Talk:Taj Mahal/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Taj Mahal in popular culture

Currently the page Taj mahal in popular culture redirects to Taj Mahal (disambiguation). Is that okay, or should they be separate pages? To me it looks a bit odd like this. Wiki-uk (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

'Myths' section renamed to 'Controversies'

After wasting some time, I found out that the 'Myths' section was renamed to 'Controversies' on 12 November 2010. I am leaving this message in case someone else may be looking for the same... What about a rename to 'Controversies and myths', or is that incorrect? Wiki-uk (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly: Discuss here on the talk page and then rename the section.

Secondly the name controversies is un reasonable, because the present info talk about the Myths/different legends goes with the purpose construction of the Taj.

I would suggest we should rename the section as LEGENDS, which looks reasonable for the title like taj mahal.

Any reverting your edit untill the discussion comes to consensus on this talk page.regards--Omer123hussain (talk) 06:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This section deals primarily with "myths," which I think is a much accurate description of that section. I would like to propose that this subsection be renamed to "Myths." danielkueh (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Want to contribute couple of photos

I have couple of images of minarets that I would like to contribute. How do I go about doing this, as this is a semi-protected page. Please suggest. Dsandip (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You should be able to add stuff. There used to be a rule that you need to make more than 300 edits, but I can't see any evidence that's still in force. But maybe it is. You should certainly be able to upload the images and link to them on this page - but we don't just want to overload the main page with images. Think about whether what you want to add is really needed. Paul B (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

When was there ever a rule requiring 300 edits? --Sam 14:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It's just one of those things I remember being stated in discussions. I'm not the only one who seems to remember that Wikipedia_talk:Rough_guide_to_semi-protection#Who_does_it_block. Maybe it was just a proposal, or a conflation with some other rule. Paul B (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Paul. I wanted to add a minaret image because I thought the main page is missing one and the image would add value to the page and also there was some discussion in the past on the requirement of such an image. Dsandip (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Structural Integrity

I was going to throw this in there but then I saw this is a GA so I figured I'd pop the question here first. The Taj Mahal is currently in danger of falling down. That merits mentioning, no? Or should we wait and see if it actually does? Not sure where to add this though... the article is sort of jumbled as it is.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/How-to-Save-the-Taj-Mahal.html

http://www.architizer.com/en_us/blog/dyn/31064/save-the-taj-mahal/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2045183/Taj-Mahal-collapse-5-years-wooden-foundations-rotting.html#ixzz1ZtfJPsnf

Ahp378 (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Door of side building, with flower garlands

What is the meaning of the flower garlands on this door? And what is the building for? It is on the south side of the Mosque, just next to it, opposite the path. Wiki-uk (talk) 06:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Trump Taj Mahal?

It's given as a building modeled on the original, but I fail to see much resemblance. File:9.28.06TrumpTajMahalByLuigiNovi.jpg 192.91.172.42 (talk) 03:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

See also Trump Taj Mahal and Taj Mahal (disambiguation) Wiki-uk (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If he wants to call it that he can. The name is not copyrighted. There are also many restaurants that use the name. Paul B (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

Hello!! I am Jagadhatri i came across the pictures listed above!! They are better even than those on the article page......so can i please create a gallery on the article page with those images listed and shown there? That will reflect our Indian culture more effectively! Please it's a request!! Only one gallery only with those 6 or 7 pictures!! Please leave a Talkback template on my talk page. --Jagadhatri(২০১২) 12:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC) Proud to be Indian! ✗ Not done Senator2029 (talk) 09:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Precedence of Design Influences

From the lead

' a style that combines elements from Persian, Turkish and Indian architectural styles '

A couple of recent edits by a (apparently) Turkish editor placed Turkish influences first. I have only seen passing references to the Turkish influences. It made me wonder, however if there is a potential for POV here, favoring one influence over another. If the precedence of the influence is "likely to be challenged", I guess we need to find a source showing precedence? The second footnote says:

'Moghul architecture, blends Islamic, Hindu and Persian styles'

And doesn't mention Turkish influences at all.

Thoughts?--Nemonoman (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

English Transliteration

Since this -is- an English language part of Wikipedia, how about providing an pronunciation translated into actual *English letters*?

Reading the characters in the given pronunciation as English results in something bizarre like "tah-dee-three-mee-hal".

Something like "tazh-muh-hah'" (the way I was taught to pronounce it) or the variant "tahj-muh-hall'" would make much more sense to English-speaking readers.

For that matter, this is a pronunciation issue that could apply to the vast majority of Wikipedia entries.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.174.105 (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2011‎ (UTC)

the history (little information) of taj mahal

They are one of the eight wonders of the world and some of the western historians hace noted that its architectural beauty has never been surpassed.the principal of taj mahal is Ustad Ahmad Lahauri.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Teresawong (talk • contribs) 22:04, 23 February 2009‎ (UTC)

This is getting too long

This talk page is a bit too long. It is even longer than the article itself. Make sure the comment is worthwhile before you post it, ok? Unless you are trying to set a world record for "World's Longest Talk Page", think twice before randomly posting comments. Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farfaraway269269 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Controversies part should be elaborated, presenting alternate views, giving both views equal space. Neutrality does not mean hiding facts!

