Talk:Vaishno Devi

This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence, realise) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Hinduism: Shaktism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Shaktism task force (assessed as High-importance). Women in Religion Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. India: Jammu and Kashmir / History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Indian history (assessed as Low-importance). This article was last assessed in December 2022.

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)[reply]

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)[reply] What’s your point? Other Purans clearly mention Mahalakshmi as wife of Vishnu and Mahasaraswati as wife of Brahma. The temple is dedicated to Tridevi not just Shiv’s wife. Even Devi Puran or shiv Puran don’t mention Vaishno Devi like you claim. They only mention Vaishnavi matrika and even then it is clearly mentioned in Devi Bhagwatam that she is wife of Vishnu. Vaishno Devi is mentioned in Vaishnav scriptures and folklores as being the wife of Vishnu. Even Chandi Up Puran tells the story of Vaishno Devi and is called the consort of Vishnu. Even Devi Puran calls Vaishnavi as Vishnupriya. The Vaishno Devi Chalisa clearly tells her story. Even the temple worships Devi as Mulchandika Mahalakshmi the consort of Vishnu. 2601:205:457E:9850:1D84:DB36:B820:177C (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] Mahālakṣmī and Durga are not two different goddesses. They are two names/roops of the same Ādiśakti. The Devi who killed Mahishasura is called Mahālakṣmī in the Durga Saptashati, but the same text also calls her Durga, Ambikā, Chandi, etc. Junereads (talk) 10:42, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] The Devi who killed Mahisasur is Trigunatmika Mahalakshmi, which is Goddess Durga. Sri Durga Saptshati is pretty clear in these matters. The Pradhanik Rahasaya distinguishes between Mata Mahalakshmi and Lakshmi Mata(Visnupatni). The Pujaris at Maa Vaishno Devi chant the Dhayana Mantra of Mata Mahalakshmi Mahisamardini(of Sri Durga Saptshati). Aragorn1208 (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Maha lakshmi , Maa Vaishnodevi Maa Durga are same . Kamalika Basu (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they all are same. These are her different names. Keshavv1234 (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] 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)[reply] Give clear references with page number where your points are mentioned in those references. AarushSinha10 (talk) 10:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply] It is not an umbrella term. 2601:205:457E:9850:7438:55F:7FF9:618E (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is titled Vaishno Devi yet almost the entire article except the first paragraph (including the infobox) is about her temple.

In that case, Would it be better if a new Wiki article is created that entirely belongs to her temple? That way this current wiki page titled "Vaishno Devi" can be exclusively about her.ShotgunMavericks (talk)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) Vaishno Devi temple is the most temple of india. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.68.113.91 (talk) 10:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{geodata-check}}

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)[reply]

 Done. 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)[reply]

@Dl2000: 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)[reply]

@Thnidu: 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)[reply] @Dl2000: 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Thanks, that's a good compromise. Start class was obviously too low.--Ipigott (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please protect the article and remove disputed information. Until proper references are provided. AarushSinha10 (talk) 10:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply] @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: Many Śāktas address Vaiṣṇōdēvī as "Rudrasundarī due to the convoluted proof of her existence in scriptures but there are evidences leading her to be Lakṣmī. There is no valid evidence of her to be Rudrasundarī. 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)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] Sanātana Dharma there are many ways of seeing one Devi. We have Śruti–Smṛti traditions and also lokaprasiddha kathā. Vaishno Devi is worshipped from very old times in the Himalayan region, and her story mostly comes from regional tradition, not only from big Purāṇas. So different people naturally see her in different ways. Yes, Mahākālī, Mahālakṣmī and Mahāsarasvatī are all roops of Ādiśakti. And in many places Durga, Lakshmi, Kali, Saraswati everyone is understood as one Shakti only, just with different names.. Vaishno Devi being linked with Mahālakṣmī or with Durga depends on which sampradāya is speaking. Shakta tradition sees her one way, Vaishnava another. Both views exist in India, and both have been around for a long time. Instead of fighting which view is “right,” it’s better to show all the sourced traditions. Sanātana Dharma big many paths, one Devi. Junereads (talk) 10:38, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

