Talk:Qatar diplomatic crisis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Barcelona shirt ban in Saudi - False news

This sentence in section "Cutting of Relations" under "Diplomatic Relations" was just a rumour published by some news sites "Even the wearing of a Barcelona F.C. shirt could render the wearer liable to a fine or imprisonment in Saudi Arabia, as the club is sponsored by Qatar Airways.[75]" Please see reference: http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/wearing-barcelona-shirt-qatar-airways-10597992 Saudi Arabia denies this. You can wear a Barcelona shirt. Embraze22 (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Title

I think the title should be "2017 Arab-Qatar diplomatic crisis", but since there are some non-arab countries involved,I am not sure.--Saqib (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Opening part of the Article.

Please any article need at least a brief explanation or general description. Whats the point of enumerating countries and government that have cut ties with Qatar if there are no reasons or background. Who is reverting obvious content?Mr.User200 (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Please keep your own personal POVs out of the article

This edit seems to remove content not based on any logical reason but based on the user's perception of monarchy and Wahhabism. We can debate whether content is relevant, but not whether someone is a "dick" or not.VR _talk 13:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Shipping ban

UAE bans Qatari ships. Not sure whether or not this is worth including, so leaving it here for review. Mjroots (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Definitely significant - Qatari ships trade regularly to the major UAE ports, particularly in Dubai. One to watch for reliable reports as the Qatar Government also owns a 51% majority of United Arab Shipping Company, a major container carrier, now integrated in partnership with Hapag-Lloyd (though none of their ships are registered in Qatar) Davidships (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Definitely worth including. Please be bold and include it.VR _talk 15:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

What about this supposed 1 billion USD hostage deal as the cause for the tensions?

The Financial Times is reporting that a hostage deal is behind the crisis:

″Commanders of militant groups and government officials in the region told the Financial Times that Doha spent the money in a transaction that secured the release of 26 members of a Qatari falconry party in southern Iraq and about 50 militants captured by jihadis in Syria. By their telling, Qatar paid off two of the most frequently blacklisted forces of the Middle East in one fell swoop: an al-Qaeda affiliate fighting in Syria and Iranian security officials. The deal, which was concluded in April, heightened concerns among Qatar’s neighbours about the small gas-rich state’s role in a region plagued by conflict and bitter rivalries. And on Monday, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain took the extraordinary step of cutting off diplomatic ties and transport links to Qatar, alleging the country fuels extremism and terrorism. “The ransom payments are the straw that broke the camel’s back,” said one Gulf observer.″

Source (behind a paywall): https://www.ft.com/content/dd033082-49e9-11e7-a3f4-c742b9791d43

Basically to sum up the situation: Shia militias with Iranian support, operating in Iraq, kidnapped a Qatari hunting party which included members of the royal family. Qatar then went to Iran to help negotiate the release in exchange for a ransom of 1 billion USD. Iran also had Qatar release some pro-Iran militants being held by an Jihadi faction in the Syrian Civil War (I think it was Tahrir al-Sham) through another ransom payment to that Jihadi faction, hence the claim they are supporting terrorism.歳 (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I would endorse including it at the end of the background section, or the beginning of the development section. But in language that makes it clear that the two events are connected only by an anonymous analyst's opinion. 73.61.20.195 (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

"on the orders of Donald Trump"

The existing content states:

In June 2017, several countries, led by Saudi Arabia, cut off diplomatic relations with Qatar.[1][2] "US President Donald Trump sided with Saudi Arabia, criticized Qatar,[14] and took credit for the diplomatic crisis.[15]"

This interpretation is supported by every single reliable source on the subject.

A new user (Special:Contributions/PieFactor) decided to alter the lede into the statement:

"In June 2017, several countries, led by Saudi Arabia, cut off diplomatic relations with Qatar on the orders of the 45th and current United States President Donald Trump."

In fact, he removed a BBC source while doing so, and replaced it with a Guardian source. I'm not sure why; both sources state unequivocally that the countries decided to cut ties with Qatar apparently on their own accord. Neither stated that they did so "on the orders of Donald Trump".

I'm not sure if this new interpretation is intentional trolling or just incompetency. Some of his edits suggest bad faith (i.e. stating that he had provided a source when in fact he removed a source and added a duplicate source). In any case, please take care and revert these edits when they occur. 73.61.20.195 (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Libya

Hi Could you change the color of Libya or delete it because Thani government is not internationaly recognized and the internationaly government of Libya is not opposed to Qatar. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Colour best deleted, but at most red/grey stripes with explanation. Davidships (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Libya in infobox map

Perhaps Libya should be shown hatched or something in the map, given that the eastern government's claim to represent the country is contested. 2601:644:0:DBD0:78BA:4F82:AEA6:E759 (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

see two headings up. Davidships (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Adding an infobox

It is really unclear now what is going on, in fact there should be a summary which summarize the overall event into an infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc lau49086 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Feel free to contribute to convo above if you disagree with format. Classicwiki (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I Move we change the title (temporarily) to 2017 Arab Blockade of Qatar

It's a blockade, which is an act of war. If shooting starts (I mean more than once or twice), we should call it the 2017 Gulf War or Gulf war (2017). Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Lets wait before even calling for a war. Russia and Iran have called for a restraint. But if a war takes places this will be a Regional War, Iran have openly offered Qatar help.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Too soon. "Crisis" is a general term, we don't know how it will develop this week. "Acts of war" are not equivalent to wars. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not a "blockade" - which is the use of military power to prevent ships from coming/going out of an adversary's ports - it's a shipping ban within the territories of those states that have instituted a ban.HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I said: "if shooting starts" It's not a war yet, and so far the Qataris haven't tried to run the thing yet. Right now everyone is scared, so of course the Russians and Iranians are calling for restraint, they want to confine the carnage to Iraq and Syria. Iran doesn't want to get bombed by Saudi and Russia wants to look reasonable. Arglebargle79 (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

So far as I read, there is no "blockade" in that sense, nor any other act of war; some media and the American president have used that word in a looser sense, but it is not based on any facts. We reflect the known facts, as reported by RS, not the rhetoric that may be used. This proposal is misconceived. Davidships (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

At the moment it's more of an embargo than a blockade Ingoman (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Map of Qatar/Saudi support

I know this is Wikipedia so this is too useful and straightforward to be used and more bullshit maps will be used instead, but I'm keeping track of who is supporting whom anyways. I won't bother posting it to the article again it will just be reverted as "vandalism" again.

This could be potentially useful but in its current form it is clearly not suitable for encyclopedic use:

• Using "hashtags" to describe "team" alliances in the caption is inappropriate for this situation.
• The meaning of the "Battleground" label on the map is unclear.
• The map data needs citations.
• The hyperbolic image description should be fixed.

Thanks for your contributions! 2601:644:0:DBD0:78BA:4F82:AEA6:E759 (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with the comments above about specific problems. Beyond that, it's too soon to know for certain whether any countries outside the Gulf region will react in a meaningful way and oppose any "world map" here. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• Also, oppose until you can provide sources for each of the countries. India, for example, hasn't taken sides AFAIK.VR _talk 22:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Here's India http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/India-signs-defence-pact-with-Qatar/article15339559.ece and I doubt you would support it even if I did remove the hashtags so fuck that

I find the general Wiki community pedantic assholes, so I will deliberately format this only existing map of useful data in a form you hate, knowing this will be enough to stop you from ever using it.

As it currently stands, the article is essentially a list of everyone who supports the Saudi blockade in a shitty map that doesn't even include everyone. Much better than mine clearly. Ingoman (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

There's a difference between "supporting the blockade" (which is in the form of a government statement that can be changed at any time) and actually participating in one. "Blockade" itself is a somewhat aggressive term to use at this point, though it will probably be accurate. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, it probably will NOT be a blockade - ever. Just a refusal by those states having a spat with Qatar to import their goods or allow their shipping in their ports. The day the Saudis and friends send naval vessels to Qatar to blockade them is the day liberals wake up and snort the coffee grounds. In the meantime, the article should only follow what Reliable Sources report. HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Lede

There are two key issues that keep getting removed from the lead:

• reasons Saudis have given for cutting of relations (Al Jazeera, terrorism and Iran)
• Qatar denying that it supports terror

Both these issues are key to our understanding of the article. Hence please don't remove them from the lead.VR _talk 04:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, I don't think its important to mention Pakistan in the lead, like here.VR _talk 04:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand, the US should definitely be in the lead, contrary to this edit. The US is a major player in the region and in this crisis.VR _talk 05:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The US yes but not Trump on his own. US and trump positions are contradicting and may be misleading. You can add Qatar denied accusations. I did and was removed due to a debate, probably somewhere here. It is important to have Pakistan and other related countries' involved somehow included to have an idea where this has led so far. It is a lead which needs to cover article not American views or lack of context.Continentaleurope (talk) 05:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Saudi threats/ultimatum?

