Talk:Qaboos bin Said

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[1], 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[2], 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 ([3] 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)

  He was not "seemingly celibate". Qaboos' obituary in The Times described rumours throughout his life of "liaisons with elegant young European men". cagliost (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2025 (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)
• Exclude I support the exclusion of the allegations for the following reasons:

1. The claims are based on rumors and allegations without verifiable evidence. While some sources mention these allegations, they remain speculative and fail to meet Wikipedia’s WP:V and WP:RS standards for reliable, substantiated content.
2. These claims do not significantly contribute to the understanding of the subject’s life, achievements, or historical impact, including them distracts from more meaningful content and does not serve an encyclopedic purpose.
3. Giving prominence to these allegations risks overshadowing the subject’s verified contributions, per WP:DUE, only topics of substantial relevance should be included.
4. Previous RFCs favored excluding these claims due to their speculative nature, even under BLP. While BLP no longer applies, the need to avoid rumor-based content remains critical to uphold neutrality and factual accuracy, avoiding salacious or irrelevant material. Itshrabkhan (talk)— Itshrabkhan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 06:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Include. Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED. Nothing has changed since the previous RFC, so it is unclear why a new RFC has been started except to censor this information. Clearly, the allegation that the previous head of state of Oman was gay is highly significant. As I said last time: These are high quality 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 allegation that is well-sourced, not the content of the allegation. Similar speculation is included in other biographies of historical figures such as James Buchanan, Alexander the Great and Leonardo da Vinci. cagliost (talk) 11:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  User Itshrabkhan has been canvassing other users. cagliost (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Some poor-quality arguments that have come up so far:

  • Qaboos is dead and can't "defend" himself, "spitting on his grave" – homosexuality is not an insult one needs to "defend" against. In any case this is irrelevant, the question is whether the possibility he was gay is well sourced and due weight, both of which it is.
  • This is "outing" — no it isn't, he is dead. This is discussion of potential homosexuality of a historical figure, which can never be proven conclusively but about which it is acceptable to include well-sourced speculation. This is appropriate for plenty of other historical figures too. I have mentioned some already, user Fram gives more examples at Talk:Qaboos bin Said/Archive 3 such as Moya Llewelyn Davies. "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" — nope, for the same reason.
  • This is just rumor, gossip, speculation — We are not reporting the rumors as fact, but as rumors. The existence of the rumors is well sourced and extremely significant. It is not gossip, these are high-quality academic sources.
  • Many sources don't mention it — so what? We have several high-quality sources that do.
  • The sources are cherry-picked — no they are not.
  • "some of the sources seem intended to maliciously discredit", "Forgive me if I don't take the word of a British spook as gospel" — Oxford University Press- and University of California Press-published authors are secondary sources and better placed to evaluate the primary sources than you are. They don't take it as "gospel", but they do take it seriously.
  • "do not significantly contribute to the understanding of the subject’s life, achievements, or historical impact, including them distracts from... the subject’s verified contributions" — homosexuality is not a "distraction", again this sort of comment betrays a bias against homosexuality. If Qaboos was gay, that would be extremely significant, so the idea that is does not contribute to an understanding of the man is wrong.
  • "salacious", "reprehensible and disgusting". I will be blunt. Many of the contributors to this RFC and the previous ones are motivated by anti-homosexual bigotry. But Wikipedia should not be WP:CENSORED.

  cagliost (talk) 11:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Include per the multiple reliable sources cited. Lewisguile (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Include, particularly per the arguments and counter-arguments as outlined by cagliost. Our task as an encyclopedia is to summarize what is reported in high-quality reliable sources. The existence of widepread rumours here easily meets WP:V. There is no BLP reason to exclude them. Moral dislike for outing is irrelevant per WP:NOTCENSORED, and we should not conflate reporting the rumor with reporting the fact. The notion that we only report verifiable facts, and not anything that sources discuss with a degree of uncertainty, is neither correct nor workable. If sources report something as uncertain, so should we.--Trystan (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Include, and agree with cagliost's responses above. I found this article through the User Contributions page of the nominator. This information should absolutely be included in the article, given the calibre of the sources involved. Any who wish to censor this information should seek to refute the quality of the sources themselves, which does not seem possible in this instance. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 18:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Exclude, Having read through the RFC, have to recommend exclusion due to lack of documented relationship. This is not an argument concerning WP:CENSORED. I have yet to read any reasoning on how the reporting of these allegations are extremely "significant" in any way and form. I also find it highly suspicious the sudden influx of inclusive arguments, some of which are rather barebones in stating why exactly they are voting for this. *:Hologram2000 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Whether to include content is determined by neutrally summarizing what reliable sources say, not by our personal and subjective opinions as to whether what the sources say is significant (let alone requiring that it be extremely significant to warrant inclusion). The appearance of new editors is likely, as explained below, attributable to a new posting of this discussion. There is nothing suspicious or improper about neutrally worded notifications posted at relevant discussion boards (as compared to, say, the selective notification of editors that Cagliost refers to above.)--Trystan (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

While I appreciate the support and arguments, it is very weird to get nothing here for more than a month, and then three likeminded replies in a few hours time. Has this discussion been mentioned somewhere recently or something? Fram (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I came here from a neutrally worded notification of this discussion at WT:LGBTQ+#Sultan Qaboos RFC.--Trystan (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. Fram (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)