Talk:Qatar diplomatic crisis

Blockade vs Boycott
I haven't been here to Wiki so while scanning this page for terminologies/phraseologies, I was shocked to find the inclusion of term ‘boycott’ 25 times. But then I eventually realised that I was in an editor-window so 'course, the bias of sources cited would be reflected in auto-searches. As it turns out, ‘blockade’ gives precisely double the result. Supposedly neutral terms like ‘embargo’ and ‘isolation’/‘isolate’ have far lesser terms. But anyhoo.. Given Ingenpedia is mainly for reading with due-attention so here's what I found [outside the References section]:
 * A) The morpheme ‘blockade’ is mentioned throughout article's text-body 18 times, out of which 15 is out of quotation.
 * B) The morpheme ‘boycott’ is mentioned throughout the article's text-body just 5 times, precisely none of which is presented as a quotation.
 * C) Supposedly neutral morpheme ‘embargo’ is mentioned just 2 times, both of which are out of quotation.
 * D) Supposedly neutral noun ‘isolation’ or its derivative verb ‘isolate’ are mentioned precisely 0 time.

So, any genuine thoughts? While I'm relieved that the article has finally come around to not being a simplistic, "zero-sum game" of "power in numbers" as most of what's-dubbed-as the free press across the globe, and not just AJMN, has generally preferred the term ‘blockade’ for coverage on this story over supposedly-neutral words, let alone ‘boycott’. And I guess any voracious researcher amongst us can easily identify that which term the anti-Qatar Quartet+12 (or "anti-terror Quartet"+12, as they've presented themselves) would rather prefer (in fact, I see there were some similar attempts by some editors here over citing the RS which are made direct-parties to the conflict, not that I find sense in such a protest simply because the canards have been solidified as a socio-political crisis), but now since at least this chapter of "Arab Winter" and purported Iran-Saudi Arabia proxy conflict being hopefully laid to rest: '''It's an apt time to ponder that going forward, how should this chapter be presented to the attentive readers? Because seriously, while I do think that the UN's conclusive-ruling must have played a part in this article finding its place, if not the sister articles, it's ludicrous how flippantly the equilibrium between ‘blockade’ and ‘boycott’ has been been maintained that the former has been invoked not just when citing statements from RS like AJE, but even when paraphrasing speeches of out-and-out Friends of Qatar like, the one from Turkey's incumbent executive President.''' That's it. I won't be able to join the conversation here because my IP is PPPoE and frankly, I decidedly have no interest to rejoin Ingenpedia and re-engage in its editing-affairs anymore. So.. Just throwing it out there, lest the interested readers aren't free enough to have thought this through. '''And yes, while we're at it: Try to find a better source on corroborating the names of participant-polities like some perennial-sources, eh? Citing a rant-editorial from Emirāti propaganda-tool WITHOUT due-attribution, as a "factual go-so source" to know about the involvement of parties is a reaffirmation of pretty bad-precedent on this project. In the mere past 3 years, such news-outlets have come out to the forefront as organs of The State.''' And I didn't read any highfalutin academic-papers to conclude that, nevermind web-resources like MBFC. It's a gradual-result of an independent-analysis of regularly consuming their output BUT with cautious, self-aware and analytical outlook. '''I'm not advocating for the outright removal of such sources, since that would require RS Noticeboard caucus and frankly: The decline in the dispassionate-press at one side of this conflict has been so rapid that frankly, it appears Ingenpedia would have to accommodate the lowered-standards in order to appreciate the plurality of sources. It can't be both together, now.( Unless one wishes to include.. Say, Isrāeli press' output, to represent this side's perspective.) And I won't even try advocating for including Qatari press like Doha News, Gulf Times, The Peninsula or Qatar Tribune in order to justify the continued inclusion of those unreliable sources, I'm just nudging that to cover as basest of facts like the participant-nations — it shouldn't be Herculean to find the precise backers in this conflict from far more dispassionate, still-reliable sources.''' No? —06:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC on Infobox Contents
What information should the infobox on 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis contain? More specifically, what countries should it list, and should it include a map image? Power~enwiki (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The political situation in Qatar seems to no longer be changing on a day-to-day basis, so it should be possible to have a full discussion of the infobox contents now.

