Talk:Qutb Minar complex

India: Delhi / History / Protected areas Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Delhi (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Protected areas of India workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article was last assessed in May 2012.

Historic sites

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

This page need to be merged with Qutub Minar or removed --NEWUSER|CARPEDIEM ^(talk) 12:49, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Nope, I don't see why. There's a substantial article over there.--Bobak 20:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't either. I don't know how this idea came up. I think both the subjects deserves their own articles here. Unitedroad 07:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misawite[edit]

obviously, this name is used only in the article in "current science". You cannot find it in "Current Contents" or the "Web of Science". There must be a more familiar name for this kind of rust (delta-FeOOH). Plehn 16:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO NEED QUTUB MNAR IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN QUTUB COMPLEX—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gigsat (talk • contribs)

different page for iron pillar[edit]

i feel that the iron pillar, being the most amazing and curious wonders of the world, shall be demerged from this article and started as an separate one.

also it sometimes tends to give a feeling that both the minarets are somewhat related (to the ignorants).

the article of qutub complex shall be merged with Qutub Minar with a mention of iron pillar, but the iron pillar deserves a separate article in its own headings. anyways lookin forward to ur suggestions.

nids 20:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this article does not mention when was the iron pillar moved to this site. if it wasnt here originally. nids 17:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qutb or Qutub?[edit]

I believe that the correct spelling is Qutub and not Qutb as used in this article. Would welcome opinions on this before someone makes a change.

Since it is not an english word and is based upon a person's name, both are prevalent -- Lost^(talk) 09:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling varies from source to source due to it being translated from Urdu. The Iron Pillar had been there since earlier (along with the 27 Hindu and Jain temples mentioned in the article Qutb Complex). Aybak simply started building with the pillar still there.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aftab94 (talk • contribs) .

I have always heard it pronounced "Qutub", with a vowel between the last two consonants. And I believe that's the commonest spelling.

--iFaqeer 07:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the people who take care of the Complex call it "Qutub" I submit that should resolve the situation.. It's their joint, let them call it.

File:M:\India RAW\India Visit II - 2015\Pentax\114 0110\imgp3117.jpg

sign at the Qutub Complex

Whether the weather will whither[edit]

"...despite harsh weather. Its unusually good corrosion resistance appears to be due to a high phosphorus content, which together with favorable local weather conditions..."

This statement is a bit contradictory. Does anyone have an idea of whether the weather is good or bad there?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.150.67 (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDIA Banner/Delhi Addition[edit]

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Delhi workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Delhi or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 04:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh[edit]

It has been discovered that this book:

Gupta, Om. Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Gyan Publishing House, 2006. ISBN 8182053897, 9788182053892.

Contains significant amounts of material plagiarized from Wikipedia articles. (Some other books from the same publisher also have this problem). There is no practical way of determining which material came from Wikipedia, and which came from other sources. Further, widespread plagiarism is an indication of poor scholarship. For those reasons, and according to Wikipedia policy, WP:CIRCULAR, I will deleting all citations to the book. However I will not delete the material that cites it, as there's no indication that the material is inaccurate. For more background, see WP:RSN#Circular references: Gyan Publishing and ISHA Books, or the archive after it goes there. Will Beback talk 22:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Pathological bigotry"[edit]

Hello,

I have changed the following sentence:

However, many historians were unanimous regarding the fact that Qutb ud-Din Aibaq like many other Muslim rulers, had a pathological bigotry and distaste towards henotheistic values, and intolerance on cultures considered anathema in Islamic dogma, which had impelled him to vandalise those historic monuments.

This is because the source does not mention "pathological bigotry", "vandalise", etc. Also, the language used seems anachronistic and may fall under WP:NPOV and WP:Label. The source is actually a blog post disputing mainstream historians' account, I am not sure it is really worthy of inclusion in the first place seeing as the article has generally good standards of sourcing everywhere else. 183.89.30.247 (talk) 05:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Qutb complex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101214044938/http://archnet.org/library/sites/one-site.jsp?site_id=7605 to http://www.archnet.org/library/sites/one-site.jsp?site_id=7605

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chance of Vandalizm[edit]

It is requested to the administrators to make the page at least semi protected. We can watch repeated editing without sources in this page. kindly see few last editings. pl make it correct. Pinakpani (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

@Hisham: I undid this move, because Qutab is not the most common spelling in reliable sources, or elsewhere, for that matter (see WP:COMMONNAME).

Google Books search results for:

"Qutab complex" -wikipedia: 186
"Qutub complex" -wikipedia: 1030
"Qutb complex" -wikipedia: >3000

The Archaeological Survey of India also uses "Qutb". A discussed move is better than a unilateral move in this situation. Feel free to file a move request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. utcursch | talk 22:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

utcursch My bad! I agree. Thank you for correcting it. Hisham (talk) 01:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]