Jump to content

Talk:Qaboos bin Said/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

16 May 2006

Why did you pull down the section about his Homosexuality. I have good sources and I cited a website. I have many more too. Still in denial or what? --Treeshrub 21:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Succession

I added a piece about the succession to the thone. Oman appears to use a system of primogeniture. The son inherits from the father. However, Qaboos does not have any children nor any brothers. Therefore, I researched the closest male heir to the throne, his father brothers and their children. I believe this is a reasonable contribution considering that the matter of succession will increasingly become a serious issue for Oman. It is the eldest male child of his fathers younger sibling who stands first in line to the throne and this is what was added. It is not unsourced, I sourced the source (see reference 4) and there is absolutely no need to censor this matter. This is not what wikipedia is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James Frankcom (talk • contribs) 23:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Name

I don't want to get into an edit war, but we usually don't put a monarch's official title(s) in the infobox header, only his/her name. I am, however, trying to standardize the use of Arabic-language names for monarchs, so if you think my system is flawed, I'd love to discuss it with you. -- χγʒ͡ʒγʋᾳ (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate tone

The section on Qaboos' reign appears to be written for a western audience. Additionally, there are several weasel phrases, specifically those about vague "critics" making even vaguer claims about Qaboos rule and the prospects of democracy in Oman. Such language may be acceptable in the CIA World Factbook, but has no place in an encyclopedia. Additionally, not only are the accented "ā"s and "ū"s completely misplaced and render incorrect pronunciation, they also look incredibly pretentious. I am removing any such instances of accented marks in the article. Thanks AreJay (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Assets

This section is completely without citation or verification. It has been without citation or verification for months now. I am thus removing it, feel free to discuss it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.154.89 (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Al Bu Sa‘idi dynasty

The lead says that he is the 14th descendant of the Al Bu Sa‘idi dynasty and the /*Early life*/ section says that he is one of the 8th generation of the Al Bu Sa‘idi dynasty. These staements have been there at least for two years Oct. 2008 to Dec. 2010. They are not necessarily contradictory, but are ambiguous. If the first statement is read as "14th member of the Al Bu Sa‘idi dynasty to be sultan" he can indeed be a member of the 8th generation of the Al Bu Sa‘idi dynasty if six (6) of those 14 sultans were of the same generation as a previous sultan. The use of the word descendant in the first instance seems to be semantically incorrect regardless of interpretation. This ambiguity needs to be resolved. --Bejnar (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Agenda?

This article seems to have been written with an agenda in mind, either to glorify the subject in the eyes of those for whom conspicuous wealth is a status symbol, or to denigrate him in the eyes of those who see things the other way.

Otherwise, why list his palaces? They're not relevant to him personally. He didn't build all of them, and they'd belong to ANYONE who happened to occupy the throne of Oman. Similarly, it lists a number of "superyachts" -- except, it seems that only one of them really falls into that category. One is a military ship assigned to the Royal Yacht Squadron, probably as an escort (not terribly out of line for accompanying a head of state), one is a sailing ship that seems to be a nod to local shipbuilding traditions and not a "superyacht" in any event, one is a tugboat, and one now appears to be a operated by the Tourist Ministry as a charter vessel.

In such a short biography, these tables take up a considerable proportion of the article. I see no reason for them, unless someone's trying to make a point. 192.31.106.35 (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposition: "Qaboos bin Said al Said" move to "Qaboos bin Said"

In media and in common, he is more referred in that manner. --Bone1234 (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Move to Personal Life

Can someone please move the part about his marriage to his cousin to a Personal Life section. His marriage is obv. not part of his 'Early Life'. Thanks15:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)~Lindsey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.15.30.125 (talk)

Royalark.net as a source

Royalark.net is self-published and not a WP:RS for WP:BLP. See discussion here for details. JanetteDoe (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

A few links need citations and some links are broken.Periodically refresh them example - the jawaharlal nehru link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.219.224.37 (talk) 13:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Rise to power

