Talk:Ateshgah of Baku

Some evidences about fire temple of Baku as a Zoroastrian atashkade

Dear Sirs!

If it is possible, please, add this info in “Hindu or Zoroastrian?” section:

______

In “Ashkharatsuyts” (VII century) in the province Paytakaran was mentioned toponym “Yotnporakyan Bagink” (“Place with seven worshiped holes”). Thousand years later “seven holes with eternal fires” were mentioned by German traveler Engelbert Kämpfer who visited Surakhany in 1683..

“Surakhany” in Tati (language of Surakhany, close to Persian) means “hole with the fountain”. In other words, “Yotnporakyan Bagink” and “Surakhany” is practically calques.

Armenian historian Ghevond (VIII century), describing the invasion of the Khazars in the Caucasian Albania in 730, mentioned area “Atshi-Baguan”. Sarah Ashurbeyli notes that the “Atsh” is distorted “Atesh” (“fire”) and “Atshi-Baguan” means “Fires of Baguan” and that we are talking about Baku. Word “Baguan” comes from the word “Baga” which means “God” in Old Persian

In general, eternal flames of Apsheron peninsula were worshiped not later Sassanian times.

Estakhri (X century) mentioned that not far from Baku (i.e., on the Apsheron Peninsula) lived fire worshippers. This was confirmed by Movses Daskhurantsi in his reference of the province of Bhagavan (“Fields of the Gods” i.e., “Fire Gods”).

In XVIII century Atashgah was visited by Zoroastrian. This confirms the Persian handwriting Naskh inscription over the entrance aperture of one of the cells, which speaks about the visit of Zoroastrians from Isfahan:

The Persian inscription above the entrance to one of the cells

Transliteration of Persian inscription:

ātaši saf kešide hamčon dak

jey be vāni reside tā bādak

sāl-e nav-e nozl mobārak bād goft

xāne šod ru *sombole sane-ye hazār-o-sad-o-panjāh-o-haštom

Translation:

Fire worshippers stand in line, like naked (trees?)

Isfahani came from Vani to Badak

"Blessed the lavish New Year", he said

The house was built in the month of Ear in 1158nd year.

The 1158 year corresponds to 1745 AD. Van is implied as the Shirvan region or Bhagavan. The word Badak is a diminutive of Bad-e Kube. (The name of Baku in the sources of the XVII and XVIII centuries was Bad-e Kube). At the end of the reference is the constellation of Sombole /Virgo (August-September). In the name of the month the master mistakenly shifted the “l” and “h” at the end of the word. According to Zoroastrian calendar Qadimi New Year in 1745 AD was in August.

Interesting information about Zoroastrian from Baku mentioned by D. Shapiro in “A Karaite from Wolhynia meets a Zoroastrian from Baku”. Avraham Firkowicz, a Karaite collector, wrote about his meeting in Darband in 1840 with fireworshiper from Baku. Russian officer introduced the fireworshipper to Firkowicz as the “Bramin”. Firkowicz asked him “Why do you worship fire?” Fireworshiper replied that they do not worship fire at all, but the Creator, which is not a person, but rather a “matter” (abstraction) called Q’rţ’, and symbolized by fire. Term Q’rţ’ (“kirdar”) means in Pahlavi and Zoroastrian Persian “one who does”, “creator”.

--Farroukh (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

I will more discussion, references and some photographs here.

Also we need a page on Hindu temples of Kabul.

[[== is this a Hindu temple? ==No its not a Hindu temple.Snaskrit is an old language among aryans .there are still many words in modern persian language that have the sanskrit root.I see in this article the majir role of aryan tribe in ioranian platu has been ignored.]]

?--Dangerous-Boy 18:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

its a zoroastrian temple.Khosrow II 22:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The fire temple at Baku really is a Hindu temple. Just because the name means fire temple, doesn't mean that that all fire temples are Zoroastrian. As I noted in my comment, which you appear to have missed (along with the article itself), the cues all point to Vedic religion. If the Fire Temple at Baku were really Zoroastrian it would be the only one of its kind (that is not fed by wood). ps: I'm a Zoroastrian myself. :) -- Fullstop 16:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

so are you a parsi? ok, i'll take your word for it for now ;) Khosrow II 16:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Kosrow, have you looked at the links referred to by the article? Such as:

• My Travels Outside Bombay Iran, Azerbaijan, Baku

There are some nice tableaux pictures from the museum in the above mentioned link. -- Fullstop 16:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I said i'd take your word for it, you can correct the article. :) so i assume you are a parsi?Khosrow II 16:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Khosrow, why did you revert again? I thought we had settled the affair. -- Fullstop 11:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed Hindu temple or of related religion. Since vedic symbols and swastika are present it maybe related to Jainism (?). Last monk died there in 1880, and the sight was disused.However, the temple site is old and was referred to as Atashgah. Hindu traders built temple there in 1740s under Baku Khanate. I am sure that there was something before that, since the fire was there!abdulnr 22:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Historical docs prove it was a Mandir.Bakaman _Bakatalk 04:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow

Have to say, made my way here by chance and I'm very surprised to find that this template contains inscriptions from the Adi Granth (see [1])! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of the Hindu traders were from Lahore and Multan so many of our Sikh brethren must have came as well.Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a question.

This is an excellent article. But I'm confused about one thing.

I just saw a BBC feature Around the World in 80 Treasures. (Wikipedia episode description here.) The host said the Fire Temple of Baku, or perhaps the site--I don't remember his exact words, was important to the genesis of Zoroastrianism.

But (during one of the too rare occasions when the camera was filming the structure rather than the host) I saw an inscription over the front entrance that looked a lot like the Jain swastika. Having never heard of the temple I looked it up.

On the one side, there's local legend, as mentioned by the article here. I'm extremely sceptical of claims that Zoroaster personally lived in the area. And other statements don't really strike me one way or the other. (E.g., "[Zoroaster']s idea to use fire as a metaphor for the mysteries of God probably came from witnessing the spontaneous flames that rise so eerily from Azerbaijan's Absheron Peninsula." [[2]])

On the other side, I found what's here.

Local legend associates the temple at Surakhany with the Fire temples of Zoroastrianism, but this is presumably based on a misunderstanding of the term Atashgah ... 'place of fire' in Persian, but in Zoroastrianism is the technical term for the altar-like repository for a sacred wood-fire or for the protected innermost sanctum where that fire altar stands (but not of the greater building around it).
... [a pre-1780s] Zoroastrian place of worship cannot be ruled out, but there is no evidence to suggest [it]. The use of natural gas is not in accord with Zoroastrian ritual use.

[Emphasis added.] Supported by a comment on this talk page that:

If the Fire Temple at Baku were really Zoroastrian it would be the only one of its kind (that is not fed by wood).

Well, the BBC TV programme did not impress me, and it wouldn't be difficult to persuade me it was full of false information. OTOH, usually there's some kernel of truth in such folklore. But not always, and though I'm disinclined to think the tourist boards made the whole thing up based on a single word language collision, I have no knowledge to dispute the claim of "no evidence." (Except to point out that one Farroukh Isfandzadeh, quoted on the page where the cited abstract resides, seems to think he has some evidence.)

Still, one bit of the logic here troubles me. Wouldn't the uniqueness of the site explain the uniqueness of the temple's fire source, that is, let's say:

1. An ancient traveller's religion views fire as a divine symbol. The temples of his religion house sacred wood fires.

2. There are only a tiny handful of naturally occurring "eternal fires" in the world. These fires are caused by natural gas escaping through vents from within the earth.

3. Our hero described in (1) happens upon the natural phenomenon described in (2). How does he react?

a) Wow. This is cool. A fire that burns eternally unattended? This must be indeed holy ground. I wish God would bless my temple back home with an eternal fire like this one! But I've never heard of such a thing outside legend. Let's build a temple. And I will continue to help tend my own sacred wood fire back home--with renewed vigour after seeing this miracle.

or:

b) Pfui. Sacred fires are made of wood. This is [some ancient word describing natural gas as a familiar everyday substance].

If I'm reading the argument correctly, then, to me, that particular bit reads less compelling than the rest. *shrug*

Snakesteuben (talk) 07:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The picture in the minds of the locals would have been molded by what they have heard from their polemicists, i.e. the usual "fire-worshiper" cruft. Simultaneously, they would have known nothing of Hinduism, and would have had no alternative explanation for the strange people hanging about the place.

Of course, the erroneous conclusions can only be reached when nothing is actually known of the role fire and water play in Zoroastrianism, or how "fire" temples work, or that scripture mandates the burning of wood (particular kinds of wood), or the obsession with ritual purity etc.

They would have been equally unaware that a Zoroastrian temple cannot be on the top of an elevation since water--unlike gas--is heavier than air (it would indeed be miraculous to find a stream of water running uphill, which--alas--is not the case at Baku). The notion that fire itself is exalted in Zoroastrianism is about as simplistic as the notion that Christmas-tree lights, unleavened bread and wine are exalted in Christianity, or that seven/nine candles are exalted in Judaism, or that black rocks are exalted in Islam.

Unbound by any practical considerations, the fantasy can then also be freely anachronistic. Like that tourism webpage projection, which would be no less absurd if it said Christ took photos of the crucifix hanging in the Canterbury cathedral.

Its all part of the region's tourist-oriented "ancient Zoroastrian heritage" sales pitch (can be found on WP as well, e.g. the synthesis here and here). Although the identification with Zoroastrianism may have once been out of ignorance, in our day and age it is quite obviously intentionally misleading. Like the picture of the sadhu on that webpage, which is actually a photo of a tableau-figure from the museum in Baku, and which is there accompanied by an explanation of Hindu ascetics. (btw: what use would a monastery be to a religion like Zoroastrianism that has no monks/ascetics?)

-- 16:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

(Answer below my first signature posted by Fullstop (talk). I forget to sign things all the time myself! Snakesteuben (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC))

Wow. That was fast. Thank you very much for your answer. Snakesteuben (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason why it is not a Hindu temple

Dear fullstop, the Fire temple of Naku does not deserve at all to be called a Hindu temple. It has a Sassanid architecture and it typically looks like Zoroastrian prayerhouses of that time. It is for example similar to that of Niasar in Iran. The fact that Hindu's userped it for a short time after a Hindu merchant allegedly restored it (sic!) and used it as a Hindu temple does not make it a Hindu temple at all. Above all it is not used as a Hindu temple today. So you may have all rights to protest against it being zoroastrian but at the same time I am more right not seeing it as a Hindu temple. I think it will be fair enough not to label it as Hindu if we do not call it as Zoroastrian either. My edits were aimed to make a neutral edition.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, denying Hinduism their temple doesn't really qualify as "neutral" you know. :)

Anyway,...

