Talk:Polish cash-for-visa scandal

Page title: Is "Visagate" appropriate?
Polish-language sources (and Polish Wikipedia) call the affair pl:Afera wizowa, which would translate to "Visa affair/scandal". English-language sources either refer to it as "Visa scandal", as "Cash-for-visa scandal"    (or its variant "Cash-for-visas scandal"  ) or as "Cash-for-visa scheme".

The neologism Visagate, while used here to translate titles from Polish-language media, doesn't seem to appear in the sources themselves either in English or Polish.

Should we:
 * A: Keep Visagate (Rationale: None.)
 * B: Move to Visa scandal (Rationale: Translation of Afera wizowa in line with usage in English sources.)
 * B': Move to Visa affair (Rationale: Most direct translation of Afera wizowa.)
 * C: Move to Cash-for-visa scandal or an orthographical variant thereof (Rationale: Current title and most used name in English sources.)
 * D: Move to Cash-for-visa scheme or an orthographical variant thereof (Rationale: Centers the event rather than the political fallback, also in use in English sources.)
 * E: Move to Cash-for-visa affair or an orthographical variant thereof (Rationale: Suggested in comments, close to both the Polish and English titles while more appropriate for a political event than "scandal")

In either case, should we: Chaotic Enby ( talk ) 10:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 1: Use exclusively the title mentioned above (Rationale: No need for disambiguation as there are no other "Visa scandal", etc. with articles.)
 * 2: Prefix "Polish" (or "Poland", etc.) for disambiguation (e.g. Polish cash-to-visa scandal) (Rationale: Need for disambiguation to avoid mistaking the article for a more generic terms.)


 * Afera wizowa can be translated as visagate. The suffix -gate relates to a political scandal. Also yes the Polish MFA are the main culplrits but the scandal is global, Polish would imply only confined to its borders. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Orlengate = afera Orlenu, Rywingate = afera Rywina Abcmaxx (talk) 11:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Orlengate has no sources whatsoever and could probably be deleted in its current state, the other one has no article at all. Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Abcmaxx It can be translated as "visagate", but it is not the only translation, and not the one the sources seem to go for.
 * You make a good point about the scandal potentially having an impact beyond Poland itself, although we could debate whether it should be characterized first by its reach or by its perpetrators. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 11:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I would opt for Cash-for-visa affair (option E); scandal doesn't have the political connotations (more for like celebrity transgressions); we also want to be as close to not only sources but also the actual translation. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * if you would like to weigh in as you raised issue with the name? Abcmaxx (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Visagate is a terrible name. It is NOT the Polish name, and is yet another silly neologism based on the name of a hotel which has nothing to do with this story. Option E above appeals to me. HiLo48 (talk) 02:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Anywhere but A. We should go by what the majority of reliable sources use. I tend to prefer the article be titled B, with B' in parentheses in the article's lede. I'm not sure whether to go with 1 or 2; it largely depends on what other articles use. If you made me choose, I'd lean towards 2 to reduce the probability (however ridiculous) that readers may confuse this with the Visa credit card, but I realize that's stumbling into WP:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT, and so I yield to the judgement of those who are more stylistically competent in the creation of an encyclopedia. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  12:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Clearly not A unless an actual source can be produced (nothing yet). I would suggest Polish visa scandal, but B is OK as is C or E. Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Add "Polish". The article title would probably be confusing for people. The title "Cash-for-Visa Scandal" feels like it would be about the concept of such scandals in general, and while I can't find another one listed on Wikipedia that would make it completely necessary for the disambiguater to be applied, the fact of the matter is most RS acknowledge in their article titles that the event is occurring in Poland. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You make a pretty good point. One can add that it would be interesting to see if other such scandals have happened in other countries, to have a perspective on the matter. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 11:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's occurred worldwide not in Poland though. With the regards to confusion, we can add a hatnote at the top, along the lines of this article refers to a specific scheme and scandal. For the wider subject see visa fraud. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose A. There are no credible sources to support the name of Visagate, so it should not be used. That redirect is also being discussed. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 07:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Polish cash-for-visa scandal per DarkSide830. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 11:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)


 * In support of Polish cash-for-visa scandal. Also want to point out that this isn't a proper RfC as it's missing the notification banner. 65.60.165.198 (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

"Visagate" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Visagate&redirect=no Visagate] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 08:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 25 September 2023

