Talk:Qaboos bin Said/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Sexuality 2

Now that Qaboos is dead can we add material to this article about the widespread view that he was homosexual - mindful that we are no longer violating BLP. Of course using respectable sources and measured languages. Any issues with that? Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

We cant add rumors to the article let alone adding a whole standalone section for it. Per WP:BDP and WP:RUMORS this material should not be included.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to add rumours. I was going to add material relating to his homosexuality. Contaldo80 (talk) 05:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no confirmation that he was "homosexual". It's all based on rumors, not verifiable information. We should not let rumors that affects living people ,like his family, in Wikipedia.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I have restored the Times obituary quote about "liaisons with elegant young European men". This is an impeccable source.

User:SharabSalam, please do not cite non-existent Wikipedia policies. WP:RUMORS does not exist. WP:BLP does not apply despite your claim in your edit summary, because he is dead. WP:BDP does not apply because his death has been confirmed by reliable sources. cagliost (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Cagliost, were you using an IP address? Please clarify see WP:SOCK. Also, the RFC outcome is clear cut "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." And the policy is Wikipedia:Rumor.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I am not the IP address editor, I have only edited this article under my username. The RFC outcome was based on WP:BLP, which no longer applies. Wikipedia:Rumor redirects to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball, which doesn't apply. cagliost (talk) 10:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Who told you that it no longer applies? It applies to those who recently died as it affects their family.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Also rumor clearly says "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions.".--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

In context, Wikipedia:Rumor is clearly about "unverifiable speculation or presumptions" about the future. The section is titled "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" and is entirely about future events. The part of it concerning rumors is about speculation about product announcements. The policy does not apply.

Regarding WP:BDP, it says "The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime." So this policy can sometimes apply. I don't think it does here, this is not an ongoing police investigation. I don't see how we could justify a two-year extension to WP:BLP. He is dead, his successor has been chosen. Nothing is going to change in the next two years. cagliost (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

It does affect his family. You don't understand the policy. Being homosexual is an insult in the Arab world, therefore it is an insult to his sons and daughters. Please self-revert. You need to seek consensus before adding that content per WP:ONUS which clearly says that onus is on you to seek consensus since you want to include that part.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

We don't remove info from Wikipedia because someone is offended by it (let alone the entire Arab world who you claim to speak for), there is no basis in Wikipedia policy for that. See Wikipedia:CENSOR. cagliost (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

In any case, the maximum delay allowed would be two years. If you're relying only on WP:BDP, the info is going to be included in 2 years anyway. Can you justify any delay? Your argument about "insult" would still be the case in more than two years, so logically cannot be used to justify not including the info now but including it in more than two years. cagliost (talk) 11:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is. Contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends.. In any case, it's not verified. It's probably false or smear. We don't include unverified content to Wikipedia.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

It will be removed for ever, not just two years. I will revert your addition per WP:BLP, WP:ONUS and if you reverted back you will be reported to the admin noticeboard and sanctioned for your behaviour.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

"It will be removed for ever, not just two years." You are violating WP:BDP, which can only justify a delay at most.

The material is not unverified, it has multiple sources including The Times. Please stop your edit warring. cagliost (talk) 11:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not violating the policy. Look, you are violating WP:BLP, WP:BRD and WP:ONUS. On top of that, you are making an edit against the RFC outcome.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

We dont include a fake smearing content in biographical articles.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

If your intention is to remove info from Wikipedia forever, you cannot rely on WP:BDP. The RFC is a procedure based on WP:BLP which no longer applies since he is dead. So if you cannot rely on WP:BDP or WP:BLP or Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball, then you need to justify your removal of multiply-sourced content on some other grounds. cagliost (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

"fake smearing content", "probably false or smear". These are your opinions, not verifiable sourced content. cagliost (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The content is not verified, it's a rumor. There is no verification. It is probably a fake smearing content. Again, it will never be included in the article, no matter what you do. We have a consensus in the talk page to not include that content. I am giving you a chance before I report your violation to the admin noticeboard. Please take my advice wholeheartedly before you find yourself sanctioned.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The existence of the rumor is verified by high quality sources: Oxford University Press, University of California Press, The Times. Your objection, "It is probably a fake smearing content", is incoherent. cagliost (talk) 12:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't include rumors that aren't verified. It will be removed and if you reinstated it without consensus you will be reported.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

You are wrong, it is acceptable to include well-sourced speculation about the sexuality of dead people, see for example James Buchanan, Alexander the Great or Leonardo da Vinci. cagliost (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I have created an RFC, please see below. cagliost (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Just so you understand, during a RfC. The content will not be included until there is consensus per WP:ONUS which says that the onus is on those who seek inclusion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam - be careful about your continued language: "It does affect his family. You don't understand the policy. Being homosexual is an insult in the Arab world, therefore it is an insult to his sons and daughters." You are exhibiting bias. Discuss the issue on the merits of wikipedia conventions and not so pretensions about arab sensibilities. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Note also that Qaboos didn't have any sons or daughters, so it is impossible that they would care about what Wikipedia has to say. cagliost (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Sexuality

