Talk:Farouk of Egypt

message: Hey, doesn't this and the related pages violate the rule about only numbering kings when there are more than one of the same name? And what's this POV "stolen" anyway? (It's like accusing Saddam Hussein of stealing from state bank accounts when all the laws had genuinely said he could take those moneys from those bank accounts.)
I should clarify: what he took from abroad was licensed taking, both as sovereign immunity and by the consent of those giving the things up. I was not commenting on the morality but on the legal forms. PML.
:There is no such rule of numbering monarchs. A monarch may have the number I if he styles himself that way, even if there (so far) hasn't been any other king by that name in that country. Another example of this is Frederick I of Sweden, who ruled in the 18th Century and where there hasn't yet been any other King Frederick. John Anderson 08:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  name and number 

message: "King Farouk of Egypt (February 11, 1920 - March 18, 1965) was the penultimate King of Egypt," Oh? That would make Fuad I the antepenultimate King of egypt. So who was the last king of Egypt then? heh heh Wetman 05:27, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  penultimate 

message: There is a saying we used in our family,"who do you think you are?  King Farouk?" when some body wanted something beyound what was to be had. I do not know if this is common, but if it is, it should be included.
:::We had the same saying. Maybe it was common in the early 1950s. Possible it also connoted gluttony or obesity.Lestrade 00:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  saying 

message: 1. Reference to King Fuad as not speaking Arabic because "he was native Albanian". The article on Fuad states hat he was born in Giza Palace in Cairo. So he was not native Albanian if he was born in Egypt. The contention that he spoke no Arabic is not substantiated in the Farouk article. Perhaps, as with many rulers of European houses in the past, the lingua franca of the aristocratic classes was French and though they could speak the national language, they chose to communicate in the "civilised" language, i.e. French. It was also common in the Egypt of Farouk's time for the majority of the European population as well as the educated Egyptians to speak several languages, especially French, but including English, Italian, Greek, Arabic and to a lesser degree, German.
 
2. Farouk's alleged third marriage to Irma Capece Minutolo is referred to in an article in Al Ahram which includes an interview with Mme Minutolo. In it, she claims to have been married to Farouk, but the article itself is sceptical. I think the reference to a third marriage should be excluded until some evidence (other than Mme. Minutolo's claim) can be cited.Orbicle 09:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested excisions pending verification 

message: In the book Too Rich by William Stadiem, the author states that Fuad could not speak Arabic.  It did not say which language he did speak as his first language... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Azalea pomp (talk • contribs) 09:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fuad spoke Italian, Turkish and French as his languages. Fuad grew up in Italy and he preferred to speak Italian. He did not know Arabic. --A.S. Brown (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Fuad's Arabic

message: Being born in Egypt before King Farouk was sent to exile, and at dawn of the 1952 Revolution, we grew up hearing all good things about the king and the Royal Family from the older generations, parents and grandparents. But off course we were making fun of them as being " Old Timers "?! We were taught the totaly the oposite, and we were mislead by learing false history in school.  Now the old genration is long gone, but they were right.  Is in it time for this man to get the recognition he deserves by bringing out the truth? He might had some mistakes, but don't we all? At least when it was time to save what could be a blood shed and chose to peacefully leave the country.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by NourAnwar (talk • contribs) 05:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  King Farouk time to recognize the man 

message: the article jumps from 1945 to 1952 without referring to the perios as the king during the 1948 war and it's defeat in the war. If anyone has any information about it, it must be included into the article ASAP. Oren neu dag 21:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lapse in chronology 

message: How do I add an interwiki to the norwegian article in this protected article? Cheers, JohnnyGoodfella (talk) 23:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki 

message: This might be useful to include under the "Marriages and Affairs" or "Trivia" section.  Quoted in Ochsenwald's The Middle East: A History 6th edition, pg. 585: "The corruptness of King [Farouk] (who became notorious for his collection of pornography) and his supporters made politics unstable in Egypt."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.42.15 (talk) 06:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of Farouk's notorious pornography collection 

message: Have restored the section on Louis Farouk furniture - with reference - after it was inexplicably deleted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.198.123 (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style 

message: The first point is a quibble. Farouk did abdicate in favour of his son but as the son was never crowned does the son count as a king?
At some stage in his reign Farouk was involved in a serious car crash and went into a Swiss clinic. It is only after this that he began to put on serious weight and the story is that he had damaged his testes in the car crash.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 (talk) 09:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  More details about Farouk 

message: Rumor has it that the Farouk Pizza (Sausage, Pepperoni, Mushroom, Onion, Green Pepper) has it's origins tied to Farouk's exile in Egypt. Worth mentioning? --MTHarden (talk) 01:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, and you should feel silly.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pizza 

