`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. Monier-Williams, 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 Monier-Williams and, for etymological questions, Mayrhofer. Note that I didn't 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 Purana's, he is God. Same name, different concept: there is no problem.     `