Talk:Taj Mahal

>> Consensus on Controversial Issues <<

Some controversial issues have had thorough discussion, leading to a consensus.

Please read the archives before re-discussing these topics. Please reopen discussion only if you have new insight or fresh points:

1. Include Hindu Temple Origin Theories of PN Oak, Steve Knapp and others? >> Consensus: Include Reference in Myths Section.

   Request for Comment: Inclusion of minority points of view

   How to proceed

   Rewrite of Myths section

2. Should we add more about the New Seven Wonders? >> Consensus: Include Reference in Tourism Section.

   Proposal to Add a Section on Recognition Received by Taj

   Compromise section

Shiva?

Dear Wikipedia,

It presently states in your article that: The finial is topped by a moon, a typical Islamic motif whose horns point heavenward. Because of its placement on the main spire, the horns of the moon and the finial point combine to create a trident shape, reminiscent of traditional Hindu symbols of Shiva.

however the Taj Mahal contains the inscriptions from the Quran such as: (It will be said to the pious): O (you) the one in

(complete) rest and satisfaction!
Come back to your Lord, -- well-pleased (yourself)
and well-pleasing unto him!
Enter you, then, among My honored slaves,
And enter you My Paradise!

(Qur'an, Surah Al-Fajr: 89:27-30)

And it was common for Mughal's to top their mosques and flags by combining both the crescent and the spear to create in Islamic Symbol that was unique to the Mughal Empire and that Shah Jahan like any Mughal Emperor had therefore no intention what so ever to create the so-called TRIDENT of Shiva.

Mughal Pathan

The Pathan are a community from Afghanistan, the Pathan claim to be descent from Saul, the first Jewish king. However, this claim is rejected by the Afghan proper who refer themselves as Ban-i-Afghan or Ban-i-Isrial to differentiate themselves form the Indian Pathan. According to the Pathan naration their ancestors migrated from Afghanistan and worked as defenders of forts in the hills during the regime of Maharaja Ranjit Singh and claimed the stock of Mughal Pathan and Kabuli Pathan. Also, they originally served as mercenaries in the armies of the Musalman rulers in the Deccan region. At present they are distributed in seventy-four districts of India but a considerable number of them are reported in Uttar Pradesh. The Pathan are non-vegetarian who eat only halal meat.

In the Pathan are divided into sixteen subgroups. Territorial differentiation within the community among the subgroups exists and these identities are known as qabilas. According to the 1931 census, the population of the Pathan was 1,094,386. Consanguineous marriages between parallel and cross cousins are prevalent. Marriage with one's deceased wife's younger sister or elder brother's widow is permitted. Monogamy is the general practice but polygamy does occur. The rule of residence is patriarchal. Remarriage are permitted in the community. They do not observe any marriage symbols. Vertically extended families do exist but there is an increase in the number of nuclear families. A widow is entitled to the one-eighth share of her husband's property. Sons equally share two-thirds and daughters one-third of the remaining property. They eldest son succeeds to his father's authority. Post-delivery pollution is not observed.

The main occupation of the Pathan is agriculture while business is their subsidiary occupation. Some of them are in service too. There is no community council as such, but to uphold community norms and to resolve social issues form time to time an ad hoc body of elders is formed. They belong to the Sunni sect of Islam. The community favors formal education for boys, but the girls only partially. They make full use of modern amenities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.3.149.238 (talk) 10:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

GA status

After taking a look at the article, as well as its failed FA candidacy, I think that the same issues raised in the FA review might bar the article from GA status. The article was promoted to GA status about a year and a half ago, but the GA criteria have changed drfamatically since then (in fact I think there were no criteria at all in Jan 2006). I wanted to bring this up here to give editors and contributors a chance to work on the article and hopefully improve it based on the GA criteria. Otherwise, I'll nominate the article for GA review soon. Drewcifer3000 05:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Article review

Given the above, I have nominated this article for Good Article review. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion there. Drewcifer 02:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The result of the review was to Keep the article listed as GA. You can find an archive of the discussion here. Drewcifer 08:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Virtual tours online

We provide an excellent online tour, Explore the Taj Mahal http://www.taj-mahal.net - which is free to all, and includes materials which cannot be included in-line in Wikipedia, namely the panoramic views, interactive map and the narrated slide shows. We also provide free, downloadable pictures and graphics for free and unrestricted usage by schools.

We were listed for years under the external links section, due to the non-inline materials we provided.

Now I see that many have gotten around the ban on "commercial links" by listing parts of their websites in the references section.

Since policy (and enforcement of that policy) seems to have changed, could anyone tell me what the actual policy is now?

I would certainly like our virtual tour to be available to Wikipedia visitors, but it pains me to see our wonderful work prohibited while others circumvent the rules.

