Talk:Qaboos bin Said/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

RFC: the sultan's sexuality

Latest comment: 6 years ago41 comments15 people in discussion

The consensus is to exclude claims about the sultan's sexuality per WP:BLP. Editors noted that the sultan has not publicly identified as homosexual.
Cunard (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

This Talk page of Qaboos bin Said al Said has been rife over a long period of time with discussion of whether claims about the sultan's sexuality should be covered in the article. Numerous people have chimed in, and there is a history of deletions and reversions of those deletions from the article. To summarize the key points made by both sides:

That the claims exist is documented in several cited sources, and one can probably understand why the sultan's actual sexuality, if not heterosexual, would be significant given the culture of Oman.
On the other hand, these sources aren't documenting the sultan's sexuality, they're documenting the existence of rumors about it, and the article doesn't provide context that would make coverage of these rumors relevant. Also, the sources aren't acceptable.

One editor posted the issue to WP:BLP on June 12, now archived at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive255#sultan qaboos al said. Discussion there occurred over only a single day, and then one editor unilaterally concluded that he was going to remove the material from the article. There have been three more reversions since then, and now yet another thread has opened, immediately above, on this Talk page. I figured an RFC was in order.

Should the article include this material? How do Wikipedia policies and guidelines apply here? Largoplazo (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Given that the veracity (WP:V) of the claim is yet to be proven and the heightened sensitivity given WP:BLP in addition to questionable sources, it seems doubtful this will be conclusively proven. Recommend removal. LPW22 (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

No one has added any assertions regarding what the sultan's sexuality is to the article. Therefore, whether that claim, which nobody here has made, will be proven isn't the question here. The question is whether the claim's existence, which has been asserted, belongs in the article. Like the way we have an article on the Flat Earth theory, because that theory exists, not because it's true. In cases like that, what counts is whether the claim's existence, itself, is of sufficient significance to bother mentioning and, in the case of a BLP, making sure we don't run afoul of WP:BLP. That's what we should be exploring here. Largoplazo (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose The issue is that the claim is fairly questionable. The sources state that the sultan is generally believed to be homosexual and that the assumption of homosexuality has pursued the sultan. Neither of these claims amount to much more than gossips or rumors. If these rumors were significant in the sultan's career in any way (and this was supported in reliable sources), then perhaps it would be worth including. However, currently the article only weakly states implications for the succession and the future stability of the country; this claim isn't sourced. It seems the succession is more dependent on the existence of a heir - this is relevant and sourced, and thus should be included. Effectively, there doesn't seem to be any reason to include the rumors regarding his sexuality unless there are far more compelling sources to show that he is homosexual and that this is an issue of any significance in the country. Appable (talk | contributions) 21:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose inclusion of content implying homosexuality unless the sultan openly self-identifies as homosexual, per long established consensus on such matters. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Would you say that inclusion of the article on the Flat Earth theory amounts to Wikipedia implying that the earth is flat? If, in that case, you find a distinction between reporting on the existence on that theory and implying that that theory is true, would the same distinction not hold here? Largoplazo (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

If you actually read the Flat Earth article, you would see that from the very first sentence, it is casting shade on the idea that the earth is flat; that is not the equivalent to what was done here. Additionally, Mother Earth is not a living person for the purposes of WP:BLP, so even if the situations were otherwise equivalent, our guidelines for how to deal with them would not be. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

We know, based on substantial scientific grounds (and, trivially, based on direct observation from space) that the Flat Earth theory is false, so we can assert that it is false. We can't state that the rumors about the sultan are false because we don't know them to be false any more than we know them to be true. Largoplazo (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

And thus your analogy is problematic. We've got two very different situations here - an article that is making very clear the claims are false, and the entry here which was playing the "nudge nudge, wink wink, we're not saying he's a gay but other people sure are!" game. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