Now that the Sultan is dead, should the rumours of his homosexuality be included? See Talk:Qaboos bin Said#Sexuality 2 for a recent disagreement on the matter. There was previously an RFC on the matter during the Sultan's lifetime (see above), but this relied mainly but not entirely on WP:BLP, so I think it is reasonable to revisit the matter. cagliost (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support. The rumour has good sources: Oxford University Press, University of California Press, The Times. Allegations such as this should be included according to WP:PUBLICFIGURE. It is the existence of the allegations that is well-sourced, not the content of the allegation. Similar speculation is included in other biographical articles such as James Buchanan, Alexander the Great and Leonardo da Vinci. I see no reason for a delay as per WP:BDP. cagliost (talk) 12:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude as it is nothing more or less than a rumor so it is not verified. The RfC result above was to exclude. Also, BLP still applies for those who recently died especially that it is still affective to their family (notice that the examples by Cagliost are ancient people). Another thing is the amount of content that was added, literally a standalone section for discussing rumors about "sexuality" which are probably smearings.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude - per WP:BDP which can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends. I don't care if the sources are good, bad or mediocre, a rumor is still a rumor (uncertain, doubtful, unverified). The subjects self-identification of their preference for a description of their sexual orientation should be used, and if no self-identification preference of their sexual orientation exists, then then they shouldn't be labelled by rumors, speculation and gossip. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude seeing as it is merely a rumor as stated above, it ought to be excluded. Idealigic (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support. This is pertinent to an understanding of the man. Also I have serious concerns about editors who think that covering the type of homosexuality is a way to "smear" someone or to idly gossip. Can we have a more mature approach please. I appreciate that for some editors living in countries where homosexuality is a criminal offence there is an aversion to discussing it, but that shouldn't be the bar for wikipedia.Contaldo80 (talk) 03:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear me. 'liberating' others, by deciding on their behalf that their sexual preferences - or lack of - are matters for public scrutiny and speculation. That's certainly a novel reason for intruding into others' private lives and diseminating rumours about them.Pincrete (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Homosexuality doesn't need to be hidden away. It's a fact. People are gay. Deal with it. Him being gay is a central part of who he was as a man - it's not just some gossip about what sexual position had like to take up when he was in bed. The fact that a head of state of a muslim middle eastern country was gay is pretty significant in my opinion. Can we have some more maturity on issues of sexuality rather than school-boy smirks about gossip, and innuendo. It's tiring. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

"Him being gay" - to be clear, the proposal is not to say for certain that he was gay, but to say that well-sourced speculation about it exists. For an example of what is proposed to be added, see this edit: [1]. cagliost (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude it is little better than gossip and of no particular relevance. The fact that we can is not a reason why we should.Pincrete (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

So we just write out homosexuality from history because you think its irrelevant? Does it disgust you?Contaldo80 (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear me! How sad. Except for certain circumstances, I consider a person's sexual proclivities and actions to be private - certainly not matters that persons unconnected to the individual, or trivially connected, have any ownership of, nor matters that WP has any business 'publicising'. Why would I care if he was gay/asexual/impotent/rampantly hetero on the quiet? It wasn't an issue during his lifetime, why would it be now? Because he can't sue now? Pincrete (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Anyone who uses the word "proclivities" has kind of indicated that they lack the maturity to deal with the issue of sexuality. There's nothing "sad" about discussing homosexuality. It's sad that there are people like you editing these articles who think it's fine to suggest such issues are "trivial" and a matter of libel. It was an issue in his lifetime - that's kind of the point!Contaldo80 (talk)

"sad" referred to assumptions made about why people like me favour exclusion. I don't see any "excluders" making assumptions about either gay people or homosexuality itself, except that it isn't the business of WP to 'out' people - especially on such scant evidence. The "we aren't saying he's gay, just that there are rumours" has been the excuse of gossip-mongers down the ages.Pincrete (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you stop implying something "dirty" or "immoral" by using words like "gossip". There's a good chance he may have been gay, being gay is perfectly natural, it is relevant to make reference to him being gay in the article. Why do you think he didn't "out" himself while he was alive - any reasons why he might not have decided to that do you think? Maybe because no one else "had an interest" or more likely because he would have been deposed and killed? If you have a personal problem with discussing issues of sexuality in a open-minded and mature way then please could you contribute somewhere else in the article. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not gossip. The sources proposed to be included are from Oxford University Press, University of California Press, and his The Times obituary. Not gossip. cagliost (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support – including the well-sourced fact that there have been rumours/allegations should be a no-brainer. The sources are robust and reliable, not gossip columns. --bonadea contributions talk 11:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Bonadea. The context of the individual also makes this WP:DUE in a way it may not elsewhere. ——Serial ^#
• Exclude per Pincrete and Idealigic; Considering that it looks to be solely a rumor, as a result it won't be much helpful to include it, otherwise I conjecture that there would/will be many divergent matters or topics to be added (as rumors or ...). Hence, let's not to include it, if is not very important. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 12:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually it is important thanks. Can we try and break out of this mind-set that homosexuality is an embarrassing secret that doesn't happen, and that if it does then it's not to be mentioned and has no importance! Contaldo80 (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Who exactly do you imagine has that mindset? One's sexuality - or absence of - is usually of great importance to the individual, and can have a bigger significance (such as is the case with Leonardo), but in itself it is not inherently important to anyone - some reason needs to exist for it to transcend being a private matter, beyond prurient interest. Pincrete (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The middle east is a highly repressive environment where gay men are frequently imprisoned, murdered or punished. That a head of state of a middle eastern country may himself have been gay is highly significant in that context. It's your view that sexuality should remain solely a private matter and whether you personally have a prurient attitude to sex and sexuality is your problem not mine. The question here is whether inclusion of sexuality violates BLP. Stick the discussion and keep your prejudices to yourself. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)