message: The header states
Further down, under Overthrow, the article states "Farouk was forced to abdicate, and went into exile in Monaco and Italy where he lived for the rest of his life"
Then, under Exile and Death, it states "On his exile from Egypt, Farouk settled first in Monaco, and later in Rome."
Where did he die?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonycat (talk • contribs) 02:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death 

message: There is no evidence to substantiate Miles Copeland's story that he and Kim Roosevelt met with the Free Officers prior to the Revolution and offered American support. According to America's Great Game: The CIA's Secret Arabists and the Shaping of the Modern Middle East (pg. 138): "William Lakeland, who himself had close links to Nasser and the Free Officers, expressed doubts that Miles and Kim met with leading members of the movement before the revolution....In a second echo of March 1949, when Za'im approached British military adviser Colonel Gordon Fox prior to launching his coup, there is evidence of the Egyptian Free Officers courting Western suitors besides the Americans. In December 1951, another British military instructor, former RAF intelligence officer Group Captain Patrick Domville, wrote the Conservative member of Parliament Julian Amery telling him that friends in the Egyptian army and air force had asked him to seek secret British support for a plot 'to overthrow....the King and then to set up a military dictatorship.' Perhaps most damaging to Miles' claims, both Kim Roosevelt himself and several of the Free Officers allegedly involved later denied any CIA role in the conspiracy to depose Farouk." Copeland's testimony cannot be entirely dismissed, even though he was a notorious liar and braggadocio, and it is certainly true that he befriended Nasser after the coup. But in the absence of any supporting evidence, it is hard to consider this part of the historical record.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Fat Fucker.   Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: America's role in supporting nationalist leaders in the Middle East—including both Mossadegh and Nasser—before the exigencies of the Cold War caused the U.S. to turn against them is an interesting and too-often neglected bit of history—not least of all because scholars on both the Right and the Left may find it difficult to square with their simplified theories regarding the conduct of American foreign policy. But the Wikipedia article you are pointing me to is a blatant hoax contradicted by its own references. "Fat Fucker"—allegedly the informal name of a CIA operation for which no documentary evidence exists—was, according to Miles Copeland's memoirs, an effort by Kim Roosevelt to pressure King Farouk into adopting political reforms that would have theoretically undercut Egyptian dissidents and preserved Farouk's grip on power.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting - I've just updated that article to reflect that angle, including some references. Snori (talk) 09:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your contributions. I'll be sure to look over your edits to Fat Fucker, as well as the Rolling Stone article you added to Copeland's page, when I have some time. I've been reading Wilford's Great Game off and on for a while now, with the intention of incorporating some of the information into March 1949 Syrian coup d'état and Syrian Crisis of 1957 (other sources here, although Wilford is very thorough and seems to incorporate all the relevant scholarship into his analysis, plus I'd rather not pay for scholarly articles when I can read an in-depth account from my local library for free), but it's been an extremely stressful past couple of months that has cut into my Wikipedia time considerably. (Not that you asked.) Even if Copeland's hotly contested allegations regarding Kim Roosevelt's contacts with the Free Officers are accepted as fact, it is somewhat misleading to put the Egyptian revolution of 1952 in the same category as the 1953 Iranian coup d'état or the Bay of Pigs Invasion, given that the extent of any American involvement would have been the promise of quick recognition and possibly assistance in working out the finer details of the plan—the Free Officers would have begun plotting literally years earlier, and evidently made contact with sympathetic Britons as well. Suez Crisis seems to be presenting the consensus view when it says "it would be entirely false to describe the coup deposing King Farouk in July 1952 as a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) coup." (To what extent that consensus reflects a Leftist bias in favor of "Progressive" dictators like Nasser is open to debate.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Far from clear CIA supported Farouk's overthrow 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Farouk of Egypt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080814035001/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/762/chrncls.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/762/chrncls.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091026201010/http://www.xs4all.nl/~monarchs/madmonarchs/farouk/farouk_bio.htm to http://www.xs4all.nl/~monarchs/madmonarchs/farouk/farouk_bio.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130507233624/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/864/cu4.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/864/cu4.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Farouk of Egypt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080914004034/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/753/chrncls.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/753/chrncls.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216152243/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/734/sc3.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/734/sc3.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In recent days, Nukleon keeps removing every single thing I written on these pages. The explanations keep changing, so I will express my disagreement here one by one. In the first edit, Nukleon deleted everything I have written under the grounds that was "vandalism and original research". First off, that is a very insulting and rude thing to say as anybody can see that what I have written is not vandalism. As for the claim of original research, I am quite mystified by that as I followed what various RSs have to say. Could Nukleon please cite an example of "original research" on my part? 
Second, everything I wrote was reverted because of a "ton of inaccurate info" about Farouk's death. I have written nothing about Farouk's death, so I do not understand that claim at all. Anyhow, if the information about King Farouk's death is "inaccurate", why doesn't Nukleon do something about it instead of deleting all of my contributions? The third time, Nukleon stated this was a sort of punishment because I "refuse to fix the errors of the page". What are these "errors"? And if there are "errors", why doesn't Nukleon correct them? Finally, I do not believe it is appropriate for one editor to delete everything another editor has done on an article as a punishment for not correcting unspecified "errors". I believe that only administrators have the right to sanction another editor, and Nukleon does not have the right to punish me for not correcting these "errors", whatever they may be. Nukleon has never asked me to "fix" these "errors", which apparently he or she is not capable of doing themselves, and nor has Nukleon said anything here on the article's talk page about what these "errors" are. 
Beyond that, Nukleon stated that my edits went "beyond what is notable". This is a specious argument. Before I started my work, this article mentioned only in passing that Egypt had fought a war against Israel in 1948-49. There is something rather odd about that in that only one sentence was given over to the war with Israel. Rather like if the article on Lyndon Johnson were to give to one sentence saying in passing Johnson decided not to seek reelection in 1968 because of the unpopularity of the Vietnam War while saying nothing else about the Vietnam War. I added a paragraph explaining why Farouk decided to go to war with Israel, which is surely most be considered something notable about his reign. A leader's decision to go to war with another country is by definition notable. Why that paragraph keeps getting deleted as "vandalism" is beyond me. 
Finally, Nukleon has once again leveled the baseless and insulting charge of "vandalizing" this page. One may like or dislike my work here (and I gather that Nukleon does not), but I have in no way have "vandalized" this article. If Nukleon really believed I was "vandalizing" this article, surely I would have been reported to an administrator for "vandalism", which to my knowledge I have not been. For all these reasons, it is my belief that Nukleon is guilty of disruptive editing and edit warring, and I would like to please ask that this behavior stop at once. Does any one else have any thoughts on this matter? --A.S. Brown  03:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: "Vandalism"