Al Jazeera [1] suggests that the Saudis made some type of demands. Speculation on Twitter was of a 24-hour ultimatum. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

No context given

This diplomatic crisis was sparked by the apparently false media story that Qatar's emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani expressed support for Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and Israel - while suggesting that US President Donald Trump may not last in power.[2] The current article doesn't mention this at all. Kaldari (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• This is discussed in the "Development" section. The situation is too fluid for it to be discussed in the lede. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • It wasn't discussed. It was just alluded to without explanation. Anyway, I just fixed it myself. Kaldari (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Yemen in infobox map

Should Yemen receive similar treatment on the map to Libya? I realise the government opposing Qatar there is the 'recognised' one but should we reflect their limited actualy control of the country? Murchison-Eye (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree, it would be a better reflection of the situation. As you can reasonably expect the Houthi's to be following Iran on this issue.歳 (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Saudi Iran proxy cold war needs to be addressed

http://news.abs-cbn.com/business/06/05/17/saudi-move-to-isolate-qatar-part-of-proxy-war-with-iran-analyst AHC300 (talk) 10:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes there seems to be too much evidence that this is just another chapter in the Saudi Iran proxy war in the Middle East.--Arado (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

sentence fragment in 'Causes' section

the fourth paragraph starts with an ellipsis:

Third, an alleged hacking of the Qatar News Agency website and other government media platforms in May 2017.

Maybe someone who's not ESL can add a verb? As is, the sentence feels incomplete 81.14.232.116 (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC) stonefrog

This is not a military conflict

This is not a military conflict, there are no "belligerents". I think calling Qatar, Egypt etc as "belligerants" is completely unsubstantiated. I understand there doesn't exist a template for diplomatic incidents. But technical constraints shouldn't force us into making inaccurate statements.VR _talk 15:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I concur. There are no belligerents in this incident; it is extremely misleading to use an infobox format that claims there are. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

If I may be allowed to share a few quotes from the Wikipedia artice on "Belligerent": "'Belligerency' is a term used in international law to indicate the status of two or more entities, generally sovereign states, being engaged in a war." Also: "Once the status of belligerency is established between two or more states, their relations are determined and governed by the laws of war." Now, while relations between Qatar and these other countries certainly aren't good, they have not reached the point of warfare, and the parties to the dispute are therefore not "belligerents". Tigercompanion25 (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It is defined as "a nation or person engaged in war or dispute"

Wouldn't this fall under the latter? PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC) PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit: Can someone make something like the map on 2010 Colombia–Venezuela diplomatic crisis? PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

At this point I'll happily concede that "belligerent" has some ambiguity to it, but that would seem like all the more reason to find a less ambiguous way of putting it, for example: "Parties to the dispute" or "parties to the conflict". The map you've linked to from the 2010 Colombia-Venezuela diplomatic crisis looks like a good model. Unfortunately on my end here we are rapidly exceeding my own meager technological skills, as I don't know how to make maps and I don't know how to make infobox templates, but for someone who does, that looks like an ideal compromise. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Is there any infobox template for diplomatic disputes? -Juho04 (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I am the one who initially placed the infobox template in this article. Unfortunately, there are no infobox designs that really suits this issue. Template:Infobox diplomatic mission wouldn't properly outline the issue and this wasn't a territorial dispute, so I went with Template:Infobox military conflict. I even left a message that said, "I know this is not a war, but this is the best infobox for this article." I knew that the "Belligerent" thing would be an issue, I was hoping someone would know how to change that text. I understand why it was removed and I expected it. Classicwiki (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I oppose any one-box on this page at the present time; it is a developing news story and it is unclear what will be appropriate. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Infobox can be made without template (MOS:INFOBOX says "It is possible to hand-code an infobox using table markup, but this loses the advantages of standardisation and reusability"), if there is no appropriate template. And I think an infobox could be useful there as listing some key facts about the crisis. But yes, not with "military conflict" infobox template. -Juho04 (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Kind of used the Agadir Crisis as a guide post, because it didn't result in any deaths either. I know, these two events are not equivalent. I am considering making a standard infobox for diplomatic disputes/crisis that do not involve territory. Classicwiki (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