Thanks William Donelson

• I'd like to second this request: despite the fact that their website contains some advertisements, this really is a very informative piece of work. Especially as there are hardly any pictures of the interior of the Taj available on the web, because of the inhibition on cameras iside the Taj. I have a link to suggest for the external links section as well: as it is also prohibited to bring a video camera anywhere near the Taj, there are no close-up video images of the Taj. I've been very lucky to shoot highres footage myself in july 2006, which can be viewed at: http://www.imagesandmusic.nl/dhtml/Taj-Mahal.htm . In this video also still images are used, that were captured from the very QuikTime movies that can be found at www.taj-mahal.net (for want of other sources). With kind regards, André Kamer —Preceding unsigned comment added by ImagesAndMusic (talk • contribs) 12:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Addition of 360° panoramic picture

I have donated and added a 360° panoramic picture to the Gardens section

William Donelson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donelson (talk • contribs) 23:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

‎1001 Images of Taj Mahal : A Great Wonder of the World. Details: http://indianbooksonart.com/index.php?p=sr&Uc=8147680844122407113 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.18.11 (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Copy edit

I did some copyedits to make the text look stubby and flow a little better. Could someone take a lead on expanding history and introducing a section on Influence? Do anyone has more citations that can be inline? Thanks! - RC 07:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Something I had found on the Internet that seems to contradict a lot of notions regarding the Taj Mahal. Long reading. http://www.stephen-knapp.com/true_story_of_the_taj_mahal.htm 76.31.75.146 20:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Taj Mahal or Tejo Mahalaya

No one has ever challenged it except Prof. P. N. Oak, who believes the whole world has been duped. In his book Taj Mahal: The True Story, Oak says the Taj Mahal is not Queen Mumtaz's tomb but an ancient Hindu temple palace of Lord Shiva (then known as Tejo Mahalaya) . In the course of his research O ak discovered that the Shiva temple palace was usurped by Shah Jahan from then Maharaja of Jaipur, Jai Singh. In his own court chronicle, Badshahnama, Shah Jahan admits that an exceptionally beautiful grand mansion in Agra was taken from Jai SIngh for Mumtaz's burial . The ex-Maharaja of Jaipur still retains in his secret collection two orders from Shah Jahan for surrendering the Taj building. Using captured temples and mansions, as a burial place for dead courtiers and royalty was a common practice among Muslim rulers.

For example, Humayun,Akbar, Etmud-ud-Daula and Safdarjung are all buried in such mansions. Oak's inquiries began with the name of Taj Mahal. He says the term "Mahal" has never been used for a building in any Muslim countries from Afghanisthan to Algeria. "The unusual explanation that the term Taj Mahal derives from Mumtaz Mahal was illogical in atleast two respects.

Firstly, her name was never Mumtaz Mahal but Mumtaz-ul-Zamani," he writes. Secondly, one cannot omit the first three letters 'Mum' from a woman's name to derive the remainder as the name for the building."Taj Mahal, he claims, is a corrupt version of Tejo Mahalaya, or Lord Shiva's Palace. Oak also says the love story of Mumtaz and Shah Jahan is a fairy tale created by court sycophants, blundering historians and sloppy archaeologists. Not a single royal chronicle of Shah Jahan's time corroborates the love story.

Furthermore, Oak cites several documents suggesting the Taj Mahal predates Shah Jahan's era, and was a temple dedicated to Shiva, worshipped by Rajputs of Agra city. For example, Prof. Marvin Miller of New York took a few samples from the riverside doorway of the Taj. Carbon dating tests revealed that the door was 300 years older than Shah Jahan. European traveler Johan Albert Mandelslo,who visited Agra in 1638 (only seven years after Mumtaz's death), describes the life of the cit y in his memoirs. But he makes no reference to the Taj Mahal being built. The writings of Peter Mundy, an English visitor to Agra within a year of Mumtaz's death, also suggest the Taj was a noteworthy building well before Shah Jahan's time.

Prof. Oak points out a number of design and architectural inconsistencies that support the belief of the Taj Mahal being a typical Hindu temple rather than a mausoleum. Many rooms in the Taj Mahal have remained sealed since Shah Jahan's time and are still inaccessible to the public. Oak asserts they contain a headless statue of Lord Shiva and other objects commonly used for worship rituals in Hindu temples . Fearing political backlash, Indira Gandhi's government tried to have Prof. Oak's book withdrawn from the bookstores, and threatened the Indian publisher of the first edition dire consequences . There is only one way to discredit or validate Oak's research.

Why does not the current government open the sealed rooms of the Taj Mahal under U.N. supervision, and let international experts investigate?

--121.246.158.79 (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Truth and nothing but the truth

Yes we know all about the late "Professor" (he died just two days ago) and his theories. See the Talk archive. Paul B (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The Taj Mahal was built on a parcel of land to the south of the walled city of Agra. Shah Jahan presented Maharajah Jai Singh with a large palace in the centre of Agra in exchange for the land. -Chaghtai Le Tadj Mahal p54; Lahawri "Badshah Namah Vol.1 p403 It's could have been a temple for a palace exchange.