They are different for the reason I said: because in one case we know the actual answer and in the other we don't. You're the one who's calling the latter case a "game". Is it your position that if someone could provide incontrovertible evidence that the sultan is straight, then it would suddenly become OK to report the existence of rumors saying he's not? If not, then the basis you've cited for the distinction you're making between the two cases (Flat Earth and Sultan) vanishes. If so—well, then you're being consistent, but that seems an odd paradigm to me: It's OK to report rumors if and only if we can declare them false or we can declare them true, but not if we can't declare them false or true. Largoplazo (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing my reasons for objecting to the value of your analogy with my objection to the inclusion of the material. This world does not spin around your analogy, as much as you are trying to push this RFC that way. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I reject the analogy with Flat Earth pseudoscience primarily because this article is a BLP and we do not include gossipy speculation about sexual orientation in BLPs, and also because we have abundant coverage of the Flat Earth theory in a large number of highly reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion of content. Pretending that asserting the existence of a rumour about a BLP is somehow different from asserting the truth of a rumour about the BLP is fundamentally dishonest. Unless coverage of the rumour is SO widespread, this should not be included, no sources AFAI can see indicate widespread reliable coverage. Gossip is gossip, however one dresses it up. Pincrete (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Your comments are illogical, unless you think rumors are inherently true. If I say "there is such a rumor about so-and-so", I am in no way stating that the rumor is true. I have come across rumors about the sexuality of a number of celebrities whose actual sexuality I don't know. I have now just reported, in the previous sentence, on the existence of these rumors, and I just pointed out, in that sentence, that I have no basis for asserting the truth of those rumors, and I am not asserting the truth of those rumors. If you are going to call me fundamentally dishonest for that, do you mean that I'm lying when I say those rumors exist, or do you mean I'm lying when I say I have no reason to believe the truth of those rumors? If I'm lying about neither, then you are calling me fundamentally dishonest for making an absolutely true assertion, in which case you're going to have to explain what you understand the phrase "fundamentally dishonest" to mean. (BLP states that certain things that are admissible for topics other than living persons aren't admissible for living persons, but it doesn't declare that apples and oranges become the same thing in BLP articles.) Largoplazo (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

If you do not know whether rumours are true or not, do not repeat them unless there is a compelling reason to do so. By looking at edit history, I looked at the claims and sources. The sources are not even remotely sufficient for the claim text. "I'm not saying it's true of course but I heard ....." is every village gossip's excuse, which is fundamentally what is being argued here. It is dishonest to pretend that repeating that rumours exist is not contributing to spreading them and dishonest to pretend that one is entitled to do that without evidence of any kind, not even real evidence that the rumours exist. Pincrete (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

But this isn't even, "I heard that there's a rumor." This is "the existence of rumors are documented in reliable sources". (Of course, if you don't consider them reliable sources, that's a different story, and I have no particular opinion on whether the sources that have been cited qualify as reliable for our purposes—except for continuing to insist that the question is whether they are reliably reporting on the existence of the rumors, not on their veracity. Largoplazo (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty of rumors floating around in published form that living celebrity so-and-so is gay, or dying, or on the brink of a divorce, or feuding with another celebrity, and so on. I see this garbage all the time on the newspaper racks next to the supermarket checkout line. This gossip does not belong in Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

nb edit conflict.

I looked at the claims and sources. The sources are not even remotely sufficient for the claim text. You want to make general propositions (that rumours in the country are, and have been widespread) out of two very weak sources (3 anons say "everyone in the country knows"). You want to make WP the megaphone for those rumours, while simultaneously disowning any responsibility for spreading the rumours,"I'm not saying it's true of course but I heard .....". Sources would need to be 100 times better than this to warrant inclusion. Pincrete (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose (Summoned by bot) The sources are very weak, and rumors about a persons sexuality should not be given undue weight in Wikipedia. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 13:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose inclusion per WP:BLP - ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives... This is a rumor/gossip/speculation and in my view, appears to be an attempt to use Wikipedia as a venue to out someone, which is not acceptable. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Support inclusion. Sadly the responses above are representative of the frequent debate on wikipedia when it comes to this subject. Homosexuality is always pushed back into the closet with arguments that it can't be proved, it's not relevant, it's gossip. Quick, hide it away! It's almost as if we have made an accusation of some vile criminal action. A veneer of concerns around BLP hide general indifference to inclusion of LGBT issues and lack of sensitive handling - and in some cases a degree of homophobia. There is no effort to try and find a way to handle material maturely - instead we have this knee-jerk response. As if being gay is "titillating" or "sensationalist". It's just ordinary people - deal with it. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

