Talk:Qatar corruption scandal at the European Parliament/Archive 1

Eva Kaili
Eva Kaili contains more informations and references. Xx236 (talk) 11:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * She only has 'diplomatic immunity' in the course of her official EU/MEP duties. She has no immunity from arrest and prosecution for crimes not arising directly from her official European Parliament work. Her detention by the Belgian authorities was extended today (22 Dec 2022) so, clearly, she's not being considered 'immune' from due process.81.156.108.14 (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Qatargate Article Name
Dear Wikipedian, I have simply entered a correct infobox, I have not entered any other information. Correct information see ansa.it https://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/topnews/2022/12/12/qatar-metsola-sono-infuriata-democrazia-ue-sotto-attacco 8aafd4bf-efc1-4b2e-98d2-02f31f6e9308.html Your observations are correct there are no definitive convictions however the investigation is based on incontrovertible evidence from the Belgian judiciary. A similar case also occurred with Mafia Capitale. Best Regards Peter39c (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP is very clear about the levels of verifiability required before we can assert that people have committed a crime. Wait and see if a conviction ensues. And what's with the -gate name - is that supported in the article? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Check the link of the article on ansa.it It clearly mentions the word 'Qatargate'. It is now reported by many media especially Italian. Peter39c (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC) See this article: https://www.rainews.it/articoli/2022/12/qatar2022-mondiali-calcio-qatargate-autorita-grecia-antiriciclaggio-eva-kaili-eb1154c6-48af-4b78-9727-2d71221e7de1.html


 * I have to agree with DeFacto here. None of the information in that box can be verified reliably. (the Ansa link you have provided is 404).
 * Not only that but you cannot substantiate any of the assertions you make;
 * Qatargate. I see no relable or consistent English language reference of it being a "gate" anywhere online let alone it being widely used. There are already hundereds of "Qatargates" surrounding the worldcup. I don't think we need to list another on Wikipedia. I think "Qatar corruption scandal at the European Parliament" Works just fine.
 * Founding Location. We have no idea where it was "founded". It could've been founded on a trip to Qatar, at an embassy or at her home. There is no reference for it being at her the EP. In fact, the raids seem to focus on the confiscation of mobile phones and computers. It could very well have all been 'founded' electronically.
 * Territory. "Europe" is a bit big geographically to provide any useful information.
 * Members and Leaders. No one, as far as I have found, has identified her as the 'leader' or the others as 'members'. In fact, no one, so far as I have found, has consistently linked them. I assume her, her husband and father were operating collectively but there is no evidence or soruces Kaili knew about Visentini or Panzeri involvement or vis-versa. They were arrested as part of the same investigation but it hasn't been established there were operating together and where known to each other.
 * Criminal activity. They are the charges today. I'll give you that one.
 * I would think we remove the info box and jsut leave the images for the time being. Jo Jc Jo Talk💬Edits📝 17:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/topnews/2022/12/12/qatar-metsola-sono-infuriata-democrazia-ue-sotto-attacco_8aafd4bf-efc1-4b2e-98d2-02f31f6e9308.html Peter39c (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Same reasons given during the Mafia Capitale article...it is even quoted in the greek media with latin characters!!
 * https://kanaliena.gr/fon-nter-laien-gia-quatargate-kai-tin-emploki-tis-eyas-kaili/ Peter39c (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * https://kanaliena.gr/fon-nter-laien-gia-quatargate-kai-tin-emploki-tis-eyas-kaili/ Peter39c (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Would support move to Qatargate. Katar Gate has become the name for it in the German Focus who cites a Greek outlet for it. Others are here, here and now I saw also politico with the name Qatargate.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that addition, Peter39c. this is a discussion on the info box and not on the name of the article. I think we are the three editors working on this article right now and you have chosen not to respond to the issues with the box I have identified. I would say there is a consensus that it's probably best to remove the box. I'll remove the edit for now inline with WP:QUO and if more information warrants its return we can then add.