This sentence is not sourced: "He rose to power after overthrowing his father, Said bin Taimur, in a palace coup in 1970." And that sentence is from the intro. I think there is reason to believe it may not be entirely true. I read a book on the topic, which also clearly stated it was unsourced, it was more a recollection from a witness to the events. Anyway, the book contended that Qaboos rather than 'overthrowing' his father, was merely a passive bystander, and was kept safely locked up in the palace while a British Army Major orchestrated most if not all of the coup. As said, this too is unsourced. But it is just as unsourced as the official overthrowing story. (perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the middle) I think it would be better to state: He rose to power after his father, Said bin Taimur, was removed from power in a palace coup in 1970. At least, until we get some facts. Vince (talk) 07:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Qaboos bin Said al Said. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

About the sultan's sexuality

@Pranav21391, Contaldo80, and Le Grand Bleu: The article doesn't say that the sultan is gay. The article says, "His sexuality has long been called into question by Omanis, with the suggestion that he is homosexual." So it doesn't matter whether there are sources, reliable or otherwise, saying that he is gay. It only matters whether there are reliable sources supporting the claim that his sexuality is the subject of discussion, and whether it is sufficiently significant that there would be such discussion for it to be mentioned in the article.

Regarding this last point, Wikipedia doesn't report gossip as gossip. It's probably a matter of opinion whether reporting the existence of such discussion rises above the level of gossip when the discussion is by the subjects of a sultan in a nation where homosexuality is strictly outlawed. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

And @Appable:, who also chose to delete multiply sourced content without discussing while, at the same time, urging others to "discuss". —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
@Largoplazo: I don't think there's a point for Wikipedia to report something regarding this person's sexuality without very strong sources by more than one or two references. Given how many weren't willing to discuss the issue of his sexuality, I would say it's way too unknown, certainly contentious information (even libelous in some Middle Eastern countries, perhaps) and I would consider the claim "long called into question" very poorly sourced by two print sources. Saying "only three Omanis have discussed this subject with me openly" shows that most people either don't feel comfortable expressing their view anyway, and unless there's more to the quote from the other source - "assumption of homosexuality has pursued Sultan Qaboos relentlessly" - it's extremely vague. My main question is - is it relevant to include this kind of speculative, gossip information in an article, regardless of how it's presented? I don't think so. Unless it becomes a significantly more important issue and not just something people might whisper around, there's no point in including that. Appable (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
As I have argued previously, Wikipedia requires very good reliable sources for the inclusion of negative material about a living person, and the reporting of rumours in obscurepublications does not reach that level. Martinlc (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
It isn't clear to me from your responses (and your subsequent re-removal, Appable, way short of a genuine discussion) that you read my introductory remark and grasped the distinction I made.
Do you understand the difference between reporting (falsely) that Elvis Presley is alive and reporting (truthfully, and with the weight of notability) that there were rumors for years after his death that he was still alive? —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
@Largoplazo:I removed it again after reading WP:BLPREMOVE which states that contentious materail should be removed before a discussion until consensus is reached when not supported well, and in this case I think a few anecdotal stories and a hand-waving "pursued relentlessly" is not nearly enough, especially when it comes to what amounts to rumors. The policy is there to prevent libel/rumors/false information being spread about people when it could potentially damage their reputation—in this case it very much could. There's a difference in your example because of the widespread rumors of him being alive, but I don't understand why it makes any sense to report what's at best anecdotal stories about the sultan based on no personal knowledge as anything serious or relevant. Little online news mentions his sexuality, and any that does notes that it's obviously a fairly unsubstantiated rumor. Wikipedia should absolutely report on widespread rumors covered by many notable sources. Wikipedia should not report on behind-the-back whisperings and gossip from some people. Appable

(talk) 03:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Being called homosexual 'damages a reputation'? Really? Come in. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, in much of the world, particularly the parts of the world where it's still held as tantamount to being a criminal. I'm gay, so I'm not exactly condoning that perspective, only acknowledging its existence. For me, the issue here is still that we aren't saying he's gay, we're saying there is a noteworthy level of discussion to that effect. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

