Talk:Qatar diplomatic crisis

Requested move 22 September 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

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


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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

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


 * I have reordered this untouched section in accordance with the visible chronology and invited, apparently what this section was intending to achieve. —117.96.184.121 (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is an invalid RfC, the statement is neither neutral nor brief. Consequently, it fails to list correctly at Requests for comment/Media, the arts, and architecture. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 07:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm also on team invalid RFC. I don't even know what's going on here. And I didn't read any highfalutin academic-papers to conclude that, nevermind web-resources like MBFC. It's a gradual-result of an independent-analysis of regularly consuming their output BUT with cautious, self-aware and analytical outlook. It looks like some WP:OR about how someone doesn't like the article. Any objections to me removing the RFC tag? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's IP user? I suppose they won't withdraw it themselves so fine by me. Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed it. If anyone has an issue feel free to revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Yemen Government
It is a fallacy to say that the legitimate government in Yemen is the one in Aden (which has switched control multiple times between different factions. The current government of Yemen is based in its nation’s capital and has effective control of over most of its population hubs but not most of its barren lands. JasonMoore (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Somaliland
In the info box, footnote [b] says "Somaliland's independence is not recognized by the international community." Clearly, at some point, Somaliland was listed as one of the parties involved in the dispute. Was its involvement significant? If so it should be relisted among the involved parties. Which side was it on?

If its involvement was not significant, the footnote should be removed.

I'm unfamiliar with the crisis and so can't make that judgement. Hypershock (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why there are recent events listed in the background section
The background section’s sequence of events is a bit odd and sporadically mentions recent events in between previous ones:

It starts off with good context on the Arab spring then it skips to 2021 (when the crisis ended) and then to some detail that happened in 2023, then some factoids about Qatar, Taliban, the US base, then back to some actually useful antecedents.

Catofminerva (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * People see a news article and chuck it into an article without really having a clear idea of what the article is about or how it fits together as a whole. These things grow like cancers. I've cut most of it; people may want some of it return00ed, but if so I think they should explain that on the talk page. Furius (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)