Yeah, it could also have been a land-for-palace exchange too, In fact there could have been just about anything there, except the sources mention say "And previously this was the manzil [halting-place, caravanserai, house] of Rajah Man Singh - not a temple. --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

well, until disproved that that the Taj Mahal was built by Maharajah Jai Singh, the theory still stands as a controversy. Courts & lawyers can't prove or disprove archeology.--Ne0Freedom 21:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No, but no "archaeology" is involved, and all reliable sources and architectural historians agree who built it, and that's all that matters. Paul B (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Please have a look at these website: http://www.stephen-knapp.com/true_story_of_the_taj_mahal.htm http://www.stephen-knapp.com/was_the_taj_mahal_a_vedic_temple.htm before claiming that Taj-Mahal was of moghul arcitecture. It was a Hindu temple. B1sac (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Professor Marvin H. Mills has analysed the massive data cited by Oak and writes "new information and analysis have come forth to constitute a compelling argument that the Taj Mahal was actually a former Hindu palace occupied and converted to a tomb by the Moguls" (AN ARCHITECT LOOKS AT THE TAJ MAHAL LEGEND, and SEPARATING THE TAJ MAHAL FROM LEGEND, www.marvinmills.com). David Kung (talk) 05:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we know. The author is a self-published crank, who also "proved' that Spanish mosques were really built by the Phoenicians aided by survivors of the sinking of Atlantis. Paul B (talk) 09:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a mention of this controversy regarding Taj Mahal in this or maybe a relation "origin" article ? why is it just in the discussion ? the usual users dont read the discussion page. 123.2.12.175 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC).

Origins and architecture of the Taj Mahal

How about merging Origins and architecture of the Taj Mahal into Taj Mahal as the Architecture part is inclued in both articles and thus overlapping. Why have the 2 articles about the same stuff? Besides Origins and architecture of the Taj Mahal is a more ref version, its merger will make the article closer to FA. Another thing that can be done is a reverse merger , the section in Taj Mahal about architecture can be removed and placed in Origins and architecture of the Taj Mahal. Suggestions????? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"Why have the 2 articles about the same stuff?" - because, as one of the world's most significant buildings, the subject warrants sufficiently in-depth coverage. 1 article for the origins and architecture, another for the post construction history and it's place in world culture, and another summary article (this one) to tie the two together. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see you back, Joopercoopers. If Origins and architecture of the Taj Mahal is to be kept the Taj Mahal article must be written in summary sytle. The current "Architecture" section in Taj Mahal be removed then and be replaced by a summarized version. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Joopercoopers (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting Fact!

Many or rather most does not know that during the rule of the British in India, some western writers and christian missionaries tried to claim that the design of the Taj was primarly designed by italian architects!!!! Ajjay (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Mumtaz Mahal's son planned to build a copy of the Taj Mahal across the river. The only difference is that it would be black rather than white but the project was never completed.

There were certainly numerous craftsmen involved, and there were Italian designers/craftsmen in Agra, so some were probably involved - along with many, many people of various backgrounds. The individual who is usually referred to in this context is a goldsmith called Geronimo Veroneo. Paul B (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Before any one claims it to be their architecture. Please click the link below:

• Converted Hindu Temple Palace to TAJ MAHAL (The Photographic Evidences) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.101.227.130 (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me

This article doesn't talk about why it was built in the first place! This is a serious problem. Contralya (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I had added a "quote" by Shah Jahan who bulit Taj Mahal, it has been deleted. I think it was important, and also highlighted why he built it.Ajjay (talk) 04:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please also ad that it is one of the seven wonders of the world, and the topranked ! 59.180.54.227 (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's already in the tourism section. regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a quote

I just read something beautiful: The Taj is not merely a sensuous reminiscence of an imperial amour or a fairy enchantment hewn from the moon’s lucent quarries, but the eternal dream of a love that survives death. The great mosques embody often a religious aspiration lifted to a noble austerity which supports and is not lessened by the subordinated ornament and grace. The tombs reach beyond death to the beauty and joy of Paradise. (The Complete Works of Sri Aurobindo, Volume 20, Page 284). --Bhadani (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that's utterly beautiful. Perhaps we should include it as testament to the almost universal praise the building has elicited throughout the ages. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

for a project, I had to find out what peoples opinions on certain buildings are. I could find anything in the article so i looked here. I think i'll use that piece of text, but could we put something in the article about praise/criticism? (although i doubt theres any criticism) --Jezzamon (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

...also, while I'm adding things that would make my life easier, it would be interesting (and useful to me) to add what the architects inspiration was. --Jezzamon (talk) 09:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

See origins and architecture of the Taj Mahal. --Joopercoopers (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

I've removed it again - see the archive, it doesn't add any information that of any real use. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please

Take out "Touch my hole" from in the extereor decoration part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.120.97 (talk) 11:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted - thanks, I've removed it. You're are free of course to edit yourself, we need people with sharp eyes - I notice the article is no longer protected, so you don't need an account, although getting one is generally considered more fun. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I changed the pronunciation to /tdʒ məˈhl/. In Hindi/Urdu the final consonant of the first word is most certainly an affricative and, therefore, closer to /dʒ/ than to /ʒ/. It's true that English speakers often turn /dʒ/ in foreign words into /ʒ/ because of the (generally unconscious) awareness that /ʒ/ in English words generally indicates a foreign, mostly French, origin. Think of leisure, reason, measure, rouge, beige etc. However, this is not the sound in Taj in Hindi/Urdu, nor is it the pronunciation of careful, educated speakers of English familiar with South Asia. However, since /tɑʒ/ is also very common, I've kept it as well. Interlingua 01:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This also consistent with the Oxford English Dictionary. It lists both but gives /tɑdʒ/ first. Interlingua 01:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an English-language part of Wikipedia, so the English pronunciation is what matters. No problem including the Hindi pronunciation, in a secondary role. Random House gives the /ʒ/ version precedence over /dʒ/. In ordinary English, the /dʒ/ is almost NEVER used. The English pronunciation is not directly controlled by the pronunciation of Hindi, and the the claim "careful, educated speakers" is dismissive. The pronunciation almost universally used in English should be restored; but there's no reason to deleted the pedantic pronunciation that's rarely used. Both can co-exist in the article. The existence of both in major English dictionaries is justification. The pronunciation in Hindi is irrelevant to this English-language article, except perhaps as a side note. The name has been spoken on the radio and television a great deal recently (December 2008 events), and none of the commentators, neither American, British, nor Indian, use the /dʒ/ version, even whilst speaking English with a strong Hindi accent.