{{Infobox Bilateral relations}} is available. Might be possible to use that instead of the military conflict one. Mjroots (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

{{Infobox Bilateral relations}} is pretty unsuited for the formatting of this information. I just brought back the military conflict one and removed "Belligerents" because that seemed to be the main issue here, and changed it to "parties involved in the diplomatic dispute." Hopefully that should put most concerns at bay, while still presenting the info clearly. Classicwiki (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

It looks great! Well done. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it most certainly IS

A blockade is an act of war. Right after the diplomats were pulled, a blockade was instituted. Nobody has died, Insa'allah, but this is a military action. Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

No blockade was performed - it's a shipping embargo. Big difference.

Djibouti and Senegal join in

Djibouti cuts - http://www.djibdiplomatie.dj/index.php/8-communique-de-presse/660-urgent-communique-de-presse

Senegal cuts - http://www.reuters.com/article/ozatp-uk-gulf-qatar-senegal-idAFKBN18Y1X5-OZATP

If someone has the time to rewrite the article accordingly, please do. The relations of other African states like Sudan and Somalia that have tried to stay neutral so far in light of their positive relations with Qatar and KSA/UAE may also be worth examining. Gabon has apparently voiced its condemnation of Qatar as well. --24.235.128.134 (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I've add this to the "Diplomatic relations" section. Until the situation develops, it's undue to mention these countries in the lede/infobox; they appear to be primarily giving moral support at this time. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Qatar-Iran conspiracy

The following reads like a conspiracy theory:

Arab media also claims that a member of Qatars ruling house of Thani, Abdullah bin Nasser bin Abdullah Al Ahmed Al Thani tweeted that Qatars ruler Tamim has has “joined forces with Iran against your brothers and set up terrorist groups and published electronic battalions to beat your opponents.” Gulf Arab media claims that a secret meeting between Qatars foreign minister and the head of Iranian Quds force had been arranged by the Iraqi government and says: “Reliable sources said an agreement was reached where Qatar would rebel against the (purportedly anti-Iran) resolutions of the Arab-Islamic-American Summit,”. Arab media also claims that Qatar has secretly accepted to become part of an Iranian Shiite sphere of influence, that Tehran is trying to create in the Middle East, and which would include Lebanon (Hezbollah), Syria (Assad) and Iraq (Shiite majority government) and that in a phone conversation with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani Al-Thani said he wanted the ties with Iran to be “stronger than ever before.” Qatar claims Iranian backed Hezbollah is a resistance movement against Israeli occupation, not a terrorist group. Saudi media alleged that Iran Revolutionary Guards are protecting Qatar’s ruler Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani inside his palace.

I don't think most of this should really be in the article. If we have a "media reaction" section, it could go there. But these conspiracy theories are not being treated seriously outside of state-controlled media of Gulf countries.VR _talk 15:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

References

If you do not trust GUlf media, read Deutsche Welle and this instead The diplomatic controversy is rooted in the Saudi-Iranian rivalry and reflects Saudi Arabia's longstanding concern about Qatar's relationship with Iran and Iranian-backed militant groups. Qatar–Saudi Arabia relations have been strained since the Arab Spring, and Saudi, Egyptian, and Emirati officials cited Qatar's alleged support for extremist groups in recent years as one of the justifications for cutting diplomatic ties. The sudden economic isolation forced Qatar to turn to Turkey and Iran for food and water supplies.--Arado (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

References

At this point in time, any theory as to the cause of these events will be a conspiracy theory. I don't believe Saudi Arabia is attempting to claim that Qatar initiated this crisis. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Deutsche Welle is an acceptable source. But they don't directly make any claims regarding a Qatar-Iran conspiracy. They say things like " Al Thani, allegedly spoke positively" ... "Saudi media later reported that" ... "Qatar is said to have" etc.

[=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/07/qatar-fbi-says-russian-hackers-planted-fake-news-story-that-led-to-crisis-report The Guardian article], another good source, doesn't make any allegation of a Qatar-Iran conspiracy other than simply mentioning the " reports in the Qatari media last month that its ruler had made a speech that appeared friendly to Iran", which Qatar later said was due a hack. Same with NBC. MEMRI is definitely not a reliable source (if you disagree with me, just read the silly article).