It's almost as if we have made an accusation of some vile criminal action Remember that this guy is the Sultan of Oman and is Muslim. WP:WIKIPEDIAISNOTFORSTARTINGREVOLUTIONS d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 17:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh gosh, I forgot, there are no gay muslims. My mistake. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose This article is bound by BLP. WP:LGBT says it best in their guidelines: "A living person may be categorized and identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) only if they themselves publicly identify as such". It doesn't matter if he is homosexual, nor if every single human in Oman thinks he's homosexual. menaechmi (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Support per Largoplazo's comments above, that the persistent, widespread allegations about his homosexuality have themselves risen to a level of notability which merit mention in a neutral bio of this monarch. What also convinces me is the comment immediately above, "It doesn't matter if he is homosexual, nor if every single human in Oman thinks he's homosexual", because Wikipedia's internal, benignly-intended but rigid process protects his online reputation from both truth and offline perception -- even though one's reputation is "perception". This has become Orwellian: there is nothing NPOV about allowing a man or a religion to so effectively control information and discussion as to subvert the basic function of what purports to be a worldwide encyclopedia: to provide accurate information. Qaboos is not a celebrity about whose sexuality the rumor du jour is salacious gossip that could unfairly intrude upon his privacy, and so WP justifiably plays the knight gallant shielding him from trivial and lurid curiosity. Royalty today are not notable primarily because of what they do but because of what they are -- and the price of their unearned privileges is that the public expects and has long been accustomed to obtain greater knowledge of their private lives in mainstream media: special laws do not govern whom presidents or prime ministers may marry nor what their religion must be, as they do universally for royalty. Thus deeper scrutiny of royal BLPs has been standard media practice at least since the British Commonwealth Realms decreed that Mrs. Simpson was unacceptable as Edward VIII's queen, and worldwide media broke the tradition that their private romance was "off-limits" for public consumption. The argument that his sexual orientation is irrelevant smacks of homophobia: Oman's crown is hereditary in Qaboos's dynasty (thus he was, briefly and childlessly, married). Wahhabi Islam's desire to prevent Qaboos's subjects -- and Muslims in general -- from knowing that a lawful Muslim ruler is or may be homosexual (including gay Muslims) is understandable -- but it is not Wikipedia's role to assist their efforts by being complicit in the silence they seek to impose. Nothing here ought to prevent Wikipedia noting with citations, "Unconfirmed speculation about the Sultan's sexual orientation has been reported in mainstream Western media numerous times." It's time to invoke IAR when the strongest argument for censorship put forth here is that WP rules declare it irrelevant and off-limits whether a ruler of a nation in which homosexuality is severely stigmatized and criminalized is widely believed to be -- and even if he is in fact -- gay, that perception cannot so much as be mentioned. FactStraight (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Here, let me clarify what I was thinking: Yes, I do believe that it does not matter if every Omani thinks Qaboos is gay because sexuality happens to be 120% personal, and there is absolutely no way to verify someone's sexuality without that person themselves saying so (in addition, they would never be allowed to publish their theory, but that's an entirely separate problem). There is no online nor offline perception protection Human beings control their own sexuality insofar as we can choose our own labels. That's it; outside of that you like who you like and dislike who you dislike. We are not (and should not) letting a religion control the information being displayed, but if that religion happens to be controlling how the subject of the article identifies themselves then it's a pretty tough titty.

If royalty is notable because of what they are (and not what they do) it only further entrenches that this content shouldn't be included - we have no clue what he is and people can only speculate. Maybe he has extravagant boat parties filled with oiled-up young men (so claims one of the sources), but it doesn't matter because the only claim of sexuality from him we have is that he once married to a woman (last I checked our society assumes this means he is straight. I have been out of touch with straight men for a ridiculously long time, so I could use expert verification).

I'm not sure why you feel the need to go out and complain about Wahhabi Islam, especially considering that Oman is largely Ibadi, you could be trying to make the argument that Saudi Arabia is trying to censor this information because it makes their anti-gay stance seem even more illogical?