Pre-British

It would nice to see what it look before the british altered the Garden, and it more like a persian garden symbolizing the Garden of Eden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.144.241 (talk) 03:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a very interesting question - Koch, Ebba [Aug 2006]. The Complete Taj Mahal: And the Riverfront Gardens of Agra (Hardback), First (in English), Thames & Hudson Ltd, 288 pages. ISBN 0500342091. is a great book with many interesting Mughal images and early photography before Curzon made the changes - it looked entirely overgrown by then. The original planting of the garden is one of the Taj Mahal's remaining mysteries. The contemporary accounts mostly deal just with the architecture and only mention 'various kinds of fruit-bearing trees and rare aromatic herbs' in relation to the garden. Cypress trees are almost certainly to have been planted being popular similes in Persian poetry for the slender elegant stature of the beloved. By the end of the 18th century, Thomas Twining noted orange trees and a large plan of the complex suggests beds of various other fruits such as pineapples, pomegranates, bananas, limes and apples. The layout of the garden, and its architectural features such as its fountains, brick and marble walkways, and geometric brick-lined flowerbeds are similar to Shalimar's, and suggest that the garden may have been designed by the same engineer, Ali Mardan. Early accounts of the garden describe its profusion of vegetation, including roses, daffodils, and fruit trees in abundance. --Joopercoopers (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

oh look

"There were certainly numerous craftsmen involved, and there were Italian designers/craftsmen in Agra, so some were probably involved - along with many, many people of various backgrounds. The individual who is usually referred to in this context is a goldsmith called Geronimo Veroneo. Paul B (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC) "

typical of the inherent racism that pervades Taj scholarship. i.e. implying that indians could never have built such a thing without the involvement of europeans. the involvement of this geronimo and any other european is nothing but a fairytale. a bunch of foreign missionary monks and petty traders and small-time nobodies looking to make a living in travel novels isnt exactly a ground for brilliant creativity. these people were there to rob and destroy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balvinder1 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

you just cant accept that indians built such a thing, hence the fiction of builders from turkey, and the insistance that help came from all over outside india etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balvinder1 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing remotely racist about acknowleging that the Shah used whatever craftsmen were available. He probably wouldn't have cared what nationality they were as long as they were good, and neither should we. The only racism is in your portrayal of non-Indians in totally negative terms and your attempt to suppress established facts. Paul B (talk) 08:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There's been an awful lot of guff written about this and it's true to say that, particularly the English (and I am one of those) chose, in less enlightened times, to believe tales of Turks and Italian Goldsmiths were responsible for the design, for probably racist reasons. Modern scholarship however acknowledges the contribution of Hindu craftsmen in the work - there's plenty of masons marks as evidence for this. There's also evidence that italian craftsmenship from the Opificio delle pietre dure was present in Jahan's courts - and it's thought likely some of their techniques were borrowed by the indigenous craftsmen in the Parchin kari work. The Taj should really be seen as a synthesis of several different cultural and technical pulls: The predominant Islamic Mughal courtly culture and symbolism synthesised where possible with Hindu craft and symbolism and just possibly also with some European techniques and the influence of some of the floral botanical studies they brought with them. The Taj is not just X - it's always X+Y+Z. Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Spelling/grammar errors

This article is in definite need of cleaning up. It has way too many spelling and grammar errors in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sera8091 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That's because Balvinder1 just messed it up. Reverted. Paul B (talk) 09:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

New External link

I thought the synth of this would be nice addition. {{editsemiprotected}}

• Photosynth view of Taj Mahal (requires Photosynth)

Done! Thank you for the addition! --DA Skunk - (talk) 05:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Mumbai attacks

Should we have info about mumbai attacks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.155.132 (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so - they were at the Taj hotel , which is made clear in the banner at the top of the page. The Mumbai attacks have their own page. regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

There has been confusion. My neighbor told me parts of the Taj Mahal were blown up last year. I retorted with surprise that I had heard no such thing. Until I searched here. It explains why she thought the Taj Mahal was a hotel as well. 70.59.140.179 (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Closing permanently

Looks like they're planning on closing it to the public eventually. Someone want to put this in?

http://travel.yahoo.com/p-interests-24861225 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.42.233 (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

One to watch I think - people consider all kinds of things - if it does shut, then of course we should include it then.

blah

addition, many renowned Muslim craftsmen from Baghdad, Shiraz and Bukhara worked on many specialized tasks.