Please include the view points from both sides, equal space!

If there is a controversy, give more space for the controversy-not just a limited paragraph! At least include proper link outs!

Wikipedia is not the official spoke person for Govt. of India.

We have all heard how the Taj Mahal, which is considered one of the great wonders of the world, was built as the preeminent expression of a man's love for a wife. That it was built by emperor Shah Jahan in commemoration of his wife Mumtaz. However, is this a true story? So, in our continuous effort to get to the truth, we have acquired some very important documents and information. Regardless of what anyone thinks, there is some thoughtful information that indicates that the Taj Mahal was never built by Shah Jahan. Some say the Taj Mahal pre-dates Shah Jahan by several centuries and was originally built as a Hindu or Vedic temple/palace complex, and that Shah Jahan merely acquired it from its previous owner, the Hindu King Jai Singh. This is not unlike the many other buildings that were acquired by the muslim invaders to be used for their own purposes. The point to consider is how much more of India's history has been distorted if the background of such a grand building is so inaccurate.

Please include the above paragraph and reference under the section controversies: http://www.stephen-knapp.com/was_the_taj_mahal_a_vedic_temple.htm

THANK YOU.

Dr. Sanal MG PhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.247.194.170 (talk) 09:18, November 23, 2010‎

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - knapp's not a credible source I'm afraid and this issue has been done to death - please see above. As a matter of policy, equal weight and coverage to fringe theories are not required. thanks. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Taj Mahal was not built by King and the any other person

You must respect the fact rather than keep helping in distortion of history. For any political and pseudo secular reasons Indian governments will never allow the carbon dating of Tajmahal. This page is misguiding people worldwide thinking that Taj is a Mughal architecture though all the proofs and its research so far clearly shows it was a Hindu temple and Shah jahan's name was used to disguise people in the name of faith.

If you don't publish the true facts about Taj, I'm going to start a new Wiki page on Tajmahal showing its real history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ns happy (talk • contribs) 09:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You are free to do so, but it will be deleted in no time. Paul B (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It just goes to show your ignorance about carbon dating. Pray tell me how will you carbon date marble??117.201.201.196 (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It's the consensus of historians and scholars that the Taj Mahal was built by the Mughals. You may to want to take any crack pot theories to them and see what they say. They've been researching the Taj Mahal for years. Numpty9991 (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC) block evading sock puppet of Dalai Lama Ding Dong Beta Jones Mercury (talk) 05:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, your bluster has got you nowhere. No-one needs to carbon-date marble. Paul B (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 February 2013

Piyushsharma1987 (talk) 10:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Tajmahal kaha hai

 Done No editing request made. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Why no Indian English tag?

This is the first wikipedia contribution — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piyushsharma1987 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC) This article is used as the example on WP:ENGVAR of an Indian English article, but above isn't tagged and isn't among these articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

controversies

actually taj mahal was built by raja jai singh later transferred or captured by shah jahan. This is better explained by professor oak book "TAJ MAHAL THE TRUE STORY" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.209.27.215 (talk) 09:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

:The words of a crack pot "historian" with no scholarly background who writes a book claiming the Kabah and the Buckingham palace was a Hindu temple is not a reliable source. No serious historian backs him up. He cannot be taken seriously. I'm curious but why precisely do you think he's right? Numpty9991 (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Should the word crackpot be included in the article? We can use some word which is more appropriate as per vocabulary standards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.86.18 (talk) 08:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Quakery seems more appropriate but the source calls him a crackpot. Numpty9991 (talk) 01:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually crackpot would suit. Quakery is more of a term related to fake medicine. Numpty9991 (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC) - block evading sock puppet of Dalai Lama Ding Dong Beta Jones Mercury (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Cultural Image of Tajmahal: Criticism by Feminists

In recent times, the image of Tajmahal in popular culture has also come to be scrutinised, with an article , also later reproduced on the author's blog questioning " whether the Taj would have derived this much of attention and praise had it been made in the memory of an independent minded, freedom seeking and ‘feminist’ personalities like a Razia Sultana, or a Noor Jahan?" The article also questions why Haji Begum, the maker of Humayun's Tomb, an earlier and more experimental tomb, never got the attention and adulation from historians, as Shahjahan got, stating that "In fact, it has now become customary to refer to Humayun’s Tomb as having been built by the Emperor Akbar perhaps because it appears to be more ‘appropriate’ than blowing up the angle of a woman making it in the memory of her husband." The article takes support from eminent architecture historians such as Catherine B. Asher to underline this 'male appropriation': "Tradition states that a devoted wife Hajji Begum was responsible for its (Humayun’s Tomb’s) construction, recently however Akbar has been proposed as the patron (Glenn Lowry) even though the tomb resembles none of Akbar’s other architectural enterprises.”