So i restored the sultan's sexuality now that it's corroborated by a reliable, close source--the accusation/suspicion is no longer pure rumour anymore, but more substantial than that. I also find the excuse that we shouldn't report his sexuality, because of its perception in the Middle East, as purely ridiculous: "We shouldn't report his homosexuality because Arabs don't take kindly to such an orientation, and — God forbid! — that could threaten the sultan's throne." Since when was wikipedia in the business of being the image consultant of benign authoritarian rulers? 207.161.254.132 (talk) 09:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is in the business of following rules on posting information about living persons. You added just another book as a source. How is that a better source than two other books written by foreigners. Removing it. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 05:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
@Largoplazo: if you are saying that someone says that someone is this or that it's called gossip. No matter how many books you cite it still is. And this is (or at least was when I first came) an encyclopedia. So two issues with mentioning it in the article. One, it's an unproven fact about a living person. And two, is that fact even significant enough to include it in the article? The whole idea of including it is to create a "scandal" around a monarch in the Middle East where homosexuality is considered sinful and unacceptable. Maybe we should change the name to WikiDailyMail then? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 05:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
We have the articles Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories and Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Do you feel these articles should be deleted? Do you feel it isn't notable and worthy of mentioning on Wikipedia that many people think Barack Obama is a Muslim or that they think he was born in Kenya? Largoplazo (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Rumors are just rumors, no matter whether they're reported in the National Enquirer or Reuters. No matter how many rumors we get, unless there is something more compelling than bare assertions, then I don't believe any material on rumored sexuality should be included, plain and simple. GABHello! 15:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
This should be included for several reasons: Firstly, his sexuality is questioned by so many people, including his own citizens, that it is not a fringe view that should be removed for BLP. As @Largoplazo: rightfully drew attention to Obama and accusations of his Islam -- even if this accusation of a living leader of the free world is patently false and damaging -- likewise, this similar scenario demands similar treatment ie. its inclusion in the article. Secondly, there is no reason to believe that Mr Molesworth, an important source, is lying; i challenge those content removers to prove otherwise.74.100.101.183 (talk) 07:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any of those sources as saying a significant number of people questioned his sexuality. Instead, authors only note vague phrases such as "pursued al Said relentlessly" or mentioning a few people who questioned it. As long as he isn't open about it personally, I don't think anyone is able to say with any more authority whether he is homosexual. Therefore, the only time it would make sense to discuss in the article is if it was a very wide-held view and noted significantly in publications, which I fail to see (only passing mentions, and only a few people mentioned). My view is that while an important source may say such an assertion, nobody can determine someone else's sexuality. Appable (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
But other people can ascertain that there is discussion of the person's sexuality, which is what this conversation is about. I really wish I could make some headway in ironing out the distinction between asserting that someone is X and asserting that there are rumors/reports that someone is X, so that everyone will keep the conversation on the latter topic instead of confusing it by bringing in remarks like "nobody can determine someone's sexuality", which is true but also beside the point. Largoplazo (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually, a significant number of people have questioned his sexuality. The quotes in the sources variously say "the assumption of homosexuality has pursued Sultan Qaboos relentlessly" (clearly indicating widespread acknowledgement/suspicion), "the sultan is generally believed to be homosexual by Omanis" and "stories of his exploits have traveled widely throughout the Gulf." Hence, it is undeniable that he is believed to be homosexual by Omanis and other Gulf Arabs. Plus, Molesworth used to be Qaboos's second most senior intelligence officer and he is adamant that his former boss was homosexual. Molesworth is not some source you can just discard as unimportant or lacking credibility. You have to prove he is wrong or lying for some reason before discounting his witness. So we have an important witness and wide discussion among GCC citizens regarding Qaboos's homosexuality; this is certainly enough to warrant inclusion. You shouldn't remove the content unless you can disprove Molesworth and until you can prove that GCC opinion is a fringe element.
@Largoplazo: Do i have your support to keep the edit on Qaboos's homosexuality?74.100.101.183 (talk) 07:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
You have mine. I have watched insertions in the article and discussion on this talk page about this matter be deleted repeatedly for years. I agreed with those deletions because the Sultan's reputation is protected by BLP, not because the rumor is false (which I agree no one who is not the Sultan or a sometime paramour of his is in a position to confirm or refute), nor because it is not widely discussed (it definitely is), but because he is entitled to protection from even widespread gossip. But BLP is not an impenetrable shield, and there comes a point where talk about the issue is so widespread that it merits acknowledgement. The assertion made by someone who worked for and in His Highness's confidential environment long and closely enough to have knowledge of why the allegation may persist (i.e. Molesworth's perception that it is true) and to contribute to that perception and thus to its pervasiveness, coupled with reports that discussion of the allegation is widespread and of lengthy duration rises, finally, to a level which merits allusion in this bio. FactStraight (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
@FactStraight: Thankyou for your support. It's much appreciated and valued, especially since you have objectively followed this issue for quite some time.74.100.101.183 (talk) 07:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
If the consensus is that there should be some mention then that is fine. However I do not think the reported statement of a single indivodual in a single source should be reported as definitive proof. Therefore I think it is best if the source is provided but no conclusion is drawn.Martinlc (talk) 08:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
@Martinlc: A simple fix is that the section is re-worded. There is no need to just remove content.74.100.101.183 (talk) 10:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
The restored wording implies that this one person has provided definitive proof. That is not the case. I considered rewording but came to the conclusion that to single out this statement for repetition added nothing to the previous sentence. In brief, my view is that a statement by a historian in an OUP book is likely to be reliable but not necessary DUE in terms of weighting. I ma happy for alternative wordings to be explored but the restored version appears to add Wikipedia's voice to accepting the statement as definitive, and we are not in a position to do that. We could use a direct quote from the source but as I say I don't believe that giving this one source primacy is not justified.Martinlc (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
@Martinlc: Please do not remove neutrally worded language. The edit says very clearly that Molesworth's view is his own. Moleworth himself is definitely notable enough for his own inclusion. This is more than enough to meet neutrality. Simply removing the entire sentence under a pretense is unacceptable.74.100.101.183 (talk) 09:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I am glad that the work 'confirmed' has been dropped. I disagree about the notability of Molesworth's opinion but can live with the current version.Martinlc (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@Martinlc: Thankyou. Your acceptance is much appreciated.74.100.101.183 (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Phrasing of sultan sexuality mention

