# Talk:Tulsidas

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive
Narrowly a B; More detail, references, and even a picture and infobox would help.
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 18:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This article should be merged with Tulasidas. Andries 00:25, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efM9dkh7QNk
Please can any one reply to this video?

I removed some outdated bits:
.....and the materials for a correct text of the Ramayan are thus available. Good editions have been published by the Khaga Buds press at Bnkipur (with a valuable life of the poet by Baijnath Dfls), and by the Nagari Pracharini Sabha at Allahabad (1903). The ordinary bzflr copies of the poem, repeatedly reproduced by lithography, teem with interpolations and variations from the poetic language. 
The best account of Tulsidas and his works is contained in the papers contributed by Dr Grierson to vol. xxii. of the Indian Antiquary (1893). 
The summary given above is condensed from the translation by Dr Grierson, at pp. 229-236 of the Indian Antiquary, vol. xxii., of the fifth sarga of the Satsal, in which work Tulsi unfolds his system of doctrine.  [I don't see this summary anywhere in the article Prater 11:18, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) ]

Good work. utcursch 08:22, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
Tulsidas--Incarnation of Valmiki?????? Will someone quote source too.Holy---+----Warrior 07:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed the para named Incarnation of Valmiki. As there are no specific proove about and many scholar deny it Tupur16 (talk) 10:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Sanskrit includes a schwa in every consonant that does not have a halant in it. Hindi does not and follows a strict schwa deletion rule (linguistically: ə -> ø | VC_CV; see article on schwa for details and refs). This is a major point of difference between Hindi and Sanskrit in Devnagri usage. Tulsidas is correct, and Tulasidas is incorrect. रामायण is pronounced Ramayana in Sanskrit, but Ramayan in Hindi. रामचरितमानस is Ramcharitmanas, not Ramacharitamanas, because it is a Hindi/Awadhi work. People (including Scholars) who are Sanskrit-familiar but Hindi-unfamiliar often make these errors of failing to delete schwas when transliterating Hindi terms into Roman letters. Happy to discuss this more here. --Hunnjazal (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. Having said that, it would be interesting to know what the current scholarly consensus says about when the schwa deletion happened. I haven't read about this point directly although from memory maybe very old Hindi (~1200) still had a schwa for most dialects. I cannot confirm this though. I'm guessing a book detailing the history of Hindi would be the best place to find out. GizzaTalk © 11:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
FYI one of the most popular translations in English, by Ram Chandra Prasad and published by Motilal Banarsidass in 1990 (ISBN 978-81-208-0443-2) uses Tulasidasa and Ramacharitamanasa throughout. Both spellings are in widespread use, and to say one is correct and the other is like saying color is correct and colour is wrong. Nmisra (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Nmisra. The debate of in which year the Hindi/Urdu rule of schwa deletion came into existence can take its own time. People like me in the south-India who have learnt the Chalisa in our own languages are just far too many.  You will be surprised to see that Ramacharitamanasa in English and in languages of the south-India (for instance the ones published by Geeta Press - Gorakhpur) do not perform a schwa deletion. So, it is indeed like "color" and "colour". I guess it is more important to have your faith in Ram rather than getting into the unnecessary/debatable details.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.128.107 (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I linked the Bikram Samwat date system to its article, but find that the latter system and the Gregorian calendar differ by 56.7 years. That seems to contradict this article, which shows a difference of 22 years. What is the solution? JMK (talk) 09:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The first 2 sentences under "Early Life" give the Hindu day of birth but not the year, and convert it to 1511 AD. This does not make sense. Sooku (talk) 03:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the upper tag regarding references because the importance and notability of Tulsidas is beyond any doubt but since he wrote in Awadhi (a dialect of Hindi), hence we may not have many references to him in English.
amitabhthakurlkoAmitabhthakurlko (talk) 12:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