______________________________

The above section has recently been added. I'm moving it here because undue weight concerns. It seems to me to be a rather marginal issue raised in one article (not "feminists" in general), one which also rather misses the point that the fame of the building is due to its architectural beauty, which Humayun's tomb does not have to the same degree (it's a bit like the Great Pyramid - it's less experimental and original than the Pyramid of Djoser, but is much more famous because it represents the perfection of the style). I think the comments about Humayun's tomb might belong in that article. Here, I can imagine maybe a sentence noting that the romance myth has been said to confirm traditional stereotypes of femininity or something like that. But to me the cited article seems more like non-notable journalism than scholarship ("Media Spectrum"). Frankly, even the point about Humayun's tomb is a bit rich considering that the (male) architect who actually designed it is being completely ignored! So much for "male appropriation". Paul B (talk) 12:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree The entry is too trivial and completely out of context!--PremKudva^Talk 06:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

In fact, the idea that Taj Mahal is more a tribute to Shahjahan’s imperial power—a tribute to male triumph-- than a monument of love, has been raised earlier also by many scholars like the German philosopher Hermann Keyserling in his The Travel Diary of a Philosopher, as pointed out by Wayne E. Begley , who quotes David Carroll . Begley’s article also looks at the ‘exaggerated romanticism’ related to Shahjahan’s love for Mumtaj Mahal, stating that “the notion of his undying love for his wife apparently assumed its present guidebook form sometime in the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century, during the heyday of Romanticism when emotion and intense feelings were exalted as ends in themselves,” thus underplaying the fact that he had three other legal wives and many other half-wives, with whom he continued to maintain relationships, as bears out from the contemporary accounts of Sir Thomas Roe, European chroniclers and travellers Manucci, Bernier etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saramohanpur1940(talk • contribs) 14:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

^ Wayne E. Begley, ‘The Myth of the Taj Mahal and a New Theory of Its Symbolic Meaning’, Art Bulletin 61, no. 1 (March 1979): 7–37, http://www.collegeart.org/pdf/artbulletin/Art%20Bulletin%20Vol%2061%20No%201%0Begley.pdf ^ David Carroll, The Taj Mahal, Newsweek, New York, First Edition edition (June 1, 1972) ^ Wayne E. Begley, ‘The Myth of the Taj Mahal and a New Theory of Its Symbolic Meaning’, Art Bulletin 61, no. 1 (March 1979), p. 8 ^ Ibid, p. 9-10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saramohanpur1940 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I have give the above passage to support the point of view of the Taj Mahal as made by the feminist school of thought. This is an important dimension to the understanding of the cultural image of the Taj. The idea is not to doubt the architectural beauty of the Taj, but, since the Taj is not just an architecture, but a part of the Indian/Asian/world cultural representation, the apparent politics behind such a representation as pointed out by a school of thought must be given its due place on the Wikipedia page--which, as a matter of editorial policy, remains neutral, and gives space to all schools of thought on a particular topic to bring about a holistic understanding of the same for the wiki readers. Hope the editors will see the point.

Saramohanpur1940 (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Saramohanpur1940, this is utterly chaotic. Please read WP:SYN. The only person saying that this has anything to do with "male power" is you. Begley is connecting the emphasis on the love story to European Romanticism, not "male power". Hermann Keyserling says nothing about "male power" either. Even Catherine B. Asher says no such thing; she merely notes that there is a debate about whether it was commissioned by his widow or his son. You are appropriating scholarship that says quite different things to support a non-notable journalistic article making claims about "feminist" views of the monument that are both illogical and unsupported by the authorities you quote. Paul B (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Paul B, I am afraid you have neither read in full that 'non-notable journalistic article', nor you have the patience to read Begley. Begley goes on to quote many authentic sources to underline how Shahjahan's monument was 'intended to symbolise his glory and not only his devotion'. (p. 10) He says that monument 'served as a symbol, as it were of imperial destiny....a tangible manifestation of his magnificent obsession with his own greatness'. (ibid). That Taj Mahal has served as an image to advance the male notions of power is a logical inference of this argument. That non-notable journalistic article also draws upon many such studies to underline how Taj is not just a monument of love--but a manifestation of a male-cum-royal grandeur.

The references are given to allow the reader (as well as editor) to get the context in full, and not to just jump to conclusion on the basis of such references. The discussion needs to be based on informed criticism.