Hi. The current version of the article reads "His sexuality has long been called into question by Omanis, with the suggestion that he is homosexual.[22][23][24] According to Tony Molesworth, who was Oman's second most senior intelligence officer, Qaboos is homosexual.[25]"

I would argue that the version "He is believed to be homosexual by some Omanis, including his senior intelligence officer Tony Molesworth.[22][23][24][25]" is more clear and understandable. The current version awkwardly discusses his sexuality and the meaning seems to clearly be just that some Omanis believe that he is homosexual. While Tony Molesworth is a notable enough source to include on the article, he still only believes that he is homosexual, so I think it's far clearer to note that "some Omanis" includes a fairly relevant and close figure to Qaboos.

I edited the article to include this change, but an editor raised the valid concern that there was a discussion that (roughly) agreed that his sexuality was at least worth some mention, and that the change I made could be contentious. Interested in what others think about this phrasing change. Appable (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems constructive to me. But I would use the active voice: "Some Omanis, including senior intelligence officer Tony Molesworth, believe him to be homosexual." Replacing "called into question" is definitely appropriate. Largoplazo (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
That's a good solution but Molesworth isn't Omani so it would need to be "Senior intelligence officer Tony Molesworth and some Omanis believe him to be homosexual."Martinlc (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Good options, thanks. I think it's best to wait for 175.119.73.215, who reverted the change, to comment if s/he wants to, but if there's no comment in a few days I'll add it in. Appable (talk) 06:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

So i added more specific detail for Molesworth because the previous wording was too vague.175.120.34.181 (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good! Appable (talk) 08:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Succession

The article's content on future succession arrangements has a single source, a blog post of unproven reliability. I propose that it is removed as speculation. Martinlc (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Why is the sultan's name is also shown in Balochi language?

Although Balochi is one of the many spoken languages in Oman, it doesn't have any official status inside the country! Maybe this should be reconsidered as an unnecessary supplement to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.98.114.159 (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Full protection

This article needs a consensus regarding inclusion or non-inclusion about BLP issues (the subjects sexuality); I have therefore fully protected the article for one week. Discuss away. Lectonar (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

No to suppression of info

Judging by the edit summaries and talk page discussions i've read, the editors who oppose the homosexuality edit appear to fall into one of the following categories:

  • Those loyal Omani sycophants who think connecting their dear Islamic leader with homosexuality is somehow unbecoming and shameful.
  • Those who think that the sources provided are unreliable even though Oxford University Press, Springer and University of California Press are clearly reliable publishers.
  • Those who think that it is violating BLP to mention the beliefs of others just because Qaboos hasn't confirmed them himself, even though these beliefs (as shown in the source quotes) are clearly generally and widely held and even asserted by Tony Molesworth, who was someone in Qaboos's inner circle.

