Talk:Faisal II

Revolution and death of Faisal
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 in Hanna Batatu's book on Iraq. I'll check the precise details and refine the current version. Palmiro | Talk 18:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the wording used the the article, that Faisal was "executed", ought to be changed. Execution requires judicial or at least quasi-legal authority. He was murdered by revolutionaries. Ncox001 (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

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)
 * Agree. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Support for revolution
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)

Scouting?
Wilson links him to Boy Scouting, was there a connection?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Transportation to hospital?!
Why on Earth should the executioners transport the body of their still-alive victim to hospital? Aminabzz (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 17 February 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. After extended time for discussion, a clear consensus for the proposed move has developed. BD2412 T 00:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Faisal II of Iraq → Faisal II – Per an inapplicability of WP:NCROY, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRECISION, WP:CONCISE, and WP: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)
 * Note: WikiProject Iraq has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended rationale
1. Inapplicability of WP:NCROY: I am aware that Faisal II was the King of Iraq (i.e. a monarch). However, his article is not 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 because the guideline’s language makes it clear it is irrelevant for Middle Eastern sovereigns like Faisal: 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...
 * (Emphasis mine)

2. WP:COMMONNAME: When comparing search results on JSTOR for Faisal II and Faisal II of Iraq, one sees that the former term is more popular than the latter:
 * “Faisal II of Iraq” yields 2,580 results, whereas
 * “Faisal II” yields 5,060 results (i.e. 96 percent more popular than "Faisal II of Iraq").

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:
 * “Faisal II of Iraq” yields approximately 18,300 results, whereas
 * “Faisal II” yields approximately 130,000 results (i.e. 610 percent more common than “Faisal II of Iraq”).

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 contain Faisal II, this means that my proposed alternative, per WP:PRECISION.

4. WP:CONCISE: While hopefully self-explanatory, Faisal II of Iraq contains 17 characters, whereas Faisal II only contains 9 characters. Combined with the WP:PRECISION argument, this shows that the latter title better, 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 to Faisal II. To illustrate: Therefore, I hope to see Faisal II of Iraq’s Wikipedia article moved to Faisal II. However, as I always say, consensus determines the final outcome. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 23:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There is an article on Nuri al-Said, not Nuri Pasha al-Said.
 * There is an article on Abd al-Karim Qasim, not Abd al-Karim Qasim Muhammad Bakr al-Fadhli al-Zubaid. And above all,
 * There is an article on Saddam Hussein, not Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti (I must comment that I had never seen Saddam’s full name until drafting this RM rationale!)

Survey

 * Oppose - as his father's page is Ghazi of Iraq & his grandfather's is Faisal I of Iraq. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, in line with WP:NCROY. Rosbif73 (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per GoodDay and WP:CONSISTENT, which reads: We strive to make titles on Wikipedia as consistent as possible with other titles on similar subjects. We follow patterns from article titles for similar topics to the extent that this is practical. There is no reason to treat Faisal I and Faisal II differently. Srnec (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to treat Faisal I and Faisal II differently. Indeed! WP:NCROY applies equally to both of them, and is equally unambiguous and already a primary redirect, so the solution to consistency is to rename both of them to meet the guideline. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. WP:CONSISTENT is but one of the five criteria, and really it's WP:COMMONNAME that we're more inclined to follow, alongside WP:CONCISE, which applies to this nomination. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:NCROY and WP:COMMONNAME. I would also support moving his grandfather's page to Faisal I. Векочел (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Per nom and . Complying with PrimaryTopic is an explicit exception to CONSISTENT, so CONSISTENT is not even an applicable policy based argument here. Opposers have no policy basis to their position. --В²C ☎ 06:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, primarily per WP:NCROY. I also concur with B2C's analysis of WP:CONSISTENT. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion
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) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.