The Taj stands on a raised, square platform (186 x 186 feet) with its four corners truncated, forming an unequal octagon. The architectural design uses the interlocking arabesque concept, in which each element stands on its own and perfectly integrates with the main structure. It uses the principles of self-replicating geometry and a symmetry of architectural elements.

Its central dome is fifty-eight feet in diameter and rises to a height of 213 feet. It is flanked by four subsidiary domed chambers. The four graceful, slender minarets are 162.5 feet each. The entire mausoleum (inside as well as outside) is decorated with inlaid design of flowers and calligraphy using precious gems such as agate and jasper. The main archways, chiseled with passages from the Holy Qur’an and the bold scroll work of flowery pattern, give a captivating charm to its beauty. The central domed chamber and four adjoining chambers include many walls and panels of Islamic decoration.

The mausoleum is a part of a vast complex comprising of a main gateway, an elaborate garden, a mosque (to the left), a guest house (to the right), and several other palatial buildings. The Taj is at the farthest end of this complex, with the river Jamuna behind it. The large garden contains four reflecting pools dividing it at the center. Each of these four sections is further subdivided into four sections and then each into yet another four sections. Like the Taj, the garden elements serve like Arabesque, standing on their own and also constituting the whole.Taj Mahal is a great thing to sudy also if you find resheaches you will be very instrited.

---

IslamiCity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.66.107 (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Slumdog Millionaire quotes Wikipedia

In Slumdog Millionaire, the tour guides at the Taj Mahal are saying lines from this article. See: http://mpgonz.blogspot.com/2009/02/slumdog-millionaire-quotes-wikipedia.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.127.94.7 (talk) 04:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

the messed up page!! by teresa wong

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.

Architecture:The tomb

Can somebody explain what the following sentence from the above section is suppposed to mean?

On the long sides, a massive pishtaq, or vaulted archway, frames the iwan with a similar arch-shaped balcony.

Has a rogue break crept into the sentence.? Did it originally read:

a massive pishtaq, or vaulted archway, frames the iwan, with a similar arch-shaped balcony on either side of the main arch, additional pishtaqs are stacked above and below.

Richerman (talk) 00:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it to something similar to that now - it's the only way it makes sense Richerman (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Translation

Why isn't the translation for "Taj Mahal" included in the article? It means "Crown Palace". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.90.115.106 (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know the translation, too, along with a cite. --Pawyilee (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The name is translated variously as "crown palace," "palace of the crown," "crown of the palace," "crown of palaces," or "crown of buildings," depending on which web site you consult. There appears to be unanimity that the language is Urdu and that "taj" means "crown." In the interest of having some succinct translation in the article, I've chosen one of the more authoritative sources (Collins English Dictionary) and added a brief sentence with source citation. Someone else who is proficient in Urdu semantics and grammar may wish to amend this layman's "best guess." Piperh (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Opening Times

The opening times section was unclear to me. It seemed that the grounds were only open on weekdays and partially on Friday (except for prayer times - ambiguous sentence). But from research on the internet, other information I've found suggests that it is open on weekends also and is closed all day Friday. Can anyone confirm this either way? Happy for me to change the text? Daamsie (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Improving the article with recent info about opening times -- particularly with your citation -- is a GOOD THING. --nemonoman (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This sketchup model could possibly be included if suitable

The page has no ads... but dunno if relevant. http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=32029229b835ff3ebd92a163dc7fd278 --Sudarshan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.44.190 (talk) 03:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

Perhaps this has been discussed earlier, but can someone please tell why the use of Infobox is discouraged? I read some arguments that it does not add any new information? But isn't the whole point of inbox to combine important information and display it upfront so that the reader doesn't have to dig through (sometimes extensively long) articles? Maintenance-wise I don't think it adds anything more than a few lines of documented code. Doesn't the infobox on this page Statue of Liberty do a good job of giving all the information in one box?
Abhijit Sathe (talk) 02:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If I remember right, the gist is this:

• The infobox template is butt ugly
• Reduces the size of the main picture
• Emphasizes less important info that is properly placed in context within the article
• Emphasizes the building's Indian heritage while diminishing the Persian, Turkish, and other non-Indian influences. (This was a hot button).
• Gives undue weight to the UNESCO world heritage site info

Honest to god I don't want to go through this again. --nemonoman (talk) 03:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

recent reverts

1. Pronunciation has been pretty well looked at and reviewed before this. Please explain reasons why this should be changed.
2. Changes to the first paragraph are not minor. Removing cited material without explanations should be explained.
3. The worker mutilation legend is discussed below in the 'Myths' section. The newspaper reference clearly states 'Legend has it'.

--Nemonoman (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Is the gallery neccessary

I felt this article have a gallery section. Most pictures are repetitions of things already covered by images like the mosque and the gate. The images can be seen at Commons gallery, why do we need them here? Certain sections already have internal galleries too. Too many images. I felt only File:Taj Mahal-11.jpg was different and worthy keeping. Thoughts? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there are far too many images. Richerman (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem is (1) it's hard to take a bad picture of the Taj and (2) everybody has one. I'd love to set up a selection criteria, specifically that the picture must add information about the Taj, not just be pretty.--Nemonoman (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a selection criteria - its called the wp:Image use policy. If you look in there it says

Wikipedia is not an image repository. The gallery tag is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons. Links to the Commons categories can be added to the Wikipedia article using the {{Commonscat}} template. One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons.