this article is heavily disrupted by fake beliefs of some sect of people. The information is not backed by any scriptural evidence. Information does not become authentic based on local beliefs. 2605:8D80:400:6545:F9DE:70EC:E77F:3E54 (talk) 08:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A particular user @Sagrika14 is trying to vandalise the article with their POVs continuously for more than a year now, the sources provided are completely unreliable, information is often direct verses from puranas and that too without citations, they just provide translation of puranas as citations which itself is not a reliable one, that too without mentioning any page no., sometimes cited translation is in language other than English also. I have removed all such unsourced information from the article but this user is continuously edit warring despite me telling them to read about what reliable sources are, I am not in a mood of mindless edit war for my constructive edits, that's the reason I started this talk. Please look into this @Tenryuu @Eucalyptusmint Hbanm (talk) 05:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hbanm can you link which unreliable sources you're referring to here? Also using non-english sources is okay, see WP:NOENG, which also mentions "As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page". Eucalyptusmint (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] I don't know how to link references here and I don't have that much interest in religious articles anymore to learn that right now, especially for this article. The first sentence of the lead, which this user added recently, itself has unreliable citation, the literal translation of purana is cited as a reference without any page no. or whatsoever. Same with the ORIGIN section, the whole ORIGIN section is filled with unreliable citations. I just wanted to bring this thing to the notice of others, that how this editor has converted this article into their POV article, which is evident from the edit history of the article and also from the warnings given to this editor previously, from other editors on his/her own talk page and also on this article's talk page. I don't have any special interest in this article.Hbanm (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Dāsānudāsa @Redtigerxyz @Chronikhiles @Joshua Jonathan @Asteramellus can any of you look into this, I am tired of doing this alone and this user is not ready to understand despite warnings and is continuously edit warring without any explanation. Hbanm (talk) 04:32, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Junereads, I've removed the legends section [2] as the entire section only had one source which was cited twice [3]. How was the text translated? Also, since it's in a different language, it's hard for me to be certain but it looks like it's a WP:PRIMARY source? If it is, it would be better to include additional WP:SECONDARY sources. EM (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! Thanks for the clarification. I actually have two independent printed books that describe the same Vaishno Devi legend. I can add both as sources to support the section instead of relying on just one. I will rewrite the content. I'll also mention that the text is translated from Hindi. Junereads (talk) 07:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sagrika14, In the edit summary, you mentioned that you were reverting to a "good" previous version and that my edits were disruptive. I understand that the addition of the Baba Jittoo story might have been too long or had formatting issues, and I am happy to fix that. However, the revert also removed critical citations that I added to fix existing issues on the page. I would like to point out three specific problems that the revert has caused, which I hope we can agree to fix - The article currently contains the line: "calls her 'Māṇikī', the Śakti of Kalki, as she resides on Māṇika Parvata." This line has been in the article for a long time, but it is unsourced. My edit provided the specific reference for this (The Lakṣmīnārāyaṇa Saṃhitā, Kṛtayuga Santāna 1.334.53 and Dvāparayuga Santāna 3.237.154). By reverting my edit, you have left this claim as "Original Research" again. I request that we restore this citation immediately so the text is verifiable. I added the "Saat Behna" (Seven Sisters) and "Baba Jittoo" stories to the Legends section, not the lead. These are not "disruptive" additions; they are the central folklore of the shrine (Dogri tradition). If the text was too long, I propose we add a summarized version rather than deleting the history entirely. The "Seven Sisters" are integral to the pilgrimage and should be mentioned. Also, Vaishno Devi is a major goddess in Shaktism you removed the box and the image caption as well, even though I have a source stating that the middle pindi represents Mahalakshmi, who is also described as the Vaishno Devi pindi. And I don't understand why you removed the image since the in the current image pindis are not visible. Could we please agree to restore the citations for the Lakṣmīnārāyaṇa Saṃhitā and allow a summarized addition of the legends? I want to help clear the "Citation needed" tags, not cause disruption. Thanks Junereads (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Arnold300 ([[User talk:Arnold300|talk]]) I am reverting your changes because they rely on personal