 * On the name of the article, to ensure clarity and to ensure everyone is happy, I think it would make sense to add in the lede "Qatar corruption scandal at the European Parliament (also referred to as Qatargate) was a political scandal...". I think that would work taking into consideration your arguments and being considerate of other Qatargates that exist and may come along as well as wp:NotNews. Does that work for all? Jo Jc Jo Talk💬Edits📝 18:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BLPCRIME, which says a living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law, we need a conviction to assert that a crime has been committed (which would include "criminal activity"). We don't have that with this. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Six people were arrested and four were charged with corruption, money laundering and organized crime...
 * I didn't write this sentence, I just simply used the infobox...
 * But I understand that you do not like that it says criminal organization and conspiracy!!
 * Let's wait as it was for Mafia Capitale... Peter39c (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Peter39c, it doesn't matter how many people have been arrested, or charged with corruption, money laundering, or organised crime. All that matters is that zero people have been convicted, which means we cannot imply that any of those mentioned in the article have been involved in committing any crime. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Several Wikipedia articles in the other languages are called something with QatagateParadise Chronicle (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm joining this discussion again as users seem to be unilaterally changing the articles name. Let's agree it should not be changed until we have consensus here.
 * Wikipedia is WP:notnews and we are in big danger of WP:Recentism by egregious changing the name of the article to something so meaningless as "Qatargate". I find examples as recently as one month ago of other 'Qatargates' and I'm sure there will be lots more to come in the future, especially in light of the world cup and their wider reputation develping for corruption.
 * Qatargate was to do with the French president Sarkozy being implicated in their world cup bid. ref
 * Qatargate was the Qatari decision to amend anti-terrorism laws ref
 * Qatargate was Qatari payments at the Russian Euros ref
 * Qatargate was Michel Platini's arrest as part of EUEFA's vote at the world cup decison red
 * Qatargate was Blatter warning people not to testify ref
 * qatargate was the purchase of Paris Saint-Germain by the Qatar Government ref
 * This is with very basic research. I believe there are more if I looked further and I'm and positive there will be more in future.
 * I support the article remaining with the current name. Jo Jc Jo Talk💬Edits📝 18:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I support the renaming of the article to qatargate.ArmorredKnight (talk) 10:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC) '

Raids took place on International Anti-corruption day
In researching this article I noticed all the raids took place on the UN’s International Anti-Corruption day. I believe this could be notable and should be mentioned in the article. I believe there is a way of including this information in the article In line with WP:NPV.

Although the editor does not specify why the information was removed it could possibly be because they believe it to be WP:HTRIVIA. It should be noted that the WP:HTRIVIA does not prohibit trivia. However, I do not believe it to be trivia as it is directly linked to both the subjects of the article. Kaili was a VP of the Parliament who are specifically a supporter of International Anti-Corruption Day (references below. I believe it is relevant to the article to include.

I propose re-including; “The date of the arrests is notable as all the raids took place on international anti-corruption day”

—references—

https://www.un.org/en/observances/anti-corruption-day

https://www.undp.org/arab-states/press-releases/international-anti-corruption-day-un-and-eu-call-action-against-corruption-iraq

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2022/739242/EPRS_ATA(2022)739242_EN.pdf

(Pinging as the editor who deleted the text)  Jo Jc Jo Talk💬Edits📝 23:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Amount of funds. €600k or €750k?
There is discrepancy in the amount being reported as seized by different outlets and there seems to be an WP:EDITWAR over this matter.

3 of the four references state €600k as the amount. 1 gives no specific € value and 1 states €750k.

The one stating €750k presents the number from a secondary source- “l’echo reported €750,000 in cash” where as the others are all primary reporting.

One of the three articles reporting €600k is Le Soir, Belgium’s Newspaper of record.

I propose we list the number as €600,000 because;


 * 3 of 5 references say the amount is €600k. Only 1 of 5 references €750k.
 * The 1 reference for €750k is from a third country than where the events occurred.
 * the €750k reference is reporting from a secondary source and;
 * even though the secondary source is Belgian it contradicts the reporting of Le Soir. Le Soir is the Newspaper of record and thus more reputable than L’Echo and should take precedent.

