Talk:Qatar diplomatic crisis

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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.

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 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)

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)

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)