• If you are thinking of a char-taq as an model of a Sassanian-era (and later) fire temple, then yes, that building in the center of a courtyard has four arches. But having four arches is the only similarity between that building in the courtyard and a Zoroastrian place of worship. That is also where the similarities end.
• As you probably know, architecture is frequently copied, and it is very possible that the four arches of that tiny little building are a copy of something else. The rest of the architectural features do not represent anything else that is known of (historical or current) Zoroastrian fire temples. For example, the tiny little building is not a part of another building, the fire is not protected from the elements, the building does not have a double dome, and it doesn't have a perimeter leave alone the mandatory groove along the perimeter. There are also other architectural features that indicate its use as a Hindu place of worship, like bas-reliefs on the ceiling, the inscriptions in Gurmurkhi and Sanskrit etc.
• Of course, some of these things may have been added later, but these would not have succeeding in turning a basic Zoroastrian structure turn into a Hindu one. Everything indicates that it must have been built with Hindu practices in mind (I know virtually nothing about Hinduism, so -- more correctly -- it must have been built with non-Zoroastrian practices in mind). There are also doctrinal reasons that disqualify the areal as a fire temple. No fresh water source for example.
• Of course it is still possible that the place was previously venerated in Zoroastrianism in some other way, for example that someone built a small protection to cover the otherwise exposed flame. But for reasons mentioned above, it cannot possibly have been a full Zoroastrian fire temple in any form that we know about, and we have the authority of an exceptionally well-educated Zoroastrian priest who says it was a Hindu, and not a Zoroastrian place of worship.
• Also, we don't know anything about the place before the 1700s. About that time it is it is said to be Hindu, and while they could have recycled the materials or something, no traces of the original buildings (if there were any) have remained.
• The inline comment you added is far from "neutral":
  • "The Hindus dispute the Zoroastrian character of Ateshgah"
    This presumes that a) the Ateshgah has Zoroastrian character, which it definitely does not. b) There is no evidence that Hindus have any opinion whatsoever on Baku, leave alone dispute anything.
  • "Ateshgah is a Persian word, which means fire temple"
    This is incorrect. It means "place of fire", and it is also not the technical Zoroastrian word for a fire temple (it is the technical word for something else). But even if it meant fire temple, there would also be no reason why it cannot also mean Hindu fire temple.
• You also have to remember that people of that region will have had no experience with either Hindus or Zoroastrians; by the time the Hindus came around, the locals would have forgotten everything about Zoroastrianism, and if someone came along who built a fire temple, then it would be perfectly understandable for them to think that it was a "Zoroastrian" fire temple.
• All these facts notwithstanding, the fact that Schippman does not include it in his list of Zoroastrian fire temples is telling. That A. V. Williams Jackson said it was a Hindu temple is good enough for me. And it should also be good enough for you. If that is not enough, then there is the opinion of JJ Modi, who -- as a very highly educated Zoroastrian priest -- sure as heck knew what he was talking about.

Having a char taq is a clue for a Zoroastrian place of worship. But it is not by itself convincing evidence of it. It is not as "obvious" as you think.

I think you need to re-read the article carefully, look at the sources as you go, and keep your mind open. The article was fair, and it was much more accurate (and sourced) than the usual tourist-oriented web sites. -- Fullstop (talk) 09:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Fullstop, are you sure you're Zoroastrian? Sounds like you truly believe that this temple is anything but Iranian. Why is that? Let's see, according to your comments:

• Being located in the ancient Azarbaijan province, the main center for Azar (fire element) in the ancient Persia, is just a similarity.
• The extremely unique "4-taq" Sassanian architecture symbol, in the center of Sassanid fire temples, Azarbaijan(!), is just another similarity.
• Being titled as "Atashgaah", which is a typical name for Sassanian fire temples in Iran, (funny, but we still call the on in Esfahan as Atashgah), is also similarity.
• Architecture is frequently copied, but why so similar to the rare Sassanian fire temple, hindus forgot their own architectural arch elements?
• You apparently forgot, "4-tagh" is the main concept of Iranian architecture in the Sassanid era. Hindu temple, in a typical Zoroastrian fire altar? Is that a joke?
• The "char-taq" concept isn't just a 4 walled cube, as the upper side ends to a "Gunbad", where other buildings and similar cubes differ and similarities end.
• Bas-reliefs never prove anything, otherwise Zoroastra's cube (Kabe Zartosht) in Pars province would be a Sassanid building.
• As you say, of course, some of these things may have been added later, even all of the reliefs. So this clearly shows that it can hardly be a Hindu temple.
• Everything indicates that it must have been built with Hindu practices in mind? But the whole building itself. Did they forget to apply their own architecture style?
• For reasons mentioned above, it has absolutely been a full Zoroastrian fire temple, as it has no Hindu architectural element but some later added graffiti.
• You have the authority of an exceptionally well-educated Zoroastrian priest who says it was a Hindu? I know a whole class of exceptionally well educated and graduated Iranian architecture students, who believe it isn't. And more ironic, three of them are Zoroastrian, who say it is hardly Hindu.
• You don't know anything about the place before the 1700s? Es tut mir leid, then why you do want to prove so hard that it was not Zoroastrian? Are you seriously aware that all your tips given above can be used for depicting a temple for people in Madagascar too? Especially that you have no knowledge about the building's history, in the main center of Persian fire altars. That's seriously similar to a hard effort to just depict the place as none-Persian, as any neutral reader notices. Better change your style.

• "Atashgah" is also not the technical Zoroastrian word for a fire temple? It's easy to speak some thousand years after converting most Sassanid palaces into mosques, but, especially that people in Esfahan, still call one "Atashgah", which is fortunately not outside of current Iranian borders, otherwise we would face some arabic fire temple with the exact elements of Sassanid architecture, including round archs and Zoroastrian fire-altar scaled shapes, somewhere near Asbanbad province.

• Even if it meant fire temple, there would also be no reason why it cannot also mean Hindu fire temple? With this kind of logic, it can mean also "not" hindu, right? Thanks to the discovery of Languages, that already solve this problem.
• Atashgah in Parsi means "Location" of fire, where fire exists. People don't simply call any burning place Atashgah, it is strongly used for special places.
• If someone came along who built a fire temple, It would be understandable for them to think that it was a "Zoroastrian" fire temple? Can you please tell me why they used the same similar Sassanian architectural elements, did they forget to bring their own style? Your reasons are interesting, but people calling the new fireplace by as "Atashgah" by mistake, were probably not aware of other Persian names for a fire location, and they mistakenly used the correct term as people in Esfahan do.
• The fact that Schippman does not include it in his list of Zoroastrian fire temples is so far your best reason, it made me think about it deeper. But having learned the contemporary Iranian history and knowing about the Zoroastrians as "Ardeshir J." under the british secret service, is possibly showing other aspects of this story, especially in that sensitive part of Persia, where Russia and England had centuries lasting power struggle that ended mysteriously in a strange CCCP revolution. Wasn't it perhaps another effort to depict is something else, perhaps by some intelligence, that had more benefit in inciting a revolt against the main reign over there? Just a thought.
• That A. V. Williams Jackson said it was a Hindu temple, is one of your best references so far. But the simple fact is, that the history of the previous architects of the temple isn't clear. It is therefor tempting enough for the neutral reader to just think that, a) this temple is recently reconstructed, and b) it has been most probably Zoroastrian before and now has new inhabitants.
• Schippman does not include it in his list of Zoroastrian fire temples? He knew all the Zoroastrain fire altars?
• Having a "char-taq" is not by itself convincing evidence of it? I agree, but please convince me about the half-egg-shaped Sassanid archs. Also, why is that fire temple using the same scales, as the Zoroastrian (better say Iranian) ones and one Hindus didn't customize it better?
• The whole article is just an explanation, more like an effort to depict the place as none-Iranian, by any possible reason. Not saying anything else about the origins or some strong evidence to prove that it was truly Hindu. Even skipping local sayings in favor of any possible none-Iranian fire altar. This cycle has to stop.
• I forgot to mention, in the main article it says: "The use of natural gas is not in accord with Zoroastrian ritual use. (See, the Zoroastrian cult of fire)". I love it how confident people deny some facts about 1400 years ago, and don't even bother to place a "perhaps".

Waiting for the answers. یزدگرد (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Fullstop,

It is not only Char-taq thing, though it is helpful to see the building as Something Sassanian. The building resempbles mostly the Zoroastrian prayer houses elsewhere in the Greater Iran, which were build during the Sassanian times. Logically those which were built later or those in india looked different. This is also why that parsi traveller said it was different than theirs. Atashgah indeed means place of fire, but this is also the name of a Sassanian Zoroastrian sanctuary in Esfahan. In addition the word Atshkadeh with the same meaning is still used all around Iran. The political correct word in Iran today is Dar(b)-e Maher, which is a little bit dubious because Orthodox Zoroastrianism is very different than Mithraism (Mehr-aini in persian). I also cannot agree with you that Zoaroastrianism was forgotten already in (waht is today called) the republic of Azerbaijan. Many traditions in the Iranian world have their roots in the Zoroastrianism and also because there existed Zoroastrians in these realms people generally knew what was zoroastrianism and who are/ were zoroastrians. It is also remarkable that people of republic of Azerbaijan popularly try to attribute things to zoroastriansim which seemingly have nothing to do with Zoroastrianism for example th yanar Dagh (the burning mountain). Moreover it is questionable why they have used the Persian word Ateshgah for this sanctuary in the predominatly Turkicspeaking Azerbaijan. Yes the word was already known. Otherwise they could have used something Indian. In addition there are today no Hindu idols there. That is why I say: the building is not built as a Hindu temple but as a zoroastrian sanctuary, and even though the Hindus have used it as a Hindu temple once, it is nevertheless no Hindu temple again.It also looks very different than other Hindu temples, ebvn those which are built by Indians in the Iranian world such as that in bandar Abbas (see: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/indiaforum/mabad_hend.jpg)

