Talk:Qatar corruption scandal at the European Parliament

Edit war over repeated deletion of content by an IP-hopping editor
It looks as though an IP editor has been deleting cited content, and various editors (including me) have reverted him/her and posted helpful warnings on the IP's various talk pages.
 * First the IP editor created a new section: "Involvement of the United Arab Emirates".06:34, 26 February 2023 This section had one sentence partially copied from the "Government of Qatar" section.
 * Then the IP editor deleted cited content "Government of Qatar" section.06:51, 26 February 2023 This included one sentence they had partially copied, but included other stuff too that documented the Qatari response to the scandal.
 * Then they edit-warred to impose their point of view because other editors kept reverting them.06:54, 26 February 2023,08:41, 26 February 2023,08:59, 26 February 2023

-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The IP editor added content citing: These do not seem like reliable sources. I think we should delete content sourced only to them. These seem more like Potemkin websites built to create an impression. -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * International Campaign for Freedom in the United Arab Emirates
 * Emirati Leaks

I have deleted the stuff that the IP editor added that had unreliable sources on BLP grounds. I have also deleted the stuff on the reaction of the government of Qatar - there is a section for that, and it is already there. -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Please, see m:Talk:Wikiproject:Antispam, m:Wikiproject:Antispam/Qatar tracker, fr:Discussion Projet:Antipub, en:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 178, this article at Le Monde, etc. There is an influence operation by Qatar outsourced to several PR firms. The first IPs you cited are part of this operation. There's a non-exhaustive list of cross-wiki contributions attributable to these PR firms at m:Wikiproject:Antispam/Qatar tracker. Also note that these contributions are, quite often, copyvio. Although since a year ago or so the copyvio is less obvious, there's some paraphrasing, and they do not cite the same source they copy from. Best, MarioGom (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * These IPs are Sockpuppet investigations/Radovicdarko538, which is one of the sockfarms working on the topic. MarioGom (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

An IP editor, possibly one of the above?, added some anti-UAE text sourced to a primary document - a report by an NGO linked to one of the NGOs involved in the scandal. I then rephrased the text to put it into context using secondary source. Please do not revert without discussion. Southdevonian (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * An IP editor added the following:
 * The UAE has also been amongst the countries alleged of interfering in the EU. In February 2022, an investigative report by Droit au Droit (DAD), “UNDUE INFLUENCE” revealed the details of the Emirates' foreign interference campaign to influence the democratic processes of the EU. The report said the Emirati lobbying efforts focus on influencing the foreign policy of the EU, through diplomatic channels, decision makers, and also through former high-level EU staff members. The UAE was identified either acting directly and hiring PR consultancies to manipulate narratives on issues crucial for the Arab country in Brussels and the European countries. The report also stated that a number of EU officials remain unaware of what the UAE gets in return of its influence campaign.
 * Another editor replaced this with:
 * In May 2022 a small NGO, Droit au Droit (Right to Law), presented a report that was critical of the UAE’s lobbying tactics to the European Parliament’s human rights committee. The author did not say where the funding for the report came from or say that, as well as running Droit au Droit, he was working for No Peace without Justice, the NGO run by Figà-Talamanca, one of those charged in relation to the Qatargate scandal.


 * The first version is supported by a citation. (I have not checked the details.)  The second paragraph has some very sensible comments on the Droit au Droit International report.  But the second paragraph is difficult to relate to the citation given for it because it does not name Nicola Giovannini, who was the person who presented to report to the EU Parliament's the human rights committee and who also was public affairs coordinator for the NGO No Peace Without Justice (the NGO run by Figà-Talamanca).  It would also be worth adding what Hannah Neumann said, which made it clear that there were many such reports and why she said they made her uncomfortable.  If we are going to single out the biased Droit au Droit International report, then we ought to cite it as well as reports that criticise it.  We do not need to repeat the claims the report made - merely to have a citation so that the reader can look at the report if they want to, having been warned about the report by comments in third-party sources. -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The Droit au Droit International report is discussed in other news reports, such as: EU Reporter 30 Jan 2023 and Brussels Morning 29 May 22, the latter also mentions other similar reports by other organisations. I loved the comment by EU Reporter If one looks closer at the website of the organization, Droit au Droit (https://www.dadinternational.org/), led by Italian Nicola Giovannini, it looks the organization has as its sole end to produce this report and since then the activities have slowed down or ended. If someone goes deeper will find other non-profit organisations with similar goals and endings.  I would like to see that quotation put in the article.


 * I am not against having a summary of what Giovannini's report claims in the article, but in my opinion the summary should probably be based on third-party sources, though with a citation to the Droit au Droit International website. -- Toddy1 (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Surely part of the scandal is that Giovannini and others got a free ride to make these presentations with very little criticism, thus painting Saudi Arabia and UAE as bad and Qatar as good, a view that Hannah Neumann said: "they have all their human rights problems". Logically, the section 	Involvement of the United Arab Emirates is wrong and should be removed - part of the allegations against European Parliament officials is that these kinds of presentations were given too much credence - that needs to be explained in a different part of the article. -- Toddy1 (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Good idea to remove section - will do it now. As far as I can see no-one is being investigated by the Belgian authorities to date for accepting bribes from UAE. If this changes in the future something can be added. At the moment it is just Qatari PR trying to blame UAE which is covered in another section. Wrong to have an "Involvement of the UAE" section when UAE is not as yet involved. ____ Southdevonian (talk) 12:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Source--will work on adding its content later.
https://www.politico.eu/article/qatargate-corruption-inquiry-widens-police-question-new-suspect-mep-maria-arena/ JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)