Saramohanpur1940 (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did read the 'non-notable journalistic article' in full. I thought it was a pretty poor piece. I have not read Begley in full, and I don't need to. None of your quotations say anything whatever about male power in the feminist sense. Of course these arguments would just as much apply to Hajji Begum as to Akbar or to Jahan. Building a big tomb, even if its for a relative rather than youself, is often an assertion of dynastic wealth and status as much as it is of love and devotion. That applies equally to widows, widowers, sons and daughters. It's not gender specific. Paul B (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

This is deflecting attention from the main discussion. If such acts in history are treated with so much of one-sided sympathy, then there will never be any need for any gender or class or race-related studies, view-points and conflicts. This is too self-serving--and can not stand the test of the post-colonial enquiry. Saramohanpur1940 (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I've no idea what "main discussion" you mean. You were claiming that a 'feminist' argument was being made in sources that, I believe, make no such argument. Now you seem to be trying to say that the Romantic story of the tomb is "self-serving". Whose self is being served? And what does "post-colonial" enquiry have to do with it? The post-British independent India state has much more investment in the tourist-pulling-power of the monument than the British Raj did. And in case case this is a completely separate issue from feminism. Paul B (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I have raised this issue at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, with a note at Fringe Theories board, and left notes for contributions and comments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture and Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual Arts. Paul B (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It is good that you have raised the issue for general feedback. But I am really concerned about the prejudiced mindsets working here. Post-British is just a part of post-colonial enquiry. Post-colonial discourse encompasses west-east dichotomy, but does not mean only that. And, it is also about questioning so-called 'romantic' and 'oriental' notions of the east by the west --and I am really disturbed to see this working here. The editors of the notice board need to see this.

Saramohanpur1940 (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Saramohanpur1940, please just sign with four tildes after the last sentence. Writing your name and signing in a separate paragraph tends confuse the look of the talk pages, making it unclear who is replying to who. Responses should be inset using colons (:). I think the "prejudiced mindset" is just a fantasy, mainly because you are jumbling up together a lot of tangentally related material in a way that I think is very confused. Yes, it's true that "orientalist" ideas existed within the broad movement called "Romanticism", but you can't just equate that with the "romantic" idea of love. Yes, they are related, but they are not just interchangeable, as though any love stort is Romantism + Romanticism = Orientalism... etc. Indeed "orientalism" was itself a varied, complex and contested discourse. Paul B (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

thanks indeed for these technical tips. This discussion can go on and on, let us not get into it.

Saramohanpur1940 (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with PaulB This doesn't seem very significant. The article could no doubt be expanded in terms of its interesting reception history, but a more balanced approach is needed - I'm sure the sources are there. As always the actual architects are neglected for the patrons, of whatever gender. Begley's article is interesting though I don't think his main rather speculative point has gained much traction in the over 30 years since it was published. I can't open the pdf link above but for those with JSTOR it is "The Myth of the Taj Mahal and a New Theory of Its Symbolic Meaning", Wayne E. Begley, The Art Bulletin , Vol. 61, No. 1 (Mar., 1979), pp. 7-37, JSTOR

Begley certainly hacks away at the idea that the huge size of the building is a sign of SJ's love for his wife, and some of that could be added. Of course it is also a dynastic and personal monument. At the moment the article just mentions grief quickly & leaves it as that. Johnbod (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request: Mumtaz was Shah Jahan's "second wife", not "third wife"

Mistake at the beginning of the article. Mumtaz was not Shah Jahan's "third wife" as written, but his second wife. It is a historical fact that is not even disputed, and that can be easily checked in any book, online (including Mumtaz' wikipedia article). As the article is semi-protected and I just registered I am, I believe, unable to edit. Please do it if you can. PierreMonegier (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: just looked at Taj Mahal website [1] That says : Betrothed to Prince Khurram in 1607 AD at the age of 14 years, she was married five years later on 10 May 1612, a date selected by the court astrologers as most conducive to ensuring a happy marriage to Prince Khurram, who later ascended the Peacock Throne of India as the fifth Mughal Emperor and populary known as Shah Jahan I. She was his third wife, and became his favorite

Edit request on 27 September 2013

Arvind568 (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done: no actual request made here. NiciVampireHeart 12:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Minarets

Our tourguide, who studied in Agra, told us, that the reason for construction minarets slightly outside of the plinth because of collapsion is a myth. The true reason, according to him, is a perspective trick, to enlarge the main dome and surrounding area. Is there any evidence what's true? Qetrix (talk) 07:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Taj Mahal

Chaange it with related section, see also Indian governmental Tac Mahal web page 78.165.60.49 (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Please make your proposal clear. Thanks. --JustBerry (talk) 08:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2013

Taj Mahal Dan 4973 (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Given the number of high-quality images already in the article which don't require Flash (including a high-res panoramic shot) I don't see the value in adding this to the article. --ElHef (Meep?) 15:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Taj Mahal Or Tejo Mahalaya a Shiv Temple

As many know the Mughal kings destroyed many churches, temples or modified such places and made to be known as theirs where ever they went and ruled, it is not surprising to believe that even Taj Mahal could be converted from a temple to a memorial, but ofcourse as the rule of the world one just cannot hide truth completely. Note "Wife of shah jahan is buried somewhere else a place named Burhanpur"

There are many evidences which can be seen in Taj Mahal and make you easily believe the Taj Mahal is indeed a Hindu Temple of Lord Shiv In every angle when you see the so called monument it matches to hindu traditions and believes, the Vastu of the building, the pinnacle where one can easily see the Kalash "used in hindu rituals" and ofcourse the crescent moon associated with Lord Shiv. The main dome surrounded by 4 little domes is mostly the way Hindu temples are made it denotes Mount Meru considered a sacred mountain in Hindu culture and many other such evidences you can see the pictures here http://www.stephen-knapp.com/was_the_taj_mahal_a_vedic_temple.htm

Some of the archaeologist did carbon testing of some rocks found from Taj Mahal and came out with the result that this temple was built in around 11th century AD and not built in the 16th century of Shah Jahans Rule.