interpretations of primary Puranic texts, which violates Wikipedia’s policy on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. While you mention that 'Vaishnavi' appears in scriptures, the sources you cited (Varaha Purana, Garga Samhita, etc.) do not explicitly identify these figures as the specific deity of the Trikuta shrine, Mata Vaishno Devi. We must rely on reliable secondary sources, such as the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board (SMVDSB) documentation, rather than personal deductions to identify the deity. Please do not restore these claims without providing a scholarly secondary source that explicitly makes these connections. Darkgloom (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This reversion appears to misunderstand both Wikipedia policy and the nature of the sources used. The edits in question do not rely on personal interpretation, but on published texts that are already recognized and discussed within established secondary and tertiary scholarship. Wikipedia policy does not state that Puranic texts are “invalid sources.” Rather, WP:PRIMARY allows their use for descriptive statements about what the texts say, provided no novel conclusions are drawn. The edits did not claim original discovery, but reflected well attested identifications present in Hindu religious literature and tradition, which are routinely summarized in encyclopedic writing. Academic works, Indological studies, encyclopedias of Hinduism, and peer-reviewed publications discussing Vaishnavi/Trikuta traditions also qualify as reliable secondary sources under. An institutional board’s modern interpretation does not override historical religious sources or scholarly consensus. The claim that the cited texts “do not explicitly identify” the deity imposes an unnecessarily narrow standard that is not applied consistently across Hindu deity articles, many of which rely on traditional textual identification rather than single explicit naming statements. Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources state collectively, not only what is phrased in modern institutional language. Reverting material wholesale on the basis that Puranic sources are “personal interpretation” is not supported. This has already been discussed so please quit changing based on your own personal interpretation. Arnold300 (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia strictly prohibits WP:SYNTH. You state that the Lakṣmīnārāyaṇa Saṃhitā calls the deity 'Māṇikī' and says she resides on 'Māṇika Parvata,' which you then claim is 'another name for Trikuta.' Unless the Saṃhitā itself or a cited secondary scholarly source explicitly states 'Māṇika Parvata is also known as Trikūṭa,' this is a clear case of Original Research. You mention that identifying Vaishno Devi as Vaishnavi is 'well-attested,' yet you have provided no secondary scholarly source (e.g., an Indologist like Pintchman, Hawley, or even a regional historian) that connects these specific verses from the Varāha Purāṇa to Vaishno Devi. Wikipedia is based on Verifiability, not 'Truth.' If the source does not explicitly mention the name 'Vaishno Devi' or link 'Manika' to 'Trikuta,' it is an interpretation. Can you provide a single secondary scholarly source (a book by a historian or an Indologist) that explicitly identifies the 'Māṇikī' of the Lakṣmīnārāyaṇa Saṃhitā as the 'Vaishno Devi' of Trikuta? Without that link, equating 'Manika Parvata' with 'Trikuta' is a violation of WP:SYNTH, regardless of how 'collectively' you view the sources. Darkgloom (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] The inclusion of the Socio-historical origins section is necessary for WP:NPOV, as it provides the academic context of the deity's evolution from a regional folk tradition to a pan-Indian pilgrimage site. Unlike the previously removed Puranic sections which relied on identifying 'Maniki' or 'Vaishnavi' as Vaishno Devi without direct textual evidence this section uses peer-reviewed secondary sources (Pintchman, Chauhan) that specifically analyze the deity of the Trikuta shrine. Per WP:V, we must prioritize sources that explicitly discuss the subject of the article over primary texts that require user interpretation to establish a link. thank you.. Darkgloom (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hello Krishnpremi I am reverting your changes because Lakṣmīnārāyaṇa Saṃhitā mentions that Devi Maniki is the daughter of Divya Vibhuti, She is one of the distinct divine consorts of Lord Sri Krishna Narayana in His supreme abode, Akshardham. She resides there eternally along with other primary shaktis like Lakshmi, Radhika, and Prabha. " Lakṣmīnārāyaṇa Saṃhitā not says Maniki lives on manika paravta, this is Original Research Can you provide a single secondary scholarly source (a book by a historian or an Indologist) that explicitly identifies the 'Māṇikī' of the Lakṣmīnārāyaṇa Saṃhitā as the 'Vaishno Devi' of Trikuta? Without that link, equating 'Manika Parvata' with 'Trikuta' is a violation of WP:SYNTH. And can you provide a source that says Vaishnavi of Varah Purana and of Lakṣmīnārāyaṇa Saṃhitā is 'Vaishno Devi?' if no that's Original Research and WP:SYNTH --Darkgloom (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Vaishno Devi. (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 } template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Change 1: Infobox Updates

