Talk:Taj Mahal

---

Archives

---

• Talk archive 1
• Talk archive 2 - through May 2006
• Talk archive 3 - June 2006 - through August 2007

>> 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 -- a proposal

   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

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 narration 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 Uttar Pradesh 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Template:PronEng. 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)

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