My dear Mishra Ji! You have undid my edits, no problems. I have written a lot till date and still writting in this age of 63 years. I am not going to die now. So the promotion and demotion does'nt matter for me. If you get some time and visit Rajapur, the native place of Goswamiji; you can see these poems are preserved there alongwith the original handwritten manusript of Goswami Tulsidasji. Moreover these verses have been published in Indraprasth Bharati an official magazine of Hindi Acedemy Delhi in my handwritting. Sahitya Parikrama Jaipur and Vishva Vivek America have also published these poems. I am a reciepient of Senior Fellowship from Govt of India. in the field of Literature in 2002. More than a dozen books till date have been published. I am the least bothered by these pretty things but you have deprived off so many wikipedians from a nice hallmark.
Be pleased.Krantmlverma (talk) 07:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Verma Ji, As it happens, I have been to Rajapur last year and seen the copy which is said to have been written by Tulsidas. In fact I purchased the work by Ram Ganesh Pandey on Tulsi Janma Bhumi there only. I do not remember seeing your poems there, maybe I might have missed out. However, it would still be better if I or somebody else put in your critique of Tulsi than you yourself. I am nobody to comment on your poetic skills (you are much more learned than me), but your views on Tulsidas might better be put in a sentence rather than original poem - as you see we have views from many authors including the likes of Ramchandra Shukla, Mahadevi Verma, Nirala and some original verses are quoted which include those of Madhusudan Saraswati, Abdurrahim Khan-i-khana and Hariaudh. As far as I know your works are not quite as notable as these authors, so putting them in the same league as above would be a bit odd. I am not opposed to your views on Tulsidas being in the article, and Wikipedia does allow self-citation also, but neutral third-party sources are preferred (e.g. if your poetry on Tulsidas is cited by other published works). Nmisra (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, I undid your year of birth edits as there are clearly two points of view, which have been elaborated in detail in a subsection. Nmisra (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The correct year of birth is Samvat 1554 accordingly 1497 A.D. When 500th Birth Centanery of Goswami ji was celelebrated throughout the world I was present there in Delhi in the year 1997. Swami Rambhadracharya has also invited me in Tulsi Peeth and have honoured there for my work in the year 2002. I have also presented these verses in bilingual form at Ramayan Mela Chitrakut for which an aplouding honour was given to me. In the last I will advise you to have a respect for the elders.Krantmlverma (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Verma Ji, I mentioned above that even though I believe the year of birth of Gosvami Tulsidas to be 1497 AD, many other biographers mention the same as 1532 AD. As biographers are divided and Wikipedia should mention both dates as it is supposed to be unbiased towards any one point of view whenever there are multiple points of view. I still do not think your verses deserve mention in this article as you are not as well known as other critics. Unless some third party sources are cited (not Wikisource page which has been created by you), I would be inclined to undo your edits - as they are non-verifiable (hence original research) and self-promotion. See WP:NOR and WP:V - The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. Furthermore both your poem and contribution have spelling and grammatical mistakes, which is not at all suitable for a widely read article like Tulsidas. Wikipedia is not Wikisource, sorry. Honour and standing ovation to you do not matter on Wikipedia. As for respect for elders, one is elder by knowledge and not age, refer the story of Ashtavakra. I would request you to cite reliable third-party published sources for supporting your changes else I will have no option but to remove them. Nmisra (talk) 12:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I have undone most of your edits. A link to your poem is placed under external links - please read all the policies - WP:OR, WP:V, WP:SPIP and WP:NPOV. Both dates 1497 and 1532 are provided at all places with reference. Nmisra (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
(undent) IMO, noting both birth-years is NPOV: 1532 v/s 1497. In fact, 1532 seems to be more popular in Google books and Google Web search. The Tulsi-eulogy seems to be a case of self-promotion. The Tulsi-eulogy section merits inclusion iff A neutral, third-party WP:RS references quoting 'Krant' M. L. Verma's verse are needed. Redtigerxyz  Talk  17:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed this para because there is no reference about it and many scholar deny this fact that is why I think this para should not be in this article. Tupur16 (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I removed the para named incarnation of Valmiki. There is no reference about this in the article and many scholar deny the fact that is why I Ihink it shold be removed Tupur16 (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Tulsidas's goal was to revive Hindu spirituality and devotion when many felt disheartened by social and political changes. Tulsidas makes no mention of the destruction of the Ram Janmabhumi temple, although he expressed sorrow over the desecration of holy places in general. The claim, 'Tulsidas mentioned about destruction of Ram Janmabhumi temple by Mir Baqi in his work Tulsi Doha Shatak' is misleading, fringe view and misrepresenting the content of Tulsi Doha Shatak; this claim needs robust, scholarly source per WP:V and scholarly consensus. Tamir Nazir (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

maths class 10 chapter 9 and 10 ~2025-35359-06 (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)