Talk:Kingdom of Iraq

File:Coat of arms of Kingdom of Iraq.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Coat of arms of Kingdom of Iraq.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? 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. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Misleading - see talk on Mandate Mesopotamia

Please see discussion here Talk:British Mandate for Mesopotamia. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. I note this reverses a previous move 15:32, 13 April 2012‎ Oncenawhile (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (39 bytes) (+39)‎ . . (Oncenawhile moved page Kingdom of Iraq to Kingdom of Iraq (1932-58): As per talk at Kingdom of Iraq (Mandate administration)), but I cannot locate that previous discussion. Andrewa (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Kingdom of Iraq (1932–58) → Kingdom of Iraq –

• The destination already redirects there and there was only one Kingdom of Iraq. Srnec (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • See Kingdom of Iraq (Mandate administration) Apteva (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I saw. What's your point? There was still only one kingdom of Iraq and that title still redirects to the disambiguated one (against policy). Is it primary usage or not? The page was moved without opening a discussion. Srnec (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment The Kingdom of Iraq was founded in 1921, so this move would change the scope of the article -- not that there's anything wrong with that. Kauffner (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• The scope of the article was unilaterally changed when it was unilaterally moved. It makes no sense not to have an article on the kingdom of Iraq, but instead two on two periods of its history. Srnec (talk) 05:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Since there has been only one Kingdom of Iraq (there are no other primary usage candidates), and because Kingdom of Iraq is already a redirect to Kingdom of Iraq (1932–58), I think the article it's safe and correct to move this page to Kingdom of Iraq. The alternative option is to create a new parent article Kingdom of Iraq with subpages Kingdom of Iraq (Mandate administration) and Kingdom of Iraq (1932–58). I would support that option as well. Michael! (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Cautious support. Assuming the aforementioned split holds and there's no need to disambiguationalize, this has to be deparenthesized. Red Slash 03:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support This is unnecessary disambiguation. I was about to make this move unilaterally after moving Kingdom of Iraq (Mandate administration) to Mandatory Iraq per RM. A hatnote do that page would do no harm, but is probably also unnecessary. --BDD (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Previous move discussion

The previous move discussion was between me and Greyshark at Talk:Mandatory_Iraq#Misleading_article. The above move has created a problem of two overlapping articles without clear scopes. I don't know how to fix this mess now. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The scopes seem clear to me. They definitely—and appropriate—overlap. The article Mandatory Iraq (1918/21–32) is a sub-article of Kingdom of Iraq (1921–58). I would not strongly object to re-jigging the scope of the former and re-titling it to be more precise. Since there was only ever one Kingdom of Iraq, it is misleading to disambiguate it. What exactly is your beef with the current setup? Both article could use some improvement. Srnec (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

untrue, this article was about Iraq between 1928-1958. Oncenawhile is correct.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hold on hold on, Greyshark i'm not sure you can just undo the move above, which was resulted from the RM above. Just like you didn't inform me of your RM at Kingdom of Iraq (Mandate administration), Srnec didn't inform you of this.

Srnec, my beef is mostly that noone thought to involve me in the debate despite the fact that Greyshark and I spent 2 months discussing this exact topic.

In terms of what should be here, I would be happy with any of the following:

• Two main articles: Kingdom of Iraq (British administration) and Kingdom of Iraq (1932–58)
• One main article: Kingdom of Iraq and one subarticle Kingdom of Iraq (British administration). If we go down this route, we need to actually amend the scopes of these articles so that it fits a proper article-subarticle format.
• One merged article: Kingdom of Iraq

What doesn't work is either (a) anything with the word "mandate" in it (the proposed mandate was never enacted - the British-Iraqi relationship was governed by the Anglo-Iraqi Treaty, so use of the word mandate is incorrect); or (b) having the 1932-58 article as a subarticle of the main "Kingdom of Iraq" article without then fixing the content in both.