Firetemples in Iran: http://www.mountaindeserttours.com/Photo/Niya'sar-Fire-Temple-around.jpg (Niasar) http://www.itto.org/binary.asp?picname=/ATTRACTION/050620033204.JPG&w=205&bordertip=2 (Firuz Abad) http://img2.travelblog.org/Photos/2461/76176/f/462119-Fire-Temple-1.jpg (Ateshgah of Esfahan), look it is even not a Char-taq, but you cannot deny its resemblance with that of Baku, Firuz Abad or Niasar as it is also a Sassanian construction). Hindu fundamentalists have a bad habit of attributing everything to themselves. According to them even Taj Mahal is a Hindu temple!--Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Dude. JJ Modi was not just some Parsi traveller. A. V. Williams Jackson was not just some fellow on a walk in the woods. Klaus Schippmann was not just someone with a lot of time on his hands. These are not people who make colossal mistakes on the magnitude that you are suggesting. If these academics say it is a Hindu place of worship, then it is a Hindu place of worship and you can argue about it all day long and it will not change anything.
• It does not matter one bit if the Baku site has a non-Hindu architecture or not, nor should you be culling together your own interpretation of some pictures. Even if you were an architect and a historian it would still not be valid to arrive at your own conclusions. Even so: *look* carefully at the pictures that you link to. And keep your mind open! For example, look at gombads of the Firozabad and Niyasar char taqs and compare it to the one at Baku; the genuine fire temples have a high-vaulted double-dome ceiling. Baku does not. The Firozabad and Niyasar char taqs occupy about 150 square meters each. The one at Baku is tiny; less than 5 square meters. This is all visible in your own pictures, you only have to open your mind to see it.
• Hindu fundamentalists are brainless fools. All fanatics are brainless fools. Just be careful you don't become one too. -- 14:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

May I say that I am not amused to be called a brainless fanatic? What I am saying is very logical. The persons you mentioned might have said this or that. I do not care who they are - though I have not a high estimate of British orientalists- I just left referrences to them as they are there. And yes I see the differences in the shape of the domes, but I have never said that this is never reconstructed. The story that it might have been reconstructed by some Indian might be true, and the persons you mentioned have observed some Hindu or Sikh practice then. Ok. But it won't say that it was not a Zoroastrian prayer house. Just compare the building to other Sasanian buildings, and also those in Derbent, Dagestan and you see it. Look that Suarakani was a small village outside Baku. Just something. Can it be asome kind of karvansaray with a Zoroastrian prayer facility? Not very unusal. Looking at Sasanian constructions in derbent and Barda (in rep. Azerbaijan) you see that they built up fortified and walled constructions. This is also very similar to the Firetemple of Baku. In addition to that it is not very probable that Indian merchants, who reside in the main Urban centres, chose a remote small village to built a Hindu (sic!) temple--Babakexorramdin (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

First, I didn't call you a brainless fanatic. That is not my style. If you find that hat on your head, then it is because you chose to put on that hat.

Second, it is pointless to discuss whether you are logical or not. It is meaningless to hypothesize and speculate; this is Wikipedia and the only thing allowed is direct "parroting" of reliable sources. It does not matter what you or I or any other editor think. The only thing that matters is what the reliable sources say. -- Fullstop (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Babakexorramdin, to call this a Hindu temple is nonesense. The name alone shows us that its Zoroaster related. Atashgah is a sacred Zoroaster temple and every Novruz its visited and honoured by Zoroaster pilgrims from India, I have photos of this if anyone still has doubt. Baku87 (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The name shows that it is fire-related. The notion that everything fire-related is Zoroastrian is absurd, and -- to an extent -- insulting. This, like the idea that Zoroastrians are fire-worshipers, is the product of anti-Zoroastrian polemic.

Yes, indeed there are Parsi pilgrimage tours that include visits to Baku, and the article also notes that this happens. Like much else, this merely demonstrates how deep-seated the misconceptions are, and why it is so important that the article stick to reliable sources.

Since you have been there, you will also have seen the tableaux' that the museum's curators have set up to show how those Indian ascetics lived. Do you have pictures of those too? -- Fullstop (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There are historical roots behind every name and "Atashgah" clearly indicates that this is Zoroaster related. As for your request, there are alot of tableaux there and I think I have taken a photo of each one, all of them are written in the Persian alphabet, I'll search for them. I should also note that the entire "Atashgah museum" only mentions Zoroasters, anything related to Hinduism is not even mentioned once. Baku87 (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this important information--Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggested revision

I believe that this fascinating article is suffering from disputes between groups with strong viewpoints. I suggest that the article start with a section titled History in which the known history is discussed as neutrally as possible. For example, location, when was it built, what are the early published notices, what did the early visitors say about the temple, etc. Then, there can be a section entitled Purpose of Temple or Zoroastrian or Hindu? (or something similar) in which the different interpretations can be discussed, again as neutrally as possible. Ecphora (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree fully with you--Babakexorramdin (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm really getting irritated. The only "strong" viewpoint I have is that sources not be misrepresented, that conjecture stay off the wiki. Am I really that exceptional in demanding adherence to Wikipedia policy?

Secondly, this is not a lottery. There is no scope for any "Zoroastrian or Hindu" craziness. The monastery complex is attested from the 18th century onwards, and -- as far as the reliable sources know -- the complex happens to have been in Hindu hands for the entire duration since then. There is no scope for anything else when the first records of the place are Hindu, and all the records since then are Hindu.

Third, somewhere in the above I seem to be hearing a proposal that conjecture and flaky tourism sites who don't know their ass from their faces be given weight?! Whats next? Hindutva websites? How about Spiderman too?

Fourth, if I had adhered closely to policy there would be barely any Zoroastrianism-related section at all! But now someone is telling me that my own pseudo-weighting of the Zoroastrianism section is legitimate. But simultaneously I end up being stuck into some arbitrary "strong viewpoints" drawer on some remote end of a spectrum. Has the world now chosen to stand on its head, or what? -- Fullstop (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I knew I might regret stepping into this. I have no views on this dispute or even whether it is a legitimate dispute or whether one side is completely unsupported. My point is that the article is poorly organized. It starts with "Local legend" and "Hindu theory" when to be encylopedic, it would be better to start with "History" with the basic facts, followed by a section on interpretations. If one theory is poorly supported, that can be discussed neutrally in the article, with appropriate references. Ecphora (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

OF COURSE this article is poorly organized! Have you looked at a previous revision where the "History" was in fact the first section in the article (well, it was a mash of "Temple description" and history)? What kind of "interpretations" are you looking for anyway? This is not poetry where "interpretations" might be forthcoming. This is a freakin' building with inscriptions on the walls telling everyone in the simplest possible language when they founded the place, and who they dedicated the place to.

There are no "interpretations" when there is no room for interpretation. The contents of the inscriptions are already provided in the article. None of it is poetry or highfalutin' prose or archaic language that might require "interpretation". What is there is as unambiguous as the number on your mailbox.

What we are now stuck with is the article's former History/Temple description perverted to seem like its coming from some (allegedly) "Hindu theory"-spouting beast. Well, that evil beast happens to be me, but I am also probably the furthest thing from "Hindu theory" there is on the block.

But I also happen to have written the "Local legend" section, but that somehow seems not to be "Hindu theory". Luckily for everyone but me this happens to accord with Babakexorramdin's "strong viewpoints" of "neutrality".

Content-wise, the notion that the site is a Zoroastrian fire temple is. simply. not. true. It isn't even a fire temple. It is a now-defunct monastery that happens to have a 2 square meter fire altar in the middle of it, and cells for monks lining the walls. Zoroastrianism doesn't even have ascetics (and never did)! Pretending that this article came from a Hindutva peabrain who "dispute[s] the Zoroastrian character of Ateshgah" has tainted a perfectly valid article for no valid reason whatsoever (that pseudo-rationale dumped in the section above this one is pure conjecture, and -- being OR -- its not citable even iff it were valid).

This isn't an issue of "strong viewpoints". This is a mad catch-22: A screwed up article that is un-fixable by design, a bitter editor who sees Hindutva folk under every bed but is convinced that he (of all people) is "neutral", you thinking that there are "interpretations" that need balancing, and me stuck in a position where I'm the bad guy no matter what I do. THIS IS F*SCKED. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Enough nonsense. I've reverted to the last sane version. The article is now under WP:BRD. If Babakexorramdin wishes to change anything, it will need to be discussed first. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

ps: Apologies for my harsh tone. My last few edits (elsewhere) indicate that I'm not thinking rationally. Grrrr. ;) -- Fullstop (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this version is much better. Thanks. Ecphora (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

fullstop, I have had known you as a calm and rational person but your manner of talk here make me think otherwise. You are a knowledgeable person but your views on Zoroastrianism and the Iranian World (note the connection) are not necessarily universally accepted. You can push this Indian theory with all force and do not listen to the logic. I have not delted the Hindu/ Indian sources. I only made it neutral. You might have an argument that my arguments are OR, but nevertheless you fail to adress certain important issues. The sources say that the building has served in the 18th century as a Hindu temple. Nothing can prove that it has not been a zoroastrian construction prior to that date. Moreover no Hindu idols are there plus most important of all ?IT DOES NOT SERVE AS A HINDU TEMPLE ANY MORE. you are free to mention the sources that it served once as such, but you cannot call it a Hindu temple NOW. Indeed I said this regardless of things which you say they are OR but are so obvious. Azerbaijan rep. lies in the Zoroastrian realm, and has never been a Hindu society. The building resembles those of other Sassanian buildings espcially those in the Caucasus. But it does not look those of Hindus. Plus see this funny source below. It seems that the pushers of the Hindu POV do not know the history of this region. How could you then revert my edits to these Indian edits who cite sources whith no accurate knowledge of History.

with all due respect, this article is nonsense http://sify.com/news/international/fullstory.php?id=13267652. Tha uthor does not even know the history. He says that this was built after the fall of Shirvanshahs and at the begining of Iranian-Russian wars. He forgets that there were hundred years in between. Shirvan Shahs fell in the 16th century to the Safavid Empire. Safavid empire existed untill the 18th century. A brief invasion of Afghans was averted by nader Shah in the same century. Iranian-Russian wars began in the 19th century. Yet at one place the artcile says that this building was built in the 18th, at another place in the 19th century. This artcile is a mess.

No I do not see Hindutva everywhere, nor this word belongs to my general working vocabulary. What I do observe however -regardless of this article- is that Hindus/Indians have a distorted veiw on the reality of the Iranian World. This is also true about how the Parsis of India (themselves of Iranian origin) view these issues. I guess you know that many of them even say that Aryans came from the Indian subcontinenet!!!!!!!!!!! Ok enough about that. I hope you will temper your mood and do not offend me again--Babakexorramdin (talk) 03:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I won't bother to respond to sweeping claims about people/ethnicities/religious beliefs/nationalities made above. A copy of this was comment was posted to my talk page, so that is were a response to the non-topical stuff goes.

Restricting myself to material about this article:

• If the sify-attributed source (it is not originally sify, see below) is dubious then remove it; it does not contribute anything to the article other to help the reader identify which of the two Samvat calendars applies. This information is useful, but not crucial, and it makes no difference whether the monastery was built in the 17th or in the 18th century.
  I don't really care whether its cited or not, but the assertion that the "article is nonsense" and a "mess" is presumptive or incorrect or both. I have a suspicion that these "issues" are all contrived, and that the problem lies with the other statement that the article is being cited for. But tackling the "issues" for a start:
  • "Iranian-Russian wars began in the 19th century".
    Actually, the first Russo-Iranian War took place 1722-1723, the second in 1796.
  • "the author does not even know the history". The author explicitly states "Local records say..." Consequently, if there is anyone that does not know the history, it would be the "local records".
  • "Yet at one place the artcile says that this building was built in the 18th, at another place in the 19th century"
    What it says is "Built in 1713, a stone plaque in Hindi on the portal of the main gate says that this gate was built ... in 1866".
    See also last paragraph of this comment.
  • "He says that this was built after the fall of Shirvanshahs and at the begining of Iranian-Russian wars.
    Actually, what the source says is: "[Local records say] its construction _coincided_ with the fall of the dynasty of Shirwanshahs and annexation by Russian Empire following Russo-Iranian war."
    He forgets that there were hundred years in between.
    That is one way of looking at it. Given the context (see the point above this one) a simpler conclusion would have been that construction occurred in two (or more) phases. But presuming to read anyone's mind is never a good idea, and it it is quite possible that the author had something altogether different in mind when he wrote that. A good way to avoid second guessing is to cite the source with a quotation. As the article does.

The article posted on sify is attributed to the PTI, a wire service. The author of the article is Vinay Shukla, a PTI correspondent in Moscow.

As far as I can tell, the article is not biased (at least not in any patently obvious way), and it is certainly not "nonsense" or "a mess". But the statement for which the source is being used is not crucial to the article, so if it mollifies biases to remove the source, then it might as well go. If nothing else, we would be spared more argumentation to discredit it.

• Although I have already made clear that conjecture, speculations and the resultant conclusions are all undesirable on Wikipedia, the comment prior to this one included yet more of them. As usual, they lead to (or project) faulty conclusions:
  • "Azerbaijan rep. lies in the Zoroastrian realm, and has never been a Hindu society"
    According to this logic, the Western World would not have mosques or temples either. And the logic also revokes the right of existence of Zoroastrian places of worship outside the Zoroastrian realm.
  • "The sources say that the building has served in the 18th century as a Hindu temple."
    Actually, the sources say the complex was built in the 18th century.
  • "Nothing can prove that it has not been a zoroastrian construction prior to that date."
    This is called an ex-silencio argument; the basic "nothing can prove that X doesn't exist, therefore X exists" is a logical fallacy. It is just as true to say 'nothing can prove that it cannot have been an empty plot of land' either.
    But even the site does not have to have been an empty plot of land; it could have been literally anything else, really anything at all.
    In any case, the ex-silencio conjecture was completely unnecessary since the article already states: "That the site may once (prior to the 1780s) have been a Zoroastrian place of worship cannot be ruled out"
    This apparently makes brains burst, and so could/should just as well be amended to say: "That the site may have once (prior to the 1780s) had some other purpose cannot be ruled out." Sheesh!
  • "Moreover no Hindu idols"
    This is another negative proof argument. Like the one above, it has net-zero effect. Its completely irrelevant if/whether/why there are "no Hindu idols" evident. a) The absence of one thing does not imply the presence of another thing; b) What can be taken somewhere can also be taken away; c) Hindus observe scriptural injunctions called visarjan for the ritual disposal of "idols" and other religious material; d) there is no evidence that they had idols to begin with (Hindus do not necessarily have idols); e) the local Islamic population would have been incensed at the taghut.
    This is all just off the top of my head. The point is that the absence of idols (or anything else) says nothing. Silence, by definition, says nothing.
• "you are free to mention the sources that it served once as such, but you cannot call it a Hindu temple NOW".
  The permission to do such a thing is superfluous since the very second line of the article says "The complex is now a museum, and is no longer used as a place of worship."

It would seem that the article does not make it absolutely clear that the complex is quite large (about 1 square km), surrounded by a contiguous series of rooms (mostly cells for monks) that together form the wall of the complex, and that the thing (seen in the picture) in the quadrangle is small covered altar (occupying only about 2 square meters), and that this altar does not represent the principal function of the complex. The title of the article and the accompanying image no doubt contribute to the error.

At this point I have to wonder why I even bother. There will merely be more conjecture, more speculation, more second guessing, more negative proofs, more invalid comparisons. More "deep thought" into what a source says. *sigh* -- Fullstop (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks for your abstract lecture. I want to remind you to something. You opposes in fact two things: Sceptisism and sepculation. Both of them are totally scientific. Doubting the already accepted facts forces a researcher to look for more evidence, to revise his/her conclusion or reinforce them. And to be honest my doubts/ questions were at their place. Secondly Speculation: the sceinse is based on hypotheses/ You have an idea and you want to see whether it is true or not. Usually one gets no definitive answers. And as long as it is a quantitative research, you will get a probabilistic answer. Well this is sceinse. Something is more probable than something else. And you should accept it that 1- many questions that I ask cast doubts on its possible Hindu character (nevertheless I did not dismiss it totally) 2- Other facts make a Zoroastrian character more probable. OK But well you are right that you say we have some people who wrote that it was Hindu. I said ok let's have these sources there too, nevertheless the existence of these sources do not mean that it cannot have been a Zoroastrian temple before. I know how wikipedia workd. OR is forbidden, but now we have one view based on local tradition which says that this is Zoroastrian and then we have your sources which say that this is Hindu. As long as I am a tolerant person I say ok let's give them both the place they deserve in this article. Do not Puch the Hindu view. I think that the Orange-Yellow color Hinduism should be removed from the picture box, and these things such as Jwalji and any referrence to Hindusim should be removed from the box. Then it is neutral. One can read in the text the both views. Finally about the Indian article. Yes it is totally nonsense. The author does not know the history of this region at al. ShirvanShahs were defeated by the Safavids in the 16th Century. The Iranian Russian wars were in the 19th century. There were no such wars in the 17th or 18th century. There were some Russian occupation of Southern Shores of the Caspian sea but they were given back to Iran relatively in a calm way. The Afghan invasion of Iran made it easy for Russians to advance to some areas, but when Nader Shah rose to power they handed over those areas again. There are plenty of sources which confirm that., These events are not known as Iranian Russian wars. I also doubt that the amateur author of this bad article knows these events. You are right that it is difficult to look into peoples mind, but the structure of his text and his assumed chronology, shows that he had a distorted knowledge (that Shirvan Shahs were there untill the 19th century!) of historical reality of this region. I did not say it in order to remove it as a source, but only to show you that the (pro-Indian) written sources are not necssarily of good quality.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• You opposes in fact two things: Sceptisism and sepculation.
  • I am not opposed to skepticism. Indeed, I think it is desirable. Skepticism is good and healthy, which is why a skeptic should immediately question why a religion that has no monks should possibly need a monastery.
  • Yes, I am strongly opposed to speculation on Wikipedia. Not only is it not in accord with Wikipedia policy, an encyclopedia should be a source of information, not a source of speculation. This is why WP cannot be a source of information that has not been discussed in reliable sources. This is not only true for craziness that Hindu fundamentalists spew, it is also true for craziness like the Baku complex being Zoroastrian. THE RULES ARE THE SAME FOR ALL.
• Well thanks for your abstract lecture.
  It wasn't abstract at all. Indeed, it concretely referred to every single point made before, but which got repeated again. e.g. "the author", e.g. "the bad article", e.g. "The Iranian Russian wars were in the 19th century", e.g. "does not mean that it cannot have been a Zoroastrian temple before", etc etc etc. All these points have been addressed. Concretely.
• Usually one gets no definitive answers.
  In this case there is a definitive answer, obtained by real scientists and real academics, based on physical evidence. This definitive answer remains uncontested and is followed by the museum's administration.
• And as long as it is a quantitative research, you will get a probabilistic answer.
  Wikipedia is not a place for "quantitative research". See WP:OR.
  this is sceinse
  Science demands proofs, not negative proofs and not naive amateur speculation. In any case, Wikipedia is a place to parrot sources, not do "science".
• nevertheless the existence of these sources do not mean that it cannot have been a Zoroastrian temple beforeAs I already said in my previous post, the article already has "That the site may once (prior to the 1780s) have been a Zoroastrian place of worship cannot be ruled out".
• one view based on local tradition which says that this is Zoroastrian
  See previous point. Also: even that source (besides not being a reliable source) does not say "that this is Zoroastrian". You are assuming that "before" means Zoroastrian, but the source does not say that. It so happens that there are 1,000 years of Islamic society in between, during which time Zoroastrians were either wiped out or reduced to abject poverty.
• referrence to Hindusim should be removed from the box.
  The **title of the article** should be changed. Within the article references to Hinduism are perfectly valid. The site was a Hindu religious complex and not only is the complex littered with physical evidence of its Hindu nature, there is no evidence whatsoever for anything to the contrary. Evidence, not speculations, are the cornerstone of science. And the scientists (and museum staff) have spoken based on that evidence.
• Then it is neutral.
  See WP:UNDUE. If your intentions were truly "neutral", you would not be trying so hard to revoke the Hindu-ness of the place, ... falsely claiming that "Hindus dispute the Zoroastrian nature" of the place, ... thinking that a Hindu fundamentalist wrote this article, ... stating that the place "does not deserve at all to be called a Hindu temple", ... claiming that you are "more right not seeing it as a Hindu temple", ... speculating that it is "not very probable that Indian merchants" built the place, ... denigrating a wire-service article as "nonsense", "a mess", "pro-Indian" ... or making sweeping statements like "Hindus/Indians have a distorted view on the reality of the Iranian World".
  All this is not "neutral" talk.
• (older comment) It is also remarkable that people of republic of Azerbaijan popularly try to attribute things to zoroastriansim which seemingly have nothing to do with Zoroastrianism
  EXACTLY! And in this case not just "seemingly", but evidently so. As in: carved in stone.
  Its time you started thinking about why Azerbaijanis popularly attribute things related to "fire" to Zoroastrianism even when those things have nothing to do with Zoroastrianism. Hint: "distorted view" -- Fullstop (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hinduism in Azerbaijan artcile

For your attention: I cited this from the source there. As you could see these were the pushers of the Hindu theory who had misquoted the source. According to historical sources, before the construction of the Indian Temple Of Fire (Atashgah) in Surakhani at the end of the 17th A.D., the local people also worshipped at this site because of the "seven holes with burning flame". And thus the name "Surakhani" - holes with burning fountains. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 03:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope you are tolerant enough not to delete my minor referrence to a Possibility of Zoroastrian past. I also ask you kindly to remove the Hindu temple label from it because it is not such a thing today. Moreover I will be happy to get a decent answer who these Hindu Monks were and what they did in this remote Azerbaijani village in the 18th century. Hindus claim that it was built by merchants. It is acceptable that Indian merchants lived once in Azerbaijan, but Hindu Monks? What did they there and why? !!!!!!!!!!!!!--Babakexorramdin (talk) 03:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

1. There are no "pushers of Hindu theory" here, and the source was not "misquoted". In fact, that source had not been referred to at all.
2. The "Possibility of Zoroastrian past" is/was already stated in the article. And the article you cite does not actually say a "Zoroastrians" worshiped there. The source says "before [the Hindus came], local people ...".
3. The "minor reference" is not a reference: "and the similarities of this construction to (other) Sassanid constructions, amongst which Zoroastrian fire teples, this suggest that the connstruction once might have served as a Zoroastrian temple" is false. Even the source you quote says *twice* that it was built in the 17th/18th century.
   And even if building X looks like building Y, it does not also mean that building X has the same function as building Y.
   Common sense should also tell you that there is not very many ways to build a square brick structure.
   EVERYTHING is telling you that Hindus built it in the 17th/18th century and you are still sticking to the your incredibly ignorant Sassanian idea. You aren't a "skeptic" at all. You want to make it Zoroastrian, it is your own intolerance of Hinduism that makes you anything but "neutral", so no matter that even your own source is telling you that Hindus built it, and that they built it in the 17th/18th century, you keep insisting on your own fanciful conclusions derived from speculations rooted in ignorance.
4. Rename the article to "Atashgah museum, Baku", and I will fix the infobox using {{Infobox museum}}
5. As for the why Hindu ascetics were there... there is a myth in Hindu mythology that states that when Vishnu killed Parvati, his arrows cut her up in many pieces which scattered all over the world. Where the pieces landed (so the story), "places of divine energy" got created and flames started to shoot out of the ground, so ensuring her survival as flames burning for Shiva.
   This story is why the complex is one of the very many places dedicated to Jwalaji (jwala == flame), and why there is a trident on the roof (seen in the picture), and why Hanuman/Agni/Yogi austerities would have been practiced there, and why ascetics collected there. Happy now?
   The museum staff portray the ascetics as looking like this. -- Fullstop (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok I will change the title to Baku Fire temple mueseum. About building I should say: building- construction and most often it also include restoring or reconstruction. It is certainly true in the languages of the Iranian world. I am not intolerant of Hinduism but I do think the article was wrong and that these people do not have an accurate knowledge of themself. Indian culture has some attractive elements but again this does not mean that I approve or disapprove Hinduism. But honestly are these things not absurd? : " when Vishnu killed Parvati, his arrows cut her up in many pieces which scattered all over the world. Where the pieces landed (so the story), "places of divine energy" got created and flames started to shoot out of the ground, so ensuring her survival as flames burning for Shiva." The same type of stories are told to usurp Taj Mahal or Babri Mosque. Always some mythological figures come up who have allegedly done this or that. I wonder how far these people will go. For example claiming that Jumbo Jet is an Indian sanctuary because Jumbo- Young elephant and Ganesh has an alephant head. Such arguments are funny. I am not saying that only Indians made up these and belive in them. Also other peoples make up these things regularly. But OkI still believe in a Sassanian substratum. The construction, though it is not modified resembles very much constructions of that era in the region for example those in Barda and Derbent. Also the ShirvanShah's palace in baku has its Sassanian character (with Islamic modifications though). Also look at Ramana village. Though Hindu's might think that it is related to ram or something the locals relate it to Romans. The castle there seems also very similar to the buildings of the Sasanian era. It is not likely that it is built by the Romans in the Sasanid era but it might relate to the Parthian era who first fought with the seleucids and then the (East) Romans.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 08:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia policy on original research. Moreover, your "parallelism" applies to you as well: The false claims on the Taj Mahal are as unscientific as your false claims for the Baku structures, and your arguments have the same quality as those made by Purushottam Nagesh Oak. Thankfully, Wikipedia has policies to keep such silliness out of the encyclopedia. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Architecture section

Somewhere in the main article it must be mentioned, that this fire altar has a unique "Chahar-Taagh" Sassanid style architecture. What do you think? I can upload the necessary illustrations, let me know your ideas. یزدگرد (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Yezdigird and welcome to the English Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place for original research. Incidentally, the identifying feature of a Sassanid chahar-taq is its dome (the gombad), which the Surakhani construction does not have. Nor is a gated caravanserai an example of Sassanid style architecture. Further, I also encourage you to read up on char-taqs, especially the fifth paragraph in the first part (to include the last sentence of the fourth), the fifth para in the second part, and the very last paragraph in that article. You may also wish to read this, or at least the third paragraph of it. Those articles should put your mind at ease about what constitutes "unique ... Sassanid style architecture". For an authoritative guide to Sassanid-style chahar-taqs, I recommend Klaus Schippmann's Die iranischen Feuerheiligtümer (1971), which is cited as a source by both mentioned articles. Pp. 309-377 in that book should be particularly enlightening. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me for stating the obvious,
Speaking about architecture, the identifying feature of a Sassanid Chahar-Taaq is its dome. Correct, but it is not in particular a large scaled Gunbad, as in some places "Chahar Taagh" ends to just a round roof, breaking the cube movement. In case you haven't seen the Niasar fire altar, check this Chahar Taagh. Now compare it to this one in Baku. Incidentally, both buildings are very similar. This similarity draws clearly that this building has been a 1)Sassanid fire altar, or 2)has been modified to serve for other purposes later. Especially as mentioned earlier, we are not sure about the History of this place. Except some contemporary confident eyewitness accounts, and an exceptionally well educated Zoroastrian priest, who probably neither studied architecture nor can tell us why there's no document about a building known as Atashgah. What else can prove that this building has been a Hindu temple? Graffiti on the wall or later added bas-reliefs and modifications like later added "Gardoone Mehr" by some intelligent visitors, similar to what they did to all the "Sassanid castles" that we know today as Mosques? I guess, it is time for you to prove, that this building IS a Hindu temple. Perhaps you can explain why the identifying features of Hindu temples are a bit different than our so called Surakhani construction:

• Hindu Temple Roof
• Thanjavur Temple
• typical Hindu Temple
• Pancha Ratha
• Ellora Caves Temple
• Angkor Wat: City Temple
• Meenakshi - Gopuram
• Palitana
• Ranakpur

Hindu Surakhani construction looking too similar to a Sassanid fire altar, right with a fire source in the middle, people calling it by mistake "Atashgah" just like at least another similar fire altar in Iran, and with the exact Sassanid style archs? The "Gunbad" looks too small to be Iranian? The gombad, which the Surakhani construction does not have as you say, doesn't need to be large. This spherical form above the building, is the transformation point of a cube to a round form; name it Iranian Sassanid style. The other supporting fact is, placement of little windows for providing air and light, just as the Iranian style.

What is apparently confusing you, is the slightly modified appearance of the current fire altar, which is with not doubt performed not later than a couple of years ago. Show the picture to any Iranian architecture student, and they will tell you how bad the modification is carried out. The temple IS absolutely altered, they obviously couldn't shape the half-egg style archs, because of the simple fact that it looks similar to nothing, but a Sassanid arch which is Incorrectly re-built, even though the scales are still correct. Those who re-built the altered or perhaps devastated construction, have absolutely seen the main frame of this temple. This can explain why it is indeed appearing so much Sassanid.

I'd still be glad to see any architectural evidence that proves this Temple is Hindu. The appearance of the gated "Caravansara" and its architecture style as you say, does not define anything about the fire-altar itself, therefore is out of this conversation. I don't think anyone considers the Berlin wall in order to value the Reichstag building, needless to say that "Caravansara" itself is a Persian word, and Hindus didn't have the use for building such. I honestly care less what extreme nationalists and fanatics say, but this hard effort of denying any Persian past about this building is disturbing, and therefor must be stopped.

This section IS needed. Because this building is made using Persian architecture and is located in a former Persian province.
یزدگرد (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

good lord. Can you do anything without speculating? Read the frikkin' policy and if you still think you can purvey such nonsense here, then state your case at the Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard. End of story.

And you need to start holding up your silly nonsense like "I'd still be glad to see any architectural evidence that proves this Temple is ______" to a mirror. Ditto "this hard effort of denying any ______ past about this building is disturbing, and therefor must be stopped". And "just an explanation, more like an effort to depict the place as ______, by any possible reason", and so on and so forth, ad nauseum.

Fill in the blanks, and when you are done, get used to the fact that verifiable, accurately parroted, reliable sources are all that count here. If you want to speculate, forum-ize, appeal to nationalistic isolation, or whatever else suits your fancy, then go start a blog. -- Fullstop (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop offending wiki contributors Fullstop. Hampering wiki contributions with comments like: "you need to start holding up your silly nonsense" or "fundamentalists are brainless fools. Just be careful you don't become one too." are unacceptable. You also need to learn that mass repeating wiki rules and obvious policies through fancy styled links like frikkin' policy by degrading wiki users, is against the core principles. You're a user, so learn to respect other users as well. Is this clear? Moreover, what you have exaggerated as speculation and didn't even bother to read, was the explanation of Iranian architecture "Chahar Taagh" which is important to mention in this article, and as an answer to your comment:

• Further, I also encourage you to read up on char-taqs.

Firstly, you apparently didn't read what I wrote. So better next time read what others write and then start mass repeating obvious guidelines or accusing users for speculation and trying to pretend authoritative, or acting like a high rank. For your information, that so called speculation is incidentally well documented:

در وسط چهارطاقي مانند جائي است که سقف ندارد، آنچه معلوم شد اين چارطاقي کهنه تر از بناي مسجد است ومعاينه به طرز چارطاقي صوري خانه که معبد آتش پرستان است ساخته شده مسلماً در قديم اين چارطاقي معبد آتش پرستان بوده بعد حکام يا سلاطين اسلام مسجد را دور معبدبناکردند - انتهي . (از مرآت البلدان ج 1 صص ۱۵۰- ۱۵۴).

Which is referring to:

معبد آتش پرستان هندی و پارسی در این صوری خانه است ، عمارتی است مربع و در وسط آن عمارت اطاقی بنا شده است که چهار طرف آن باز است ، وسط گودالی است که آتش از میان آن بیرون می آید. اطراف حجرات است ، از هر حجره منفذی تعبیه نموده اند که آتش بیرون می آید، یعنی هر وقت بخواهند کبریتی روشن کرده در محاذی آن منفذ میگیرند، هوائی که خارج میشود مشتعل میگردد.

While you're busy translating these quotes, it's necessary to mention that this source is used in Ali-Akbar Dehkhoda's dictionary, so is reliable, and therefore not speculation. In fact, this building is "Chahar Taagh" as cited in our old book and is obviously using elements of Iranian Sassanid architecture. Further, as seen above, this source claims that it was a temple for Hindu and Parsi people, not just Hindus, and perhaps in the past was for Fire Worshipers [:Zoroastrians].
یزدگرد (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally it should be noted that Hinduism and Zoroastrianism are historically linked, and fire worship is shared by both. Majority of Hindu merchants in central Asia were Khatri, from Punjab region, one of their clans is called Mehra.--ISKapoor (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

From Constantinople to the home of Omar Khayyam

I have uploaded this book onto Wikisource: s:Index:From Constantinople to the home of Omar Khayyam.djvu. The pages of text are being uploaded now. Also, some images from this book have already been uploaded to Commons. see File:At the Tomb of Omar Khayyam - by Jay Hambidge.jpg. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Name change to Atashgah museum is inappropriate

The term Atashgah means a fire temple. There were numerous fire temples in central Asia. The problem with term Atashgah museum is that while it would be appropriate locally, where there is only one such structure; it is inappropriate for international usage.

I suggest that the name be reverted back to "Fire Temple of Baku", which is what I had used when I had started the article

Practically protected all historical structures are museums, Versailles to Forbidden City. However they should be referred by the original names. The term museum should be used for institutions that are known mainly for collections and not for the site/structure.--ISKapoor (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe the local name should be given preference. In Azerbaijan it is called Atashgah, and is currently a museum. Fire Temple is a general description, that fits any such structure. I think the present name, Atashgah of Baku, is good. Grandmaster (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

follow up

First of all It was more nice if fullstop did not call the other's arguments as dumb etc... Secondly I should ask the Indian editors, does any Hindu temple in India itself has a name such as Atashgah? No. It is a Persian name. And to Iskappor. I do not know why Zoroastrianism and Hinduism are linked. Though it is certain that Aryan tribes'religion in India has brought elements to the already existing Indian/ Dravidian religion, even the Aryan part of this religion is nothing similar to the Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism is a monotehistic religion, and Zoroastrianis are not fire worshippers. Fire= Azer is thought as holy. Still you hear this Light/ warm = Good vs. Dark/Cold = Bad duality in the post-Zoroastrian *greater( Iranian litterature. Hinus on the other hand worship idols, many of them Human alike but some with animal elements (ganesha). Ok nevermind, still the Aryan element of Hinduism, like that of any other pagan Indo-European religion (e.g. the Greek and Roman Pantheon) would qualify as Divyasni while Zorooastrian is a Mazdayasni religion.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

what is the problem?

Fullstop why are you reverting the neutral edit? It seems that you have a bias towards Zoroastrianism. Hindus claim a building in the Zoroastrian realms as theirs. A building which has many Sasanid and Zoroastrian characteristics. The Hindu POV is veruy well represented in the artcile, yet you deprive the editors with Zoroastrian POV of the same. In addition you revert all neytral (not Hindu- Not Zoroastrian) edits to a Hindu version. Why is that? Be sinceere about your answers--Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because you say it is "neutral" does not make it neutral. See WP:NPOV. Your edits are not neutral, not factually correct, and you evidently did not check what you rv'd (without comment besides). The so-called "Hindu POV" that you keep rambling about does not exist.

You do not even have a single reliable source to backup your "Zoroastrian" bullshit, but you keep insisting on it. You want to misrepresent the site. You want the article to contain lies. Falsehoods are not "neutral". You are only fooling yourself.

Moreover, I will revert you again per Wikipedia policy WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE and WP:BRD. You want to add your Zoroastrian nonsense even though reliable sources tell you explicitly that it is not a Zoroastrian building, then you will need to find a source that explicitly says that it is a Zoroastrian building. Then you may add the necessary information per WP:NPOV.

Until then, please honor Wikipedia policy. -- Fullstop (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes it says it all, a former zoroastrian calls Zoroastrianism "bullshit", and of course any one who is against him is lying. Only his sources (some travellers) are reliable, but the so many local accounts are lies. By the way Yazdegerd had provided you a lot about why this building has Zoroastrian origins, It is also funny that you delet the Azeri/ persian name Atashgah and instead use the Russian pronounciation. POrobably you do this in order to de-Iranize the building. Is this your campagin against falsehood and lies? Isn't it called double standards?--Babakexorramdin (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

a) you can speculate about my beliefs all you want. I don't feed trolls.

b) A. V. Williams Jackson and JJ Modi are not "some travellers (sic)".

c) as the link indicates, the name Ateshgyakh is that used by the Government of Azerbaijan. It is also the name in UNESCO WHC documentation, as established by government representatives when nominating the site for WHC status.

d) See also WP:TRUTH and m:MPOV

-- Fullstop (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Modi wrote a book on the Parsee's ceremonies and Jackson was a linguist. A good one, but it was the past time. Any ways their point is also rrepresented sufficently in the text, but you are so intolerant to let the local's account get also their legitimate place in it. And the fact that you say it is Ateshguakh and not Atashgah. I showed you a govermental website which clearly showed the Azerbaijani version of the name. So p[lease do not play these games here, also do not lament about the truet and POV, when in fact it is you who is violating these rules. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Elshan's edits

I think elshan's edits were correct. Ramana has nothing to do with either Zoroastrianism or Hinduism. The name Ramana however reminded Hindu's to Rama and they jumped in to say oh oh another evidence of Hinduism. And funny that they accuse us of original research., What a funny world. I also do not know the connection to Khynalugh. Any idea? Is yanar dagh there?--Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Elshan's edit are indeed valid. The mere closeness of the name "Ramana" to "Rama" is not any reason to consider Ramana to be Hindu. This is as absurd as supposing that anything related to fire is Zoroastrian, and as stupid as supposing that everyone who disagrees with you is a Hindu. -- Fullstop (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Those who put the link of Ramana to this, tried to use the imagination of the readers. Oh yes, Ramana Maharishi. Does it make you remember something?--Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It is Azerbaijan and not Ajerbaijan

In the list of referrences is written.

^ Scott Standard Postage Stamp Catalogue (2007), "Azerbaijan", cat. nos. 9 & 10. Vargas and Bazleh, Ajerbaijan International 3.2 (Summer 1995).

I have not checked the sources yet but one thing is certain. It is AZerbaijan with a Z and not Ajerbaijan with a J. It is true that in certain Indian dialects Z is pronounced as a J, but please be original. Hindus had put so much OR in the text and tried to Hinduize something which is not theirs. But changing a name is not original and professional. It is Ok to me to go ona nd persue the Hnidu's interests in the wikipedia. God bless you but please stay away from others'sphere and do not fringe upon others' domain. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

A person not suffering from manic paranoia about Hindus would merely assume that that is a typo. So just fix the typo, and spare us the conspiracy theories. -- Fullstop (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It was just a typo. I know -- I added it. Now I've corrected it. Ecphora (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Did anyone talk about conspiracy theory? No it is just how obcessed one can be with himself. Dear Fullstop, tell your buddies, I have no problems with them, and they can go and edit on Hinduism. I actually read their stuff and enjoy it. It is only unacceptable if they fringe upon oithers' heritage.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI... "tell your buddies", "their", "they" are all symptomatic of your whacked notion of a conspiracy. There are no "buddies", no "their", no "they", unless you are speaking of your own canvassing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tajik&diff=prev&oldid=257684501

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mardetanha&diff=prev&oldid=257684576

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Parishan&diff=prev&oldid=257684630

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aynabend&diff=prev&oldid=257684852

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Baku87&diff=prev&oldid=257684930

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elsanaturk&diff=prev&oldid=257685066

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gulmammad&diff=prev&oldid=257685269

Your "some Indians" is more evidence of your notion of a conspiracy. There is no evidence of "some Indians" here, and indeed the only recent comment from an Indian was an innocuous one about the name. You have invented all the fanciful nonsense about Hindu POV. This fantasy is a figment of your hyperactive imagination that the world hates you, and merely because I insist on honesty and integrity, you imagine that I must be your enemy, imagine that I must be Hindu, imagine that I must be anti-Zoroastrian, imagine that there hordes of people all out to get you. Hence "conspiracy theory". You make yourself a fool. -- Fullstop (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I know who you are. You are an ex-zoroastrian from India. And yes the Hindu team in wikipedia does many bad edits. Very suugestive and not neutral at all. On the other hand it is impressive, the amount of time and energy they sepnd on it. Very well organized and tacfull. I have no problems with them, but I only want them to respect other peoples'legacy and do not susrp things which do not belong to them.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

OR

Hi Fullstop, I removed the part. Because it was OR. It was not on my part but ion yours. It is clearly seen in your source that the inscriptions were also of Perso-Arabic script. Everyone who knows Persian can read it. Persian was the written language of the Azeris at those days. Moreover the source only mentions Sanskrit and Punjabi and nagari scripts. All the other things are added up and misinterpreted by our Hindu colleagues. The source you mention is only one source and it was preoccupied with denying its Zoroastrianness. Still it says that it might be of ancient Zoroastrian roots. Moreover it also associates the Gebrs with the Zoroastrians. BY the way, it itself means that the site was well known among the Zoroastrians of his time, otherwise why would he have this urge to be preoccupied with it. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Its not OR. Sanskrit and Punjabi are languages, not scripts. Unlike you, Jackson is not preoccupied with denying anything. Jackson was writing about Iran, and Baku is merely one chapter in his book. Ditto Modi. The article can quote literally if you have a problem any problem with phrasing.