If you think there are reliable sources that talk about a Qatar-Iran conspiracy, please quote what they say below.VR _talk 20:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Flags not needed!

2017_Qatar_diplomatic_crisis#Other_reactions currently looks like a mess! It was fine without the flags and in prose form. Not everything is an Olympic contest.VR _talk 00:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. They're fine in the bulleted lists but unnecessary here. I've changed them to regular links. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Infobox Content

Right now, we have the list of involved countries in a map, in the map legend, and in a table below. I think the list in the legend can be removed, it's enough to say what the colors mean. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Something odd with the map. Part of Libya shows black on the article page, but expanded has the red/grey stripes suggested earlier. Davidships (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I find the list confusing. There are two columns - is the left column Qatar and its supporters and is the right column Saudi Arabia and anti-Qatar countries. What is the difference between the countries aboe the right hand "Supported by" and below that line? Confused. ((IMO, the infobox should be understandable read-alone, without reading the body of the article.) -- SGBailey (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Libya in the infobox map

Left: Libya's alternative government shown as current territory held (including hover-text) Right: Libya's alternative government shown as all of Libya hatched

The map as I've been editing it has shown Yemen fully shaded red, since the internationally recognized Hadi government cut ties with Qatar. It also shows part of Libya with a hatched red pattern, meant to represent the House of Representatives (LHoR), one of three governments in Libya. The LHoR lost international recognition in 2016 to another government but it still claimed it was cutting ties with Qatar recently. User Panam2014 keeps reverting my edits to an older version initially uploaded by Wiki.0hlic that shows all of Libya shaded in with thick red stripes. To avoid further edit warning, I think it should be voted upon in the talk page as other editors have already created similar topics here. I support the LHoR being shown as the territory it held in June 2017 when it "broke ties". 2017NewYearNewMe (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I strongly oppose you livemap. It is an inedite research. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: Please don't revert other changes, then (like Chad and Senegal). I actually support the LHoR territory being shown. If other places on Wikipedia show this, so can we. --BurritoBazooka ^Talk Contribs 21:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Your map is a original reserch. Now please discuss and stop revert. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Then your argument should also apply to other maps. Those maps are there because previous consensus was had where it was decided it can be kept. --BurritoBazooka ^Talk Contribs 21:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Keep the map as it is since it's most accurate (includes most countries that have since joined the crisis). We will decide to represent Libya differently after this talk page discussion. Stop reverting. 2017NewYearNewMe (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: You requested that we keep the ante bellum version. The ante bellum version is actually this one -- the second version of the file. --BurritoBazooka ^Talk Contribs 21:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

It is the ante bellium version who was accepted by the author. At the top there are consensus for Libya. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

support showing the specific territory held by the LHoR. I would honest like to see the same for Yemen as was in an early edit, The government there controls a minority of the country. Murchison-Eye (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't include Yemen since it's the internationally recognized government that cut ties. Including the Houthis or even al-Qaeda on the map would mean we'd have to include all rebel groups that control territory for the map. 2017NewYearNewMe (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it sets that precedent. Libya and Yemen are the only examples in recognized civil wars. No matter their recognition the Yemen government holds the minority of power in the land. But I am happy to follow consensus. Murchison-Eye (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is any reason to use a livemap. This image doesn't pertain to the internal conflict that exists between various factions in countries like Libya and Yemen - there are separate pages (and maps) for that, which can be easily accessed by anyone looking for more information on these topics. What we want to show here is the country's response to the call for severing diplomatic ties with Qatar. And I believe, a fully hatched country area is enough to depict the state of ambiguity that exists for a specific country. --Wiki.0hlic 22:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

If the Wikipedia:Edit Warring of the image continues I will set-up a Wikipedia:RfC. Please try to hash this out among yourselves. Changing the map prompts changes in the infobox each time resulting in poor quality of information. Classicwiki (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I still support removing the infobox entirely. I'm not opposed to an RfC to get a more permanent infobox agreed upon; the current one has multiple problems. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Reports of Mauritius also cutting ties?