These are not valid excuses to remove the content and act as Qaboos's personal censors.138.75.224.83 (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: the version of the homosexuality info we are discussing is my new wording as follows:

  • According to Tony Molesworth, Oman's former second-most-senior intelligence officer, Qaboos is homosexual.[32] This view is widely shared by many Omanis and Gulf Arabs.[33][34]

A more detailed version of my edit, with the references, can be seen here in the 'Difference between revisions' page.138.75.224.83 (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Even if it were not a matter of WP:BLP concern, the first sentence, stating that one person makes that claim, would appear to be trivia. As for the second sentence, the sources as quoted do not state what the sentence states. One indicates that three Omanis think this is a common belief, which is different from the book claiming it's a common belief; the other states there's an assumption but it doesn't say who is assuming it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
The sources paint a clear picture of the general belief that he is gay: "Qaboos was generally believed to be gay", "stories of his exploits have traveled widely throughout the Gulf", "the sultan is generally believed to be homosexual by Omanis", "the assumption of homosexuality has pursued Sultan Qaboos relentlessly". In no way can these cites be interpreted to imply that his suspected homosexuality is only believed by an insignificant minority. Adding the confirmation of his former second-most-senior intelligence officer only strengthens the case for inclusion in the article. We have mentions on Wiki about Obama being suspected by a large number of Americans of being Muslim or not born in America (even though he has continuously denied these allegations), but no one has removed them because of BLP. NB: no deputy director of the CIA has come out to support these allegtions. Based upon this Wiki analogy, i believe that Qaboos's homosexuality has greater merit for inclusion because we have general belief, the support of someone formerly in his inner circle, and we don't have Qaboos's denial of the claim.27.145.109.102 (talk) 08:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Really should not be re-adding that paragraph in any form until there is consensus, as it's still contentious BLP material no matter how it is edited.
The citizenship conspiracy is not actually mentioned in the article Barack Obama, though it is mentioned in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. I note that the conspiracy theories article includes information such as statistics regarding the number of Americans who doubt Obama's birth location from reliable polling organizations, which is far stronger than "generally believed" or "pursued relentlessly". Further, I question why his intelligence officer would have any real information as to his sexual orientation, and why this general belief overrides typical Wikipedia consensus that sexual orientation should not be included unless stated by the person or extremely important to anything outside of his personal life. To compare again to the Obama conspiracy theory, they were significant enough for their presidential campaign to directly respond to the accusations, and there are hundreds of news stories discussing these theories: this shows that the rumors were at least notable. This is a few sources vaguely stating rumors about a living person: that's not acceptable in a biography. Appable (talk | contributions) 01:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps because he is precisely an intelligence officer... Frimoussou (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
@Frimoussou: Intelligence officer doesn't mean he knows everything about Qaboos. Anyway, it's still contentious BLP material that's not obviously verifiable, so it still needs a talk page discussion. I don't see anything resembling consensus for that addition, so I recommend you revert that addition and discuss. Appable (talk | contributions) 16:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
There are lots of assertions in this article and I'm sorry that they seem to be neglected because the issue of homosexuality is proving so controversial for some. One statement even sayd "His closest advisors are reportedly security and intelligence professionals within the Royal Office, headed by General Sultan bin Mohammed al-Numani" and no-one has challenged the use of "reportedly" - this strikes me as a lack of consistency. There really need not be so much fuss - there is already a line that says "Although Sultan Qaboos returned to Oman on 23 March 2015 and state officials as well as the Sultan himself have repeatedly tried to assure the population over his health, uncertainty still remains and the question of his succession is giving way to all sorts of speculations". We just simply add to the end of that sentence the words "including possible homosexuality". That's all we need - no-more and no less. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Intelligence officer doesn't mean he is totally ignorant about Qaboos (among other subjects), it would be better to write. At the contrary, intelligence officers know by definition much more things than most people do. The content of this addition is well sourced, isn't about Qaboos' factual homosexuality itself and, by the way, hasn't be denied. But perhaps am I wrong : if such denegations exists, it would possible to add the proper reference, I guess. Frimoussou (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Qaboos_bin_Said/Archive_1&oldid=999225010"