Once can find more evidences on this page http://www.stephen-knapp.com/was_the_taj_mahal_a_vedic_temple.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.134.174.200 (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Not WP:RS --Tito☸Dutta 07:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Please could you point out one temple which dates back to pre mughals and had domes ? the domes itself are the biggest symbol of mughal architecture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.40.10.195 (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The mughals empire was established in Agra india in 1526, Before this date The city is mentioned in historical Records as Agrevaṇa ("the border of the forest").The founding of the city was to Raja Badal Singh, a Sikarwar Rajput king (c. 1475), whose fort, Badalgarh, stood on or near the site of the present fort. In the 11th century The Persian poet Mas'ūd Sa'd Salmān writes of a desperate assault on the fortress of Agra, then held by the Shāhī King Jayapala, by Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni. Sultan Sikandar Lodī was the first to move his capital from Delhi to Agra in 1506. He died in 1517 and his son, Ibrāhīm Lodī, remained in power there for nine more years, finally being defeated at the Battle of Panipat in 1526.

Between 1540 and 1556, Afghans, beginning with Sher Shah Suri ruled the area. It achieved fame as the capital of the Mughal Empire from 1556.

So You need someone to point out dome hindu temples before the time of The mughals empire of 1526 when he ordered the destruction of all hindu temples?

WEll we could start with The 13th century Bhuleshwar Temple Or Ellora Temple, Maharashtra Temple Or even the ancient ruins in pakistan of Tilla Jogian dated 100BC, i could go on but it serves a point that they did have domes on the temple way over 200 years before The mughal architecture, its a a shame to know that historically The smash Indian architecture to the floor as well as convert them into mosques across india and pakistan.199.68.218.16 (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Veda

Actually, it doesn't matter whether you can or can't find examples of earlier temples in this style - or anything of that nature. Here on Wikipedia, we need reliable sources to any facts we state...what you're doing by looking for other examples and making assumptions on that basis is called Original Research and it's not allowed here (WP:SYNTH also applies here). All that matters here is whether there is a document from a reliable source (as defined by WP:RS) that says that the Taj is that old. With that document, we could write about this idea - without it, we cannot. It's entirely irrelevant whether you can find examples of similar architecture or not...that's the business of the experts that we're going to rely upon. SteveBaker (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2014

The claim in the 'Construction' section of "A fifteen kilometre (9.3 mi) tamped-earth ramp was built to transport marble and materials to the construction site" is not found in any citation, nor could I find a reliable source by searching on-line. I suggest that a is added after this line. 109.155.245.115 (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: I added a cite book instead. Sam Sailor ^Sing 10:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change -- Threats

I propose that the following text be added to the "Threats" section following the first paragraph (the one about scaffolding):

"In 1943, the Taj Mahal was narrowly spared complete destruction when a US Army Air Force C-87 Liberator Express, taking off from nearby Agra Air Depot with a heavy overload, failed to gain sufficient altitude to clear the mausoleum's minarets. The pilot, Ernest K. Gann, barely saved his plane and the building by fully lowering the flaps to create extra lift, and then incrementally raising them again to prevent stalling out; the plane cleared the tops of the minarets by less than 100 feet."

Source:

24.5.122.13 (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Taj Mahal Mosque, Agra.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Taj Mahal Mosque, Agra.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 28, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-08-28. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The mosque at the Taj Mahal complex in Agra, India. This red sandstone building, on the western side of the complex, faces the west side of the mausoleum. In the forefront is a howz, meant for ablution. On the eastern side of the complex is the jawab ("answer"), a mirror image of the mosque except for the missing mihrab and different floor pattern; this jawab was mainly intended for architectural balance. Both were constructed in 1643.Photo: Muhammad Mahdi Karim

Proposed change -- collapse

The text currently reads "Some predictions indicate that the tomb may collapse within 5 years". In order for that to be a complete thought, it needs a date as a reference point. Since the prediction was made in 2011, we could write "Some predictions in 2011 indicate that the tomb may collapse within 5 years" or "Some predictions indicate that the tomb may collapse by 2016." I'd be happy with either. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

blazing hot winters?

"Most tourists visit in the cooler months of October, November and February." At 21 north latitude (Havana-23N, Mexico City-19N), why aren't the peak "snowbird months" of December and January even bigger for tourism? I'm not questioning the months of peak tourism, but as a explanation, the word "cooler" seems illogical. 12.193.238.99 (talk) 13:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2014

122.181.181.240 (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Please r esubmit your request detailing exactly what changes you would like made, providing any necessary sources. NiciVampireHeart 15:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The Taj Mahal?

This is well written but incorrect information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.64.48 (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The Taj Mahal?