Add country to the map Source article - https://www.bna.bh/portal/en/news/789121 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkpeacock27 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Rumors were that this was initially mis-reported, it was the Maldives that cut ties. Without a better source than this, I'd avoid including this at this time. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

No source I can find gives a direct quote from any Mauritius goverment officials. There appear to be no scheduled DOH-MRU flights before this, so air routes won't help here. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I added two Mauritian news sources to the article confirming this was misreported. (These are in French because I haven't noticed the English newspapers reporting this yet.) One has a copy of a communique from Mauritius' Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the other interviewed the Vice Prime Minister and also quotes a tweet by the President confirming that Mauritius continues to maintain relations with Qatar. Looks like some journalist mixed up Mauritius and Mauritania. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmmmmm.... CNN reported this as fact. Little hard to know what to do with this disagreement among the sources. Is CNN a better or worse source than the local Mauritian rag? NickCT (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

CNN is almost certainly incorrect here. A newspaper located in Mauritius should be authoritative as to statements of members of the Mauritius government. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: - Or is possible both are correct (i.e. government sources saying one thing to one journalist and another thing to a second journalist)? Anyway, at the moment our article looks odd b/c the infobox doesn't match the body of the article. NickCT (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Mauritania, as well as two Indian Ocean island nations (Comoros and Maldives) did broke diplomatic ties. I think people are accidentally confusing one of those nations with Mauritius. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: - (embarrassed emoji) - Ha! After glancing again at the infobox, I realized I was confusing Comoros and Mauritius!

Strike what I'd said about the mismatch. Back to high school geography with me. Sigh.... NickCT (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Did the hack actually happen?

I added the word "allegedly" to the claim that the Qatar News Agency website was hacked. This was the central issue of contention that started the crisis. Only Qatar alleges that the web site was hacked. The Saudi coalition consider the statements to be true and the retraction disingenuous. There is actually nothing controversial in the Emir's alleged statement. He is said to have made similar statements at the Riyadh Summit the week before. So far I have not found any good analysis of the issue. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Qatar says the FBI is involved in a hacking investigation, and they disclaim responsibility for the inflammatory comments. Whether it was a "legitimate hack" or a "fake hack" isn't knowable by the editors of this article at this time. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Somaliland

The Foreign Minister of Somaliland (de facto state but internationally unrecognised) has made an announcement of cutting ties with Qatar. Article updated including a source (VOA Somali, it has also been reported by BBC Somali, I am looking for an English source).Kzl55 (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Turkey and Germany

Should we have Turkey and Germany listed on the Qatari side in the infobox? The countries have merely criticized Saudi Arabia and offered Qatar moral support. But other than that, I don't see them as having done anything significant.VR _talk 15:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that they should not be in infobox. Qatar has significant stakes in Volkswagen, Daimler, Siemens, Deutsche Bank and may have pressured Germany to come to its aid. But Germany mainly criticized the Trump administrations reaction to this crisis, and is generally critical of the Trump administration.--Arado (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Not yet. Turkey did something notable today, whatever it was should be included in the article, but not in the infobox until the situation develops further. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, the US should also not be in the infobox. It has been added on the Saudi side. Yet, the US maintains full relations with Qatar, which hosts a major US airbase.VR _talk 22:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree it's too soon, but I see no good reason to revert it. Almost everyone involved, from Iran to Trump himself, agrees that Trump supports the Saudis in this matter and was a contributing cause of the crisis. As President of the United States, his actions set the policy of the US if there are no contrary government statements. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

turkey has vociferously supported the qataris over the last few days. they should be included in the infobox on the side of qatar, i would think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.6.225 (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

What about Iran that actually flew in food to Qatar (Iran flies food to Qatar amid concerns of shortages)? I think that definitely shows that they are an ally. + that Iran is a major part of the background to the cut of diplomatic relations. I think it should be included in the infobox one way or another. --LialSE (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Infobox map

The map has FOUR colors on it while only THREE colors are explained.

Also, the map has a small red outline circle near the bottom and a 'large' red outline oval to the left of center. NEITHER of these is explained.