I think its time we removed a lot of the irrelevant images Richerman (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree: but let's list them and review first. I doubt many will make the cut.--Nemonoman (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Rethink of images

• 
  The Taj Mahal 1
• 
  The tomb framed by the gateway entrance 2
• 
  The mosque 3
• 
  Great gate (Darwaza-i rauza) 4
• 
  Typical postcard image 5
• 
  View from the river Yamuna 6
• 
  The Taj Mahal at dusk 7
• 
  The Taj Mahal at dusk turns yellow 8
• 
  The base of the Taj is a large, multi-chambered structure 9
• 
  Taj Mahal top of finial

Let's start with the gallery. I have listed File:Taj Mahal in India.jpg (9) too as I thought it has low or no encyclopedic value and is inappropriate for the current caption. Write the number(s) of images, which you think should be retained with possibly a reason: --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Robpinion: just put my finial shot back in here. It was in the gallery before. It's the only one I've ever seen that shows the name of Allah writing on the finial top. Shouldn't we use it on the main page because of this contribution? Many people may not know there is writing on the finial because it's not visible from the ground by most people. --24.92.209.209 (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a hell of picture, that finial. --Nemonoman (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Redtigerxyz:
  • 6: selected image on Uttar Pradesh portal, good light, view of Taj and surrounding 2 buildings from across the Yamuna.
  • 8: appropriate replacement for 9 --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think 8 or 9 is needed. 6 is a maybe.

I would also kill:

• 
  Note this image in the TOURISM section is the same as image 6 in the gallery above
• 
  this 360 degree panorama makes no sense at small resolution

Also maybe lose one or the other of the pix in the history section. I favor losing the National Geographic Kodachrome. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Support removal of National Geographic image. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What's really missing from the article is more images of the various parts of the 'complex' rather than a concentration on the mausoleum. Most people already know what the form looks like and I think they may be surprised by the extent and variety of the complex, it's hard to describe, but easy to illustrate. I think we should try and find and then include the following.

1. The best classic axial view of the mausoleum we can find - and then exlude all others, everyone has seen this image, we don't need it repeating throughout the article. Alternatively use 3 images together to demonstrate the way the marble changes with the light - at least this is encyclopedic then, the mughals saw the changing of light as religiously charged. see here.
2. image of the octagon cenotaph upper and lower levels.
3. Image of a minaret
4. A few detail images of the parchin kari work.
5. Image of the great gate - maybe an interior
6. Image of the waterfront vista including the towers
7. Image of the garden with one of the mid-wall pavilions
8. Image of the Mosque interior and exterior + jawab
9. Historic image of the overgrown gardens
10. Couple of images of the Jilaukhana including one of the courtyards
11. Images of the inner subsidiary tombs
12. Image of one of the few remaining bits of the caravanserai to show the deformation of the architecture.
13. Image of the midnight garden

--Joopercoopers (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Reproductions

In which section should reproductions like Bibi Ka Maqbara and Taj Mahal Bangladesh be mentioned? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Only as "See also" in my opinion. If I had my way, I'd AfD the Taj (bengladesh) article as non-notable. It's notable only because it's been noticed. The 'Mini-taj' is just another Mughal tomb in the same form, and its only relationship to the Taj Mahal is the Aurangabad Tourist Board calling it "mini-taj" instead of "Yet Another Mughal Tomb" --Nemonoman (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

They should be mentioned in the article write up somewhere like in Statue of Liberty or Eiffel Tower.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Be bold. Many people have identified that a sort of "popular culture" grab-bag section would be useful, and maybe that would be the start. Along with use in advertising, movies, etc. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Serendipity. I just came here to mention that the article needs a Replica section. Most famous buildings have one. See Doge's Palace. If if grown unweildy, it can be made into a liked article. See: Replicas of the Jewish Temple which also features miniature models. Surely some notable models have been made of the Taj Mahal.Historicist (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm ok with this in principle, but a little concerned we draw a distinction between 'replicas' = being those constructions deliberately trying to create a facsimile of the original, and other constructions 'influenced' by the original. I think discussion of Mughal influence from the Taj should be dealt with separately from modern imitations. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Meaning

I just think they should include the meaning in the article. I'm a Persian Farsi linguist and know that تاج محل translates to "Local Crown." Just thought people would like to know. (208.0.111.81 (talk) 03:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC))

A "best guess" translation (crown of buildings) has been added. As there are many translations in circulation and it is difficult for a layman to judge which might be more authoritative, someone with deeper understanding of the origins of the name may wish to amend this first attempt. Most sources that identify any language claim that the name is Urdu and that "taj" means "crown." There is no consensus about what "mahal" means (most likely building, buildings, palace, or palaces?) or about the grammatical relationship of the two words. Piperh (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible e-mail to indohistory

The e-mail address is indohistory at indohistory.com

A draft of the e-mail would look like

Dear Indohistory,

We have noticed that some of your articles are airlifted from Wikipedia (foremost the article on the Taj Mahal and the starting page on India.) If you do this, we ask that you directly cite the relevant articles from Wikipedia.

