Talk:Taj Mahal/Archive 2

message: There's a good text about the Taj Mahal being a vedic temple.
Supposedly, there is evidence that the Taj Mahal was never built by Shah Jahan:
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/was_the_taj_mahal_a_vedic_temple.htm
:I've altered the Shiva temple stuff. This is a 'way out' theory that's got no historical support whatever, but appeals to Hindu Nationalist sentiment. I've tried to indicate that without being too judgmental. I called Oak a 'conspiracy theorist', which may seem POV, but this is a guy who also thinks the Kaaba at Mecca was originally a Shiva temple! So it seem to me to be fair comment.  Paul
::Actually the bio on Oak in Wikipedia was fabricated. There is no evidence that an actual P.N.Oak had any theories about other Hindu temples or Mecca.  He is only known for writing one book about the Taj Mahal and many of these questions existed long before Hindu Nationalism existed nor does it intentionaly side with their agenda.  Look at the talk page on P.N. Oak for more info.
It's very possible that the Taj Mahal was a shiva temple.  Mulsims hordes detroyed many hindu temples and replaced them with mosques such as the Ram temple.  Also, the ruler had a lot of concubines which is pretty sad.
:Yes Muslims destroyed Hindu temples at various times, but Shah Jahan didn't. The Taj itself is clearly Islamic architecture. It bears no resemblemce to Saivite temples. Why Shah Jahan having concubines is 'sad', or in any way relevant I don't know.  Paul
'Hindu Nationalist sentiment'?
Having read who Paul Barlow (from his own dscription) this is indeed a cheep remark and totally uncalled for.
Why you say 'It bears no resemblemce to Saivite temples' reflect the real depth of your knowledge.
'Why Shah Jahan having concubines is 'sad'?
For an Islamic emporer to have a concubine may be simply normal but to 'build' a such monument after just one of the members is unheard of. I await the day the full truth can be faced by the 'experts' of the so called 'Taj Mahal'.
:Dream on. The evidence of the history of the Taj is overwhelming. Paul B 13:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vedic Temple 

message: The article doesn't state when the Taj Mahal was built.  Also, it is unclear as to why it was built.  If it was a tomb for queen Mahal, that should probably be stated within the first two paragraphs.
:I've had a go at addressing the issue. what do you reckon? Leo Africanus
:As far as I know, there is nothing to support the notion that the Taj was built as a tomb for Mumtaz Mahal. This to me is a typical romanticist/orientalist myth, you've all heard the "greatest monument to love ever" descriptions in the guidebooks etc. A beautiful idea, but unfortunately not really credible. I would argue that he built it for himself, or at least mainly for himself.
::I just read this old comment. PuhLease...So far as I know, no Mughal Emperor built his own tomb. They died hoping (apparently) that family members would come through. --Nemonoman 18:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  When and why? 

message: It is written in the article that the origin of mahal is arabic, meaning place...
it is much more logical that mahal is from the hindi (sanskrit) word mahal, meaning palace... I have read that the name is from the sanskrit mahal, which also is logical because Shah Jahan lived and built the palace in India...
what do you other say ?
:I agree! The arabic attribution contradicts everything I've heard. And I've heard a lot. Also Persian. NEVER arabic.--Nemonoman 14:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of the name

message: The black taj story is a legend. The actual story of the ruins on the other side of the river is very enlightening. Shah Jahan actually incorporated the Jumna into the design of the gardens. 
Looks like a few section headers couldn't hurt.
Tried to align the content to the headers to provide a narrative flow to the article. 
I'd personally love to dump all the Shiva Temple nonsense, but you can't fight city hall...
--Nemonoman 01:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes on my changes 

message: I was interested in Paul’s comments that The Kaaba and Taj being a Vedic Temple (originally) being not worthy of thought. 
I find it strange that the influence if India via Hinduism and Buddhism (primarily) stretches as far east as Korea but we see very little evidence of if to the west, and the assumption(due to this odd fact) there could never have been any influence on Arabia from India. 
It was the custom of the Muslim invaders to destroy Hindu Temples across Northern India and build Mosques over the ruins.  This is indisputable, also I believe that Muhammad’s uncle (Abu Talib) is a documented Vedic poet, do you dispute this also?
More investigation is needed in the pree-Islamic roots of Arabia to seek the religion before Islam; The Kabba is an ancient Temple (as documented in the Koran).  Its origins are certainly not Islamic and it would be fascinating to find out the true purpose of the Kaaba and the Black Stone within.
As a Hindu I’m constantly having to re interpret my Country’s past.  From the blatant lies of an Aryan Invasion theory by the like’s of Max Muller, to today when even a suggestion that Islamic shrines might have a Vedic origin as “Hindu Nationalism” and being greeted with derision.  S.M.
:I most certainly do dispute that Abu Talib ibn 'Abd al-Muttalib was "documented as a Vedic poet". There is zero evidence of this whatever. He is thought to have been a "pagan", but within the coinext of Arabic Semitic traditions, not Vedic ones. There is no historical evidence of any Vedic culture to the west of the Indus Valley. The Aryan Invasion Theory, so called, is not a "blatant lie". The vast majority of scholars still accpt the evidence for Indo-Iranian migrations into India as overwhelming. If you had ever read any books by Max Muller, I doubt you'd characterise him in this wildly inaccurate way. Try reading "India - what can it teach us". Some Muslim invaders and fanatics did destroy Hindu temples. Not all of them. There is no evidence that Shah Jahan did, unlike his son Aurangzeb. Paul B  10:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: SM, I used the word pagan (in inverted commas) because there isn't a more specific label for pre-Islamic Arabian practices. Yes, the attitude of the Saudis to archaeology certainly doesn't help, but in the absence of written sources out knowledge is likely to remain sketchy. However, we clearly have more knowledge of Vedic and Zoroastrian history, which suggest the existance of an Indo-European "mother culture" spreading into Iran and India. See the article Indo-Aryan migration. That's what Max Muller believed and that's what most modern scholars believe. These peoples were known as "Aryans" when Muller was writing. The terms now used are Indo-Iranians and Indo-Aryans. Yes the Nazis and some earlier race-theorists argued that these people were blond "Nordic" warriors (see Nordic theory), but Muller certainly didn't; he opposed such racism throughout his life. I am certainly open to new and diverse theories, but when theories are essentially ideologically motivated, I am very sceptical. Thanks for your comments. Paul B 12:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Kaaba

message: The version of the demolition story added by the previous editor probably comes from here . It's an oft-repeated tale in several variations, but is treated with scepticism these days I believe,. However, it's well-known and often repeated as fact, so I've added a version to the myths and theories section. Paul B 20:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: demolition story

message: Hi, I have added  to the article, since for such an important article, it does seem  sub-par (no offence to the editors involved) in terms of content & presentation, besides lacking a reference section, a poor lead,etc., This is pretty sad, since there are some great free images (including one featured picture) and the content, especially on Construction and design is quite good. See also the articles at :Category:Wikipedia articles needing priority cleanup. It could probably be nominated for next week's INCOTW, so atleast it could be improved atleast to an A-class article. --Pamri • Talk 13:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleanup-priority 

message: I am trying to cleanup this article to a better standard. Starting at the top and working down. Will cite sources as part of the complete process; please be patient. Expect to finish by 1 Jan--Nemonoman 03:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working on cleanup 

message: I propose to delete the following pictures from this article:
They seem redundant.
Image:Taj mahal mayur itf.jpg
Image:Tajmahal.jpg
Image:Taj Mahal in Moonlight.jpg
Image:Taj mahal agra india 1942 american soldiers.jpg|American Soldiers at the Taj, 1942
Image:Monument of love and symmetry.jpg|The Taj Mahal]]
--Nemonoman 05:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposing to delete pictures 

message: I am actively seeking pictures of the following:
*Decoration of the mosque, particularly the floor
*Sandstone dados of the mosque
*The buildings at the center parts of the Taj wall...west side building is now a museum
*Close ups of the spandrels (flower decorated corners of archways
*Close ups of caligraphy
*Close ups of the tomb interior
*The cenotaphs
*The jali screen around the centotaphs
*The slim flower topped pinnacles or guldastas, which extend from shafts on the exterior of the Taj 
*finial atop the main dome
*lotus decoration of main dome
*and especially::::
*>> Aerial or similar picture of the entire site! <<
--Nemonoman 05:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for additional pictures 

message: without making a real mess in the kitchen. I've been adding new elements to the current article, without removing old elements. Net result is, right now, this article is horribly uneven. This should be improved within the next 5 days as new sections replace old.
sorry in the meantime.
--Nemonoman 01:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  You can't make an omelette 

message: I think this article has been sufficiently cleaned up to justify removing the tag. I'm pretty much done with my edits. Can't wait to see who will first replace my work with the astonishing revelation that the Taj is an 11th century Shiva Temple!!--Nemonoman 19:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed cleanup tag 

message: Revision as of 20:35, 5 January 2006
JPushkarH (Talk | contribs)
Replaced article with Oaks 110 points web page.
Elapsed time to revelation: 12 days!
--Nemonoman 19:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: And the winner is...