I have reverted the edit to maintain status quo until consensus and warned user of edit warring. Jo Jc Jo Talk💬Edits📝 00:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * This discussion in now moot as Le Soir have update the correct amount as being €1.5million. source Jo Jc Jo Talk💬Edits📝 14:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Bloomberg News and la Repubblica confirmed such amount of money.-Karma1998 (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Minor sourcing issue
That quote box by De Croo in the "Reaction" section is cited to Politico's live blog. Unfortunately that's a rolling update, we are now a day past the date when that statement was published (that was day 5), and I for one haven't found a way to walk back the date to that statement. Can someone get there; if so, is there a way to hardlink to that date/version; and if not, might it be worth using another source that reports the same quote (e.g. )? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Good spot. I've found a way of linking directly to the source content (which appears to work for me). I have updated the article. Please let me know if it doesn't work for others. Jo Jc Jo Talk💬Edits📝 13:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Political Party Parenthesis after Politician
I have just removed some political parties in Parenthesis after people's names in the article. For example, Eva Kaili (S&D). As we know, there are a lot of politicians listed in this article and it does make the article harder to read when there is a parenthesis every few words.

I've taken a look at WP:POLITICS but it does not appear that they have a specific Manual of Style to give guidance on this question. However, I have taken a look at their Featured Articles and it appears that it is not the standard to include the parenthesis after every politician's name.

I propose we mention political parties where relevant in the narrative and do not include parenthesis after every politician's name. Jo Jc Jo Talk💬Edits📝 19:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 21 December 2022

 * 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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  03:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Qatar corruption scandal at the European Parliament → Qatargate – WP:COMMONNAME. ,. Shwcz (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2022 (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.
 * Oppose Not common name.  As far as I can tell, that's the only one news source that uses that term.  Others use the general description. It may catch on eventually, but not at present. 18:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for listing to get consensus. There was already a discussion above where consensus was failed to be reached on this topic. Wikipedia is WP:notnews and we are in danger of WP:Recentism by changing the article to a meaningless name like "Qatargate" and of creating an article with an ambiguous or potentially misleading title. I find examples as recently as one month ago of other 'Qatargates' and I'm sure there will be lots more to come in the future, especially in light of the world cup and their wider reputation develping for corruption. I have done a very cursory search from mobile and found:  This is with very basic research. I believe there are more if I looked further and I'm and positive there will be more in future.  So my arguments against are;  I do not support a name change.  Jo Jc Jo Talk💬Edits📝 10:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too ambiguous, there have been multiple scandals involving Qatar referred to as such. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The change would not be helpful. The current title is better in that it describes the issue. -- Toddy1 (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

New content that some editors object to
According to Wikipedia, Dagospia is an Italian tabloid website. So The mainstream media (Dagospia) is not justifiable. If you want to say that the mainstream media have covered an issue, you need multiple citations to different mainstream media source, including non-tabloids.

According to the Wikipedia article on Mediapart, it is an independent French investigative online newspaper. But Mediapart consists of two main sections: Le Journal, run by professional journalists, and Le Club, a collaborative forum edited by its subscriber community. The part cited three times above is a blog from Le Club. Stuff from Le Club is not reliable as used here.

emiratesleaks.com is also cited as a source. It is not reliable. -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The 24 December 2022 Dagospia article cited is relevant to the scandal; it talks about various people in Italy, their bank accounts and the "Equality consultancy". But article cited makes no mention of Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, or the UAE. So it is an inappropriate citation. -- Toddy1 (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The 21 December 2022 Dagospia article cited says that the Qataris are saying that the United Arab Emirates are behind the Qatargate. It goes into details about what the Qataris are saying. Dagospia cites an article by Enrico Currò in the Italian newspaper la Repubblica, but the link in Dagospia is merely to the newspaper's website, and not to a particular story.  The 21 December 2022 Dagospia article is misrepresented in the disputed text. -- Toddy1 (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * There is an article in la Repubblica by Enrico Currò dated 21 December 2022, which says: "Il Qatar si sente vittima dal 2017 di un attacco mediatico orchestrato da Abu Dhabi, con documenti falsi e fake news." [Since 2017, Qatar has felt the victim of a media attack orchestrated by Abu Dhabi, with false documents and fake news.] -- Toddy1 (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Note that IP editor gave a computer version URL for one of the Dagospia articles he/she cited and a mobile phone version URL for the other Dagospia article. This suggests that they were copied from another source. -- Toddy1 (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * None of this content should be included in this section in my view. We have not included any other reaction or speculation here. It has nothing to do with the investigation or raids, it is reaction and should be placed in the reaction section. It becomes very messy if we include commentary in with the facts.  Jo Jc Jo Talk💬Edits📝 22:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Undid revision 1130877837 by The free voice
An editor with three previous edits added new paragraphs on 1st January 2023. About two hours later an IP editor reverted the change without explanation.