I actually like your wording best, it is significantly better than what was previously used (which is completely unacceptable and unverifiable). It has some problems, though, the sources used are largely academic and based on only a few testimonies - questionably enough to verify the claims. Also, numerous seems to mean thrice (excluding the ref Monsoon Revolution: Republicans, Sultans, and Empires in Oman, which I think was originally used to verify that he has no heirs. I am confirming this at the library today. The French wiki exclusively quotes a tabloid, which I would hope we never include). Which also brings up the question of WP:Weight. Also, what if he's bisexual, or pansexual, or completely straight but just likes being on a boat with oiled-up men? Really, inclusion of these theories support the idea that homophobia is (just a little) justified because clearly even the potential of someone being not-straight is worth being mentioning. Also, notability doesn't apply to content within an article. menaechmi (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my reference to Wahhabism when it should have been to Ibadi Islam. Published references to allegations about the Sutlan's sexuality have been repeatedly discussed on this page, but are invariably scrubbed on the Orwellian premise that because the matter cannot be addressed in the article, it also cannot be addressed on the talk page, so the history of the debate about it -- and any sources alluded to therein -- are suppressed by Wikipedia. Researching the history of this talk page reveals that from its beginning this is THE most persistently raised challenge to censorship of the article's content, yet editors trying to make an assessment of its relevance and the principles involved do not see that trend when visiting this page -- indeed, if BLP rules are adhered to, it is mandated that once this RFP is defeated, the discussion in which we are now engaged must be suppressed and made impossible to see. Yet this debate is not about the man's sexual orientation, but about how it is often and ubiquitously discussed outside Islamic media, where to do so is both blasphemous and criminal. Wikipedia continues to be complicit in that censorship, and any rules which require it to be so should not be enforced in this exceptional case. FactStraight (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I've just looked through the edit history of this page, and see no sign that it has been "scrubbed" - no revdels, there were large deletions that book place back around 2008, but they were each quickly restored. Looking at the current state of this talk page, there is not a lack of discussion on the matter. Whether it should be scrubbed is another question, but can you put forth any evidence that it has been scrubbed? --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you there - I think the BLP scrubbing is a little ridiculous (in 99% of cases) and if it ends up happening here I will be disappointed. That being said, after having looked at the sources provided, I don't see much support for having the content in the article still. Sultan In Arabia discusses these rumours as as malicious gossip meant to undermine the moral authority of the Sultan. From page 86-87 "It only becomes a danger, a threat to the established order, when such an essentially private matter becomes the currency of gossip, of menace by stealth....So the gossip and rumour visited upon one of the world's last Sultans has to be weighed in context." Monsoon Revolution quotes Tony Molesworth (apparently the second most senior intelligence officer) as saying "HM is homosexual and vicious, like his father behind the scenes", immediately preceded by "Other focused on Qaboos's character, complementing their disapproving statements with homophobic references to his sexual preferences". To me, that last one serves as an insult that you'd throw at someone (much like this meme). If we're gonna go with something like "Unconfirmed speculation about the Sultan's sexual orientation has been reported in mainstream Western media numerous times." then we need sources that actually speculate, when these at most speculate on other's speculation which I can't find. menaechmi (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Molesworth's unequivocal assertion, from one in a position to have observed what he was speaking of, doesn't deserve to be dismissed by a Wikipedia interpretation different from what he plainly states. The wording I suggested isn't "Media have speculated" but rather that media have "reported speculation". "Speculation" is compromise language I'm proposing to address the concerns of those who object to less oblique language such as "media have reported that he may be homosexual" ("Media have reported rumors" doesn't work because that term can't include Molesworth's comment, whereas "speculation" can cover a broader range of references to Qaboos's sexuality). Moreover, this wording was off the top of my head: The point is that we can craft some language which alludes to the matter that has long been reported in media and which continues to dominate this talk page, without crossing over into a definitive assertion. Consensus is possible that is reasonably sensitive to both the objection based on BLP protections and to an absolute exclusion that colludes with censorship. FactStraight (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

A point well made. Although I think speculation while right does need to make a specific but short reference to the "dreaded word" homosexuality. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Support inclusion. It's obviously an open secret. Is there any reference of Qaboos claiming it's a horrible calumny ? Frimoussou (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see how sources saying "generally believed", "three Omanis", and "called into question" can be considered an open secret. The only source that has any significance whatsoever is Tony Molesworth, and it's still fairly weak (per menaechmi's excellent analysis). No source shows that Qaboos or his administration has commented, which makes it rumor and gossip at best. Appable (talk | contributions) 07:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Open secret mean that when people talk, they admit everybody know that he is gay and that there is no sign of heterosexuality. The fact hasn't be contested. Frimoussou (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I will contest that then. "Called into question" certainly does not suggest that everyone knows that he is gay (actually, it seems to suggest the opposite: that it is simply a rumor passed around). Three Omanis, all anonymous, is not particularly convincing, and "generally believed" is far too vague to suggest that "everyone knows" his sexual orientation. Rather, I think the sources show that it is a rumor whispered around, not anything open and certainly not something that Qaboos would comment on. Appable (talk | contributions) 06:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