Some ammendments required. (This is an article and it is open to continuation of ammendments) This article could benefit from translations and authentic history. Well writen and neatly typed, Keep up the good work. I'd like to see more honesty in contributions - people prefer the truth.

FOR EXAMPLE: My name is not Larry Sanger, I am not a special agent (lol), I was asked to use "larrysanger" as my login name.

More photographs and less images please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larrysanger007 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you explain just a little more clearly what this concealed "truth" may be? Paul B (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2014

Prasans007 (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC) actually taj was a shiva temple, the name agra derived from AGRESHWARA > SHIVA. The real name of taj mahal is derived from "tejo mahalaya". and we can find thrishul at the top of taj. It was built 300 years before shahajahan. taj mahal is built by rajpooth king Jai Sing.( ref . Badshahanama page 403 vol_1 written by shahajahan). http://neladusiru.blogspot.in/2013/09/blog-post.html?m=1

 Not done Blogs are not a reliable source - Arjayay (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on March 6, 2015

Hi! Firstly,I want to mention that in the 'Threats' section it is not clearly mentioned why it happens.Secondly,in the 'Tourism' section, I suggest to add other details such as ticketing cost etc. Refrences http://www.tajmahal.gov.in/ticketing.html http://www.techtimes.com/articles/22047/20141212/world-wonder-taj-mahal-is-turning-brown-due-to-air-pollution.htm

Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Komchi (talk • contribs) 22:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Religious/nationalist objections

Passage that might be used at pp. 176-77 (PDF 25/26) of this PDF by 2 top historians of Islamic art. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Tourism picture

Can we please do something about the dumb picture of the Buddhist guy? I tried adding a more serious picture, but was reverted by a User:The Herald. Soldier of the Empire (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Soldier of the Empire, I agree that it was a good picture, but does it actually add anything to the article? Is there Taj Mahal anywhere in the frame? Its just another crowd near the monument. There are good amount of pictures in commons:Category:People_at_the_Taj_Mahal in commons, but the EV finds less in one. The Buddhist guy have the most favorite pose you would like to have in the Taj complex as a tourist. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 06:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could pick one of the photographs in commons:Category:Politicians at the Taj Mahal and make the (obvious) point in the caption that "Taj Mahal is also a popular stop for foreign dignitaries visiting India". The "bench" where all the photos in the category have shot, is also a more typical spot for taking such portrait-with-Taj-Mahal snaps than the [[:File:Tourist in Taj Mahal.jpg| monk picture. Thoughts? Abecedare (talk) 07:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course better still, for the Tourism section, would be to have an image showing the typical throng of tourists at Taj Mahal such as the ones here or here. But on a quick search I haven't found a suitable free image; perhaps a more thorough search of commons/flickr/etc will yield some candidates. Abecedare (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Islamic Art

Taj Mahal is an example of Islamic art. It should be properly mentioned in the articla and "see also" section.--95.10.67.174 (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you look closely, the lead section says, The Taj Mahal combines elements from Islamic, Persian, Ottoman Turkish and Indian architectural styles..which is enough to make it go.. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 10:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Order of elements

Currently this page's introduction states that "The Taj Mahal combines elements from Islamic, Persian, Ottoman Turkish and Indian architectural styles.". However, both the references cited do not present the influences in this order. Perween Rahman's review article states that "The brief history of the Mughals and the explanation of their kingship ideals and salient administrative features given in the introduction help us understand why their monuments synthesized Indian, Timurid and Iranian ideas." Lesley DuTemple's article says that "The Taj Mahal, a spectacular example of Moghul architecture, blends Islamic, Hindu and Persian styles". The following points arise, a) I dont see Ottoman Turkish anywhere in these references, so the word Turkish should be replaced with Timurid as per Rahman. 2) In one reference Indian is the first influence mentioned and in the other, Hindu (which I believe stands for Indian in this particular context) is the second influence. So the order of influences in the intro should reflect the order presented in the references. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Nice catch. I'll prefer to go with Turkish, not Timurid. Firstly, a better way to avoid paraphrasing and secondly, they both mean the same. Turkish is better in all aspects. Thanks for the catch. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 09:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Do we also have agreement about changing Islamic, Persian, Turkish and Indian to Indian, Persian, Islamic and Turkish ? I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 06:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Fundamental metric tensor:  Done for two reasons. 1. Its alphabetically, 2. Taj is predominantly Indian and Islamic with a slight touch of Turkish and Persian. Good catch again..-The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 06:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@The Herald: Thanks. The Islamic vs Persian could be debated but that order makes sense as well. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 06:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Taj Mahal in Moonlight photo

Taj Mahal in Moonlight

User:Arunshank has proposed adding the adjoining image to the article, which another user and I have removed. Starting this discussion so that Arun can make his case, and others can weigh in. Abecedare (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that is good

The image is taken in moonlight, there are no images available that has been taken in moonlight and during moonlight viewing which is only allowed on full moon nights there are no artificial lights in the Taj Mahal, all lights are switched off and this is best photo one can get