Would it be possible to either fix the map or include in the legend what the fourth color and red circle/oval mean/represent? 2600:8800:787:F500:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The circles are Mauritius and Comoros...Murchison-Eye (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The circles are the Maldives and Comoros. Perhaps having the circles at all is WP:UNDUE, because nobody can tell what countries they refer to. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

If someone doesn't know what countries they refer to, basic research (checking a map) should make it clear to them. There are plenty of maps that indicate island chains with circles when they otherwise wouldn't show up if the islands themselves were colored in. There was confusion early in the crisis as to whether or not Mauritius had cut ties with Qatar, but they haven't and that seems to have been cleared up now. So I don't see a problem here. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Qatar Charity

Qatar Charity is also accused of acting as a financier and agency for terror in several countries. I guess it's possible to write something about this NGO, even if it looks like there is an endless editwar. --Holapaco77 (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Qatar Airlift

In response to the blockade on Qatar from land neighbors the country of Iran has begun to airlift food supplies to Qatar. Iran Air released information to Agence France-Presse news agency that five plane loads of perishable food. Each plane was said to deliver around 90 tonnes of food. The Iranian new agency, Tasnim, reported "that three ships with 350 tonnes of food were also set to leave for Qatar."

I've written just a few lines about this on 5.3. But making it more detailed could be good. --LialSE (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Barcelona FC shirt

@Power~enwiki: - re this edit, what is disputed about it? De Telegraaf is a reliable source, and that is what it says. Mjroots (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

From the (incorrectly-sorted) top section: http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/wearing-barcelona-shirt-qatar-airways-10597992 . I'm not 100% certain the Mirror is credible here, but the details of every single action taken by the Saudis are excessive in the article as it stands. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Somaliland color in the infobox map

Since Somaliland is internationally unrecognized, it should have the same color as the color used for the unrecognized Libya government. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

but also map is wrong, and bear in mind that Somaliland is internationally recognised as an autonomous region of Somalia. it must be reviewed.and they never had foreign relations what diplomatic relations are they exactly cutting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.162.63 (talk) 08:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Shell Pearl GTL plant?

The Pearl GTL gas-to-liquids plant in Ras Laffan, Qatar produces more than 10% of Shell's global liquid fuels output. What is the status of exports from it? Tim AFS (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

"Pro-Qatar" in Infobox

As there does not appear to be any "hot" conflict, it is to be expect that countries will engage in normal diplomatic relations with Qatar, and doing so is not noteworthy IMO.

I would support any proposal that decreases the number of countries highlighted in the infobox, and oppose any image trying to list 10+ countries on each side. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Why did you remove Turkey from the pro-Qatar side? Plenty of reliable sources directly state that Turkey is supporting Qatar in this dispute, including Washington Post, New York Times, and Business Standard. We could hem and haw about Turkey not outright stating that it has taken a side, but nearly all reliable sources contradict this, not to mention the 200 troops it plans to send to Qatar in the upcoming months. 76.177.86.77 (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I repeat: "As there does not appear to be any hot conflict, it is to be expected that countries will engage in normal diplomatic relations with Qatar, and doing so is not noteworthy IMO." This is not (currently) a two-sided conflict. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

That's hilarious, you have the right stuff to be a leading member of Wikipedia, that's for sure. Who can argue with this flawless logic, Turkey only deployed troops there, totally irrelevant! Ingoman (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - the infobox is for military conflict, which doesn't exist (so far). Military conflict template therefor should be removed.GreyShark (dibra) 09:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The section of the template listing each side is titled Parties involved in diplomatic dispute, not belligerents, so there are no implications to the reader that this is a military conflict. 76.177.86.77 (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 19 June 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

---

2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis → Qatar crisis – Primary topic. There is only one "Qatar crisis" (so far), so it is only logical that that name be used here. It also redirects here. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose 2017 Qatar blockade or 2017 Arab blockade of Quatar seem better, crisis, is it really a simple crisis without reason? I prefer some kind of qualifier as the title is now. Govindaharihari (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Seems unnecessary for now. Qatar isn't the only country affected by this. I wouldn't mind 2017 Qatar blockade, but this is largerly a politicalissue with trade implications (not the other way around). Classicwiki (talk) (ping me) 17:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose every country has multiple crisises in it's history. Way too vague to be useful. United States crisis Canada crisis Somalia crisis and I oppose using blockaid as this involves other countries not engaging in a blockade. Legacypac (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support Qatar crisis has been used by the BBC and Financial times. This event has gone beyond just a withdrawal of diplomats now. Murchison-Eye (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Specifically on removing 2017 from the name; I'd support a rename to 2017 Qatar crisis. Crisis is a vague term, but there's no better option. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Rahman The Emergence Of Qatar (2012) "it is important to mention that after the battle of Wajbah, the British government unsuccessfully attempted to get involved in the Qatar crisis." ... that was 1893, so the year cannot be removed.@Murchison-Eye: In ictu oculi (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2017 (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.

