Talk:Qaboos bin Said

Personal Life

I would like to highlight that prior RFCs consensus in Talk:Qaboos bin Said/Archive 2 and Talk:Qaboos bin Said/Archive 3 concluded that this material should not be included. While some editors believe it’s solely a matter of BLP and BDP, it’s actually a broader issue related to rumor-based and weakly sourced allegations. Here are the points justifying the removal of these allegations:

1. Weak and Speculative Sources: The sources used to support these allegations lack credibility and rely heavily on speculation. Many are primarily rumor-based or from less authoritative outlets. According to Wikipedia’s policies, particularly Wikipedia:Reliable sources, sources must be reliable and independent, especially for contentious claims. Sourced rumors—without substantive evidence—remain unsubstantiated and detract from the quality of the article.
   • Source [53] is based on assumptions.
   • Source [54] is based on the claims of only three individuals, one of whom was arrested in 1994, raising credibility concerns.
   • Source [55] is based on beliefs, lacking concrete evidence.
   • Source [56] cites a quote allegedly found in the “Graham Diaries,” but the published Oxford University Press edition contains no such quote, suggesting that Tony Molesworth may not have mentioned anything about Qaboos's private life. (unless someone can verify)
2. Lack of Relevance to the Subject’s Legacy: These allegations don’t seem to add substantial value or relevance to the overall article. Readers are unlikely to gain meaningful insight from unproven claims that lack significance to the individual’s contributions or public image. Wikipedia’s policies, particularly Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight, emphasize giving appropriate weight to content. Removing material that lacks substantive relevance could improve the article’s quality and focus.
3. Cultural Context and Sensitivity: Given that this individual is from an Arab country, where LGBT-related topics are often highly sensitive and may be legally restricted, it’s important to consider the cultural implications. Wikipedia policies allow for the coverage of controversial topics, but content should have a clear encyclopedic purpose rather than presenting information that could be perceived as culturally inflammatory or out of context.

It is surprising that some editors still support the inclusion of this material despite RFC consensus and previous discussions recommending its exclusion. I hope these points offer clarity on why it may be beneficial to review the consensus to ensure the article aligns with Wikipedia’s standards on reliable sourcing, relevance, and sensitivity. Itshrabkhan (talk) 08:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The first RfC no longer applies as that was for BLP reasons, the second RfC had, despite your claims, no consensus either way (and part of the "exclude" vote was still for BLP as that applies to the recently deceased as well, which is no longer the case), and source 56 states "[...] Qaboos's character , complementing their disapproving statements with homophobic references to his sexual preferences. For instance, Tony Molesworth, the Sultanate's second most senior intelligence officer, stated that 'HM is homosexual and vicious, like his Father[...]". Your claim about source 54, that one of the three was arrested in 1994, is wrong, and irrelevant anyway.[1]. All cited sources indicate that the beliefs about his sexuality were widespread and had political / public image implications during his life. It's not about whether the rumors were true or not, but that they were considered important at the time and by current commentators in very reliable sources. And these aren't the only available sources, e.g. this flat out states that he was homosexual, and this source confirms that the rumours were long-lived and widespread, not just a few individuals with a grudge as you seem to imply[2]. Fram (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

As I said millions times, regardless of BLP or BDP, Wikipedia should not be a platform for rumor and speculation, especially when it comes to sensitive topics without substantial evidence. Even if these sources appear in print, they still amount to hearsay rather than verifiable fact. And including speculative information—no matter how it's presented—doesn’t seem appropriate unless it serves a genuinely encyclopedic purpose.

You mentioned that my claim about one of the three individuals being arrested in 1994 was wrong; however, this detail is indeed present in the poorly source [3]1 you mentioned, I encourage you to read it before citing from it.

"RELIABLE SOURCES" "RELIABLE SOURCES" not just social media posts. The second source you mentioned [4]2 relies almost entirely on tweets from various individuals. This doesn’t meet the reliability standard Wikipedia requires, especially for potentially contentious claims.