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, i skipped this, anyway i have already been reverted. The change from 1932 to 1921 was however a pure enterprise by Srnec. It is very clear in my mind that there should be two articles: Mandatory Iraq (or Kingdom of Iraq (British administration)) and Kingdom of Iraq (1932–58). If the change to Mandatory Iraq created this mess, i suggest to move it back, and this one of course is ONLY about the independent Kingdom of Iraq (1932-1958).Greyshark09 (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure Greyshark will sympathise with me, but it is very clear in my mind that the Kingdom of Iraq article should cover the entire period of the kingdom's existence, from 1921 to 1958. Srnec (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you Srnec. I also have sympathy for Greyshark's view that many readers want to read about Iraq under British control. It's a difficult one because the decade of British control was via treaty with a theoretically sovereign Kingdom. Can we focus the question on this Template:History of Iraq. In the template, do you think there should be just one article for 21-58, or two articles (as currently) for 21-32 and 32-58? Oncenawhile (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

We should retain an article on Iraq under the British, but mainly as a sub-article of the topic of the kingdom period of Iraqi history. I don't much care for sidebar templates, so I'll refrain from commenting on that. 20:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Following this mismanagement (initiated by my mistake) i propose to revert back Mandatory Iraq article to Kingdom of Iraq (British Administration). Discuss at Talk:Mandatory Iraq#Rename back.GreyShark (dibra) 18:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Very Inadequate Article

This article, compared with other articles on Wikipedia, is shockingly brief and cursory, as is its adjunct, the British mandate of Iraq. It is not that content is biased or unbalanced, it is just lacking in the detail other histories of the same period receive. Is this all there is to say about decades of fairly recent Iraqi history? It is not as though there is no research available on this subject, although the article does not even have a bibliography, and the references given for the few footnotes do not include any of the significant sources for this period. Unfortunately, I just don't have the time to do anything about this myself, but I am disappointed that the modern history of Iraq has merited so little description. The articles in Arabic, French, and German do not look too impressive either. The Arabic one only is a brief part of the general history of Iraq (!). The French one might be slightly better, but not much. This article certainly exposes a weakness of Wikipedia.LCalpurniusPiso (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2018 (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:

• Flag of the Arab Federation.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:25, 20 June 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:

• Flag of the Arab Federation.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ba'athist Iraq which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

government type

yeah yeah, let's get this brushed off and stop potentally escalating into an edit war Nikkimaria. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Per MOS:IBP, "information should be presented in a short format wherever possible, and should exclude unnecessary content". Given that parliamentary monarchy redirects to constitutional monarchy, it is not necessary to include both. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

If we go by your solution, then it would more-then-likely stick as a sore thumb for our readers whenever they would stumble upon this article and not see anything about a "parliamentary" system in place (compared to other articles where they do have "parliamentary"). This would lead to temporary accounts trying to readd the fact about a parliamentary Kingdom of Iraq within the |government_type= parameter, only for it to be reverted. Would this be something that you would willingly spend a lot of time reverting these sorts of edits? Not meaning to assume bad faith of you, but you have to realise the time that you would have to spend in order to contain these said edits where you can just avoid it all together and leave it in place.

Additionally, it doesn't seem to be "too short" for me when "parliamentary constitutional monarchy" is seen within an infobox as it is just one more additional word that would not do anything to me. There might even be real life cases where a constitutional monarchy would not have a parliamentary system (i.e, having a semi-presidential or presidential system).

Lastly, how short do we have to summarise the key facts before we draw a hardline about it. Like what's next? Unitary monarchy, even just monarchy? This will become a slippery slope so we need to be clear oon what and what NOT to do in this case.

Also, about the redirect of "parliamentary monarchy", I have turned it into a disambiguation due to the fact that this can also apply to any sort of monarchy that willingly dares to have a parliamentary system (Constitutional, semi-constitutional, and even absolute!). GuesanLoyalist (talk) 03:50, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

If there is a concern about other articles including unnecessary descriptors, the best solution to that would be to work to fix those other articles, rather than decide we should accept bloat because it is easy. There certainly are already many articles that use simply "monarchy". Also, your new disambiguation page is disambiguating two links that still lead to the same place. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

If there is a concern about other articles including unnecessary descriptors, the best solution to that would be to work to fix those other articles, rather than decide we should accept bloat because it is easy

Are you able to explicitly tell these said new accounts why you actually reverted these edits? Like say it in their face? Can you tell them that maybe they should be able to seek consensus in the talk page? I just want to check on if you're actually able to do so, then I probably wouldn't mind. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 18 June 2026 (UTC)