Talk:Hussein bin Ali, King of Hejaz
Latest comment: 2 years ago by FOARP in topic Requested move 21 December 2021
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hussein bin Ali, King of Hejaz article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Requested move 21 December 2021
edit- 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 - Consensus that this specific person should be known by their highest title.(non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 09:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca → Hussein bin Ali, King of Hejaz – The kingship was the highest position he held and would therefore appear to be the proper title. Векочел (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. VR talk 07:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support although Sherif/Sharif has an edge as commonname, that very likely has to do with the amount of literature concerning his dealings with Britain such as the McMahon Hussein correspondence before he was recognized by the allies as King of the Hejaz (should include "the", I think) at the end of 1916. There is a separate page for the Sharif title itself so maybe no redirect/no disambiguation is correct.Selfstudier (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2021 (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.