Talk:Safavid dynasty/Archive 8

message: One reason I asked for all parties not make edits was so the article would not be locked.  This way we have much better chance to reach a concensus.  Thus I want to try something new if everyone agrees..
Pick a date (I'll do mine next monday and I am taking wiki break till monday) and time (approximately an hour) and do some editing on the main page and then save it.  After you have the version you are satisfied with (and preferably one that is a compromise solution) , revert back to the current version. .  
Before making the edits, announce it on the talk page, make the edits (preferably no more than 1 hour and perhaps use microsoft word or some other place for your edits and then paste it) and then save it.  Afterwards just r.v. back to this: [].  On the commenting before you save your version, just say per talk page, trying solution.. or something like that.
I welcome Tajik, Atabek, GM.. and any other interested user to try this.  Again make sure you announce it on the talk page, save your version and then revert back to the current version. (this way the article won't get locked).   I will try mine next monday as I am taking a wiki break as I have to write a paper on something.  This way we can have a look on how the introduction and the origin and etc. section will look like.  Also make sure to indicate your compromised version if you have done multiple editing with the hour or so..--alidoostzadeh 00:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I agree with that. I don't have time to attend Wiki that often until Monday too. Alternatively, I think we can each create a subpage under our own User pages instead of updating the main article, and then present those pages here for comparison and discussion. Atabek 01:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay that sounds better.  Also I hope everyone tries a compromise version.  --alidoostzadeh 01:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just checked in for sec.. wanted to make sure the discussion is on the right track.  --alidoostzadeh 02:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creative Solution..maybe I can wiki patent it 

message: I will make it soon after reviewing Tajiks and Atabeks carefully.  Hopefully by Tuesday or Wednesday..  No need to rewrite the same back and forth arguments until my version is done.  So please do your best if you can to end arguments until my version is also presented.  But I am glad to say that both versions proposed so far are very close and we have taken a big step.  Both versions are good and there seems to be just a minor argument, but the bulk of both versions intersect (have more in common) for the most part.--alidoostzadeh 15:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a major controversy in Tajik's version, Ali. Attribution of entire Safavid origin to being Kurdish is simply ridiculous and plain POV. The word Persian is used in wrong context, as Safavids had very little to do with ethnic Persian origin. I suggest changing some Persian spellings to Iranian, we are in 21st century, when the country and nation is known as Iran not Persia. Also, Azerbaijan shall be mentioned in introduction, as region where Safavids rose. Hiding it simply paints a wrong picture about the dynasty. Thanks and looking forward to your version. Atabek 16:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What's the problem now?! You reject the word "Persian" because you want to use the "modern meaning of the term" while you stubbornly persist on the word "Turkic", although the modern meaning of "Azeri" is clear to everyone in here?! Why this double-standard again?! Tājik 16:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not Azeri, but Azeri Turkic or Azerbaijani. If you put Azeri now, later there will be yet another "historian" trying to prove us what the definition of Azeri means, relying on Persian nationalist Ahmad Kasravi. So either Azeri Turkic or Azerbaijani, but not Azeri, is acceptable.Atabek 01:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My version 

message: This article needs a lot of work, and I mean a lot. Right now, I am going through it and fixing the grammatical and the smoothness of the article, but those are not the only problems. Random information is all over the article. We really need to organize this article, its a mess! Hopefully we can make it a featured article.Azerbaijani 00:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok guys, I read through a lot of the article and fixed a bunch of mistakes. I did not change anything that is in dispute. Again, I did not touch anything that is within the dispute.Azerbaijani 01:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally, I was able to eliminate atleast one of the tags.Azerbaijani 01:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alot needs to be done!

message: I have archived this since some non-relevant discussions were taking place.  --alidoostzadeh 02:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  archived