And no one has the "urge to be preoccupied with it", other than you. For heaven's sake, stop the pitiful perversions. Why on earth can't you simply let it be? Why on earth do you want to pervert it into something that its not? You are obsessed with anti-Iranian conspiracy theories, most of which are figments of your own imagination, blown out of proportion by your hyperactive fantasy. No one here (or any of the sources in the article) are anti-Iranian or pro-Hindu or whatever. SO STOP THE POLEMIC. Find some other outlet for your bitterness. This article, and Wikipedia altogether, is not a forum. Take your frustrations somewhere else. -- Fullstop (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"Stop the pitiful perversions?" -- Take your harassments somewhere else Fullstop, this is clearly not a forum nor your personal webpage, enough hampering. I've told you earlier, respect other users, you're not an authority who controls the history, nor the only one decorated with "truthiness". These pages are made to be edited, and not in favor of anyone. یزدگرد (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Should I answer to your personal attacks? I only said that you (and your team) are misquoting your own source. Also interpreatation is not part of the game. Instead of accepting my soft and polite approach you attack me. And no I do not think that you are part of the anti-Iranian conspiracy. You only misquote the sources and are intolerant of Zoroastrianism--Babakexorramdin (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Your "soft and polite" approach is as much your fantasy as the notion that you are "neutral". You are neither.

Case in point is your "[you] are intolerant of Zoroastrianism", which is an ignorant turdpile. It doesn't become true no matter how often you repeat it, nor does it succeed in deflecting from your refusal to accept the very simple fact that A) the identification of the site as Zoroastrian is a mistake, and B) that the site was Hindu.

Given that two reliable sources say both A and B, and given that those sources are hosted at Zoroastrian sites, your insistence that A and B are false and that those sources are anti-Zoroastrian is flat-out bizarre and pointy.

If something has been misquoted then 1) you should note (here, on talk) exactly which sentence you are talking about, and 2) you should note (here, on talk) exactly which statement it is you think is being misquoted. The sentences will be fixed accordingly, which means, the sources will be quoted literally.

Incidentally, I am intolerant of anything except "truthiness" like yours. As I have said before, I don't even care about this article. But I will continue to prevent you (or anyone like you, which includes Hindu fascists) to pervert this encyclopedia to serve as your personal soapbox. You will have to find some other avenue to rewrite history. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Babakexorramdin, I'd suggest you not wasting your time speaking with Fullstop or other offending Wiki stoppers, you don't need any permission from anybody. It is more than obvious that some people are fully stopping wikipedia contributions in favor of something. For example check their efforts in "Shapur I" and other Persian entries. Wiki users do not need anyone's permission to edit pages, just bring sources and add content. یزدگرد (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Since your friend is attempting to change the subject, I will reiterate what I said previously. You (or anyone else, including those who were canvassed on their talk pages) are welcome to address the points raised therein.

Your "soft and polite" approach is as much your fantasy as the notion that you are "neutral". You are neither.

Case in point is your "[you] are intolerant of Zoroastrianism", which is an ignorant turdpile. It doesn't become true no matter how often you repeat it, nor does it succeed in deflecting from your refusal to accept the very simple fact that A) the identification of the site as Zoroastrian is a mistake, and B) that the site was Hindu.

Given that two reliable sources say both A and B, and given that those sources are hosted at Zoroastrian sites, your insistence that A and B are false and that those sources are anti-Zoroastrian is flat-out bizarre and pointy.

If something has been misquoted then 1) you should note (here, on talk) exactly which sentence you are talking about, and 2) you should note (here, on talk) exactly which statement it is you think is being misquoted. The sentences will be fixed accordingly, which means, the sources will be quoted literally.

Incidentally, I am intolerant of anything except "truthiness" like yours. As I have said before, I don't even care about this article. But I will continue to prevent you (or anyone like you, which includes Hindu fascists) to pervert this encyclopedia to serve as your personal soapbox. You will have to find some other avenue to rewrite history. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Since harassment and harsh words are being repeated, I have to remind again before the next action:
"Stop the pitiful perversions?" -- Take your harassments somewhere else Fullstop, this is clearly not a forum nor your personal webpage, enough hampering. I've told you earlier, respect other users, you're not an authority who controls the history, nor the only one decorated with "truthiness". These pages are made to be edited, and not in favor of anyone. یزدگرد (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

would you mind not attempting to inhibit a response? Whatever you might think of my words, it so happens that Babakexorramdin (and now you too) have repeatedly made certain allegations, about me, about the sources, and includes allegations of misconduct, without an iota of evidence to back it up, but repeating it ad nauseum nonetheless. Its patently evident -- and you have made it clear once again -- that "soft and polite" approach is as much a fantasy as the notion of "neutral"ity, and that both you and Babakexorramdin have no interest in doing anything but furthering your agenda. If you don't like to be called a spade, then don't act like one.

If anything, the one being harassed is me, since you are inhibiting a response to what I said one comment above this one. I have asked for 1) exactly which sentence Babakexorramdin contends is OR, and 2) exactly which statement Babakexorramdin thinks is being misquoted. The sentences will be fixed accordingly, which means, the sources will be quoted literally.

More attempts at suppression will obviously indicate that those notions of misquotation are a bunch of hot air. Which will of course not be surprising. -- Fullstop (talk) 05:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Fullstop I am not going to waste my time on you, unless you stopp your personal attacks--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Just as I forecast. Hot air, no substance. -- Fullstop (talk) 11:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You better begin a career as an expert of forecasting wheather, I see you are into forecasting and hot air. By the way Hot air was especially something I wanted to designate you guys. But as you know we are polite and we hate lying, dorugh. While Kali DURGA is worshipped in your buddies'religion!--Babakexorramdin (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Fullstop stop this annoying busness. You referred to a source in 1- which your claims was not written 2- Contained claims which did not approve your claims, but ours. I have talked about iut 3- Which cannot be called a neutral or unpartizan source any way.

It is abad habit to usurp the property of a Host by a guest. Have Hindus used the Atashgah. Fine. Just give it a rest. Concentrate yourself on babri mosque instead.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I asked you two straightforward questions: I have asked for 1) exactly which sentence you contend is OR, and 2) exactly which statement you think is being misquoted. The sentences will be fixed accordingly, which means, the sources will be quoted literally.

This is the fourth time I am asking this. Can you or can you not respond to them? Since -- instead of responding -- you only keep spewing polemic at every single turn, it would seem that you are incapable of providing a coherent response. The questions I have posed are in extremely simple English, so there is really no excuse for even you to not be able to answer them if you have an answer. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems that you indeed intend to watse my time. And yes you have changed now your source. As followers of Dorugh? Durga and Divyasni are famous for this business I was not amzed at all. The source, the original one, of jackson http://www.vohuman.org/Library/The%20Oil%20Field%20and%20Fire%20Temp%20at%20Surakhany/The%20Oil%20Fields%20and%20the%20Fire%20Temple%20of%20Baku.htm did not say something about 1- Gurumukhi (or whatever it is called) and 2- Devanagri script. It said only about Sanskrit text and negari script, as well as a Panjabi dialect. In addition it clearly depicted a Persian inscription, which you did not mention very subtly. It also said that this building was most probably an ancient zoroastrian site. Again you and your buddies did not mention it. PLUS. All these samvat things are mentioned there. Actually a lot are mentioned there, but are not interpreted. Things like Samvat this is that year but could be also that year are OR. So quit it. Now after your changed your source and cited Sify. A biased Inidan source which is not a neutral source any way. http://sify.com/news/international/fullstory.php?id=13267652 This source is only hot air. It is claim after claim without mentioning any sources at all. Now intersting is that this source DOES mention the Persian Plaque. I said all this from the begining. If you want to usurp something, do it at least professionally.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

1. The person wasting time is you. If you make accusations, then you should provide evidence to back it up at the same time as that you make those accusations.
2. What source have I changed? What are "followers of Dorugh"? (what is "Dorugh" anyway?) Who are "Durga and Divyasni"? What is "this business" that they are "famous" for? Can you please speak in comprehensible sentences?
3. It said only about Sanskrit text and negari script, as well as a Panjabi dialect.
   Devnagri is a Nagari script, and Gurmukhi is Brahmi+Nagari. Sanskrit is typically written in Devanagri and Punjabi is typically written in Gurmukhi script. If you don't like those facts, then -- as previously noted -- I can quote Jackson literally.
4. In addition it clearly depicted a Persian inscription
   You are really quite stupid. "They are all Indian, with the single exception of one written in Persian (see my reproduction), which is dated in the same year as the Hindu tablet over it, as explained above. The Iranian tablet is a quatrain in not very good Persian, the mistakes of which might have been made by a Hindu imperfectly acquainted with the language, although Persian is current in northern India."
   Shall I add that then?
5. It also said that this building was most probably an ancient zoroastrian site.
   Liar! "From all this I believe that, even against our will, we must reach the conclusion that, whatever the site may possibly have been originally, the Baku fire-temple, as we now have it, is a Hindu product, and that it is, more particularly, of Northern Indian origin, where fire-worship was cultivated from the ancient time of the Vedas. In age the sanctuary can hardly be more than two centuries old, if we may judge from the half dozen inscriptions that are dated, as they belong mostly to the eighteenth century."
6. Things like Samvat this is that year but could be also that year are OR
   Could you repeat that in English please? What precisely is the problem? And what is it that you want fixed?
7. Now after your changed your source and cited Sify
   First, I haven't changed any sources, so I do not understand what you mean by "Now after your changed your source". Secondly, I didn't add the sify source to begin with. Third, the source is not sify, but a wire-service article that is hosted on sify.
   Also, please review earlier discussion on the so-called "sify" source. I said "If the sify-attributed source [...] is dubious then remove it; it does not contribute anything to the article other to help the reader identify which of the two Samvat calendars applies." To which you asserted that you had not demanded its removal.
8. A biased Inidan source which is not a neutral source any way.
   a) Do you have any evidence that the source is being duplicitous?
   b) Do you have any evidence for the assertion that the wire-service article is non-objective?
   c) You are, by your own admission, heavily biased, and are thus not in any position to objectively question the legitimacy of any source, author, or publication. Your notions of neutrality are a farce, and your agenda of struggle of nation and race is a creeping rot that destroys Wikipedia, and destroys Iran.
9. If you want to usurp something, do it at least professionally.
   Thank you for gratuitous advice. If I wanted to usurp something I would do that professionally even without your "advice". I do everything like a professional, including exposing you as a hysterical liar and troll. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Persian served as the written language in Baku prior to 1918, but its inhabitants were predominantly Turkic-speaking. I would not necessarily attributed the bad Persian to foreigners. I can not judge on that because I cannot read the Persian text from the pictures. It is much Jackson's observation and interpretation. having said that I will come with a proposal soon, which is a generous concession and sounds fair to everyone. I hope it will solve the problem.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

To be added soon

Before expanding the architecture style section and adding more sources, I wanted to know your ideas about this paragraph, as the starting point:

In Dehkhoda Dictionary (Template:Lang-fa), it is mentioned based on a valid historical source, that this building has a char taq "four arch" architecture style, which has been a fire temple for Persian and Hindu fire worshippers in Azarbaijan, the former Sassanid Azarbaigan (Template:Lang-fa) province.