We should prioritize Wikipedia’s commitment to neutrality and verifiability and avoid content that may read as speculative or gossip-focused. Including unverified claims adds little value to the article and risks undermining its quality and neutrality. Itshrabkhan (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

So you actually checked it, and claim that "One of the three - a young Western-educated male related to one of those arrested in 1994 - stated [...]" means that the source himself was arrested, and not, er, someone related to him? And if reliable sources state that there are rumours about X or Y, then we can state that there are rumours about X or Y, as we did here. It would indeed be wrong to state that X or Y is true, but there is no reason to not include it. We include rumours about historical figures and their sexual life all the time, e.g. Mary Boleyn "was also rumoured to have been a mistress of Henry VIII's rival, King Francis I of France, for some period between 1515 and 1519.", or Margaret_Erskine#Rumoured_as_royal_bride, or Thomas_Wyatt_(poet)#Rumoured_affair_with_Anne_Boleyn, or more recently Moya_Llewelyn_Davies#Rumoured_affair. There are countless examples. Fram (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

And your point 3 actually makes it clear why this is considered important and not just some personal choice, and this is noted in the sources given above. It had an impact during his life and afterwards. Excluding it based on cultural sensitivity is the wrong kind of censoring and fails our WP:NPOV policy. Fram (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The impacts you referenced remain unclear, and without concrete evidence, don't contradict yourself and assume such impacts. The relevance of these rumors to article is highly questionable, and without a clear significance, there seems little reason for their inclusion. Itshrabkhan (talk) 11:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Masjid

I would like to point out that the mosque(Masjid) which Sultan Qaboos built is not the biggest mosque in the world at all as stated, in fact, there are many other masjids around the world which are by far bigger than this masjid. For example, Al Masjid Al Haram in Makkah (Saudi Arabia) is bigger by probably over 100 times! The total capacity of Al Jami'a Al Akbar (Muscat) is 20,000 worshipers, whereas, in Makkah it can take more than 2.5 million worshipers. I do not know how this false information appeared in this website ?? Regards.

Revision

I added two new subheadings about Qaboos' early life and the coup. I would like to create a more detailed account of Qaboos' reign - in particular the Dhofar conflict and modernization. I would also like a section on his personal life. I need help with this please. -Anon

why don't you write about his hobbies and interests? I hope you find this website helpful http://www.omannews.com/english/H.M%20%20E.htm

RfC on sexuality

Should the persistent claims about his homosexuality be included in the article? Fram (talk) 11:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Background

The RfC is about the use of either version of these two[5], with modifications if necessary. A first RfC from 2017 decided against inclusion on WP:BLP grounds (the subject was still alive then), and a second RfC in 2020, months after his death, ended without consensus (with opposition partly because BLP also applies to the recently deceased). Now, more than 4 years later, BLP no longer applies, but the inclusion or exclusion of the two sentences still lead to edit wars, page protection, ... Fram (talk) 11:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• Include. The subsection is well sourced (multiple academic books, The Times) and clearly indicates that the rumours or claims were long-lived and widespread, and considered worthy of inclusion and discussion in reliable sources, not just some gossip. Fram (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• Exclude. Far be it from me, certainly farther than it is for this encyclopaedia, any notion of modesty or prudishness. But, thankfully, the project is built on the foundation of sources. Moreover, we care not about gossip, perhaps less so when it's about humans, but also about everything else. Gossip does not land safely here. What we have on the issue raised by this RfC, as far as the eye can see, are rumors. The sources, reliable or not, proffered by parties interested in assigning a specific sexual identity to the article's subject, contain no more than a recycling of rumors. We need way more than that. Verifiability over all else. -The Gnome (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I don't suggest to include it as a fact, but as a widespread, important rumour as noted by many impeccable reliable sources. Verifiability over all else, there is nothing unverifiable about the suggested addition. Fram (talk) 13:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