Interesting history and analysis

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-coming-gulf-war-qatar-vs-everyone-21342 Details how goal is to turn Qatar into a Saudi vassal state. Legacypac (talk) 05:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Acronyms

If the purpose is to communicate factual information to those not already familiar with the topic the use of unexplained acrontyms is counterproductive. Smanion (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I've linkified GCC at the top of the article. Any other acronyms you feel are confusing or not hyperlinked correctly? Power~enwiki (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Yemen , a sovereign government ?

As Mansur Hadi is not in charge in the most of the country ( including the capital city ) , is it correct to count it as a sovereign government ? Sovereignty means holding supreme, independent authority over a region or state . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

He's the leader of the only Recognized government. Losing control of much of your country does not necessarily mean losing recognition. It is quite plausable that the government will regain control with Saudi help using American weapons. Legacypac (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

What about using "Recognized government" instead of "sovereign government" ? I think by that we can avoid the gap between recognition and sovereignty . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no single Yemen anymore - there is North, South and the Islamic Emirate of Anzar al-Shariah. Semantics do not matter which is legal and which is not - all three exist.GreyShark (dibra) 18:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Involved countries

4 countries were removed from the infobox here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_Qatar_diplomatic_crisis&curid=54225447&diff=790479333&oldid=790479137 but they are also on the map in light pink as having reduced diplomatic relations. Either the map is incorrect and needs adjustment or the 4 should be added back with refs. Legacypac (talk) 10:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Other opinion for the entry ban of Qatar

THE DIPLOMATIC CRISIS WILL GO FUCK ITSELF!!!!!! STOP THAT MOTHERFUCKING ENTRY BAN!!!!!!! --62.63.238.25 (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2018 (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)

References

• yes, I do. wp:weasel and wp:coatrack and , or WP: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)

RfC on Infobox Contents

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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 WP: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 Wikipedia'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. TimothyJosephWood 15:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

References

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)

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 Wikipedia—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)

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)

Amnesty International denounced the boycott and accused Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the UAE of toying with people's lives. James Lynch, Deputy Director of Amnesty International's Global Issues Programme, claimed that "these drastic measures are already having a brutal effect, splitting children from parents and husbands from wives. People from across the region – not only from Qatar, but also from the states implementing these measures – risk losing jobs and having their education disrupted. All the states involved in this dispute must ensure their actions do not lead to human rights violations." Amnesty International received reports from victims unable to visit their family members, students being stranded and workers being unable to return to their jobs in opposing nations.

The Norwegian Refugee Council expressed fears that the crisis would affect reconstruction in Palestine, as Qatar is a major source of humanitarian and infrastructure aid to Palestine.

In June 2017, Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor released a report showing the effects of Egypt and the GCC's boycott of Qatar. The report alleged that because of the boycott, "more than 6000 families will be displaced because one of the parents is a Qatari citizen and the other holds a passport of one of the 'siege countries'". The report also explained the boycott's effect on work and labor rights in Qatar as "nearly 2,000 workers who have Saudi, Bahraini or Emirati citizenship will be forced to leave their jobs in Qatar." However, those Qataris who have a non-Qatari spouse in the country will not be affected.

In June 2017, the "siege countries" have shut down media outlets with links to or considered sympathetic to the Qatari government. Human Rights Watch said that such steps represent "a clear violation of freedom of expression," further adding that governments "do not have the right to close down media outlets and criminalize speech to shut out criticism they find uncomfortable."

In July 2017, Human Rights Watch said that the boycott of Qatar represents "a severe violation of human rights principles." The international organization revealed that the blockade "reflects negatively on the right to freedom of expression." In addition, the boycott "resulted in separating families, interrupting medical, interrupting education, and stranding migrant workers without food or water." Furthermore, the organization discussed the Blockade’s side effects on travel to and from Qatar.

In July 2017, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Bahrain took steps to control supporters of the Qatari government and its foreign policy. In the three countries, citizens who oppose the Qatar blockade will face penalties ranging from fines to prison. Referring to the decision, HRW said that such measures "represent a huge violation of freedom of speech and information that could have serious implications."

References
References

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)

Proposed merge with Qatar–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict

See this AfD discussion. It's a WP: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 Plumber 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[3][4] 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 [5] or Qatar-Saudi Arabia/UAE proxy war [6]. 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)