Talk:Faisal II
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia'sMain Page in theOn this day section onJuly 14, 2007. |
 | This level-5 vital article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | On 17 February 2024, it was proposed that this article bemoved fromFaisal II of Iraq toFaisal II. The result ofthe discussion wasmoved. |
Faisal was killed on the day of the revolution but it appears that the revolutionaries only intended that he should be exiled; one of the officers on the scene had a rush of blood to the head and opened fire on the royal party after they had walked out of the palace. Nuri al-Said was killed the day after trying to escape. This events are detailed inHanna Batatu's book on Iraq. I'll check the precise details and refine the current version.Palmiro |Talk18:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Kashmir issue was solved in 1958, sadly Ayub Khan took over and betrayed the Pakistani people.
The real story behind Iraq, Iran ,Turkey and Pakistan:A meeting of the Baghdad Pact, July 1958 King Faisal II killed and assasinated by CIA.Shah of Iran 1973 revolution thanks to CIA.Iskander Mirza exiled 1958 by CIA.Adnan Menders Turkish PM false charges by CIA.
Had these countries joined an alliance US wouldnt be the superpower anymore.
True stories being told by great grand son of Iskander Mirza,
Humayun Mirza jr.
Tired of all the false facts and not everyone knowning the truth.HumayunMirzaJR (talk)17:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 | An image used in this article,File:Faisal II f.jpg, has been nominated for deletion atWikimedia Commons in the following category:Deletion requests October 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk)18:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
There is no evidence that the revolution enjoyed widespread support. It may or may not have done so. However a military coup is by definition undemocratic and without the consent of the people. Therefore I do not see why the statement that the monarchy "was abolished by revolution without popular consent" requires a citation.101.98.140.129 (talk)23:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wilson[1] links him to Boy Scouting, was there a connection?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk)09:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
References
Why on Earth should the executioners transport the body of their still-alive victim to hospital?Aminabzz (talk)17:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the move request was:moved. After extended time for discussion, a clear consensus for the proposed move has developed.BD2412T00:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Faisal II of Iraq →Faisal II – Per an inapplicability ofWP:NCROY,WP:COMMONNAME,WP:PRECISION,WP:CONCISE, andWP:CONSISTENT, I am requesting that the article title for the last King of Iraq be changed. An extended rationale follows on the talk page of the article in question.AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs)23:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1.Inapplicability of WP:NCROY: I am aware that Faisal II was the King of Iraq (i.e. a monarch). However, his article isnot under the scope of WP:NCROY(which, in the interest of full disclosure, I have cited to oppose moves like these in the past). This is becausethe guideline’s language makes it clear it is irrelevant for Middle Eastern sovereigns like Faisal:
These following conventions [WP:NCROY] apply toEuropean monarchs since the fall of theWestern Roman Empire...(Emphasis mine)
There is no explicit convention for Middle Eastern countries…
I therefore ask that my move request be viewed primarily in the context of Faisal’s status as an important Iraqi historical figure instead of (yet another) king. Also, without any appropriate topic-specific guidelines, we turn to Wikipedia’s general titling policies, such as...
2.WP:COMMONNAME: When comparing search results onJSTOR forFaisal II andFaisal II of Iraq, one sees that the former term is more popular than the latter:
In addition, when comparing Google Ngram results for “Faisal II” and “Faisal II of Iraq”,one sees that the former term has consistently been more commonly used since 1940.
Finally, when comparing general Google search results for the current title and the proposed alternative,Faisal II seems to be the most popular way to refer to the monarch in question:
3.WP:PRECISION: As of this post, “Faisal II”is already a redirect to the Faisal II of Iraq article. In addition, since no other Wikipedia titles containFaisal II, this means that my proposed alternativeunambiguously define[s] the topical scope of the article
, per WP:PRECISION.
4.WP:CONCISE: While hopefully self-explanatory,Faisal II of Iraq contains 17 characters, whereasFaisal II only contains 9 characters. Combined with the WP:PRECISION argument, this shows that the latter title betterbalance[s] brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area
, as WP:CONCISE advises.(And for the sake of this move, I presume that this person will have had some experience studying Iraqi history and culture.)
5.WP:CONSISTENT(Admittedly, I struggled the most to find evidence to support this point.): When we look at the article titles of various other figures in 20th-century Iraqi history, we see that there is a habit of using abbreviated names akin toFaisal II. To illustrate:
Therefore, I hope to seeFaisal II of Iraq’s Wikipedia article moved toFaisal II. However, as I always say, consensus determines the final outcome.AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs)23:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to treat Faisal I and Faisal II differently.Indeed!WP:NCROY applies equally to both of them, andFaisal I is equally unambiguous and already a primary redirect, so the solution to consistency is to renameboth of them to meet the guideline.Rosbif73 (talk)07:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I am not an expert on Iraqi history. I would greatly appreciate learning about any specialized insight that may make this RM process smoother. Also, I am curious to see how the fact that Faisal II (of Iraq)’s page is a level-5 vital article affects the outcome of this move request.AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs)23:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the move request was:Not moved. Instead, consensus favored movingFaisal I of Iraq toFaisal I.(non-admin closure)Jeffrey34555 (talk)17:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Faisal II →Faisal II of IraqFaisal II of Iraq – Consistency withFaisal I of Iraq andGhazi of Iraq. Failing this, we should move those two toFaisal I andGhazi (king of Iraq).Srnec (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2025 (UTC)— Relisting. Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2025 (UTC)— Relisting. Arbitrarily0 (talk)19:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