message: This article's too long. For one thing, WP:SIZE says at 60kb "Probably should be divided" and at 100kb "Almost certainly should be divided", and this article is at 160kb now -- way over that upper limit. For another, rules aside, it's just dauntingly long.  
 
One way to deal with would be to take out about half the text. I don't like that idea. A lot of work has gone into this and its referenced and all, and its good stuff I think. However, there is a lot of detail -- more detail than most bios have, I think. "Fuad gave all of his children names starting with F after an Indian fortune-teller told him names starting with F would bring him good luck." His grandmother had one arm. I dunno if stuff like that is necessary or even helpful for getting an overview of this entity. However, the great majority of the material is much better. I doubt you could trim more than 10% without doing violence to the material, and that's not near enough.
If it's to be a split instead -- it's a bio, I'm not sure how to split it. I guess you could have an article "King Farouk (to age 25)" and "King Farouk (after age 25)" or something. That'd take the first article to the end of WWII. Each of those would be roughly 70kb which is plenty long (actually still 20kb over the "Probably should be divided" standard). Then this article could be a shorter overview, not a long article at all. Use the "Main article" pointer to point to the new articles. This article could also include stuff like hobbies and titles too.  
  
Or just leave it alone. Some other bios are also (too) long... Bob Dylan is 255kb. Abraham Lincoln is 173kb, roughly the size of this article, but there are breakouts from that article... Abraham Lincoln and slavery, Abraham Lincoln in politics, 1849–1861, Abraham Lincoln in the Black Hawk War, and several others like that. Herostratus (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to split this article 

message: A new account removed William Stadiem's Too rich : the high life and tragic death of King Farouk, which is probably the most complete biography about him and the source around which the article has been written. It's WP:RS, but if it is disputed, a discussion at WP:RSN can be filed. --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stadiem 1991 

message: The article currently states "Farouk himself was not personally anti-Semitic, having a Jewish mistress, the singer Lilianne Cohen, better known by her stage name Camelia", however it appears that Camelia was not a singer but an actress, and wasn't Jewish at all. It's her step father who was Jewish and gave her the name Cohen. Establishing a lack of antisemitism because the person in question had an affair, one of many, with a non-Jewish person is a bit of a stretch, isn't it? 80.68.228.217 (talk) 09:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Camelia's supposed Jewishness