![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
There are two key issues that keep getting removed from the lead:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.” [1] 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) [2] resolutions of the Arab-Islamic-American Summit,” [3]. 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) [4] 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.” [5] Qatar claims Iranian backed Hezbollah is a resistance movement against Israeli occupation, not a terrorist group. [6] Saudi media alleged that Iran Revolutionary Guards are protecting Qatar’s ruler Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani inside his palace. [7]
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
{{
cite web}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)
References
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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." [1]
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
4 countries were removed from the infobox here https://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
THE DIPLOMATIC CRISIS WILL GO FUCK ITSELF!!!!!! STOP THAT MOTHERFUCKING ENTRY BAN!!!!!!! -- 62.63.238.25 ( talk) 14:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone have any objection to putting this in?
deisenbe ( talk) 16:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
References
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)
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.
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)
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?
65.95.136.96 ( talk) 03:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)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). [1]
References
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)
Are there any specific articles that you think should be referenced? Power~enwiki ( talk) 03:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. [1]
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. [2] [3]
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." [4] However, those Qataris who have a non-Qatari spouse in the country will not be affected. [5]
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." [6]
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. [7]
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." [8]
References
|
---|
References
|
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)
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)
A quick update:
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
There are two key issues that keep getting removed from the lead:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.” [1] 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) [2] resolutions of the Arab-Islamic-American Summit,” [3]. 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) [4] 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.” [5] Qatar claims Iranian backed Hezbollah is a resistance movement against Israeli occupation, not a terrorist group. [6] Saudi media alleged that Iran Revolutionary Guards are protecting Qatar’s ruler Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani inside his palace. [7]
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
{{
cite web}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)
References
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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." [1]
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
4 countries were removed from the infobox here https://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
THE DIPLOMATIC CRISIS WILL GO FUCK ITSELF!!!!!! STOP THAT MOTHERFUCKING ENTRY BAN!!!!!!! -- 62.63.238.25 ( talk) 14:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone have any objection to putting this in?
deisenbe ( talk) 16:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
References
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)
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.
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)
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?
65.95.136.96 ( talk) 03:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)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). [1]
References
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)
Are there any specific articles that you think should be referenced? Power~enwiki ( talk) 03:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. [1]
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. [2] [3]
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." [4] However, those Qataris who have a non-Qatari spouse in the country will not be affected. [5]
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." [6]
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. [7]
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." [8]
References
|
---|
References
|
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)
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)
A quick update: