Talk:Taj Mahal

---

• Talk archive 1
• Talk archive 2 - through May 2006

Literal meanings of "Taj" and "Mahal" ?

I would gather from this article that Mumtaz Mahal was actually nick-named after the palace rather than visa-versa. If "Mahal" means palace, what does "Taj" mean? If anyone knows, it might be a useful addition to the article.

When I travelled around South Asia I kept bumping into things named "Taj" and "Mahal," (even one-star hotels!), both terms which seem to be calling something a "palace." But surely "Taj Mahal" does not mean "Palace Palace."--Calan 05:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"Taj" means "Crown" in Persian. It's a reference to her being the crown of the palace, or possibly the mausoleum itself the crown of all architecture. Sikandarji 06:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Taj Mahal today?

I think there should be a section on the Taj Mahal as it today:

• Is it a listed building or a national monument or some such designation?
• Ownership/Management?
• Is any part of it open to visitors? If so visitation numbers/entrance fee & conditions etc.
• Current condition; restoration/preservation work?

Also there should be a popular culture section since every US city of reasonable size seems to have a Taj Mahal Indian resturant (that's how I heard of it) Pretzelpaws 19:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Very good suggestions. It'a a major tourist attraction.

Here's what WikiTravel says:

Taj Mahal

The Taj is a mausoleum constructed by the Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan to hold the remains of wife Mumtaz Mahal. It was built over the period 1631 to 1653 and richly deserves its status as one of the wonders of the world.

Despite being one of th7e most photographed edifices in the world and being instantly recognisable, its physical presence is awe-inspiring. Not everything is in the photos. The grounds of the complex include several other beautiful buildings, reflecting pools, and extensive ornamental gardens with flowering trees and bushes, and a small gift shop. The Taj framed by trees and reflected in a pool is amazing. Close up, large parts of the building are covered with inlaid stonework.

Plan to visit the Taj at at least two different times during the day (dusk and dawn are best) in order to experience the full effect of changing sunlight on the amazing building. It is also utterly stunning under a full moon.

The Taj is located pretty much in the middle of town. Expect a line to get into the grounds. There are three gates. The western gate is the main gate where most tourists enter. A large number of people turn up on weekends and public holidays and entry through the western gate may take hours. The southern and eastern gates are much less busy and should be tried on such days.

Unfortunately, it doesn't answer most of your questions. --Calan 14:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

According to this website [1] the Taj had 3million visitors in 2003. Paul B 15:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Cited in the article:

Millions of tourists have visited the site - more than three million in 2004, according to the BBC - making it one of the most popular international attractions in India.Nemonoman 15:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Taj Mahal NPOV Tag

Would User:Irfanali care to explain the reasoning for this tag?--Nemonoman 01:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured article status

Well there were 4 votes, all objections.

What a dismal turnout, and what a statement about this article, and Wiki and Wikipedians. Yikes.

Anyway here are the main concerns, in case anybody wants to address them and bring this article up to quality sufficient to reach the exalted status granted Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, CPU cache, and Ido

• Strongly Object. The history section is too short, while legends and kooky theories are given more importance. The tedious details of the design can be shorted or parcelled off into a separate article. The organization also needs to be worked on. Also, there is absolutely nothing on the incredible influence that it has wielded on the art and culture of India, its use as a symbol of love, etc. — Ravikiran 19:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to editor Ravikiran. Perhaps he can direct some future editor to a good explication of Taj History, because I think I lost my All-Encompassing List of Notable Historical Events. Also perhaps he'll be kind enough to point us to some sources that describe "the incredible influence that it has wielded on the art and culture of India, its use as a symbol of love, etc."

• Object An article this size needs many more in-line citations. Also too many stubby sections and lists, on top of a poor and underdeveloped lead.UberCryxic 02:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The other 2 objections were effectively "me too"s.

So learn your lesson, folks. Let's get on this article's shortcomings and see what can be salvaged. It may seem hopeless, but even New Orleans rebuilt the Superdome. Miracles can happen. Anyway, the review process has been an eye-opener. I can't believe that we ALL have failed to provide in-line citations to this building's incredible influence as a symbol of love. What were we THINKING??--Nemonoman 14:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Who came up with this template?

There is no relevant basis for this template, and it has no relevance to this article. I note that it is proposed for deletion. The sooner the better.--Nemonoman 02:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC) (note: this post referred to a seven wonders of the world template that was subsequently deleted...--Nemonoman 17:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC))

chatris / chattris / chhatris

The terms "chatris" and "chhatris" appear to be used interchangeably in reference to certain a architectural component. (See use of the second in various places above and the first in the image (Image:TajDesignVocabulary.jpg) in the article.) Definitions on the web show there is a relationship between the two, but also a subtle difference. Which one is preferred? It sounds like "chhatris" is used for an architectural component of a larger structure, but "chatris" is used for a free-standing structure with the same characteristics (the umbrella shape). In the article "chatris" is spelled with a double 't' (chattris). If someone knows the preferred spelling, perhaps they could correct the inconsistency. Bear475 00:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed vandalism in intro paragraph

Some child entered between sentence 1 and 2 "Ben Perez helped, he was on meth and ruined the project." Easy edit. Kidshare 05:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)kidshare

'citation needed' in Oak section

Oak's assertions are not accepted by legitimate scholars.

Hard to find a citation to prove a negative. The fact that none of Oak's assertions have been referenced, cited, or independently confirmed in any researchers, coupled with the court cases decided against him (referenced in the paragraph that follows), certainly proves that the statement is true.

But these stories are widely believed and publicized by some contemporary Hindutva (Hindu nationalist) activists.

One need only look at the discussion page for this article, and at the countless attempts to entirely delete this article in favor of cut and pastes of the Oak Taj Mahal webpage (including the subsequent edit wars and wailing and gnashing of teeth when the edit is reverted), to find ample evidence for this statement.

In effect the statements are self-evident, but useful to address the uncertainties of persons new to the subject. --Nemonoman 01:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The Taj Mahal's Architect

For your information the architect of Taj Mahal was not Shah Jahan. The architect was a renowned Persian Architect. His name was Ustad(means master)Muhammad Issa Khan and he hailed from Shiraz in Iran.

Shah Jahan had the monument built for his beloved wife, who was a Persian Princess, by the name of Mumtaz Mahal.

If one can not find correct architectural information on your Site, how can one trust your Site?

you can find his picture here=> http://www.pbase.com/k_amj/image/69334591 213.207.238.78 11:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The article never says that Shah Jahan designed it, just that he commissioned it. See the section on "Craftsmen". Paul B 13:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ustad Issa Khan was not Persian he was an Ottoman Turk

This is ridiculous, Ustad Issa Khan was not a Persian he was trained by the Ottoman architect Mimar Sinan. He was a Sunni Ottoman Turkish muslim, not a Shia Persian from Persia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.141.53.58 (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Request for Comment: Inclusion of minority points of view

During efforts to improve this article, a number of editors asserted the need to emphasize a non-academic minority theory. Initially proposed by P.N. Oak, this theory asserts that the Taj Mahal was not originally built by the Mogul Emperor Shah Jahan, but was a much older Hindu temple or palace stolen by the Mughals. It is instructive to note that Oak also claims that the tombs of Humayun, Itmad-Ud-Daulahand Akbar — as well as the Vatican in Rome, the Kaaba in Mecca, Stonehenge and "all historic buildings" in India — were also stolen Hindu temples or palaces.[2]

"The Taj is only a typical illustration of how all historic buildings and townships from Kashmir to Cape Comorin though of Hindu origin have been ascribed to this or that Muslim ruler or courtier."P.N. Oak at www.hindunet.org

We seek comment, prior to an overhaul of the article, to establish "to what extent we are obliged to include minority points of view within this article." 17:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Please read the guidance on responding to RFC's at Wikipedia:Requests for comment.

• Please see the vehemence of editor comments associated with Oak's theories on the PN Oak talk page.

I enjoy a fringe theory as much as the next editor (I am a follower of the 9/11 Truth movement, don't believe in a lone gunman, wonder about the relationship between vaccines and autism, etc., etc.). There's a line, however, and Oak has crossed it. His reasoning reminds one of Emily Litella, (e.g., Oak thinks that the word 'Christianity' sounds vaguely like 'Krisna-neti', and extrapolates therefore that Christianity is historically based on worship of Krishna. Etc. Etc. ET CETERA.)

It's a very amusing joke, in my view. But his followers have determined to believe his wild logical jumps despite any supporting evidence. Not just believe, but to insist that other views are equally theoretical. In the US, this is similar to the Creationism debate, except that at least among the Creationists there are some reasonably well equipped scholars TRYING to find some reasonable evidence to support their case. And also, evolution theory, like any scientific theory and unlike history, is designed to adjust to the give and take of new developments.

Oak's theories by contrast have only the political arguments to support them. You MUST accept them or you are a Bigot. If you can't accept them, you must acknowledge them by reference, thereby giving them credibility. That these are political demands, and not scholarly demands, can be seen clearly on the PN Oak talk page.

Although Ancient astronaut theories includes the theory that aliens built the Egyptian Pyramids, the theory is NOT included on the Egyptian pyramids page.

Can we please dispose of this Oak nonsense?--Nemonoman 17:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Nemonoman's above views. PN Oak's "theories" are as ridiculous as the Moon-made-of-cheese or the flat-earth-theories. I do not see any reason to propagate such unscientific views, which qualify as a joke at best. Thanks. --Ragib 18:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I suppose, these types of theories are not universally acceptable. So as Nemonoman and Ragib mentioned, they do not follow NPOV policy. Shyam ^(T/C) 19:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Virtually exclusively for our purposes, all reliable sources on the matter state that Shah Jahan built the Taj Mahal. Wikipedia reports the knowledge of the relevant community on any given topic; we are not here to dish out personal conjectures.UberCryxic 19:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Nemonoman's analogy is persuasive. Oak's theory is notable enough to be featured in Wikipedia, but, like the "ancient astronaut" theories of the construction of the pyramid, Oak's conjectures do not deserve to be included in the main articles on their subjects. PubliusFL 19:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• How about including the said theory under a section ==Conspiracy theories==? Just a thot. Sarvagnya 20:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's already in the "Legends and Theories" section. It takes up quite a lot of space, and has almost any references as the main article. Why so much emphasis? Because any attempt to remove it or shorten it simply ends up in near edit-war.--Nemonoman 21:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Whatever his other theories are, this one is quite plausible. The Mughals were quite skilled at demolition, its not like they appreciated the "beauty of Hindu temples".Bakaman 21:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Plausible? His theory is that the Taj Mahal is a Hindu temple, not that it is on the site of a demolished temple, so if Oak were right the whole point is that they did appreciate the "beauty of Hindu temples". Paul B 21:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"Quite skilled at demolition"? What? The Mughals, notably Shah Jahan, undertook probably the most ambitious and expensive public works campaign since the Romans. What 'demolition' are you referring to? Let me guess: Temple defacement under Shah Jahan's son, Aurangzeb.

No one denies that, PARTICULARLY ME. (See how I have worked to keep information on Aurangzeb's temple destruction in the Aurangzeb article despite numerous attempts at removing it -- also for political reasons, mostly non-Indian in this case.)

Aurangzeb's acts should not, however, influence whether we decide to include a wacky theory that Shah Jahan (who, by the way, built numerous buildings using similar designs and construction techniques, including Akbar's tomb, Red Fort Delhi, Shalimar, Jama Masjids all over the place, and big chunks of Agra Fort) was not (as most of the world, and 99.9999999999% of historians believe) the principal force behind the building of the Taj Mahal.

One thing Oak never explains is the way so many chronicles begin to mention the Taj at the time of Shah Jahan, and how no one mentions anything about a Shiva Temple before this. The Taj is so massive, so sumptuous, that people needed to talk and write about it. If it had been in existence previous to its accepted historic incept date, as a temple, palace, or even as a supermarket for Pete's sake,somebody would have said: "Hey that's one honking great Shiva Temple they got down there in Agra!".

Or maybe all those records disappeared mysteriously as well.--Nemonoman 21:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the great thing about conspiracy theories. Absence of evidence is ITSELF evidence. PubliusFL 22:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Nonsense & Remove - enough said.--Blacksun 23:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Clear case of WP:FRINGE. remove it. Alternatively, Keep and ridicule the heck out of it. Blueboar 23:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm certainly no admirer of Oak, but I see no reason why we should not include discussion of his claims. After all Akbar S. Ahmed mentioned them in his article on "The Taj Mahal" in History Today back in 1993. Since then they have led to court cases and even questions in the Indian parliament. We should not have a separate bibliography for this stuff though. That legitimises it. Paul B 23:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Paul B. It would be disingenous not mention Oak's claims. A smaller dose seems appropriate, however.--Nemonoman 00:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Oak should be mentioned, but it should be stressed that nobody in the academic world agrees with his wacky views, although the issue of censorship regarding the court case is interesting... Rumpelstiltskin223 04:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Remove preposterous, non-notable nonsense. I too find Nemonoman's Pyramids analogy apt. And while on the subject, Mr Oak should probably take a class on formal logic... Cribananda 07:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• P.N. Oak's 'theories' are accorded far too great a prominence on this page, and I would like to see them confined to the crackpot websites where they belong. However, as we all know, wikipedia has more than its fair share of crackpots who see the freedom to edit here as a golden opportunity to push extreme opinions which no reputable publisher would print. They are likely to descend on the page in swarms if this poisonous rubbish is removed altogether. This might seem like waving the white flag to extremists, but we all know that that's how things work here. What we can do is reduce the amount of attention paid to it, and certainly remove many of the links. Otherwise we just have to hope that readers approaching the subject for the first time will be able to read the article and its talk page and then make up their own minds about the reliability of a man who claims that the Ka'aba is a Vedic Temple. I have tried to improve the references in the main article, and added a contemporary quotation from Bernier which demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that the Taj Mahal was indeed built by Shah Jahan and is what all but those blinded by bigotry can see it must be - the greatest of all Mughal garden tombs. Most of the conspiracy theories are based around a single page in the (unfortunately untranslated) Badshahnama of Lahauri, the court historian, in which he mentions that the land on which the Taj was built was orignally a garden belonging to Rajah Jai Singh of Jaipur, and contained a small Manzil, a caravanserai or pavilion. There is no mention of a temple or a palace, and he makes it clear that Shah Jahan purchased the land to build the tomb, whose construction he describes. I can write out this passage and translate it from the Persian if anyone thinks it would be useful, although I doubt if that will make much difference to the fanatics.Sikandarji 23:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Holy Cow! It might not make a difference to the fanatics, but I for one would be HUGELY grateful to read it!--Nemonoman 00:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll second that. --Joopercoopers 14:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

O.K. - might take me a couple of days. Sikandarji 14:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• WP:Undue weight should give sufficient guidance. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

All I can smell here is pure politics. I have never heard any discussion of a possible Shiva temple at the Taj Mahal site. I have never heard of any guide at Agra or ASI official discuss this possibility. As far as this encyclopedia goes, we report only convention. If there are new interpretations or new discoveries, we wait for the broader scientific community to deal with it and only when they reach a consensus, do we adopt that information to any prominence or permanence. Oak's theory is neither prominent, nor discussed or subject of a consensus view. As WP:NPOV goes, some fringe opinions are best not mentioned in view of Wikipedia's reputation. As this is political, we best keep it away from now. Perhaps a separate article on Oak's bio, his book may explain his views, but not an article on the Taj Mahal itself. Rama's arrow (3:16) 21:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

To add, I think this claim is inspired by the existence of a Rama-Lav temple within the Lahore Fort. And believe me, if this claim that any substance to it, it would be the subject of heated discussion in India before making any appearance on WP. Rama's arrow (3:16) 21:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Coming at this from outside: Since the is a WP article on his book, the appropriate text for that section would be one sentence followed by the usual "see main article" reference. There is no point in describing it at medium-length here when it is described fully there. DGG 00:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Remove, Oak isn't much of a reputed historian himself (bordering on pseudo-historian i'd say), and if he's the only 'academic' proponent of this idea (which is what i gauged from this discussion), then it probably doesn't merit mention. ITAQALLAH 12:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Not all the world is academic. If one academic, however eccentric, has followers, and his views have attracted public attention enough for there to be independent sources, there is no basis for omitting the views completely. Bu tit doesn't necessarily merit much mention. Given the diversity of opinion in WP (and in the world in general) the only practical course for this and the many similar situations is to compromise.

Although there is an article about one of his books, I think this excessive and duplicative of the article. It should be merged into the article with a redirect. In anticipation of this, I have put the link I proposed to the article about him, which should be non controversial, but also shorted the text. Those who think it worthwhile to learn more can follow the link. .DGG 22:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Some additional details found here but not in the article on Oak have been inserted there. The headings here have been adjusted. No text has been removed from WP, just rearranged. DGG 23:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry DGG, I've reverted your edits for now. Let's finish this RFC before implementing the findings, doing so beforehand rather prejudges the conclusion. --Joopercoopers 11:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Remove. Nemonoman's analogy with ancient astronaut theories is useful. Paul Barlow mentioned the fact that Oak's views have made news and gone to court. Similar points could be made for the notoriety of ancient astronaut theories, but that does not constitute sufficient grounds to mainstream them. This is a fringe theory and should be treated as such. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep--D-Boy 02:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Remove irrevocably Having once wasted 45 minutes listening to him in person, I can assure you he is as much of a nut job in real life as he is in print. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Remove -- unfounded claims do not make it notable for inclusion. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - minor note Even though Oak's theories doesn't have general acceptance, I believe it should be a little note about the opposing theories of Oak. If there by any case are any thruth's in his theories, they shouldn't be hidden from the people, as people should get the opportunity to be enlighten by his views on the matter. Therefore I want to keep a small note, and maybe a link to an own page for his theories regarding Taj Mahal Dhirad 21:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep under strict limitations As proposer of this RFC I would like to make some comments and observations on the responses. Bakaman, you imply that Oak is an unreliable source in every respect other than his views on the Taj - logically this doesn't make any sense and certainly doesn't persuade. To describe Oak's ideas as theories is to grossly misrepresent them - a theory implies academic rigour of some kind. We should refer to them as ideas. I would much rather not include anything about these these ideas in the article at all, but as Paul B points out, a certain notability has been established for them to be included, not least the court case and a mention in two books of mine, under the myths section. (Nemonoman you'll note that whilst Pyramids of Egypt doesn't have any wacky ideas in it Great Pyramid of Giza does - that's not to say I agree it should). It should also be noted that wikipedia does not attempt to document what is 'true or false' but that which is written about in secondary sources, and make judgements as to whether or not those sources should be included. Jpgordon suggests we consider WP:Undue weight and I suggest we agree here to confining the Oak ideas to a specific number of sentences - 3 should do it. It also does not warrant it's own sub-section and certainly not it's own references section - the Taj, like many a famous building has an enormous amount of rumour and folk lore surrounding it, we should sandwich Oak's ideas between the stories of the time-honoured "beautiful building's patron has architects and builders, killed/blinded/dismembered" (see also the castle of Khwarnaq[3] 125mi south of Baghdad for some islamic context on that one) and the myth that if the inlaid finial shape on the riverfront terrace is beaten, water will come forth - apparently officials regularly find broken bangles but no water. Another example of accepted knowledge triumphing over wishful thinking --Joopercoopers 16:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this approach...with any approach, frankly, that fails to bow down to Oak's preposterous 'ideas'...will be the constant edits of enthusiastic, motivated believers. Editors who share a belief in building a responsible article, and who undertand the importance of sharing a right-minded consensus, will need to be watchful and thick-skinned. Maybe VERY thick-skinned.--Nemonoman 19:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not really a reason not to try and reach a consensus - if nothing else its the wikipedia way of sorting things out - if the article is bombed by POV pushers, then there are other options available. Can we agree on a consensus for a very limited inclusion subject to the conditions above? --Joopercoopers 19:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear. It's good that the RFC has shown such a consistent view. The hard part will be enforcing the consensus view.Nemonoman 04:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

How to proceed -- a proposal

I suggest the following: In the 'Legends and Theories' section:

Alternate theories of origin

For more details on this topic, see Purushottam Nagesh Oak

A controversial theory, proposed by the writer PN Oak, states that the Taj Mahal was modified from an existing Hindu temple. No legitimate scholars accept this theory. Because it suggests that Hindus rather than Muslims built the Taj Mahal, the theory generates a lot of controversy and noteriety, particularly on sectarian websites.

Well, it's a proposal...--Nemonoman 04:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of moving the majority of the Oak idea to a separate article and linking it from here. However, even my most reputable and erudite source, Ebba Koch (see "best and most reputable sources" here) gives some print room to the idea in a chapter called 'Everyones Taj Mahal' which explores the way in which the building has essentially become global property, and typically for well known buildings, provokes myths and legends that suit everyone's prejudices. I think this is the notable phenomenom we should be writing about. My personal preference is that something is added to the article to this effect and we include the idea in that context.

I'm concerned that giving the idea its own section header, calling it a theory and instantly rebuting the claims, provides a legitimacy to something which should be given the same weight as the plans of the British to sell off the marble, Ustad Isa the (european) turk as principle architect, the italian Geronimo Veroneo with the same claim, the black taj etc.etc. Also to suggest the Taj is a temple but not outline at least some of the supposed 'evidence' leaves a tantalising question that readers who support the idea will doubtless feel the need to expand upon. There really is so much erroneously repeated information about the Taj that I'd like us to deal solely with the current academic thought about the complex in the main body of the article and leave all the non-academic speculations to a shortish separate section at the end. Also, reading NPOV undue weight, it seems acceptable to lump all of these together and simply say at the end that whilst perhaps appealing to the imagination and everyone's desire for a 'good story', these ideas do not represent the body of academic thought on the subject, it is not necessary to rebut each claim immediately after it is made. So in summary I propose:-

1. The myths and legends section is substantially rewritten, shortening it and including a discourse of the phenomenom of mythmaking that surrounds the building. (Do we really need a list of items which might have been stolen from the building, a sentence with a few examples would surely suffice?)
2. The Taj as a Hindu temple is refered to as an idea or notion.
3. The idea is not given its own section header.
4. The idea is presented in 3 sentences.
5. Similar weight (length) is given to the rebuttal which may be general rather than specific.

Does that sound like a reasonable compromise? --Joopercoopers 10:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it will be easier to judge if you write it rather than describe it. We can all agree to an appealing metaversion proposal. The difficulty will be finding consensus on the actuality. So have a go, and let's keep fingers crossed!

One of the reasons for the Legends and Theories sections is that these elements are constantly and consistently added as fact by enthusiastic editors. I have had two major editing projects: Taj Mahal and Aurangzeb. When I expanded these articles the barrage began. In Aurangzeb article, I did not specifically mention and reject the numerous doubtful ideas and legends associated with the son of Shah Jahan. In very short order, that article became a rat's nest of doubtful information and edit wars. I learned my lesson in Taj article: identify the misinformation and reject it. An edit note after a delete saying: 'delete: this is a legend -- see Legends and theories section' seems to calm things down. Thus a list of articles not stolen from the tomb -- otherwise these start appearing in enthusiastic edits, followed by accusations of insensitive-christian-western-white-man-ism when deleted.

As I said, the problem with article will not be putting in best information, but rather establishing a framework for maintenance. This article in particular is prone to haphazard editing by young, enthusiastic, misinformed editors. Properly structured, it seems to me, the article itself can help resist the inclusion of foolishness.

So have a go at a prototype!--Nemonoman 14:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok will do - I'll have a crack at it tonight and report back in the morning - till then. --Joopercoopers 14:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Jolly good, will watch with interest.