Thanks,
Indeed123 (or somebody else), Wikipedia user

Any ideas? Indeed123 (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

?Like why bother? Slumdog Millionaire lifted a lot of the article and none of the editors got a dime, much less a screen credit. Are we suddenly expecting all the scraping sites to get honest? --Nemonoman (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

See this Daily mail article. No citations there either. And indohistory.com is suddenly going to come clean? --Nemonoman (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably not. Ah well, someone can e-mail them if they so desire, I guess. 98.216.217.18 (talk) 02:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Modular Planning of Taj Mahal

ONe month ago, the site featured a long discussion on the modular plan of the Taj complex, as explained in Ebba Koch's book and by the architect Andre Barraud.

I had posted an edit to this providing reference to a recently publishing paper in a reputed journal CURRENT SCIENCE. This was as follows:

"Balasubramaniam (Current Science, Vol. 97 (2009) 42-49; http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/jul102009/42.pdf) presents new insights on the modular planning of the Taj Mahal complex, one of the most visited and well-known archaeological structures of India. This is also one of the wonders of the modern world. The Taj Mahal complex is planned based on ordering of grids, with the main architectures features of the complex placed on bilaterally mirror symmetry along the north-south axis. The dimensions of the various sections (the riverfront terrace, the gardens, the forecourt and the caravanserai) of the complex have been analyzed using new knowledge on the traditional unit of length measure (the angulam) of the subcontinent. Dimensional analysis has revealed that the modular planning of the Taj Mahal complex was executed using the traditional measurement units mentioned in Arthasastra, in particular the vitasti measuring 12 angulams of 1.763 cm. The riverfront terrace and garden sections of the complex were planned using a grid of 90 vitasti while the forecourt and caravanserai sections, using a grid of 60 vistasti. The logical numbers that result for the dimensions has been analyzed to reveal the ease of division of these numbers into symmetric elements to understand quadratic division of space of the garden area and the triadic division of space of the mausoleum, including decimal divisions. A novel approach to understand the metrology of historical architectural structures of the Indian subcontinent is revealed. More importantly, this study has confirmed that traditional design principles and civil engineering skills of the Indian subcontinent were utilized in the construction of Taj Mahal."

Then I noticed that the entire site was changed and the entire discussion on modular planning was removed.

More importantly, it was no longer possible to edit the site as it became "protected."

This is a clear case of supressing of information and I requset the WIKIPEDIA authorities to look in this matter.

There are concerns about objectivity and the recent objects (16 Aug 09) is valid.

R Balasubramaniam Professor IIT Kanpur 20 Aug 09 email: bala@iitk.ac.in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.64.72.113 (talk) 06:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm - are you sure you are looking at the right page? This information is included in Origins_and_architecture_of_the_Taj_Mahal#Dimensional_organisation. Kind regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Taj Mahal, The other Hidden story

There is an another story behind Taj Mahal which is HIDDEN. The Story what is told is untrue, there are so many controversys behind Taj Mahal

Some of the contentious things put before were

1)Shahjahan and Aurangzeb were Hindu murdererers then how come OM symbol, dattoori flower, trident, Lotus, cobra portraits which are Hinduism divine features present there 2)Muslims all over the world construct mosque to the direction of mecca but the altered mosque is facing towards south doesn't the muslims of that time know directions 3)why only 14 chapters of quran are present on taj mahal 4)why is the tomb present in the 3rd floor 5)why is the 3 floors of 7 storied tajmahal are sealed with metal doors from the year 1930 6)why are 220 rooms required in a building for a grave 7)why the present congress government not ready to open the sealed rooms for international examination 8)why the archeological excavation which took place in 1920 to 1930 is kept secret and not reveled

Google - Taj Mahal was it a vedic temple

Sathu108 (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see the "Consensus on Contentious Issues" section near the top of the page. By consensus this hypothesis has been considered and rejected as lacking reliable sources. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

ANKUR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.193.30.36 (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Information in "Myth" section

In the "Myth" section it says that Supreme Court dismissed P. N. Oak's petition. However the link/ citation for this information is dead.

It's a fact that numerous temples were destroyed by the Muslim rulers and invaders. In recent times sculptures which were hundreds of years old, the Bamiyan Buddhas were systematically destroyed by a section of Muslim faith known as the Talibans.