And yet you seem to have no problem with the vague statement "His closest advisors are reportedly security and intelligence professionals within the Royal Office"? This isn't gossip or rumour presumably? Double standards? Contaldo80 (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Contaldo80: We're discussing the inclusion of sources discussing Qaboo's sexual orientation. I haven't formed any opinion on that statement because it hasn't been the subject of any discussion. If you think it needs discussion, it should not be discussed here unless there is an obvious connection. Appable (talk | contributions) 17:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm making the point to illustrate that the issue does not appear to be one of generally improving the article but instead the view that homosexuality itself controversial and needs to be handled differently to all other material. You'd think we could be more mature.Contaldo80 (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose I don't see any way this will meet WP:BLP standards, given that he doesn't publicly identify as homosexual. I feel that it's possible something will be added after he dies. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per sensible comments made above by Appable and others. While the only evidence for the claim or for the belief is that a few anonymous people affirmed that everyone they knew believed a particular thing, that is not enough to override the requirements of WP:BLP. It should not be mentioned. MPS1992 (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose as per WP:BLP and Menaechmi. I think this is a fairly clear-cut case. GAB^gab 22:54, 31 July 2017 (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.

He Ended Slavery

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

It would only be fair if my sourced edit is included. The delay in the pending changes needs to end.2601:447:4101:41F9:3440:9EA9:A392:F56 (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Pending change is in place, for the most part, to prevent the Sultan's detractors from adding poorly sourced, speculative, or irrelevant material about him that is unduly negative. So a small delay in consideration of new changes is not such a high price to pay. In my opinion. MPS1992 (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Identifying that someone is homosexual or bisexual is not "irrelevant" or "unduly negative" and does not necessarily come from "detractors". Be careful to use more neutral language. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Lovely. Let's talk about it. MPS1992 (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Wait, you've really been here that long, with that many edits? Well, perhaps let's not talk about it. Your comment here in itself makes me want to look into your editing. MPS1992 (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I wish I could express as much enthusiasm in wanting to look into your editing.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Qaboos bin Said al Said. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Sayyid?

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is there any evidence that he claims descent from Muhammad? Brough87 (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Brough87: No, Oman is a special case, where the use of the title "Sayyid" does not imply a claim to the descent from Muhammad. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

No wonder Wikipedia is considered a joke these days

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

"On 22 March 1976, Qaboos bin Said married his first cousin, Kamila".

AND the wikilink to "cousins marriage". Let me explain it to the moron who wrote this. Qaboos's father and his wife's father's OTHER wife were brother and sister. It makes her his cousin by Western family relations standards but they have NO common blood. The same way President of the UAE is both the uncle and the father-in-law to the Sheikh of Dubai. His first wife is the Sheikh's aunt and the Sheikh is married to his daughter with his second wife. This is NOT like British royal family's endless incestual marriages over the past centuries.

The father of his wife Kamila was Sayyid Tariq bin Taimur Al-Sa’id (* 30th June 1921 at Istanbul, Turkey, after the divorce of his parents), who was the son of ~~Faisal ibn Turki~~ Taimur bin Feisal and Kamila Khanum (* 1895 at Istanbul, Turkey). Thus, they are real cousins and share some common blood, because they have a common grandfather: Taimur ibn Faisal. --Hemeier (talk) 10:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Hemeier: Tariq bin Taimur CANNOT be a son of Faisal. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Hemeier: Taimur bin Feisal you meant. In the rest you're right. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

My mistake. You are right.Hemeier (talk) 20:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

"His sexuality has long been called into question by Omanis, with the suggestion that he is homosexual."

And the citation to this incredibly loud claim is some yellow-press-style books written by nobodies with zero credibility. One of them actually admits in the citation that he only talked to three Omanis about the matter. I suppose WP:BIO means as much as all other Wikipedia rules, i.e. nothing.