Discussion
I think the situation is still very changable in the short term. We still don't have any demands from the gulf states and as I understand from reading online articles, America is pressurising them to call off the blockade. This article is very recent, from today us-state-department-questions-gulf-motives-on-qatar-boycott - 2017 Quatar boycott? Govindaharihari (talk) 10:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there should be an infobox. Infobox should contain Qatar and Iran on one side and all governments (internationally recognized or not) that have severed on downgraded ties with Qatar. Yes, there should be a map. The map should highlight Qatar in green, internationally recognized governments that severed ties in red, internationally recognized governments that have downgraded relations in light red. Libya and Yemen could be checkered but to a lesser degree so it doesn't look black on preview. I can be swayed with better proposals. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me) 14:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not sure an infobox is necessary, and would prefer a more generic "Foreign Relations Incidents series" one. As it stands, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE, Iran, and Turkey are all regional powers that took actions that can be referenced. Egypt might be. Other GCC members (Kuwait and Oman) appear to have stayed studiously neutral. Donald Trump's involvement is too confusing to attribute any position to the US. I think everyone else engaged merely in verbal support or symbolic actions (withdrawing of diplomats). Power~enwiki (talk) 06:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * RFC Comment: I'm not 100% sure what the concrete proposal on the table here is, but overall I agree with Govindaharihari in that this situation is in a developing/unfolding phase. If a map is to be used, and I don't oppose a map, such map should denote also countries that support Qatar or have assumed a neutral stance, not only ones that have severed ties. The lead seems to not mention the hacking theory, which per IN:LEAD should be mentioned as a significant controversy affecting the subject. Qatar should be pointed out in the map, as readers might not find it due to its small size. The black colour is not presently explained in the key. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The only concrete proposals are whether to include an infobox at all, and whether that infobox should have a map. There's no specific list of countries that's proposed at this time, I'm hoping the discussion will generate one.  The black colour for Libya is an erroneous graphical artifact of an attempt to make it partially red (due to the multiple governments in the country) and should be repaired or removed in the new image. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: It seems to me that, the infobox doesn’t suit this issue, bearing in mind this is not conflicts which have physical and involve casualties, And I think this issue is better off with out it, I find the map confusing  too, (Map would be good if only shows involved parties Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Egypt one side and Qatar on another side ) if the infobox appears necessary to some it should be simplified while other countries mentioning in the article rather than infobox, things are excessive now. Somajeeste (talk) 07:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Look at Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict, Iran and Saudi Arabia are not at war directly but it also uses the same infobox style. I think it is a matter of being able to consume information quickly. Unfortunately, this page's infobox is constantly changing. I'm ok with removing the infobox if that is consensus, but I think it could be utilized well (in an ideal sense). Classicwiki (talk) (ping me) 23:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Also look at the Saudi-led intervention in Bahrain onfobox style. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me) 01:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * No change I am satisfied with the article as it is now. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * There don't appear to be any strong opinions; the graphic as-is appears to be acceptable. There also appears to be support for mentioning Turkey and Iran in the infobox as "supporting Qatar" in some way. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I do want to specifically call out mentioning Israel in the infobox; I removed this after it was added and not discussed on the talk page. Without some specific argument on the talk page, it should stay out of the infobox. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * No change (mostly). I am fairly comfortable as it is except for the map. The map may need its scale adjusted. Unless you already know where Qatar is, you might be left wondering where the green bit is! Jschnur (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * In most countries I doubt 1% even know what Qatar is or where to find it on a map. I'm seeing discussion on CNN that the anti-Qatar forces have been discussing invading Qatar over the last week or so. Worth looking for sources and setting that up below the demands section. Legacypac (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * (Re: invasion of Qatar) If they can find it! Jschnur (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Might be tough to find if they rely on Ingenpedia's map here. Legacypac (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Remove the infobox - as misleading and unnecessary per Power~enwiki. We cannot use "military conflict infobox" when the conflict is not military, but rather diplomatic.GreyShark (dibra) 10:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems fine overall - I agree the image is less than helpful if you don't already know where Qatar is, since it's barely visible. To User:Greyshark09, the infobox name means literally nothing. You could just as well use Template:Infobox fictional race if for some reason it gave you the parameters you needed. Other than that, probably need to work on making our RfCs a tiny bit less open ended, and a tiny bit more precise, because this question is sufficiently broad to as to be very unlikely to result in a definitive consensus. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Kushner/Trump role
Does anyone have any objection to putting this in?


