Durga) 2001:569:7E24:6200:F986:5BE6:2E50:9A8D (talk) 03:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are sufficient independent reliable sources to support the two views, that can be done. —C.Fred (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final Solution Needed, this article is extremely disrupted by fake claims of Vaishnavas.