Opothleyahola

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Oman High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oman, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Oman on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OmanWikipedia:WikiProject OmanTemplate:WikiProject OmanOman articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: British / European / Middle East This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force Middle Eastern military history task force Socialism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The numbers given for Iranian forces involved seem excessively large; over three times the strength of the Sultan of Oman's army committed to the campaign. Perhaps the verbatim quote ought to be given. Did the figure perhaps refer to the total number of Iranian soldiers who were "rotated" through Dhofar over several years, rather than the maximum strength at any one time ? HLGallon 02:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The verbatim figure used is 30,000-35,000. Badeeb, the Saudi author, concludes that the Dhofar Rebellion is one of the few cases where the Shah's Iran actually *did* act as the Persian Gulf's policeman in a military sense.

PFLOAG known widely as "adoo"? This wouldn't happen to be the Arabic word "adw", or "enemy"? If so, slightly one-sided... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.95.69.221 (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly; when I started the article, I wasn't aware of the term's connotations. I relied heavily on British military sources, which used POV terms but presented matters generally in a neutral style. I wanted to get away from the Boys' Own World style of the article on the Battle of Mirbat, which is so warped I don't want even to touch it. HLGallon (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear problem in relying exclusively on British military sources. Even by removing POV statements, you cannot get to the truth, just because of the structural bias of the sources. I'm about to finish a research paper on the subject that exposes the British propaganda on the war (ie. the bullshit about "hearts and minds" which in fact was pure repression, also the characterization of the PFLOAG as "atheist" even though it was merely secular). I don't feel comfortable editing the page though, because I'm not a wikipedian and because of the "no original research" policy of wikipedia. Perhaps I could send you my paper so that you have an idea of other sources on the subject? JB157.150.192.237 (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! For my last edit, read Jordanian *contribution*, not contrition. Jordan had reservations over placing units under British command, but not over its participation. See Akehurst, We won a war for details. HLGallon (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image File:PFLO flag.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article mentions India's participation. Is this true? --Miacek (t) 10:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

India and Pakistan diodnt actually commit anything officially....there were doctors on loan.....and logisitcal support on loan from both the countries....in fact as per the book "In the service of the sultn by ian gardiner".....perhaps the first 2 modern doctors in oman were perhaps a sikh and an assamese from india who the author came to befriend!!!! --Pranav (talk) 13:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I AM PRETTY SURE.....THAT THERE WERE WAY MORE MEMBERS IN THIS WAR IN FACT THE BATTLE OF MIRBAT itself....had 400++ adoo in the attack

there were probbly more than 4-5000 peronnel!

and this information currently on display aint even sourced!--Pranav (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE ADD BATTKLE OF MIRBAT PAGE ITs pretty well written and needs to be linked to this page for sure!--Pranav (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

800 "hard core" fighters + 1,000 locals ≠ 2,000 KIA + 2,000 POW. This needs to be fact-checked and fixed. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I came here for the same reason.

The figures are not cited either.

Varlaam (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGMX_oBpDKQ Man74 (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The poster says that it's against SHIAS not communists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.98.158.14 (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was added by Paulissinoua (talk) on 1 March, 2022, this year. I consolidated the references to the source (orientxxi.info, [1]) used by Paulissinoua but left the claim intact. It has recently (12 March, 2022) been removed twice by A sprmcy (talk), with reasons given, but reverted by Tommi1986 (talk) on grounds of vandalism, possibly as a result of new user A sprmcy inadvertently removing a cite name, leaving orphaned citations in the remainder of the article.

I have removed the claim again. The sole support is a single footnote, with no indication as to its original source, in the orientxxi.info page. Such a contentious a claim needs corroboration from more than one reliable source. I have found none in the existing literature. (The orientxxi.info page gives ample confirmation, if any were needed, of the Imperial Iranian contribution, but should not be regarded as authoritative regarding any Israeli paricipation.) HLGallon (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For example, "The Omani people hated both the sultan and the British rulers, who administered the country while keeping the sultan in place and with whom they colluded to enrich each other behind the backs of the people." "Nevertheless, the rebels kept the respect of their opponents for their resilience and skill." and "The intolerance of the Arab people oppressed by the overbearing and British rule was increasingly felt,", especially as none have any references , seem very POV. 155.190.60.34 (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The statement regarding PFLO's "...resilience and skill" is sourced in Jeapes, and also in Hughes, Geraint (2016). "Amateurs Who Play in League Division One? Anglo-Iranian Military Relations During the Dhofar War in Oman". British Journal for Military History., which describes an incident in which two dozen PFLO guerrillas routed an entire battalion of the Imperial Iranian Task Force. The leaden phrases in the "Background" section should certainly be copyedited for tone, or removed. I already removed dsome even more contentious phrases but hesitated to do more lest I be accused of bias.

In the article, there is a statement that "The Government's propaganda was factual and low-key [as Wikipedia articles should be], while that of the rebels, broadcast by Radio Aden, was soon perceived to be exaggerated and stereotyped", sourced to Jeapes. I think that the point is made.HLGallon (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]