Talk:Muslim conquest of Persia/Archive 5

Merge

The articles should be merged because there is no difference between the Muslim conquest of Persia and the fall of the Sasanian Empire. Srnec (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Srnec, this is one of the weirdest moments in Wikipedia. Why in God's name did you add a tag for merge without a discussion in October? You are not a new editor. You know the rules. You have to start a discussion before adding that template and you have to seek consensus. You also have to date the template to the day you started the discussion.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

It's in my edit summary at Fall of the Sasanian Empire: merge tag - see RM at Talk:Muslim conquest of Persia. The issue of a merge was brought up during the RM (not by me) and I wanted to make sure attention was drawn to it by any watchers of the other article. Between your comment on the talk page above and the removal of the tag were 8 minutes. As for the "rules", please note that I've been around longer than Wikipedia:Merging.
I support such a merge on the grounds already stated. The editors directly involved in the brief merge discussion at the time were Benyamin-ln, HistoryofIran and Aryzad. Srnec (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, I guess the stuff mentioned in the Fall of the Sasanian Empire could be explained in a background section of this article or something like that. Thus I support this merge. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Srnec, Here is what happened without filters. I saw the template, tried to find the discussion but I couldn't find it. I removed the template and you reverted me twice without any explanation. You added a merge discussion but yet the template of merge was dated to October and yet you didn't explain where the discussion is or was in your merge discussion. I don't think I have done anything wrong here. Also I doubt that we can have a merge discussion inside a RM discussion.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support per Srnec and HistoryofIran. Benyamin-ln (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support but I dont think it fits in the background. Shouldnt it be in somewhere else because the lede of this article says that the Muslim conquest of Persia "led to the fall of the Sasanian Empire of Iran"--SharabSalam (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Wut? Doesn't sound like you've read the Fall of the Sasanian Empire article. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, I am talking about this article's lede. Also the fall happened in 651 and the conquest started in 633, so how can something happened in the future be the background of something that started in the past?.--SharabSalam (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

You stated that it doesn't fit in the background. What do you think I meant by that? Do yourself a favour and actually read Fall of the Sasanian Empire, majority of the stuff in the article is regarding the reasons that the empire fell. For comparison, see Fall of the Western Roman Empire. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, you said "the stuff mentioned in the Fall of the Sasanian Empire could be explained in a background section of this article". You are supporting moving the content of the article of the fall of the Sasanian Empire to this article background but I don't agree. I said it doesn't fit in the background section. It probably fits in a "Aftermath" or "result" section(I am not really familiar with this article) and I gave the reason for that because something that happened in the future(fall of Sasanian Empire) cant be in the background of something that happened in the past(Muslim conquest).--SharabSalam (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, because the information in the the Fall of the Sasanian Empire is mainly about the reasons behind the fall of the empire in the period 628-632, aka it would fit in a background section. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support From what I've seen and read, this merge makes sense. This proposal has been up for a while, would the current consensus be enough to even merge? - Aza24 (talk) 08:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I think, the contents of the two articles are entirely different. One articles talks about the intentions of the Arabs and the events leading to the invasion and the conquer; whereas, the second articles talks about why the Persian Empire could not stand the invasion. - Imdadb (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons stated above. Irrespective of what these articles currently contain, there is no objective reason why they should not be merged. If necessary, any residual content can be merged into other articles. I also think the title Fall of the Sasanian Empire is worth avoiding because it is an obvious reference to the The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire and presupposes an outdated and ahistorical "rise-decadence-and-fall" model of historical change. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Just now noticed the existence of this merge request. As others have said, it is a single event: the reasons for the Sasanians being unable to resist is background information to the actual event. Constantine ✍ 12:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Since there is a clear consensus, I have boldly gone ahead with the merger. Srnec (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Shahnameh3-1.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)