User talk:Cornelis Kodde

November 2022
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at 2022 FIFA World Cup controversies, you may be blocked from editing. Kingsif (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Dear Kingsif, I am sorry, maybe i misunderstood the rules of Wikipedia. The report I am referring to, has 169 footnotes, sustaining the argument, and was covered by media in 6 countries: UK, Switzerland, Belgium, Norway, Spain and Sweden. 16 banks and investors responded publicly to the report and some of them quite elaborate, like f.e. Storebrand, one of the biggest investors in Norway: https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/storebrand-asset-managements-response-to-fair-finance-international-report/. Also one the biggest investors in the world, the Norway Government Pension Fund/NBIM responded publicly to the report:https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/nbims-response-to-the-fair-finance-international-report/
 * See the report here: https://fairfinanceguide.org/ff-international/news/2022/big-european-financial-institutions-invest-heavily-but-turn-a-blind-eye-to-human-rights-abuses-in-qatar/. Best regards, Cornelis Cornelis Kodde (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you do misunderstand, unfortunately. I am not contesting the report's existence, content, or validity. However, it is a WP:PRIMARY source for itself. No part of the report mentions that its existence has created controversy (how could it?), and it is that kind of tertiary source (primary is the report, secondary is people reacting to the report in a way that can be seen as a controversy, tertiary are reliable media reports on the reaction) that is needed for inclusion. I have not, indeed, found any secondary sources that apply - nobody seems to be paying the report any attention besides the companies implicated. Kingsif (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear Kingsif, thank you for your reply. The report was covered by media in Sweden, UK, Belgium, Germany, Norway, Switzerland. Please find below some examples:
 * UK: https://citywire.com/selector/news/investors-accused-of-ignoring-human-rights-violations-in-world-cup-building-boom/a2401869
 * Germany, ZDF: https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/panorama/wm-katar-menschenrechtsverletzung-deutsche-banken-100.html
 * Norway state broadcaster: https://www.nrk.no/norge/kritikk-i-rapport_-oljefondet-med-milliardinvestering-i-hotellkjede-som-bygger-i-qatar-1.16162639
 * Norway newspaper: https://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kronikk/i/rlrbGe/derfor-er-oljefondet-fortsatt-investert-i-qatar
 * Belgium state broadcaster: https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2022/11/22/besix-bij-de-besten-van-de-klas-maar-nog-werk-aan-de-winkel/
 * Finews Asia: https://www.finews.asia/finance/38063-soccer-world-cup-human-rights-abuses-ignored-by-inverstors-arab-asia-apac
 * Sweden: https://www.di.se/hallbart-naringsliv/svenska-banker-har-finansierat-qatars-vm-bygge-anmarkningsvart/
 * Sweden blogger: https://twitter.com/oloflundh/status/1590967167176314882?s=20&t=d4e-e-t6pgnVv8DiS8SOVw
 * Spain: Fútbol | BBVA y Santander, primeros ganadores del Mundial de Qatar - El Salto - Edición General (elsaltodiario.com)
 * Since most of the media attention was in other languages, I think most search engines did not spot the media attention. Best regards, Kees Cornelis Kodde (talk) 09:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear Kingsif, it is a pity that you do not reply anymore, because in my opinion i have given some valid arguments about why this report is a relevant development. In addition to the media articles i mentioned, yesterday there was a new German article about the report, with reactions from many investors and banks: https://citywire.com/de/news/exklusiv-das-sagen-deutsche-asset-manager-zu-ihren-katar-investments/a2403814
 * Looking forward to your reply, best regards, Cornelis Kodde (talk) 10:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You didn't ping me (you can do this by writing or , replacing USER with the user you want to notify), and I've not really been on Wikipedia for a few days, I'm sorry I didn't address you sooner. If you want to re-introduce the information, you are going to need to use, well, some of those sources. I haven't checked them, but I know which ones I would deem reliable and which I would not (a tweet from a blogger? You're going to need to prove the blogger is some authority on the matter to make that stick). Take the reliable sources and, as I said, check to see that they actually report on a controversy, that is, they do not merely say the report exists and that the businesses implicated have responded to it. While I think you will get a better sense for sourcing the longer you use Wikipedia, I'm still not convinced you're actually here for any reason but to insert this report everywhere, since it's all you've been focused on. I might have some time later to go through the sources, judge myself, and then explain what in them might be suitable to source "controversy", if you're interested. If it checks out, the text can be added back to the article. Well, a summary of the issue, not the detailed essay you originally wrote. And I can help you format it. Kingsif (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Kingsif, thanks for your message. I have added more contributions to Wikipedia, mainly in Dutch, but I am still not sufficiently familiar with how everything works, so your help is greatly appreciated. best regards, Cornelis Kodde (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)