message: The article is beiing peer reviewed. See comments here.--Nemonoman 16:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review Comments 

message: Click here to see my work area for taj--Nemonoman 01:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My work area for Taj changes 

message: My work page shows comparisons of the current tables of images vs galleries.--Nemonoman 01:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Galleries vs tables of images

message: Peer reviewer =Nichalp «Talk»= says "too many subheads".
Agreed that the subheads have resulted in an ENORMOUS table of contents. I think that the subheads help to improve the logical flow and presentation. 
You can emulate the automatic subheads created by === and ====. The emulated versions don't show up in the TOC, but they are a pain the ass.
You can see how they work here --Nemonoman 01:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many subheads?

message: It may also be mentioned how some of these self-sttyled scholars argue that it was a temple with the name "Tejo Mahal" - loosely meaning divinely lighted place. --Gurubrahma 10:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temple theory 

message: you got to be kidding me.
whats next ? Statue of liberty was a statue of some hindu god as well ? that was later through a consipiracy against hinduism "reconstructed" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalsurgeon (talk • contribs) 
:You may borrow a copy (from your local library - most likely, it shall not be available) of Taj Mahal: The True Story and read more, if you wish. However, I am talking of this book, and not presenting my views, as we do not do research here - but building the encyclopedia. --Bhadani 10:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should register and try to fight vandalism here - only shouting is not going to help. --Bhadani 15:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Er...did you notice that this lasted for precisely one minute and was removed while you were writing your comment.Paul B 15:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This theory is about as valid as a certain other theory promoted by certain indviduals. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Are you sure it isn't more valid than a certain other theory, but less valid than that other other theory that's promoted by some people somewhere? Paul B 15:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was the Taj originally a temple or a palace? 

message: I've not had a chance to get to the Library yet to look at the Persian stuff, but Bernier, who travelled in the Mughal Empire between 1656 and 1668, writes that:
"I shall finish this letter with a description of the two wonderful mausoleums which constitute the chief superiority of Agra over Delhi. One was erected by Jehan-guyre [sic] in honour of his father Ekbar; and Chah-Jehan raised the other to the memory of his wife Tage Mehale [properly Mumtaz Mahal], that extraordinary and celebrated beauty, of whom her husband was so enamoured it is said that he was constant to her during live, and at her death was so affected as nearly to follow her to the grave." François Bernier Travels in the Moghul Empire A.D. 1656-1668 (Westminster: Archibald Constable & Co.) 1891 p293
Now this is a contemporary source, whose reliability on many other points can be vouched for. Certainly the 'love-story' of the Taj's creation was already current before Shah Jahan's death in 1666. No doubt his desire to leave a monument that he would be remembered by played a part. But the association of the Taj with Shah Jahan, and his grief over the death of Mumtaz Mahal, is indisputable. Sikandarji 14:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you should put this in the article itself, along with a description about who Bernier was.  cant you get a date for that letter itself though?  --Balvinder 19:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bernier

message: I am not sure what to do with the term romance in the second paragraph in the article. I am working the disambiguation list for the term romance but I cannot find a definition link that I believe captures the intended meaning in the article. Can someone help me with what is meant in the use of the word romance in this article? Thanks.
Crackerbelly
:If it has to be wikified, it should link to Romantic love. Paul B 11:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguating the term romance

message: I have added a newer image of the entrance fort, which gives a 3-dimensional view of the fort. Hope everyone likes it.
Thanks
Srikeit(talk ¦ ?) 04:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entrance fort 

message: The article says: 
:While the white domed marble mausoleum is the most familiar part of the monument, the Taj Mahal is actually a complex of elements. 
But what exactly is a "complex of elements"? -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK11:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It means that the Taj Mahal as a whole is not simply the central building, but also includes a series of other architectural features extending around the central domed building. Paul B 12:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understood the intend of the sentence, of course. But AFAIK, the phrase is not popularly used and would amount to confusion (But then I could be wrong, as I am not a native speaker). It looks better now. Thanks! -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK14:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complex of elements