• Please change:

| name = Vaishno Devi, Lakshmi, Vishnumaya, Vishnupriya, Maniki, Sukriti | affiliation = Durga

• To:

| name = Vaishno Devi, Mata Rani, Trikuta | affiliation = Tridevi or Adi Parashakti

• Reasoning: Current names (Maniki, Sukriti, etc.) are based on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. "Sukṛti" is a noun, not a proper name, and "Māṇikī" belongs to the Akshardham tradition and the source says 'Lord Sri Krishna Narayana in His supreme abode, Akshardham. She resides there eternally along with other primary shaktis like Lakshmi, Radhika, and Prabha."

Change 2: Origins Section

• Please remove: The entire section titled "Origins" (including Puranas and Pancharatra subsections).
• Please add in its place:

== Socio-historical origins == Scholars have categorized the cult of Vaishno Devi as historically "religiously peripheral" to the established Sanskritic and Vaishnavite traditions of Hinduism.[1] The identity of the deity is rooted in the "non-literary folk culture" of the Jammu region, where she was traditionally venerated by local communities before gaining pan-Indian prominence.[2] Historical records from the colonial era, such as the Imperial Gazetteer of India (1909), do not list the shrine as a major scriptural site, suggesting that its status remained largely regional during that period.[3] While devotional narratives often link the goddess to the Devi Mahatmya, some researchers view these connections as "local variants" of Puranic stories rather than original scriptural accounts.[1] The integration of the deity into the broader Brahmanical framework is often cited as an example of Sanskritization, where a local folk deity is identified with the Mahadevi (Great Goddess) to align with orthodox Hindu traditions.[4] Academic analysis suggests that while the deity has deep folk roots, her Shastric identity is a more recent construction resulting from this synthesis.[4]

• Reasoning: Replaces unsourced primary text interpretations (WP:OR) with peer-reviewed secondary scholarly sources (WP:RS).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkgloom (talk • contribs)

 Not done: please provide page numbers for the sources so the information can be verified. EM (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, "Scholars have categorized the cult of Vaishno Devi as historically "religiously peripheral" to the established Sanskritic and Vaishnavite traditions of Hinduism" Page 110 (Page 2 of the pdf), "The identity of the deity is rooted in the "non-literary folk culture" of the Jammu region, where she was traditionally venerated by local communities before gaining pan-Indian prominence." , Page 153 (of chapter9), "While devotional narratives often link the goddess to the Devi Mahatmya, some researchers view these connections as "local variants" of Puranic stories rather than original scriptural accounts." Page 111 (or Page 3 of the pdf), and " The integration of the deity into the broader Brahmanical framework is often cited as an example of Sanskritization, where a local folk deity is identified with the Mahadevi (Great Goddess) to align with orthodox Hindu traditions. Academic analysis suggests that while the deity has deep folk roots, her Shastric identity is a more recent construction resulting from this synthesis." Is on page Page 171 (1994 edition) and Pages 1-17 (2001 edition). Darkgloom (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thanks Darkgloom. I started looking through the sources. Few things, why is the information for the first citation [4] different than the linked source? (i.e. the linked article has the authors as Georgana Foster and Robert Stoddard and the article title as "Vaishno Devi, The Most Famous Goddess Shrine In The Siwaliks") and the current citation has Wishart, Robert at the author and "The Geography of Pilgrimage" as the article title. Also, for the very first sentence "Scholars have categorized the cult of Vaishno Devi as historically "religiously peripheral" to the established Sanskritic and Vaishnavite traditions of Hinduism", the source doesn't specifically reference the "Vaishno Devi cult", it only mentions the "Devi cult", which is a reference to the worship of "The Goddess."). So replacing Vaishno Devi cult for "Devi cult" is not really a correct representation of the source is saying. And for this sentence from the same source, "While devotional narratives often link the goddess to the Devi Mahatmya, some researchers view these connections as "local variants" of Puranic stories rather than original scriptural accounts." on page 111, but the source has:

The origin myth of Vaishno Devi is, of course, a local variant on the story of the Devi Mahatmya, wherein all the gods call upon Devi to kill Mahisha, who is destroying all the sacrifices given to them; and they each give her a weapon with which to do that

this also seems to be out of context with the written sentence. EM (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]