 * 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 per WP:AVALANCHE. (non-admin closure) Deauthorized. (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Cash-for-visa scandal → Polish cash-for-visa scandal – Also open to suggestions for other alternatives. But as expressed by several commentators under the above discussion, "Cash-for-visa scandal" is a generic descriptive term that fails the recognizability and precision WP:CRITERIA. Even if Wikipedia currently has no other articles about similar scandals elsewhere, the article title needs to be something that adequately helps the reader identify the topic, which the current title isn't. Paul_012 (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support proposed move to Polish cash-for-visa scandal. Concise and descriptive, with little room for confusion about the topic at hand. 65.60.165.198 (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support proposed move to Polish cash-for-visa scandal can't hurt to specify what country we're talking about. the current title seems too vague. needs balance between specificity and conciseness, which the proposed title meets JM2023 (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support proposed move to Polish cash-for-visa scandal per nom. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 18:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support proposed move to Polish cash-for-visa scandal, clearer and more descriptive title. — LauritzT (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support proposed move to Polish cash-for-visa scandal, makes it more clear for a general audience. R. J. Dockery (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support proposed move to Polish cash-for-visa scandal per above. PhilKnight (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. NM 20:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong Support can't really see any argument against it, "cash for visa scandal" sounds like it should be a disambig or something Orchastrattor (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Current title is way too vague, the proposed title is a simple but very important improvement. Deauthorized. (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment 10 supports, 0 neutrals, and 0 opposes -- might as well just go ahead and change it already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JM2023 (talk • contribs)

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.

"At odds"
The article says,

The scandal is also at odds with the ruling party's strong anti-immigrant rhetoric, frequently claiming that Poland will be overrun by illegal immigrants if the opposition comes to power

A source from the Luxembourg Times is cited, however the source itself does not say this is at odds with the ruling party's anti-immigrant rhetoric. Nevertheless, up until this citation, the Wikipedia article suggests that the Polish government is issuing these visas so that immigrants can leave Poland for more desirable locations like Germany. I've removed the "at odds" comment but I think its inclusion should be further debated. 675930s (talk) 12:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)


 * if "at odds" or anything meaning "at odds" is not in the source i.e., the source is not making any sort of "at odds" claim, then its original research to put it in the article. so best to leave it out. JM2023 (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Add "in Poland" to start of the article?
Should we add "in Poland" to the start of this article?

Here is my proposal for adding the country in which this scandal is mainly focused:

Should we add this? 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 14:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment @Abcmaxx reverted me adding this because he believes this scandal is international, as the visas were handed out internationally. However, I believe in Poland should be added (as the nominator) because it summarizes from what place the visas were handed out and where the implications for this are happening. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 14:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment they weren't given out in Poland at all, but via Polish consulates and external contractors from various countries in Asia and Africa. The effect is protests in Uganda, border patrols on the German Schengen area border with Poland and potentially lots of migrants with unsuitable visas in not only US but also throughout the Schengen area. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment. Recommend "The Polish cash-for-visa scandal (Polish: afera wizowa, lit. 'visa affair') is an ongoing political scandal [...]", to mirror the article title. It is a Polish scandal but not confined to Poland. Station1 (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: MOS:FIRST and per Station1 ThatIPEditor Talk · Contribs 12:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

"Visa affair" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Visa_affair&redirect=no Visa affair] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Fork99 (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: I note that this is from a page move, however if this title ever becomes ambiguous in the future, we can deal with that in the future I think.

Fork99 (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)


 * This is in relation to the redirect Cash-for-visa scandal, which was the previous name of this article. Fork99 (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

"Visa scandal" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Visa_scandal&redirect=no Visa scandal] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Fork99 (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

What's the status with the redirect pages?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cash-for-visa_scheme&redirect=no

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cash-for-visa_affair&redirect=no

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cash-for-visa_scandal&redirect=no

This practice isn't unique to Poland so why does it redirect to this article? Oneequalsequalsone (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * As of right now this seems to be the only "cash-for-visa" article on Wikipedia, at least from what I can tell at a glance. If a similar incident occurs with another country then it'd be worth taking another look at these redirects. Deauthorized. (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

what a joke - sources are polish left wing sites like onet with one point of view. There was less than 600 visas, not even thousend — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.21.246.59 (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Onet isn’t left-wing and what "other" point of view is there? Abcmaxx (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Manipulation in article
Referenced articles doesn't mention information that they are brought as source at all, this being no source to informations referenced. Poor manipulation of facts and fraud counting on lack of knowledge of polish language to english speaking recepients of the article 2A00:F41:484C:14C2:0:55:AFAA:E101 (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)