If Taj Mahal was not built by a Hindu King and Supreme Court indeed dismissed the petition if there was one, provide valid sources. Else remove this bit as it would amount to wrong information in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.21.210 (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced the above mentioned IndiaInfo citation with a news report from The Hindu's archives of 14th July 2000. Knight Samar (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The controversy

I read the comment in the myth stating that one must refer this page as to how much of the shiva temple controversy has to be put up. I however created another paragraph and gave a small intro as the one relating to the issue in the myth was having many dead links. I feel that the people must have a right to know about what all controversies and debates are going on regarding the structure rather than the plain fat about its architecture, purpose and who all have visited it...I have however kept it as neutral as possible. Please consider the fact that the public have a right to know what is being debated about it before reverting, if it is going to be done. -Betawarrior60

Thank you for the addition, but we decided that we would keep references to Oak's ideas to a minimum. Also your additional text was far from neutral. There is no real "controversy" among historians. You claim that the Indian government has 'banned' discussion to maintain 'communal harmony', but provide no reliably sourced evidence. Your sources fail the guidelines of WP:RS. Paul B (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

by the way i think this is a wonderfully kept article , congrats to all the editors for the good job........... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaishali135 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm new here

But why aren't they acknowledging the foreign workforce behind the Taj Mahal? I've studied this in great length (my thesis was on the Taj Mahal) and found a lot of this article to be nothing short of a lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.127.141 (talk) 12:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Deep, deep joy. Deep breath. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Tjmahal.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.79.55.82 (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Being a true Indian facts have to been seen and Truths have to be Shown to the world!

Taj Mahal being one the wonders of the world today,has so much to tell wat the world would have never ever thought it to be.

Taj Mahal is Tejo Mahalaya a temple dedicated to lord shiva which was worshiped by Rajputs a royal clan.Prof. Marvin miller conducted Carbon dating tests on the riverside doorway of the Taj which reported it to be 300 years older.

The term "Mahal" has never been used for a building in any Muslim countries from Afghanisthan to Algeria. "The unusual explanation that the term Taj Mahal derives from Mumtaz Mahal was illogical in atleast two respects. Firstly, her name was never Mumtaz Mahal but Mumtaz-ul-Zamani," he writes. Secondly, one cannot omit the first three letters 'Mum' from a woman's name to derive the remainder as the name for the building."Taj Mahal, he claims, is a corrupt version of Tejo Mahalaya, or Lord Shiva's Palace. The love story of Mumtaz and Shah Jahan is a fairy tale created by court sycophants, blundering historians and sloppy archaeologists. Not a single royal chronicle of Shah Jahan's time corroborates the love story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.63.52 (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/was_the_taj_mahal_a_vedic_temple.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.63.52 (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

who designed the Taj Mahal

who designed the Taj Mahal

Though the Taj Mahal is considered to be the zenith of Mughal architecture, the identity of its architect remains a mystery, in part perhaps because Shah Jahan seems to have played such an active role in its design. In his obsessive drive for perfection, he may have served as his own artistic director, making the personal overseeing of his artists part of his daily routine.

According to art historian Milo Beach, "This is something we simply have to speculate about. We know Shah Jahan was interested in architecture. We know he was interested in architectural decoration and design. Clearly, he was consulted. He was probably very interested in continually seeing the plans as they developed and commenting on them, and suggesting changes that might be made. The idea that he did any more than that, in terms of the design, is unrealistic. Clearly it's a building that was designed by professional architects who knew what they were doing, not by a prince and an amateur. But an architect was, in a sense, a kind of functionary. Architects and painters never achieved the kind of acclaim that placed them within the ranks of the nobility, for example. They were recognized, but they were never given an enormous amount of importance."

It has often been suggested that a European architect was responsible for building the Taj , but this is contradicted by the existence of the monuments previously constructed in India. "First of all, I can't imagine that there was one architect for the Taj Mahal or for any of these buildings," adds Beach. "I mean, it had to have been a team effort for such an enormous undertaking. Second of all, a building like the Taj grows out of the earlier artistic traditions in India, and in Iran as well, traditions that a European architect would know virtually nothing about. So I think it's extremely unlikely – there's certainly is no historical evidence whatsoever – that there was a European architect."

Several designers and architects – thirty seven men in all – are mentioned by name in the official Mughal histories, and it is probable that they would have worked together to form the creative team that shaped the Taj Mahal:

Ismail Afandi (a.k.a. Ismail Khan) who had worked for the great Ottomans in Turkey as a designer and builder of domes; Qazim Khan, a goldsmith from Lahore who cast the gold finial that crowns the dome; Chiranji Lal, a lapidary from Delhi chosen as the chief mosaicist; Amanat Khan from Shiraz, the master calligrapher whose signature is inscribed on the Taj gateway; Mohammed Hanif, Multan and Quandhar, master masons from Delhi; and Mukrimat Khan and Mir Abdul Karim from Shiraz, chief supervisors and administrators.

Ustad Ahmad (a.k.a. Isa Khan), an architect in the court of Shah Jahan from Lahore, is most often credited as the chief architect (or plan drawer) of the Taj Mahal, based on a seventeenth century manuscript which claims that Ustad Ahmad was the architect of both the Taj Mahal and the Red Fort at Delhi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.201.28 (talk) 09:19, 4 November 2010 (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 uslim 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

Taj Mahal

There are historical documents that show builders were of Turkic origin please research these documents and include this information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denizg6 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Trueindia, 14 June 2011

It is worth mentioning that there are evidences that Shah Jahan actually did NOT build the Taj Mahal and it was already built at least a century or so ago by a Rajput king. The original name of Taj Mahal is Tejo Mahalaya and it's a temple of Hindu God, Lord Shiva.

Trueindia (talk) 04:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources that back up your assertion. --rgpk (comment) 10:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)