 * According to a July, 2017 article in The Intercept, the crisis, which began soon after President Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia in May 2017 and which he has taken credit for sparking, has a close link with his son-in-law's Jared Kushner's failed 666 Fifth Ave. investment. According to this source, Kushner played a key behind-the-scenes role in hardening the U.S. posture toward Qatar, in retaliation for a failed $500,000,000 investment in the building by a Qatari, Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani. President Trump and his daughter Ivanka (Jared's wife) have repeatedly failed to get financing from Qatar for various business deals, which may also have contributed to Trump's hostility toward Qatar.

deisenbe (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * yes, I do. wp:weasel and wp:coatrack and, or IN:SYNTHESIS Govindaharihari (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * @govindaharijhari. Specifically which are the weasel words you're objecting to? deisenbe (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Qatari rial
The Qatari riyal is pegged to the u.s dollar as stated in reference 196. While saying the Qatari riyal is at it's lowesest in 11 years maybe true it is also misleading. Samy.albardaweel (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Pro-Qatar bias
Could you guys please stop relying too heavily on Al-Jazeera (a pro-Qatari propaganda outlet whose reliability is questionable), MB propaganda websites such as MiddleEastMonitor and MiddleEastEye, and a bunch of leftist/liberal "fake news" outlets (Reuters, AP, AFP, NYT, WaPo, HuffPo, BBC, CNN, etc.) that seem to be pro-Brotherhood and pro-Qatar? How about Al-Arabiya, Ahram Online and The National? They offer the necessary amount of alternative news on this issue to allow the removal of POV in this article. Zakawer (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The sites you term "leftist/liberal fake news outlets" are reliable sources. If you are tagging this article as POV because of that, you are incorrect. Earthscent (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * By all means take issue with individual references if you have grounds but I agree with Earthscent it is not helpful to make generalizations about the tendencies of one group of media or another. This is not grounds for a POV dispute Gumsaint (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Are there any specific articles that you think should be referenced? Power~enwiki (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * As I have previously said, I would recommend citing Al Arabiya, The National and Ahram Online more frequently on Egypt- and GCC-related issues like this one. They help provide the GCC and Egyptian narrative on this political crisis. Plus, there's barely any objection to these three sources here on Ingenpedia—they're considered to be reliable sources. (unsigned comment by Zakawer)