The additions were under-cited. They were of the form: The citations for the addition were: There were no citations to the original Telegraph and Spiegel articles being referenced; that means that the citations provided were tertiary sources. -- Toddy1 (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In December 2022, The Telegraph learned from investigators probing the case that a former Italian MEP took bribes from Morocco and had a credit card paid for by someone called “The Giant”....
 * In December 2022, DER SPIEGEL published a report that could be considered a game-changer in the European parliament corruption scandal....

I undid it, clearly a case of COATRACK and UNDUE and a rather tendentious attempt to insert Morocco as the sole source of blame. No citations to the original Telegraph'' and Spiegel articles supposedly providing the source for the extensive claims made. Probably conflict of interest by someone directly involved in the case. 2A02:587:2834:A600:9623:42A4:DB6C:92F7 (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I believe this is the original Der Spiegel article in English: https://www.spiegel.de/international/corruption-scandal-in-the-european-parliament-who-got-the-bags-of-money-a-10e736f6-108a-472f-8fc2-77c6f48dea2a. I'd like to include it in the article, but am not sure in which section. sentausa (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You would only include a citation to the article if you were citing it for some statements in the article. The citation template for it would look like this:
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Order of subsections of the reactions section
The reactions section has four subsections, which were ordered:
 * 3.1 Political
 * 3.2 Civil society
 * 3.3 Government of Qatar
 * 3.4 Defendants

An IP editor moved the defendants subsection to be first, saying: The article begins by describing the raids and arrests, so the reactions of the accused should be presented first in the "Reactions" section That seems illogical to me. Both the nominal defendants and the Government of Qatar are accused of wrongdoing. Having one of the at the top and the other at bottom does not make sense. They are both accused.

I think that the original order is better, so I have reverted. -- Toddy1 (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Eva Kali Quote
Hi, and happy new year. I added the quote and source for Kaili's claims, it's the first time since her arrest and detention that she speaks directly and not through her lawyers. The English translation is mine, I am a native Greek speaker. Kaili's quote is all over the Greek media

and it is the following

"Βασανίζομαι. Είναι άδικο αυτό. Δεν αντέχω. Καταρρέω. Τι τους φταίει η μικρή και την κρατάνε μακριά μου."

You can use Google Translate to check it out. Please respond here, because my address is constantly changing. 2A02:587:2834:A600:A83A:6870:9FA3:569E (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for reaching out. That’s great! The translation you included however does not make sense in English.  Jo Jc Jo Talk💬Edits📝 00:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

My translation of the original quote would be: "I'm being tortured. This is unfair. I cannot stand this. I am breaking down. What is wrong with the little girl and they are keeping her away from me?" Is this too literal? A more flowing translation would be "I am being tortured, this is so unfair that I cannot stand it, and I am breaking down. What is the problem with my little girl and they are keeping her away from me?" 2A02:587:2834:A600:A83A:6870:9FA3:569E (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Is the meaning of the quote "I am being tortured, this is so unfair that I cannot stand it, and I am breaking down. What is the problem with my little girl, why are they keeping her away from me?" Jo Jc Jo Talk💬Edits📝 08:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this is a case where the original Greek needs to be in the footnote. -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s a sensible suggestion. I’d also ask the IP to consider its inclusion. It seems like a weird quote to me. Is Kaili accusing the Belgian authorities of having done something to her baby? Seems weird.  Jo Jc Jo Talk💬Edits📝 09:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This must be a huge shock to Kaili. She probably does feel betrayed both by people around her (such as her boyfriend) and by the people who allowed the revocation of her diplomatic immunity. She probably is worried about her infant daughter. It is safe to assume that she is not being tortured.  But I can understand why she feels that she is.  The kind of questioning that she is being subjected to is a tough experience. Being shut up in prison and police cells is very hard for people who are not used to them. -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand, she must be traumatised with a lot of time to create her own anxieties. What I find strange is for a non-tabloid to publish the paranoia of an incarcerated politician. Jo Jc Jo Talk💬Edits📝 10:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Jo Jc Jo, "Is the meaning of the quote "I am being tortured, this is so unfair that I cannot stand it, and I am breaking down. What is the problem with my little girl, why are they keeping her away from me?"" Yes, exactly! User:Toddy1, yes, it's very tough for her, but the "torture" claim is, I think, excessive. It's what she and her lawyers would naturally say in order to ease her postion and/or obtain a status of house arrest instead of incarceration. But exactly because of this, it's best that it's included as a quote. It's not long, just one sentence. And yes, we can include the original Greek in the footnote (original Greek is "Βασανίζομαι. Είναι άδικο αυτό. Δεν αντέχω. Καταρρέω. Τι τους φταίει η μικρή και την κρατάνε μακριά μου."). 2A02:587:2834:A600:A83A:6870:9FA3:569E (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC) Jo Jc Jo Talk💬Edits📝 16:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Removed Gue
I have recently removed | this paragraph as I believe it is original research. The inference of the contribution is that the delay in the passing of a motion is related to the scandal and its inclusion implies the passing of the resolution is linked to the breaking of the scandal. This isn't explicit in source nor does the source "call in to question the behaviour" of some MEPs.