Regarding the above - there actually is a good reason to find consensus on the approach of the section rather than the verbiage - it will allow flexibility and 'improvement' of the verbiage but sets defined limits on what can and can't be added in respect of undue weight. A thought. --Joopercoopers 14:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of Myths section

It is clear from the accounts of its inception and the subsequent court histories, that Shah Jahan intended the Taj Mahal to be acclaimed by the entire world. It can be argued that he was almost entirely successful in this pursuit. Since its construction the building has been the source of an admiration that has transcended cultures and geography to the extent that the personal and emotional responses to the building have consistently eclipsed the scholastic appraisals of the monument. Some of these responses are now so old or compeling that they are imbedded in a global psyche and are often repeated as fact in opposition to the scholastic consensus. Others have attempted to use or promote misinformation about the Taj for political or self-serving advantage.

Engraving of Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, one of the first European visitors to the Taj Mahal and source of the Black Taj myth

A longstanding popular tradition holds that an identical mausoleum complex for Shah Jahan was to be built in black marble instead of white on the site of the moonlight garden. Known as the 'black taj' this idea can trace its roots to the fanciful writings of an early european traveller called Jean-Baptiste Tavernier who visited Agra in 1665 whilst Jahan was incarcerated in the Agra Fort. The story suggests that Shah Jahan was overthrown by his son Aurangzeb before the black version could be built. Excavations of the moonlight garden were carried out in the 1990s and found no evidence of such foundations in the ruins of the garden, only white marble features discoloured completely to black by polution and the frequent flooding of the site. Speculation continues that the black taj may refer to the reflection of the Taj in the large pool of the garden or possibly the reflection, seen by Jahan in his last days from Agra fort, through imperfect mirrors.

The lack of complete and reliable information as to whom the credit for the design belongs, has lead to innumerable speculations. The most notable and frequently repeated is that the Taj Mahal's architect was Ustad Isa from Ottoman Turkey. Reliable sources suggest the story is fictious, and was born of the readiness of the British in the 19th century to believe that such a beautiful building should be credited to a European architect. Local informants are also reported to have supplied the British with ficticious lists of workmen and materials from all over Asia. A related and earlier notion, first documented by the Spanish friar Sebastian Manrique in 1641, suggests the monument was the work of the Venetian goldsmith called Geronimo Veroneo.

In a pattern typical of many of the world's most famous building, a number of stories describe, often in horrific detail, the deaths, dismemberments and mutilations which Shah Jahan inflicted on various architects and craftsmen associated with the tomb. More conservative stories moderate the idea to that of a contract signed by those involved in the building's construction committing to have no part in any similar design. No evidence for these claims exist.

There is an often-repeated story that Lord William Bentinck, governor of India in the 1830s, planned to demolish the Taj Mahal and auction off the marble. There is no contemporary evidence for this story, which may have emerged in the late nineteenth century when Bentinck was being criticised for his penny-pinching Utilitarianism, and when Lord Curzon was emphasising earlier neglect of the monument, and presenting himself as a saviour of Indian antiquities. According to Bentinck's biographer John Rosselli, the story arose from Bentinck's fund-raising sale of discarded marble from Agra Fort and of the metal from a famous but obsolete Agra cannon. However, others, led by the Archaeological Survey of India, still believe and argue that a sale by the British East India Company was planned under Lord Bentinck's watch, though no satisfactory buyers were found.

In recent years, elements within India have become interested in the ideas of P.N. Oak. He claims that the origins of the Taj, together with all the other historic structures in the country currently ascribed to Muslim sultans, pre-date the Muslim occupation of India and have a Hindu origin. In 2000 India's Supreme Court dismissed Oak's petition to declare that a Hindu king built the Taj Mahal and reprimanded him for bringing the action.

A more poetic story relates that once a year, a single drop of water falls on the cenotaph during the rainy season, paralleling the Bengali poet Rabindranath Tagore's description of the tomb as "one solitary tear hanging on the cheek of time".

Any comments or thoughts for inclusion/deletion/rewriting? --Joopercoopers 01:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that "India has become interested in the ideas of P.N. Oak" - that implies greater popularity and currency than they actually enjoy. Perhaps "the ideas of P.N. Oak have acquired some notoriety in India" ? Sikandarji 15:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

As it stands, it's about as neutral as I can make it - Oak's notoriety appears to be global, whereas the actual interest in his ideas appears confined to india. edit as you see fit though. --Joopercoopers 15:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've specified it a little more - "elements within India have become interested in the ideas of P.N. Oak" - hows that? --Joopercoopers 18:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Should be fine - I would say that outside India (and sections of the diaspora) he isn't even notorious: I know about him because I've done some work on Indian history and I've spent a lot of time there, and even within India he's not taken very seriously. The problem is that in the weird and wacky world of the internet, with its thousands of spiralling conspiracy theories, people like Oak come to acquire a wholly exaggerated significance - that's how he became so prominent on this page. Sikandarji 19:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

a redirect has been made for the common misspelling of taj mahal:

Tai_Mahal

Thank you --'•Tbone55•^{(Talk) (Contribs) (UBX) (autographbook)} 20:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Badshahnama

Here, finally, is the text and translation I promised. Sorry it's taken so long - my Persian isn't all that good, and I had to get some help from a friend:

