Talk:Shahi Jama Masjid

Islam Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles 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.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

India Low‑importance

	India portal 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.

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Historic sites Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites 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.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Nevill

I don't see Nevill endorsing Carlleyle's claim that the mosque is a converted temple. Who only says "Carlleyle ... was convinced", Moreover, he is subtly contradicting Carlleyle's bricks theory by stating:

The building is mainly of stone, which is certainly the material employed for the great central dome, for the outer walls and porch and for the flooring of the broad courtyard. (p. 258)

I am afraid more checking is needed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carlleyle was something of a trained archaeologist with academic inclinations; for example, Bishnupriya Basak notes him to be "not simply an avid collector of stone tools", but as someone having "an academic interest in their form, technology, age and significance." He was chosen to be one of Cunningham's two assistants for good reasons. Nevill, I am not sure.

That said, while I am no archaeologist, Carlleyle's argument probably followed a logic like this: (1) The walls had been much thicker previously, as deducible from traces. (2) Had the building been made entirely of stone, any such reduction would have been a risky affair. (3) However, the entailed risks would have been far lower, if the building was made of bricks and only encased in stones. (4) Muslim builders, at least in the colonial imagination, were fanatic iconoclasts who regularly defaced icons as might be found at a temple (there's little truth and much myth in this belief but that's for a separate discussion) (4) Sculptures in stone were found to be used in the pathway to the mosque (5) All in all, it is likely that ...

Somebody who has studied Indian temple architecture can shed light on whether temples made of bricks and encased in stones were common and around what spans. Upd Edit (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any information about Neville but he would have been something like a district collector. Those are the knd of people that wrote District Gazetteers. Many of them were ICS with Oxbridge degrees. It seems to me that Neville was consciously contradicting Carlleyle without being explicit about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between bricks and stone can be determined just by tapping on the walls most of the time. Nowadays we can use far more sophisticated sounding techniques. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on both counts but I do not feel like reposing much trust on Nevill. Upd Edit (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article already mentions "stone masonry" sourced to Crane. Stone is also the preferred material for temples. The bricks theory actually surprised me. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Map

An excellent map (full-view; zoomed-in version) has been published by The Print. However, we cannot use it due to the lack of context and date.

The bottom-right corner gives a date of Sakabda ?687 > 1687 i.e. 1765 C.E which do not make any immediate sense given the involvement of a "printing press". At the very bottom, I see "Traced by" which only adds to the mystery. So, my best guess is that this is a pilgrim's map from 1700s (regrettably, there exists little scholarship on these artifacts to allow me guess the context) and it got traced sometime during the 1878 litigation.

That said, for channels like News18 and Zee, there is no mystery; they are proclaiming the map to be from 1065 C.E, having read the year as Sakabda 987! Upd Edit (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody commented that there were no minarets in the Daniells' sketches. That is how the mosque is shown here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Title

From where did the name "Shahi Jama Masjid" come into play? "Sambhala Jama Masjid" ought to be the name. Upd Edit (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:TITLE. I would support move to Shahi Jama Masjid, Sambhal since there are several Shahi Jama Masjids apparently. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree to that. Upd Edit (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Founder Removed from Infobox

I just noticed "Founder" field from the infobox have been removed. Requesting editors to review and address this.

Thanks! Aliyiya5903 (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Aliyiya5903 for noticing this.

I have added the the founder - Cerium4B • Talk? • 18:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the founder back! Also, it would be great to help improve the article on Masjid Akhonji as well.

Appreciate your contributions! Aliyiya5903 (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it common to talk of "founders" for mosques? I haven't seen such a term used in any source. The sources are also pretty clear that Mir Hindu Beg is the one that had the mosque constructed, while they are unsure of Babur's involvement. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3

Do you know who was Mir Beg? - Cerium4B • Talk? • 20:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3,

First of all you didn’t discuss that you were going to edit this. You should have discussed here.

The first source you have added, doesn’t support that Mir beg is the founder or creator and the second source is not accessible.

And the source i added is the source you yourself used in this article.

Aren’t you doing WP:OWN violation? — Cerium4B —Talk? • 13:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3,

Previously I wanted to remind you who Mir beg was, that’s why i asked you if you know who Mir beg was.

He was a general of Babur. Simply, he worked per the instructions of babur. Definitely babur didn’t build the mosque directly. But you can’t say that babur is not the founder, baburs involvement in building the mosque is not necessary.

For example, if you order a contractor to build a house for you, will people say that the contractor is the founder of your house? Will you accept that?

I hope you understand now. — Cerium4B —Talk? • 13:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INFOBOX summarises the artticle's content and doesn't invent something new. The Establishment section of the article clearly explaisn the situation with its construction.

Asher's wording is: One of these mosques is at Sambhal (Plate 9), about 140 km east of Delhi. It was constructed in 1526 by Mir Hindu Beg, an important noble in the court of both Babur and Humayun. She mentions that Babur's order would have been a "general order" to construct mosques in newly conquered areas, not necessarily anything to specific to this particular mosque.

Asam's wording is: According to an inscription inside this mosque, this structure was constructed by a courtier, Hindu Beg, in December 1526. (He does not even mention the idea that Babur had oredered it.)

The source you have added is a museum or library listing, prepared by a museum curator or librarian. Such souroces are not considered authentic for history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3

You’re misunderstanding the role of emperor Babur. Babur is the founder, as he ordered the mosque’s construction, even if Mir Beg did the construction.

The first source you have provided doesn’t support your claim and the source of ram nath do not deny the involvement of Babur. On the other hand, the source of British drawings strongly support that Babur is the founder.

If you say that this source is not reliable, I will remove some informations from the temple section which is cited by this source. — Cerium4B —Talk? • 14:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read and follow WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. (You are aware that you are working in a WP:Contentious topic, where you are expected to understand and apply all the policies of Wikipedia.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, Cerium4B continues to make atrocious edits, all of which were duly reverted by Kautilya3, but per the infinite wisdom of ToBeFree, I am the only editor who has been left unable to edit the page. "positive result", sure. Upd Edit (talk) 08:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have an edit war and you can't participate, is that the complaint? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinished business

Establishment

The sections on Establishment at User:Upd Edit/Shahi Jama Masjid is better than what exists at the article:

I have fixed the occasional clumsy prose.

Upd Edit (talk) 11:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture

The sections on Architecture at User:Upd Edit/Shahi Jama Masjid is better than what exists at the article:

The location of the mosque, atop a hillock, is not an architectural detail.

Neither is Naiyer Azam, who did his PhD on Muslim politics in colonial India, an expert in Mughal/Indo-Islamic architecture nor is the publication venue renowned enough that we can write his judgement about peculiarity in wiki-voice!

A subsection for repairs is prudent esp. because we do not know the architectural modifications imposed via these repairs.

Corrected Asher's reasoning on the architectural antecedents and added a counter-argument from Rezavi which is sourced to this chapter (p. 135-136).

Burton-Page was an orientalist and an old scholar, and I think that his opinion is undue. That said, I have no opposition to preserving the line; it was me who had added it!

Upd Edit (talk) 11:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]