Talk:VFS Global

Comments
The tone of the article is highly inconsistent, and some parts sound like corporate PR material (e.g., "History"), while other parts, especially "Criticism and Controversies", are written in a much more matter-of-fact, Wikipedia style. --Masiello Fer09 (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

This is not an advertisment, but basic factual information. The objective of wikipedia is to make available information about an organisation with references. This page is supported by substantial external refernces.

Have incorporated changes in the layout as per wikipedia guidelines. Trust this is in order now.

As suggested, added more internal reference links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoothtie (talk • contribs) 09:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The article looks like a completely biased advertisement of private monopolist corporation who has contracts with governments to process private data. ISCIX-Ex (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Recurrent deletions
This article is being consistently high jacked by the employees of VFS Global to remove any objective information and facts that may seem negatively affect their image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AChakra California (talk • contribs) 15:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * There does seem to be recurrent attempts by anonymous editors to delete any and all criticism of VFS Global. If the deletions continue, perhaps we might ask an administrator to protect the page? -- Flask (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

More information needed about VFS Global
This is a pretty important company. They have an absolutely key position in allowing people to travel between countries, and thus can affect the lives of many people to a large degree. The company manages non-judgmental and administrative tasks related to applications for visa, passport, identity and citizen services for its client governments, enabling them to focus entirely on the critical task of assessment. The company has no influence on jurisdiction of visa process.

This company is subject to criticism, as most companies are, and it is imperative for the sake of objectivity that there remain a criticism section on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AChakra California (talk • contribs) 15:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't have any actual sources, but from my personal experience, and anecdotally from other people I've spoken to, this company is extremely inefficient, and frequently makes it an awfully painful experience to get any visa through them.

I now hear that in UK they have a monopoly on charging all non-UK citizens to get a Schengen (European) visa, and are now making their lives hell, too.

How did they even get these contracts from national governments in the first place? This doesn't seem right -- there is a story here waiting to be uncovered.

There seems to be a massive lack of information about who runs the company, how they manage it (poorly), and exactly what is their position and what are they responsible for. It would be great if they got some public attention and/or competition for their role, which might force them to improve their performance.

The problem is probably compounded by the fact that many of their customers may not be tech-savvy or speak english very well, so won't be able to self-organise or get their points across.

What information do people have? Can we add some sources here, perhaps links to articles written about VFS global or other good sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.140 (talk)

Non-free material
The lede section contains extensive copy/paste copyright violations from various pages at the VFS Global website, for example this one. This material should be rewritten and sourced to third-party reliable sources. --Tgeairn (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 09:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2019
Please add this line to the opening summary: As of October 2019, VFS Global has a score of 1.5 out of 5 stars on Trustpilot.[31] Update to October 2019 (still 1.5 stars). Please include a time-line of trust pilot rating. AcademiaRyan (talk) 09:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌. It's already included in the Criticism section.  The lead already has a summary of criticism; there's no apparent need to single out this one statistic there.  As far as a timeline, you need to provide exactly what you'd want to add.  However, this seems like it would be excessive detail not worth including anyway.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Need update
VFS Global had merged with Kuoni Travel Holding (a holding company that sold all the travel services business. i.e. no relation to all licensee and operator of "Kuoni Travel"). The parent company is EQT Partners as of January 2019.


 * https://kuoni.com/background.html
 * https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eqt-vfs-sale/eqt-to-launch-sale-of-swiss-outsourcing-company-vfs-idUSKCN1P90WU

Thus the article need update. I have no time to do so, thanks. Matthew hk (talk) 06:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Referencing style
I don't see any point to use this citation style. One section is enough, not two. Especially, since there is no talk page discussion, this controversial style should not be adopted. Matthew hk (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite tag
Since the page had been tagged for rewrite but nobody point out the problem in talk page. So, here is my comments.

Lede should be the summary of the context of the main body of text, not the place to introducing new content. So far lots of content appears only at lede. Ownership information should move to its own section.

Also, "VF Worldwide Holdings" seem not the ultimate owner of the company, as Reuters and other source had reported that private equity fund EQT Partners bought Kuoni Group, also known as Kuoni Travel Holding, in 2016, which in turn owned VFS Global. Kuoni Travel Holding and VFS Global merged in 2018, with another reporting that EQT attempted to sell VFS Global in January 2019. Based on the context of The Independent's news report, it did not sufficiently support the fact that "VF Worldwide Holdings" still the parent company of VFS Global (which it was 2009 based on statuary filing). And wiki editor may try to dig out primary source such as listed company annual report of Kuoni Group, to determine whatever "VF Worldwide Holdings" is an intermediate parent/holding company for Kuoni Group. Or, as The Independent suggested, contract was signed with "VF Worldwide Holdings" but the service was provided by VFS Global, which suggests by the news article, had some shady practice in it. Matthew hk (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The rewrite/neutrality tag was due to anonymous editors copying and pasting in P.R. fluff pieces from the VFS Global website. Most of that problematic content was removed so the tag can be removed now. However, yes, I agree the article still needs a major rewrite. Flask (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Removing neutrality issue tag
I am removing the neutrality template warning as the particular objections were resolved a year ago. The neutrality template was added on 4 April 2019 by Dusti due to objections about sections which heavily drew upon VFS Global's corporate press releases. At that time, the entire article read like a glowing puff piece for VFS Global. This particular issue was resolved by admin JzG's deletion of the corporate PR content on 2 October 2019‎. Although I am removing the neutrality tag since this particular issue was resolved, it must be noted that this article has been repeatedly vandalized by anonymous IP editors who continue to delete sections unfavorable to VFS Global and continue to attempt to rewrite sections to be favorable to the company. Such recurrent behavior resulted in the article being protected (per my request) on 30 September 2019‎. This behavior may likely continue in the future and will warrant watching. — Flask (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits by Blanes tree
Hello Your edit summary states that these sections and their associated citations were removed due to unsuitable sources. Although this is true in the case of TrustPilot and SiteJabber citations, the removals of many other sources listed as reputable by Wikipedia do not fit this justification. Per WP:RS, both The Register and The Independent are listed as reputable sources. Also, per WP:RS, Xinhua is "considered generally reliable for factual reporting" and would be deemed acceptable in this instance. As such, why remove sources listed as reliable by WP:RS using this justification? As a result of these removals, the article has numerous broken short citations.

Next, your recent edits have converted an article written in short citation format to an inline citation format. Per WP:CITE, "articles should not undergo large-scale conversion between formats without consensus to do so." More importantly, per WP:INLINECLUTTER, since "inline references can significantly bloat the wikitext in the edit window," short citations are preferred. On these grounds, the majority of your edits need to be reverted. I will be rolling back your changes. — Flask (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Again, you removed content from reliable sources with spurious justification. There is no copyright violation with quoting an expert from the Harper & Leapman 2007 article in The Toronto Star or with the sentences cited by Taylor 2008 in The Daily Telegraph. Furthermore, The Toronto Star is a reputable Canadian newspaper and, per WP:RS, The Daily Telegraph is listed as a reliable source. Yet you removed an entire cited paragraph and sources under this justification. I will be rolling back your changes. — Flask (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * In my latest revisions, I have retained and synthesized your prose edits while restoring the original short citations and reputable sources. This is my attempt at editorial consensus. Per WP:INLINECLUTTER, short citations are preferred to inline citations which are more susceptible to bloating, and cited content from reputable sources should not be removed on the grounds of being unreliable. — Flask (talk)