Persian text

روز جمعه هفدهم جمادي الاولیا نعش مقدس مسافر اقليم تقدس حضرت مهد عليا ممتاز الزماني را که بطريق امانت مدفون بود مصحوب بادشاهزاد نامدار محمد شاه شجاع بهادور و وزير خان و ستي النساء خانم که بمزاج شناسی و کارداني بدرجهء اولای پيش دستي و وکالت آن مالکهء جهان ملکهء جهانيان رسيده بود روانهء دار الخلافهء اکبر آباد نمودند - و حکم شد که هر روز در راه آش بسيار و دراهم و دنانير بی شمار بفقرا و نيازمندان بدهند - و زمينی در نهايت رفعت و نزاهت که جنوب رويهء آن مصر جامع است - و پيش ازين منزل رجه مانسنگه بود - و درينوقت براجه جيسنگه نبير او تعلق داشت - برای مدفن آن بهشت موطن بر گزيدند - اگرچه رجه جيسنگه حصول اين دولت را فوز عظيم دانست - اما از روی احتياط که در جميع شيون خاصوصا امور دينيه ناگزير است - در عوض آن عالي منزلی از خالصهء شريفه باو مرحمت فرمودند - بعد از رسيدن نعش بأن شهر کرامت بهر پانزدهم جمادي الثانيه سال آينده پيگر نورانئ آن آسماني جوهر بخاک پاک سپرده آمد و متصديان دار الخلافه بحکم معلیا عجالة الوقت تربت فلک مرتبت آن جهان عفت را از نظر پوشيدند - و عمارتی عاليشان و گنبذی رفيع بنيان - که تا رستخيز در بلندي همت گردون رفعت حضرت صاحبقران ثاني باشد - و در استواري نمودار استقامت عزايم باني - طرح افگندند - و مهندسان دور بين و معماران صنعت آفرين چهل لک روپيه اخراجات اين عمارت براورد نمودند

'Abd al-Hamid Lahawri Badshah Namah Ed. Maulawis Kabir al-Din Ahmad and 'Abd al-Rahim under the superintendence of Major W. N. Lees. Vol. I Calcutta 1867 pp402-3

English translation

"On Friday 17th of the month of Jumadi al-awlia (Jumadi 1) people transported the blessed bier of the traveller to the holy iqlim [clime], Hazrat mahd-‘aliya Mumtaz al-Zamani, in order that Mumtaz al-Zamani might be buried in accordance with religious practice, together with the renowned prince Mahmud Shah Shujah Bahadur and Wazir Khan and Sati al-nissa Khanym, whose wisdom and sagacity had elevated that worldly queen of the empire of mortals to a state of absolute pre-eminence and vicegerency, to Akbarabad [Agra], the Dar al-khilafa. And an order went out that every day along the road people should hand out lots of food and countless dirhams and dinars to the poor and needy. And there is an area of land which is incomparably exalted and delectable, whose southern boundary abuts onto a mosque. And previously this was the manzil [halting-place, caravanserai] of Rajah Man Singh. And at that time his grandson Jai Singh held the ta‘luq [lordship, possession]. It was chosen for the burial of that dweller in paradise. This was despite the fact that the Rajah of Agra Jai Singh recognised this possession to be an extremely valuable resource. But on account of that need which brooks no opposition in all things, particularly in matters of religion, they requested that he relinquish that manzil from out of his own noble possession. After the bier’s arrival at that city of remarkable beauty on the 15th of Jumadi al-thaniyah (Jumadi 2)of the [coming?] year, the shining face of that bejewelled heaven was laid in the pure earth. Following orders by the eminent ‘ajalat al-waqt, lowly officials of the Dar al-khilafa concealed the virtuous princess from people’s gaze by building a mausoleum which reached up to the heavens. They laid the foundations for an enormous building, with great wide domes: may it last until Judgement Day in the form intended by his heavenly-elevated eminence, the second Sahib-i Quran [i.e. Shah Jahan, the 2nd Timur], as a resolute example of great building works. Far-sighted engineers and skilled architects expended forty lakhs of rupees [Rs.4,000,000] on the construction of this building."

That seems pretty clear - the translation of Manzil has been disputed, but in Persian it does not suggest a large building, and in any case the subsequent construction is described clearly. Should this go on the main page? Sikandarji 13:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you Sikandarji! Can you identify the source and date of the original text?--Nemonoman 13:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That's fantastic. here's the citable translation of manzil you left on my talk page yesterday. --Joopercoopers 13:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The Badshahnama of Lahauri is the official court chronicle of Shah Jahan's reign, composed in the 1670s or 1680s. If you want to see just how much conspiratorial crap this one passage has generated over the years, just try typing "Badshahnama" into Google and see some of the poisonous rubbish that comes up. The passage is always paraphrased, never accurately or fully translated, and with the section at the end which describes the building of the Taj carefully ignored or omitted (see for instance that charlatan Stephen Knapp's website, where he has a scan of the printed edition of page 403 of the Badshahnama which is so blurred as to be illegible - and with no translation). Hopefully this full and accurate transcription and translation will help lay these absurd myths to rest. Sikandarji 15:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you think the translation from the Badshahnama should go on the main page? It might deter a few conspiracy theorists, and it would help provide a strong antidote to all those websites which refer to that page as proof that Shah Jahan didn't build the Taj Mahal. It isn't actually available in translation anywhere else and we might be performing a considerable public service. Sikandarji 14:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

My initial thought is we should include it in full as a footnote, but I seem to remember reading a policy somewhere about translation that discourages using personally translated material as a citation...........let me go and check..........--Joopercoopers 14:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[indent]Yep, here it is on Wikipedia:Attribution#Language

"English-language sources should be used whenever possible, because this is the English Wikipedia. Sources in other languages are acceptable if no English equivalents have been found. Published translations are preferred to editors' translations; when editors use their own translations, the original-language material should be provided too, preferably in a footnote, so that readers can check the translation for themselves."

There's some other problems with its inclusion though on WP:ATT#Primary_and_secondary_sources.
So we have to include the persian and english, in a footnote and cite it from a secondary source if possible, phew! Are you sure this book Begley, Wayne E. Taj Mahal - The Illumined Tomb. University of Washington Press. p. 392. ISBN 978-0295969442. {{cite book}}: |format= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |origdate= ignored (|orig-date= suggested) (help) doesn't contain a translation we could use - Koch seems to refer to it a lot for her translations - I've got it on order from amazon but they've just informed me its going to be a month or two before it arrives. grrrr. --Joopercoopers 15:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It does exist here though [4] any chance? --Joopercoopers 15:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll see if I can pop up to the Indian Institute tomorrow and have a look. We do have the Persian text so that people can check the translation, plus it comes from a published edition of the Badshahnama which is a source that can be found in libraries and therefore does not constitute original research per se, as it would if it were in manuscript. Sikandarji 15:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

search for a secondary source

You're right, there is a translation of this passage of the Badshahnama in Begley and Desai (I could have saved myself a whole lot of trouble). One problem is that, for reasons best known to themselves, they have chosen to translate Manzil, as "Mansion" (Why? on the principle of assonance?) More seriously, perhaps, there is a bit of a discrepancy between my translation of one passage: "This was despite the fact that the Rajah of Agra Jai Singh recognised this possession to be an extremely valuable resource. But on account of that need which brooks no opposition in all things, particularly in matters of religion, they requested that he relinquish that manzil from out of his own noble possession." and theirs, which runs: "Even though Raja Jai Singh considered the acquisition (husul) of this to be his good fortune and a great success, by way of utmost care, which is absolutely necessary in all important things, particularly in religious matters, a lofty mansion from the crown estates (khalisa-sharifa) was granted to him in exchange ( 'iwad)." On looking over the Persian again I think they're probably right on this one. In any case I think Wikipedia rules dictate that we should use their translation, as using mine in preference to it in these circumstances would constitute "original research". It doesn't matter too much anyway: this text, and that of all the other contemporary chronicles of which there are translations in the Begley & Desai volume make it quite clear that this is a new building.

W.E. Begley and Z.A. Desai (Ed., Comp. & Trans.): Taj Mahal : the illumined tomb : an anthology of seventeenth-century Mughal and European documentary sources (Cambridge, MA & Seattle WA: Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture) 1989 pp42-3

"5.2. LAHORI

Body of the Queen taken to Akbarabad

On Friday, the 17th of Jumada I [or 21 Jumada I 1041/15 December 1631?], the holy dead body of the traveler {sic} to the realm (iqlim) of piety, her late Majesty the Queen Mumtaz al-Zamani, which had been temporarily (ba-tariq-i-amanat) buried, [p.403] was dispatched to the Abode of the Caliphate Akbarabad, accompanied by the illustrious Prince Muhammad Shah Shuja' Bahadur,Wazir Khan and Satti al-Nisa Khanan, who had risen, through temperamental compatibility {!} and skill, to the exalted position of chief Lady-in-Waiting and deputyship of that Lady of the world and the Queen of the people of the world. And it was ordered that all along the way, every day abundant food and innumerable silver and gold coins should be given to the needy and the indigent.

As there was a large tract of land (zamini) of great eminence and pleasantness towards the south of that large city, on which there was before this the mansion (manzil) of Raja Man Singh, and which now belonged to his grandson Raja Jai Singh, it was selected for the burial place (madfan) of that tenant of Paradise. Even though Raja Jai Singh considered the acquisition (husul) of this to be his good fortune and a great success, by way of utmost care, which is absolutely necessary in all important things, particularly in religious matters, a lofty mansion from the crown estates (khalisa-sharifa) was granted to him in exchange ( 'iwad).

After the arrival of the dead body in that highly dignified city, on the 15th Jumada II 1041 [8 January 1632] of the next regnal year, the luminous body of that heavenly essence was confined to the holy earth. The overseers (mutasaddiyan) of the Abode of the Caliphate, under exalted orders, hastily concealed from the public gaze (nazar) the heaven-ranked grave (turbat) of that world of chastity.

Foundation of the Tomb

And plans were laid out (tarah afganand) for a magnificent building ( 'imarat-i-alishan) and a dome (gumbadi) of lofty foundation (rafi-'buniyan), which for height (dar bulandi) will, until the day of resurrection, remain a memorial to the sky-high aspiration of his Majesty the Second Sahib-Qiran and which for strength (dar ustwari) will display the firmness of the intentions of its builder. And the far-seeing engineers (muhandisan) and art-creating architects (mi'maran-i-sanat-afrin) estimated the cost of this building ( 'imarat) would be 40 lakhs of rupees." Sikandarji 15:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that Sikandarji, the plot thickens.........looking at your translation link again here I notice that about the ninth meaning of manzil is mansion, that said a search for the persian word for mansion [5] yields 67 results - discounting 27-28 of them for lunar mansions (although manzil is one of these) that still leaves 40-odd words in persian for mansion????? Reading Koch last night, she says that lahauri's use of language to describe jahan's buildings was consistent in its use of terms (I think, need to read the passage again) so either 1. Begley and Desai have mistranslated the passage or 2. Manzil is the appropriate Persian word or 3. Lahauri was in the habit of using Manzil to mean mansion and a scholar who's read all his writings can rightly translate it that way. We can only report the scholars, if they say it means a mansion, it's a mansion.......I'm starting to think an email to Koch, Begley and Desai might be in order so they can point us in the right direction. --Joopercoopers 15:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there's no need - Koch, p.261-262 offers a glossary "Manzil" - Mansion of a noble;in later Mughal times replaced by the term haveli. We've got Begley, Desai and Koch (Koch used Dr Yunus Jaffery for her translations) all translating Manzil as mansion, so we're duty bound to write it up like that - I'm relaxed about that, it makes sense that such a prominent and well appointed location should contain some kind of structure. --Joopercoopers 23:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh-ho - well I know Dr Jaffery quite well - I had Persian lessons with him in Delhi for two months last year, and I'm not sure there's any greater expert on Indian Persian. He's certainly very familiar with the text of the Badshahnama. I could call him up and ask him if you like, although he might be a little surprised to hear from me out of the blue like that. Sikandarji 07:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Good grief, what a small world. That would be great, if only for peace of mind - I did look for his email address but couldn't find one.--Joopercoopers 12:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidences

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/photographic_evidence_of_vedic_influence.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.140.148.33 (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Old news, belongs to same category as cheese-made-moon, ancient astronauts, and the tooth fairy. --Ragib 21:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Taj Mahal

I think you should write the correct history and then when people have to do reports, they have the right info —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.156.236.116 (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Luftwaffe?

Did the Brits really think the Luftwaffe could bomb the Taj Mahal? With Junkers taking off from Italian East Africa? Seems unlikely; some war historian should look into this. The Japanese got much closer but that's another matter. Axel 19:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Good question - I'll look into it. --Joopercoopers 19:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Unesco infobox

Really...An info box with 2 footnotes, including one that says that 'Asia Pacific' is a the official designation of the Asia pacific area?? That tells us the official name of Taj Mahal is Taj Mahal?