You are suggesting we include rumors in Wikipedia simply because some reliable sources in the media have reproduced rumors? Wikipedia does not operate as media. That, at least, should be obvious. -The Gnome (talk) 13:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you just posting random ALLCAPS links in the hope that they apply? First you linked to VNT when the suggested addition is clearly V, now you want to dismiss books and newspapers spanning decades as if they somehow would violate WP:NOTNEWS, which has nothing at all indicating that this information shouldn't be included. I presume, if I'm generous, that you refered to WP:NOTGOSSIP, but "Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography of that person, only those for which they have notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest." The fact that so many sources have explicitly discussed this facet, even in their obituary, while other sources made it the main focus of an article[6], shows that this isn't some minor aspect. Fram (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Include. I concur with Fram. It is noteworthy, encyclopedic and sourced according to guidelines. It does seem that a lot of Single-purpose accounts and straight up IP editors are blatantly deleting content, because of personal reasons and not for building a wiki community. Ip says (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• Exclude – No, it is generally not considered okay to out someone as supposedly gay, or even hint at it, after they are deceased; this practice is widely seen as disrespectful, and I am firmly against cherry-picked sources in order to spread gossip and rumors about a deceased person's supposed sexual orientation, especially when they are no longer alive to defend themselves against gossip and rumor-mongers. It's reprehensible and disgusting. These obits make no mention of it: WSJ; Britannica; NYT; Guardian; BBC; ALJ. I also searched through several academic journals via The Wikipedia Library, and found no mention of it. This sort of content is not encyclopedic, and we should always, always, always, respect the wishes of the person when they were alive, if they chose not to reveal personal details like this in their lifetime, and not resort to spitting on their grave after they are deceased. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  The outing or rumors happened while they were alive, they didn't start after his death, so your whole moral high ground is based on very shaky grounds. I personally find regimes that criminalize homosexuality (but obviously allow it if you are powerful and discreet, or have a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude) much more "reprehensible and disgusting" than summarizing widely shared rumors, and I don't see why the rumors would be "spitting on their grave" anyway unless you find homosexuality reprehensible in some way. As for your search of academic journals, it seems to have been deficient: the "Middle East Review of International Affairs" already discussed this in 2004 ([7] p. 6-7, indicating the "political implications" this might have. Fram (talk) 08:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  So let me rephrase - either way, deceased or alive, it is generally not considered okay to out someone as supposedly gay, or even hint at it, this practice is widely seen as disrespectful. And since this gossip apparently goes back to 2004, no sources in 20 years have been able to verify that Qaboos bin Said self-identified as being gay, and exactly what "political implications" did it have; where's the documentation that these rumors had a significant impact on his further 16 years he remained as Sultan, or that these rumors somehow affected his legacy? Since no new information has surfaced since the 2017 or 2020 RfC, it is unclear why another RfC was needed, the passage of time doesn't negate the fact we are still talking about gossip and rumors . I honestly don't know why people obsess over a person's private life to the point we have endless RfCs until the desired result of inclusion is achieved. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  A new RfC was needed because there was still edit warring about the inclusion or exclusion, and more importantly because the first RfC closed the way it did because of BLP and the second had no consensus because of BLP, but BLP no longer applies. Changed circumstances (plus the continued appearance of more sources for this since the first RfC) warrant a new RfC. Fram (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Exclude per reasons offered by Isaidnoway and The Gnome. Apart from the 'respect for privacy' and 'rumour and speculation' reasons offered by these editors, some of the sources seem intended to maliciously discredit rather than inform ("HM is homosexual and vicious, like his Father, behind the scenes" is the one mention of sexuality in one of the sources used). Much more detailed, neutral and credible coverage would need to be provided to warrant inclusion. "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a public figure, NOT in want of a wife, must be gay!". To the extent that much of the public will inevitably wonder why he was seemingly celibate, we don't need to feed that curiosity, since we don't actually know.Pincrete (talk) 13:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• Exclude per Isaidnoway. The sourcing isn't strong enough to justify inclusion. Nemov (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Exclude I find the sources (53-57) to be speculative and unconvincing. Forgive me if I don't take the word of a British spook as gospel. The wording of these listed sources is very concerning as well. Source 53 calls his alleged homosexuality an "assumption", 54 & 55: "generally believed", 57: "rumors of liaisons." Hearsay. The expiry of BLP guidance is not license to publish rumors. I am curious if any of the print sources in that list discuss asexuality or bisexuality. As mentioned above by Pincrete, lack of offspring does not mean a person falls into our currently held beliefs about sexuality. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Exclude I think it needs more evidence to prove it. 110 and 135 (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)