Let me know your ideas. یزدگرد (talk) 02:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Good, just clean it up. First, cite properly: A dictionary is itself not valid as a source on anything but words. But the source Dekhoda cites -- assuming it explicitly refers to the Baku site -- would be valid. Secondly, the Dekhoda has a quarter of a million pages, so you need to be precise to make the citation verifiable. So.... the proper way to cite it would be with a "cf". Like this: "In the article on <(lemma)>, the Dekhoda dictionary (p. __) cites [optional: type of source to indicate authority] <(name of source/author)> as stating <(what_the_source_states)>".

Secondly, italics, emphasis and crufty transliteration are neither necessary nor desirable. Make the point in a straightforward, encyclopedic fashion. Keep in mind who the audience is. -- Fullstop (talk) 06:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

more pictures from other Atashgahs

Look at them and tell me DO YOU SEE THE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THEM AND THAT OF BAKU?

Kheyr Abad

http://www.kb-tebyan.ir/upload/pol-va-atashkadeh-kheirabad.jpg

(you see it is not that big, but still similar to the other Atashgahs, inclusive that of Baku).

Naghshe Rostam

http://www.bestirantravel.com/images/sights/shiraz/atashkadeh2.jpg

Ilam http://www.ariarman.com/images/Atashkadeh_4taghi_darehshahr_Ilam.jpg

Small and simple.

Also look at these bows in Takhte Soleyman = AzarGoshnasp in Iranian Azerbaijan. One of the most important fire temples in the Iranian History http://lh3.ggpht.com/_IYThAYMAF8E/SE-iLA5rsqI/AAAAAAAABPs/yi7aefNLH_U/s512/P1050006.JPG

http://www.irpedia.com/upload/iblock/bf5/bf59265bf5cf1270951eaf4bdc009fdb.jpg

Also here and in Atashgah of Esfahan , there existed a complex more than only a 4tagh! (Esfahan's Arashgah is not a Chartagh any way).

http://www.twip.org/photo/middle-east/iran/photo-14810-23-07-08-07-33-15.jpg

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41468000/jpg/_41468182_06570004.jpg

More pictures of Takhte Soleyman = Azargoshnasp at

cais-soas.com/CAIS/virtual_museum/sasanian/Sites/shiz.htm

--Babakexorramdin (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I think the problems can be solved this way. Instead claiming something as a fact and then refer to the sources, it should be clearly mentioned in the text that the Sources (X, or Y) says this, and the local tradition says this. This way no one suggests that the statements are universally accepted, but are according to the mentioned sources. Yet the sources are mentioned. The problem of interpretation is solved this way. This means in concrete Jackson says this)literally cited), Locals say this, historical Iranian and republic of Azerbaijani say this Literally cited. Having said that I am saoory to see that Fullstoop and the Hindu editors do not contribute onsolving the problem and come to a consensus which reflects any thing short of their own POV. Ok this is my proposal and sounds fair I hope. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 08:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope that Fullstop and Hindu/Indian editors react by tomorrow.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

1. The article already does exactly what you have outlined, and accordingly the only possible "react"ion is to note that the article already states what the sources explicitly state. The article does not in fact suggest "that the statements are universally accepted". It unambiguously states the opposite, i.e. that local legend does not reflect academic consensus.
2. A reaction can only occur in response to action. Accordingly, a response will occur when actual text has been provided for review. That text will of course have to be in adherence to Wikipedia policy for RS, OR and V. As I have repeatedly noted, if anyone has legitimate sources that adhere to Wikipedia policy, then these need to be coughed up.
3. The m:MPOV notions of "neutrality"/"do not contribute onsolving the problem", potty-mouthed ad-nauseum allusions to "Hindu POV", both constitute attempts to WP:GAME the system and refusal to 'get the point'. Such trolling does not deserve a "react"ion. -- Fullstop (talk) 11:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

These parts are problematic:

Inscriptions in the temple in Sanskrit (in Nagari Devanagari script) and Punjabi (in Gurmukhi script) identify the sanctity as a place of Hindu and Sikh worship.[4] These inscriptions date from Samvat 1725 to Samvat 1873,[4] which though unambiguous references to the Hindu calendar, cannot be precisely dated since there is more than one Samvat calendar. Samvat 1725 could thus be either c. 1646 CE or c. 1782 CE. However, "local records say that it was built by a prominent Hindu traders community living in Baku and its construction coincided with the fall of the dynasty of Shirwanshahs and annexation by Russian Empire following Russo-Iranian war [of 1722-1723]."[5]

Too much interpretations

and

(in common usage, 'Gebr' is synonymous with kafir, that is, a non-Muslim).

Again gabr is a deregatory word for Zoroastrians.

The local legend should be renamed as the local account and Also the Persian inscription should be mentioned. Also this stamenet should better be dropped "but there is no evidence to suggest that this may have once been so. The use of natural gas is not in accord with Zoroastrian ritual use.[citation needed" --Babakexorramdin (talk) 11:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope you agree on this and make it a good Christmass day--Babakexorramdin (talk) 01:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are Ok with it. I am going to edit this article soon. A New Year's look. Chronology should be corrected. Unsources Hindu claims and interpretations will be removed and Dehkhoda source will be added.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You will make your proposal here first. -- Fullstop (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And also put fact tags against any claims and interpretations you think need sources. Meowy 21:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Zoroastrian worshipers image?

The image added by User:DerWolF depicting Zoroastrian fire worshipers is a dramatic painting, but it is described as his "own work." As one individual's imaginary scene, it seems to me it has little or no reference value here. Moreover, since the article indicates that it is doubtful that the temple ever was used by Zoroastrians, the image is really misleading. Ecphora (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the image, which recently was re-captioned (correctly) "artist's conception of possible Zoroastrian traditions" for the above reasons. Ecphora (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

State protection

I thought his might be useful information: Azerbaijan allocates 1 million AZN for protection of Ateshgah temple preserve Baku87 (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hindu assualt

The hindu fundamentalist are here again? I think after long struggle we came to a consenus, that you Hindu's again single handedly violated it. Atashgah is a zoroastrian structure. It was once usurped by Hindu and Sikh traders. ShirvanShah did not join Russia in the 18th century. Your Samvats are not important to us, nor are youLord xxxxji. All your myths are only important to you. Why don't you get it? Baku is not part of the Indian wordl. It is part of Iranian world. Whether you remove your nonsense, or I will cleanse the article from them.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Babkexorramdin, what made you so angry about Hinduism? I see you acting like the Persian man in a good but fast manner. There is indeed a high possibility of Hindu relation to that thing. We should keep Wikipedia neutral. Xashaiar (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It made me angry that they singflehandely violated consensus. I do not get your joke aboiut the angry and fast Persian man. The article is not neytral this way--Babakexorramdin (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course you did not get! May I ask you please, explain to me why you think there should be no mention of Hinduism? Can you bring up some RS that convince me that "Hindu relationship" is academically refuted? Xashaiar (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

the problem is that wikipedia relies on secondary sources and not on logics. Inidans have published and manipulated a large canon of nonsense to prove they are cool and they are right everywhere. All their sources are biased. Moreover the fact that a Zoroastrian priest from India says that their prayerhouses look different does not say anything. Of course Zoroastrian prayerhouses of different dates and locations differ. Moreover I do say that Hindus and sikhs have once usurped this Atashgah, but as locals belive, and as their tradtions say as well as the name and architectural style are convincing facts that this building once served as a Zorooastrian xonstruction. I have informed about it from people who are very well informed about the republic of Azerbaijan's cultural heritage. They say the soviet authorities said that the building was visited by Indians and not Hindus. Indians can be anything., There are even Parsi zoroastrians from India. I do remember once I read a book about Baku published in the Soviet Union and it identified the temple as an old Zoroastrian atshgah which was used in the 19th (?) century by Indians. Moreover these Hindu fanatics here are so poorly educated that they call the Russian Persian expeditions of the 18th century as Russo-Persian wars and they claim that Shirvanshahs joined Russia at that date. Everyone knows that this is pure BS> In fact Russians did enter Iranian territory in the Caucasus and Caspian coast of today's Iran after Afghans attacked Iran, but Nader Shah retook the area back. moreover during the Zand era malmanagement and internal crisi Russia again posed some advances on the Iranian territory which was not finalized. The fact is that Shirvanb and Baku seprated from Iran by the treay of Gulistan and not earlier. Shirvanshahan on the other hand were subdued by the safavids already in the 16th century. This much for the Indian nationalists' poor level of knowledge. Moreover they calaim that gah is an Azerbaijani and Hindustani suffix. Again nonsense, if Hindustani's have a few words with suffix -gah this only means that they have borrowed them from persian. Every amatuer linguist also knows that the suffix -gah is Persian and not Indian. Having said that I urge you not to take the Indian extremists'site as their conduct is very disturbing--Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

the last version is fine. But your revert of other page was reverted, because your revision gives false info. 14:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for new image with fire burning

FireTemple

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabstar (talk • contribs) 15:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

POV pushing

There was some POV pushing by Xashaiar, who without consensus removed several sources. He also changed the headline without any discussion. [3] and [4]. This kind of changes is unacceptable. Neftchi (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thats correct, you change to your POV is unacceptable. Wikipedia cares only about scholarly views and not "any statement in a book". Please read wp:undue.Xashaiar (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Also read Ateshgah_of_Baku#Examination_by_Zoroastrian_priests which explains why the temple is Hindu related. It is unclear why you think following the majority of sources is POV pushing. In wikipedia it is understood and agreed by all that giving "tiny folk and non-academic views" a weight is POV pushing. Xashaiar (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me

This is clearly NOT a Hindu Temple but rather a Zoroastrian Fire Temple. First of all, this area was a part of Iran (Persia) for thousands of years. Secondly, I do not think it is the Hindus which are trying to claim so - I think it's a pocket of people from the Republic of Azerbaijan who want to undermine Iranian history/culture and Persian influence over the modern territories of the Azerbaijan country.