(Personally, I find it more likely that it did not pass because it was submitted by a GUE/NGL MEP who often don't get support for resolutions for other political reasons.)

I'm happy to discuss further and restore if there is disagreement. Jo Jc Jo Talk💬Edits📝 16:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Deleted paragraph
 * The behaviour of some MEPs regarding Qatar had already been the subject of criticism even before the scandal began: a resolution by Manon Aubry condemning the exploitation of migrant workers in Qatar had stalled in the Parliament for more than one year before passing, due to opposition from the S&D and EPP group.


 * I can see that the statement in the deleted paragraph "The behaviour of some MEPs regarding Qatar had already been the subject of criticism even before the scandal began:" is not supported by the citation to L'Humanité.


 * But the inference that this might be to do with corrupt activities is in the source. See the paragraph starting L’affaire a mis en lumière les accointances... -- Toddy1 (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Newsletter is not a useful citation
The following is not a useful reference: www.politico.eu/newsletter. The reason is that its content is continually changing. We need a citation to a specific article, which you could find in the newsletter. -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing that. -- Toddy1 (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The written agreement
The following article talks about a written agreement signed on 26 April 2018 by Pier Antonio Panzeri (as chairman of the European Parliament Subcommittee on Human Rights (DROI)) and Dr. Ali bin Samikh Al Marri (as president of Qatar's National Human Rights Committee (NHRC)) aimed "at regulating and facilitating the relations between the NHRC and DROI through promotion of closer cooperation, the exchanged of bilateral expertise, information and contacts regarding human rights." The deal was signed during a DROI committee meeting in Brussels, and Panzeri said that he was doing this at the meeting in question. People who were then MEPs at the meeting either denied receiving a copy (Petras Auštrevičius) or or said they could not remember (Barbara Lochbihler and Marie-Christine Vergiat). This probably ought to be in the article. -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant statement in the section on the involvement of Morocco
An IP editor added a section on the involvement of Morocco. This included the sentence below. But I cannot see the relevance of the statement to the involvement of Morocco, so I have removed the statement from the article. -- Toddy1 (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * In January 2023, a report by La Libre revealed that the Belgian police confiscated a suitcase from Panzeri, and that it contained an envelope with a stamp of the United Arab Emirates’ Red Crescent.


 * An IP editor added the sentence to the end of the Investigation, raids and arrests section. -- Toddy1 (talk) 07:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * An IP editor has added a second sentence: The report stated that the acronym in the logo was better visible in the Arabic language, and that it confirmed the UAE’s involvement in the case. The La Weekly citation says: "The media house stated that the acronym was much visible in Arabic, clearly representing that it was the UAE’s Red Crescent and not Qatar’s." That supports the first part of the new sentence, but not the statement that it confirmed the UAE’s involvement in the case. So I have deleted the new sentence.


 * There is a paragraph in the La Weekly citation that says that in 2014 the Global Network for Rights and Development (a Norwegian NGO) "was assigned to investigate on the fate of workers in Qatar, assisting the UAE in defaming the country." It is stated that "several organizations are operating in Brussels under the secret status of non-profit, in order to defend the agendas of Middle Eastern countries like the UAE." So I can see the IP editor's point, but the LA Weekly citation does not make the conclusion in the second part of the new sentence. -- Toddy1 (talk) 07:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)