Talk:Godman (India)

Deletion Request Argument

Wikipedia is not a colloquial dictionary. There are psychotics that claim to be the "messiah" but this does not mean the the word "messiah" is a colloquial term for psychotic people. There appears to be a fallacy of thinking here. This is not an academic usage, but a critique of those who claim false divinity. Godman also has a serious academic usage in philosophy of religion.

I completely disagree. The information in this article does not come from a dictionary, but from an encyclopedia, written by an Phd. academic. Andries 20:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason for this page any longer, "Godman (colloquial)" because nothing links to it. All links for "Godman" are currently pointed directly to Godman itself, so who will be reading this page? chris 20:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Idomatic

I changed the word "colloquial" to "idiomatic." I think this is what was meant even more precisely if you check out the word "idiom." Interestingly the article on "idiom" includes that it can be a "colloquial" word or phrase -- but is not literal which I think is exactly how "godman" is used in this instance. But if you don't like it please change it back. Chris 14:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

All the information is backed up by the listed references. The main reference used the word "colloquial", but none of the references use the word "idiomatic". I will revert. Andries 14:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries, That's fine. Why not email me directly. I would like to discuss some things. I think we are on the same page on a lot more than you think. My email is chrisott1@cox.net Chris

Deletion Request Seconded

As managing editor of Hinduism Today and Hindu Press International daily news service, I review dozens of articles from the English-language press in India. This term "Godman" is used almost exclusively by this media in an insulting manner when refering to any Hindu swami or religions leader. It is not, as asserted in this entry, a "colloquial" expression as it is not a translation of any Sanskrit title. It therefore has no academic or common usage beyond conveying an insult. As you will note, all sources for this entry are non-Hindus. Arumugaswami 03:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit that it is my impression too that the term is sometimes used in a pejorative manner, but I do not have a source for that so I cannot write it in the article. Andries 17:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that this is an unnecessary entry. I would like to note, however, that I've heard Sri Ramakrishna referred to as a "godman of India", and in these cases, the title was most definitely not conferred as an insult. --Ganeshananda 22:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The religious credentials of the sources are not relevant. The question of whether or not the article should be deleted should be decided on the basis of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I have a feeling that the term may count as a neologism, in which case there is certainly a case for its deletion. Does anyone else have any thoughts on how these guidelines should be applied in this case? NB: If the article is deleted, perhaps a line could be added to the article on swamis pointing out that the term 'godman' is sometimes used colloquially to refer to religious figures in India, but that it may have pejorative overtones. Incidentally, describing the word as 'colloquial' merely implies that it is informal, rather than that it is a translation of Sanskrit. -- TinaSparkle 15:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I searched for this article SPECIFICALLY for this meaning. There's nothing wrong with articles about colloquialisms. I remember hearing about these con-men.. these 'godmen' who manipulate the more superstitious among the religious people into believing things which aren't even in line with their faith, but just so he can get money. It's a real thing that exists, and deserves an article, and it's what I came here to read about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarification request

I admit to being at a loss as to the policy of "references." I am managing editor of Hinduism Today and closely follow the Indian press. The term "Godman" is an insult, plain and simple. Everone who reads the Indian press knows this. It is not a translation of any Sanskrit term applied to holy men, but something used by the leftist press to imply that Hindu swamis claim to be God, and therefore put themselves in a position to exploit people. Now it is true that some do this, but the term is used indiscriminately. It is very misleading to have this article claim the term is merely colloquial. Arumugaswami 03:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are right, but there are no sources for it, so I removed it the second time. If you can publish it in your magazine first then may be this can be included in the Wikipedia article. Andries (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems a bit like the word fundamentalist that has a clearly defined neutral meaning, but in popular usage and as used by the press has various poorly defined meanings and a negative connotation. Again, this is my impression, but I have no sources for this, so I cannot write it. Andries (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion request for lines referring to Sri Sri Ravishankar

Why Sri Sri Ravishankar is mentioned on wiki-page for Godman? No media house has ever called him Godman then why should he be mentioned here? If anyone has ever seen any media house calling him "Godman" then please provide link. Also he has neither claimed any supernatural powers nor is he involved any illegal activity, then how come he be classified as Godman? He can be referred in page for Guru or wiki article for him and not under Godman. His name under this page gives impression that he is also Godman. So please delete his entry from this page.

The citations have been added. -Kenfyre (talk) 12:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)