None of this information is of particular use.

I might as well put the 'Stairway' infobox: Number of stairs leading to Mausoleum: 2 Number of steps¹: 15 each Height of riser²: 20 cm

^{1 Step is the official designation of the ASA 2 some people measure in inches}

etc.

The 1983 date of its designation is in the first paragraph. A footnote might be added:

It was listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1983 when it was described as a "universally admired masterpieces of the world's heritage".^{1 1 Designated as ID 252 during the 7th session.} Enough. Even that isn't needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nemonoman (talk • contribs) 11:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

I've ditched it altogether - it's adding nothing to the article other than layout headaches. --Joopercoopers 17:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Finial

The finial was made of gold until the early 1800s, and it is now made of bronze.

A minor point, but reading this, I wanted the article to answer the immediate natural question: Why? Tempshill 16:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hindi and Urdu

Dear Nemonoman (and anybody else interested),

This is about one edition of mine (May 25th, 2007) on ranking of Hindi/Urdu in the article Taj Mahal.

Thank you for your interest and your « accepting the Hindi/Urdu swap. I imagine this order has political implications of which I am ignorant. »

Perhaps it would be appropriate to remember here that the Indian Constitution recognises Hindi and English as the official languages, together with other 22 co-official “regional” languages. One of these is Urdu, the national language of Pakistan and used by many people in Northern India, including the state of Uttar Pradesh where Taj Mahal is located.

Hindi-Urdu grammar is basically one and the same, usually referred to as Hindustani. As a matter of fact, both languages are variants of each other, with mutually understandable colloquial speeches. Direct descendants of Sanskrit, they do vastly differ in literary and formal vocabulary. In this respect, Urdu draws now preferably on Persian and Arabic, while Hindi goes on drawing heavily on Sanskrit.

The religious basis and political consequences of this process are easy to find out. Certainly it does politically affect the order of both languages in a sentence, depending on whether we talk about India or Pakistan.

Kind regards, Zack Holly Venturi 11:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Nemonoman knows this. It's the childish pettiness of this ethnic precedence-seeking that is depressing. Paul B 12:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Paul, but sadly, I fear it is misplaced. I've never seen such a tangled mess of conflicting ethnic boosterism as I have since I started editing Wikipedia. I've gotten smart enough to figure out that I have stepped into a minefield, but I'm still not smart to figure out what's going to blow up in my face.

I have managed grudging agreement with the Hindi translation, but I still see no more reason for the URDU transtlation than I did when editors added Persian, Arabic, and if memory serves, Esperanto translations. All, I'm sure, felt that they had compelling reasons for their additions. --Nemonoman 16:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The spelling in Persian and Arabic would be the same as in Urdu anyway. Sikandarji 10:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

And I should have added that there is a very good reason for giving the name in the arabic script, as this shows how it would be spelt in contemporary Persian chronicles. Urdu is a vital language of literature and high culture for much of Northern India, and given that the Taj Mahal is, to some extent at least, a Muslim monument, it seems reasonable that both alternative spellings (Hindi and Urdu being more or less the same language, apart from the script) should be given. As I say, with the Urdu spelling you're killing three birds with one stone....Sikandarji 08:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Black Taj Mahal should be removed from the Myth section

File:Black taj mahal foundation.jpg

The unfinished foundation of Black Taj Mahal, as seen from satellite, across Yamuna river from The Taj Mahal.

As shown by the image, there was unfinished foundation of "mirror" image of Taj Mahal. Perhaps its

not a myth at all. See the image on Google maps.

Yes, but is it of an unfinished "black" Taj? Nothing suggests that this building is, was or might have been black. Paul B 17:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It always was an integral part of the complex - but certainly wasn't a black taj.......

Moonlight garden (Mahtab Bagh)

To the north of the Taj Mahal complex, across the river is another Charbagh garden. It was designed as an integral part of the complex in the riverfront terrace pattern seen elsewhere in Agra. Its width is identical to that of the rest of the Taj. The garden historian Elizabeth Moynihan suggests the large ocatagonal pool in the centre of the terrace would reflect the image of the Mausoleum and thus the garden would provide a setting to view the Taj Mahal. The garden has been beset by flooding from the river since Mughal times. As a result, the condition of the remaining structures is quite ruinous. Four sandstone towers marked the corners of the garden, only the southeastward one remains. The foundations of two structures remain immediately north and south of the large pool which were probably garden pavilions. From the northern structure a stepped waterfall would have fed the pool. The garden to the north has the typical square, cross-axial plan with a square pool in its centre. To the west an aquaduct fed the garden.

--Joopercoopers 15:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'd looked up the basic facts about the garden, but hadn't had time to check out the details. I believe it has been recently excavated. It's worth noting that the editor who uploaded this has created a page Black Taj that needs to be looked at. No time at the moment! Paul B 15:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've redirected it here. It was a partly incoherent and barely concealed advertisment for someone making a model of what the BT might have looked like. Paul B 16:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's find out more about the fact of Mahtab Garden and add it to the main Taj Mahal article. I presumed that it was the foundation of Black Taj which is so often talked about. Uploaded the image when I saw it on Google Earth. ~atif - 17:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW who created article for BT?? ~atif - 17:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was created by User:Fizasr, who is possibly one Iftakhar Nadime Khan, advertising the fact that he is making a miniature model of the BT in ebony. Fizasr hasn't made any edits to any other page. I wrongly implied earlier that the article was created by the person who uploaded the image (i.e. you). Paul B 13:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Aren't google earth images copyvio - or are we allowed to use them now? --Joopercoopers 13:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

YATMSS (Yet another Taj Mahal Snapshot)

Anyone who has been there has several. This article is already overcrowded with photos. New photos should either replace an existing photo (by providing a significant and appreciable improvement), or show some aspect of the Taj Mahal that has not already been pictured. --Nemonoman 03:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)