I need your opinion on this and please do let me know it can be added or should we have a section called Taj Mahal in moonlight

Thanks

Sincerely

Arun— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunshank (talk • contribs) 14:12, 28 April 2015

The image is very poor. It adds nothing useful. The article is already full of images. Paul B (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

oppose - poor quality, distracts from the beauty of the structure. Atsme☯^Consult 14:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• If we had a high-quality, free, and not heavily photoshopped image of moonlit Taj Mahal, we could consider including it in the article. But we don't need to necessarily have such an image on the page, and this image is too dark and grainy to be worth adding to the article. Abecedare (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose from me too as I was the 'one editor' who opposed it in the beginning..-The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The lede

Question - what is the relevance of "also "the Taj" is a white marble mausoleum located in Agra, Uttar Pradesh, India" in the descriptive sentence of the lede? Unless there is some significance other than similarity of first names, I think it should be removed. Atsme☯^Consult 14:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It means that "the Taj" is another way of saying the building's name. I don't think it should be in the lede. It's just an abbreviation. Paul B (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

In India, when we say taj, it exclusively mean Taj Mahal. In any case, its undoubtedly the abbreviation and might not be found in the lead..-The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The Taj is indeed just a colloquial shortening of the name. Arguments for inclusion would be WP:BOLDTITLE and the fact that while the name is often shortened to the Taj, it is never AFAIK shortened to the Mahal. Arguments against would be that this is not unique to the Taj, and follows general usage in English language (cf, the Louvre etc) and may not qualify as a "significant alternative title". Overall, I am neutral on whether it is included in the lede.

Btw, I reworked the lede to reduce redundancy and (hopefully) improve readability. Tweaks welcome. Abecedare (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Mahal just means a palace and it have nothing to do with taj. I say, we should not include it in the lead..-The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 16:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comment 2015

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There has been a good amount of discussion on the issue that which architectural style is used in the building. I am searching for a better answer so as to include it in the lead section and go with it to make the article more stable.

The current head says:The Taj Mahal combines elements from Indian, Islamic, Persian, Turkish architectural styles.

I would prefer to go with the current one as I could deduce evidently that it actually is a blend of Indian and Islamic with a slight touch of Persian and Turkish..-The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 10:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - what exactly is the problem with what it already says? It seems fine to me. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 01:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lighting views Comment

Do you think the sunset views at the end are a necessary improvement or enhancement of this article? Atsme☯^Consult 14:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

They are. 1. They are the most popular shots of Taj. 2. They are cool and beautiful. -The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Article issues

The article was recently nominated for FA status, which led me to take a quick look to see if it was close. Unfortunately not. Here are some issues I noted at the FA page, which I am reposting here so that they can be addressed.
Content issues:

• The article is largely sourced to generic/promotional/tourism websites [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], or self-published book, and hardly cites the immense scholarly literature on the subject.
• The organization of the article is unclear/illogical: No section on architecture and design (!) with related content included under Origin and inspiration. A section named Later days with 4 stubby paragraphs. Etc.
• Instances of plagiarism/close paraphrasing found at a random spot-check, eg "According to Mughal historian Kanbo, the15-foot high finial at the top of the main dome of the Taj Mahal was covered with a gold shield and this was also removed during the Jat despoliation." is copied unchanged from this newspaper article. The sentence, "Abdul Hamid Lahauri, the author of the Badshahnama, the official history of Shah Jahan's reign, calls Taj Mahal rauza-i munawwara, which means the illumined or illustrious tomb." is copied from this book, only with a typo added.
• Inconsistent, outdated, and unencyclopedic information: The Tourism section mentions 2 million annual visitors citing a 2002 source. The lead and infobox say 3 million vistor, without citing a source. Section also includes details such as "For security reasons only five items—water in transparent bottles, small video cameras, still cameras, mobile phones and small ladies' purses—are allowed inside the Taj Mahal.", which are more appropriate for wikivoyage, than an encyclopedic article.

MOS issues:

• To mention just one issue, the citation style is inconsistent and the bibliographical ingormation incomplete (eg citation to "Jstor". Retrieved 2015-02-07.).

These are just some problems I spotted at random, and not an exhaustive listing of problems with the article. Abecedare (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Withdrawn Atsme☯^Consult 00:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Atsme. Note though that my comments were not primarily focussed at ending the FA, but rather in the hope that the article can be improved w/o the distraction of the FA process. I hope you don't "withdraw" from the article just because the FA candidacy ended. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Not withdrawing my collaboration, Abecedare. You are quite correct regarding the majority of the issues in your review, particularly sources. I was not aware of the copied sentence but that's an easy enough fix. Also, please keep in mind the reason I deleted much of the architectural details and origins in this article and focused on it being more of an overview of the Taj is the following: Origins_and_architecture_of_the_Taj_Mahal. It is shown as the main article in the section titled Origin and inspiration. I actually started a spin-off article - User:Atsme/sandbox_Taj_Mahal_(architecture) - but scrapped it when I realized there was a main article. We must be careful about redundancy and/or competing for information. Atsme☯^Consult 01:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, glad to see that the FA feedback didn't drive you away.