Have you ever noticed how these days any link to Wikipedia is almost always preceded by a "sorry, it's Wikipedia" and almost always followed by "we all know how accurate that can be hahaha"? THIS is why. This article is actually hitting a new low. Congratulations. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever noticed that Wikipedia makes no pretense at being a reliable source? That it isn't is spelled out explicitly at WP:CIRCULAR. To call Wikipedia a joke for not being something that it quite plainly says that it isn't is foolish. It is what it is, and no more. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

It truly IS what it is - a bunch morons with overinflated egos. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 12:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

One might reasonably say such a thing about a person who presumes to make such a harsh generalization of thousands of people he doesn't know. I wouldn't, of course, because of WP:Civility. I advise you to read it if you intend to post further on Wikipedia. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

There's one person here with an over inflated ego that's for sure. The claim is sourced. Challenge it on legitimate grounds, not insulting ones. 09:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Qaboos bin Said al Said

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Qaboos bin Said al Said's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ap":

From 2011 Omani protests: "Oman protesters stage third day of unrest". The Star. Muscat. Associated Press. 28 February 2011. Archived from the original on 16 July 2012. Retrieved 14 January 2012.
From International reactions to the 2008 United States presidential election: Kentish, Anika (2009-08-15). "Antigua's highest peak renamed 'Mount Obama'". Retrieved 2009-08-05.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 11 January 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

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: speedy moved as uncontroversial. FYI, Google ngrams also indicates a clear COMMONNAME. (non-admin closure) --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Qaboos bin Said al Said → Qaboos bin Said Al Said – Consistency with the material of the article. The Arabic word آل should not be confused with the Arabic definite article. Recruos (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Support as per Recruous, the Al should be capitalised. Droodkin (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Support move to either that or just → Qaboos bin Said. BegbertBiggs (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Support The title of the article about his cousin (and successor) has it capitalized. —184.248.232.85 (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment His name in the In the news section of the Main Page ought to be corrected also but perhaps this needs to be done right away (because it's on the Main Page) instead of after this discussion is closed in seven days (when the news item will almost certainly have dropped out of In the news, anyway). @Recruos, perhaps you could post something in the In the news section of WP:ERRORS. —⁠184.248.232.85 (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2020 (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.

Move discussion in progress

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Haitham bin Tariq Al Said which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Sexuality

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

‎Natgertler you are starting to tire me. You just reverted material I added on his sexuality with the justification "Personal life: there is no context given that makes the fact that there are rumors important. That he has no heirs, that's important; that he". First thing to say is that this justification is unintelligable. Second point to make is that you argued on the BLP page that we should not include material until we could contextualise its significance. Despite the fact that there is no wiki guidance that indicates this is the approach we need to take in such case, I nevertheless showed good faith by providing that context. I'm starting to think that you're less interested in making sure we observe precedent in this area, and more concerned with ensuring that certain things go unsaid. I'd rather we avoid an edit war so before reverting yet again can you please clarify you're last justification so that we can agree on a constructive way forward. I note that the material on his sexuality has been removed several times - and on least more than one occasion by the US State Department (presumably keen to avoid undermining a strategic ally). Contaldo80 (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with NatGertler on the removal of this information (it is worth noting I've seen this issue in the past, see the talk page sections above). We should not be reporting rumors unless they are very important to the article. An attempt is given at context in the latest revision - It is significant in so far as it has implications for the succession and the future stability of the country. - but it is neither convincing nor sourced. I would be somewhat more inclined to support the inclusion of this rumor if there was a clear importance supported by (probably multiple) reliable sources, but I don't see that here. Remember, we are talking about rumors about a sultan in a country not open to homosexuality - so the bar for meeting BLP is even higher. Appable (talk | contributions) 13:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realise we had to tailor wikipedia material to respect cultural or national sensitivities. I thought facts were facts. It's a fact that lots of people think he's gay and have discussed the issue. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Whether there are rumors about his sexuality does not change whether or not there is an heir. There would be concerns about stability for that lack of an heir even if there were no rumors about why... particularly given that he is already at an age when few sire children. If you're noting that something has been removed several times by multiple editors, then you may wish to reflect on that calling into question whether you have consensus, and may wish to achieve that consensus before readding the material to the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

You're argument makes little sense. You're just trying to keep it out. You keep moving the goalposts. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

No, we don't include stuff in BLP articles that are sourced to rumors, nothing more, nothing less.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Daughter?

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

He had no daughters? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2z7HwE3Qys --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

There has been active discussion in a number of media that the Sultan was gay so that might explain why he didn't have any children in the end? Contaldo80 (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)