 * So you should do that. You are perfectly capable of finding a link to one of those sources, and adding it to this article in the appropriate place. Earthscent (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hadith
Should we add this hadith to this article as it is coming true? Splitting into groups or 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis has already occurred with one day to spare in the month of Shawwal so I am assuming fighting will start sometime in the next month of Dhu al-Qidah?
 * Abu Hurairah said that the Prophet said: "There will be an Ayah (sign) in (the month of) Ramadan. Then, there will 'isabah (splitting into groups) in Shawwal. Then, there will be fighting in (the month of) Dhu al-Qi'dah. Then, the pilgrim will be robbed in (the month of) Dhu al-Hijjah. Then, the prohibitions will be violated in (the month of) al-Muharram. Then, there will be sound in (the month of) Safar, then the tribes will conflict with each other in the two months of Rabi' al-awwal & Rabi' al-thani. Then, the most amazing thing will happen between (the months of) Jumada and Rajab. Then, a well-fed she-camel will be better than a fortress (castle) sheltering a thousand (people)." 65.95.136.96 (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Not unless there's a secondary source that discusses this. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ditto to what Power-enwiki said, it seems to be original research. In my opinion the only acceptable authority for such an exceptional comparison should be a grand mufti, and even then its addition be highly debatable. Elspamo4 (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposing re-titling
I am proposing to have this re-titled to "Qatar diplomatic crisis" since there's no ending in sight and could span for years.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Reactions section
How much of this do we need? I expect that at least half of it can be removed from the current article with no harm to the readers. Current event articles often get a "laundry list" of immediate statements which are of no historical value. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 18:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, at least half without any loss to the reader. In my opinion, such bloated opinion sections deter the reader from gaining information. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've moved some of the immediate reactions from various countries to the "Immediate response / Diplomatic activity" section. I've also removed the "Reaction of non-governmental organizations" section entirely; it is preserved here if anyone feels a need to restore some of it. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 23:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I would like to move this section back in, As is customary with most reaction sections, this should go on bottom since not everyone is necessarily interested in this, but it should remain for those who are. I have a general understanding that Qatar is wealthy and can sustain a boycott for a while, so this information here taught me it's not as simple. If there are no objections, I would like to move this section back, and will gladly copy-edit and shorten it where I can. Shushugah (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Qatar–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict
See this AfD discussion. It's a IN:CFORK of the diplomatic crisis article that should have been redirected at the very least. Another possible target might be Qatar–Saudi Arabia relations, though I'm undecided yet as to which parts should be merged in it. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * redirect it, yes, support redirect as suggested. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose with alternate suggestion: I would oppose merging Qatar–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict here, because that article goes back to 2011, while this is much more specifically about escalated boycott/hacking of AJ in 2017/2018 and would require work to merge. On other hand, I support merging Qatar–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict into Qatar–Saudi Arabia relations Shushugah (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, both Qatar-Saudi Arabia proxy conflict and 2017-18 Qatar diplomatic crisis are noteworthy enough to have their own articles. Plumber (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - merge as proposed - Qatar–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict into 2017–18 Qatar diplomatic crisis, as this is exactly the same issue. There is no separate proxy conflict between Saudia and Qatar. The 2017–18 Qatar diplomatic crisis article is more veteran (created June 2017, 3 and half months prior to the other article) and has much more editorial contributions. GreyShark (dibra) 06:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect (as nom). The proxy conflict article is entirely based on original research. Template:Second Arab Cold War infobox alone is just too problematic and may even warrant a separate XfD nomination (will probably get onto that later, though I'd prefer it if someone else did). I encourage to focus their effort on improving the existing articles instead. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support until this event (and its aftermath, which continues to this day), the main conflict in this area was the Iran-Saudi Arabia proxy conflict. I don't believe there's sufficient coverage of a separate proxy conflict involving Qatar and Saudi Arabia that is separate from the current crisis. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 23:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as premature. Both Qatar-Saudi Arabia proxy conflict and 2017-18 Qatar diplomatic crisis are noteworthy and distinctive enough to have separate articles. --BushelCandle (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No one put into question the noteworthiness of the diplomatic crisis article. Qatar–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict is where all the problems lie, because it's based on original research and was forked from another article. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - I think the proxy conflict article is filled with original research and the term 'proxy conflict' is inaccurate to describe the state of relations between the two countries. They've had disputes from time to time, and relations are at their lowest point right now, but to say there's been a 'proxy conflict' since 2002 is inaccurate and inadequately sourced. The two countries have had strong political, diplomatic and military ties, and have frequently cooperated from 2002 onwards - it's nothing like Saudi Arabia's proxy conflict with Iran. If anything it's the UAE that has that type of relationship with Qatar (although even there 'proxy conflict' would be too strong a term to use anywhere besides Libya), and the diplomatic crisis is a reflection of a change in leadership in Saudi Arabia to one more neutral between the UAE and Qatar to one more closely aligned with the Emirates.--Jay942942 (talk) 00:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support merge with Qatar-Saudi Arabia relations Looking at online sources, I can't find many reputable references to this proxy conflict. I've found some sources for a possible cold war scenario following the end or extension of the diplomatic crisis and imo there's a good chance that evidence for a proxy war will be uncovered soon. However this article seems premature for now at least. I'd say there's much more merit for an article on the Muslim Brotherhood-Saudi Arabia conflict or Qatar-Saudi Arabia/UAE proxy war . Elspamo4 (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * So where are we? Consensus is clearly in favor of merging, but into which article? This one, or Qatar–Saudi Arabia relations, or both? This needs to be closed by someone uninvolved. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I already voted, but to clarify my position on why this should be merged into the bilateral relations page rather than the diplomatic crisis page: their rivalry predates the crisis by at least 1995 when Hamad bin Khalifa overthrew the emir of Qatar. I use the term rivalry instead of proxy war since there are no academic sources describing their relation as a proxy war, and it doesn't really apply given the modern usage of the term. Their rivalry is still the integral cause of the diplomatic crisis though and I believe it's adequately explained in the 'Background' section of this article. Many of the key topics of their rivalry have been elaborated in the Qatar–Saudi Arabia relations article, bar the content still present in the proxy conflict article. Elspamo4 (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

A quick update:
 * Qatar–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict was renamed to Qatar–Saudi Arabia diplomatic conflict.
 * The 2017-19 conflict has gone on long enough this page is now too big to merge with the longer history, I think, and other content has moved around.
 * Qatar–Saudi Arabia relations and Qatar–Saudi Arabia diplomatic conflict are both short, and both have overlapping histories. Arguably, the former is a neutral umbrella term that includes the latter, so I flipped the merge tag and am now proposing that Qatar–Saudi Arabia diplomatic conflict be merged into Qatar–Saudi Arabia relations as some people have suggested above. -- Beland (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I have a solution
I have a very good suggestion why we cann't make a referendum on Qatar's diplomatic crisis because two separate articles can not deal with different perspective. It is preferable to have one article covering all aspects of this issue to benefit the reader; to know the details of this problem this is only a personal point of view. I hope that everyone will participate in constructive dialogue, expressing their views and opinions. Mr. James Dimsey (talk) 08:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 22 September 2019

 * 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: Moved (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

2017–2019 Qatar diplomatic crisis → Qatar diplomatic crisis – The incident has over 1 year at least. Beta Lohman (talk) 12:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943  (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest Qatar diplomatic crisis 2017–Present--SharabSalam (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support considering that Qatar has not had any other notable diplomatic crises and that the current situation has no end in sight. feminist (talk) 12:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, I agree with the change, better than renaming the article every year. UA3 (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2019 (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.