As for the architecture issue: my objection is not so much that the article does not deal with the architecture, but rather that the sections are illogically named/organized with the topic of origins and architecture clumped together under "Origins and inspiration", while whole sections are devoted to "Later years" etc. Thankfully, the former issue is easily resolved. I have also removed the quote from the sel-published book. I will leave it to you to handle the plagiarism, which can be resolved by removal (if not really relevant) or rewording.

Btw, was Lahauri the chief architect or the "he author of the Badshahnama, the official history of Shah Jahan's reign"? Could be both, but sounds iffy to me. Abecedare (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The Herald actually invited me to collaborate with him in preparing this article for FA. I prepared a list User_talk:The_Herald/Archive_30 with the refs and citation issue being #1 and #2 on the list (which I was hoping TH would undertake since citations are not my forte). I went to work tweaking prose, deleting redundancies, and worked on the image galleries and overall formatting. It usually takes a pretty good while before a FA candidate is reviewed and I figured we'd have all the bugs worked out long before that took place. Atsme☯^Consult 02:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, we have a hard day's work. I'll join in a day or two. Atsme did the best job of all and I should have addressed he problems of cites. I'll fix 'em up. -The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 02:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Atsme and Abecedare:  Done most of them. Cited and updated the lead's visitor data. But with the cites of books, lets see whether a complete rewire is needed in the FAC process. The tourism section throws light into the content itself and I don't think it necessary to remove those bottle stuffs and the like. Wikivoyage is itself a sister project, largely derived from Wikipedia. Plus the criterion broad in coverage can indeed cover it up. Thanks a lot for joining. -The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 04:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The sources have to be upgraded to academic sources, there are still quite a few statements that haven't been cited yet, and the prose needs more work. It's not going to happen overnight but at least we have a good collaborative team working on it. Atsme ^{☎️ 📧} 01:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2015

The change that needs to be done is to the below details about the completion date of Taj Mahal.

Construction was completed in 1653 and employed around 20,000 artisans under the guidance of a board of architects led by Ustad Ahmad Lahauri. The domed marble tomb is part of an integrated complex consisting of gardens and two red-sandstone buildings surrounded by a crenellated wall on three sides.

The above should be change to ,"Construction was completed in January 1643, under the supervision of Mukarramat Khan and Mir Abdul Karim at the expense of 50 lakh rupees.The domed marble tomb is part of an integrated complex consisting of gardens and two red-sandstone buildings surrounded by a crenellated wall on three sides."

Below are the period sources which are the basis for the change being recommended above. 1) Muntakhab-ul-Labab,i.596 2) Padishahnamah, ii.322 et seq 3) https://archive.org/stream/studiesinmughali00sarkuoft#page/30/mode/2up

Dharmanv (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The article already notes discrepancies in completion dates: "Since the complex was built in stages, discrepancies exist in completion dates due to differing opinions on "completion". For example, the mausoleum itself was essentially complete by 1643, but work continued on the rest of the complex. " Stickee (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done issue of dates clarified and properly cited. --Atsme^📞📧 12:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

1643 United States dollars

There was no such thing as a United States dollar in 1643. The United States was not founded for another century and did not issue a standard currency until much later. It is absurd to speak of how many United States dollars something would have cost in 1643. As well to measure distance in "heights of Mount Doom"—the unit does not exist, and any attempt to shoehorn it into usability relies on fantastical speculation. To make matters worse, the figure of US$501,000 seems to have been arrived at by taking the 2015 exchange rate and multiplying it by 32 million rupees. Had the United States dollar existed in 1643, you would have to use the 1643 exchange rate. But there would be no reason to do that, because explaining that something would have cost US$501,000 in 1643 provides no useful insight or information whatsoever to a reader, because no reader has any sense of the value of a 1643 United States dollar, again because such a unit does not exist. Lagrange613 00:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing your concerns to the TP, Lagrange613. It is much appreciated. With regards to not having a conversion factor because the dollar did not exist at the time, a parallel argument was probably made about about carbon dating. There are mathematical calculators available on the internet that are capable of computing an equivalency factor for currencies whether they existed or not, and that is what was used to help readers relate to the amount of money involved in US $, otherwise the rupee figure is meaningless to the majority of readers. That's what encyclopedia's do - they explain such things and provide the knowledge based on scientifically (mathematically) supported evidence. Atsme^📞📧 00:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, the way to "relate to the amount of money involved in US $" is to use 2015 dollars. The 1643 dollar figure is meaningless to all readers, because no one in history has ever used a 1643 dollar. If you unpack your attempt at comparison to carbon dating I think you'll find it doesn't address my objection. Lagrange613 01:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

That's right, we do have the current currency equivalency just after that, the point in time dollars makes little sense in this context. —SpacemanSpiff 03:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I have no objection. Lagrange presented a good argument, Spaceman supported it, I gave it serious consideration, and agree. Thank you for your input. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the issue with GF editors. Atsme^📞📧 19:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)