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

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:VFS Global/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

This page seems to have been specially modified by the company in question (VFS India) to project their image. This does not read like an article but like an advertisement. This goes against the principles on which Wikipedia has been founded. In the overall interests of Wikipedia, it is suggested that this page - and similar pages - be removed altogether. Though this may sound dictatorial to some, it is necessary to preserve the credibility of Wikipedia. This credibility should not be downgraded by vested interested misusing this wonderful community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FootlooseMumbai (talk • contribs) 13:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC) The images contain the actual subject as small portion of the image size. Consider cropping. Maybe adding further information about the type of UK visas and gist of the stages of application process might help. Mspraveen 15:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC) The style of writing is rightly questioned per Wikipedia standards. Consider elaborating. More references (other than websites) would also help, but what's been given so far is a start. Ncmvocalist 15:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC) == Marking this for a NPOV check == There seems to be some hectic activity with this article, and attempts have been made to repeatedly delete content from this article and replace it with text from the company's website, making this look like an advert. My guess is that the anonymous users responsible are located in Mumbai/Delhi, and it is perhaps an online damage control strategy by the company itself, taking into account some of the recent negative publicity that this company has received. I've tagged this for a NPOV check. My advice here would be decide upon the neutral content first, and then mark off sections that should not be deleted. Before deleting any substantial sections, please discuss this on the articles' talk page Soothsayer79 (talk) 14:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC) ^^^^^^The above was moved from Talk:VFS India/Comments but remain relevant to VFS Global^^^^^^

Last edited at 16:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC). 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)

 Not done. 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 • 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 @Blanes tree: 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)

@Blanes tree: 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)

Confusing citation style that obfuscates verification

The page's citation style is utterly perplexing. As an editor and a reader I am finding it very difficult to verify this article because this referencing style is unlike anything I have seen on or off Wikipedia. Under references we have a list of citations many of which are repeat citations. For example Baker 2009; Goodin 2007; Shifrin 2007; Gibbs 2019. Goodin 2007; Chauke 2019; Xinhua 2019; Gibbs 2019. And Travel News Weekly 2019; Chauke 2019; Xinhua 2019. Then we have a list of works cited which uses Template:Sfn ostensibly to de-clutter the WikiText but the effect is an unwieldy reference list which negates the page's verifiability. I propose we replace this page's convoluted referencing style that repeats the same references over and over again which isn't necessary because the page doesn't cite any books. The page's references comprise online sources so it would make more sense to use template:cite web and invoke the references throughout the page then invoking the sources as and where they're needed by placing a backslash in the reference tag like so

Adopting this simpler referencing format would make it easier for the public to verify the page's contents and it would make it easier for other editors to contribute to the article.Blanes tree (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Blanes tree: You are not replying to messages directed at you on this very Talk Page about your problematic edits. First, why are you removing sources such as The Register and The Independent which are explicitly listed as reliable by WP:RSPS on the grounds that these sources are unreliable?

Second, your attempts to convert an article written in popular short citation format to an inline citation format contravenes WP:CITE. 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.

Third, you now added a "Confusing" tag which is reserved for vague text on the unrelated grounds that you don't like the citation style. Your edit summary states the SFN citation style "is unlike anything I have seen on or off Wikipedia," and yet the widespread SFN citation format is used in over a hundred thousand Wikipedia articles, including Featured Articles.

Your personal dislike of a popular citation style and your desire to unilaterally change it without editorial consensus to inline citations is explicitly forbidden by WP:CITE. As the "Confusing" tag should not be added when an editor simply dislikes a popular citation style, I am rolling back the addition of the tag. — Flask (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, that's cool. I can see the rationale for using Template:Sfn to keep the WikiText clean. Do you agree that the reference repetition makes the reference list look longer that it actually is, though?Blanes tree (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Repeat content kept by @Flask

@Flask I wanted to take a moment to discuss the recent changes you've made to the lead section. While I appreciate your contributions to improving the article, I noticed that the criticisms mentioned are already covered in depth within the 'Criticism and Controversies' section, making this a clear case of redundancy.

As you likely know, Wikipedia’s guidelines emphasize the importance of keeping articles concise and avoiding unnecessary duplication. The lead section should summarize key aspects of the article, but it should not repeat detailed points that are already covered elsewhere. Do you agree?

Including the same detailed information in both the lead and body detracts from the article's clarity and balance. It's important that we give due weight per Wiki guidelines to all sections, but avoid overemphasizing any one aspect, especially when it's already presented comprehensively in another section.

I also noticed you’ve made quite a few similar changes to this page, which have led to various reversions. This suggests that some other editors share concerns about these additions being made by you? I’m sure your goal, like mine, is to create the best possible article, so I'd love to hear your reasoning behind including detailed points from the 'Criticism and Controversies' section in the lead.

I think we can agree that improving the quality of this article should be our common goal. A more concise lead, leaving in-depth criticism for the dedicated section, will likely make the article stronger and more aligned with Wikipedia’s best practices.

Looking forward to your thoughts, and happy to continue this conversation here. I think working together will ensure the article remains well-balanced and adheres to Wiki standards. StellarVoyager (talk) 06:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@StellarVoyager: Thank you for your message and for discussing this issue with me on the Talk Page. I likewise look forward to working together with you and ensuring this article adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines.

Your rationale for deleting all references to criticisms or controversies about VFS from the lead section stated:

"Removed redundant content from the lead section that is already detailed in the 'Criticism and controversies' section. This edit aligns with Wikipedia guidelines on avoiding repetition and maintaining clarity, without removing any unique information or citations."

Wikipedia's guidelines—specifically WP:LEAD—states the lead section of an article should include a summary of the article's important points, including prominent controversies:

"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."

Since WP:LEAD explicitly states the lead should include a summary of prominent controversies, your deletion of all references to criticisms or controversies about VFS from the lead section does not follow the guideline. Per WP:LEAD, we should include that information in the lead.

To address any secondary concerns that the sentences in the lead section were too similar to those in the 'Criticism and controversies' section, I have paraphrased and streamlined those sentences in my latest edit. This hopefully addresses your concerns with repetition. But again, per WP:LEAD, we should include a summary of prominent controversies in the lead. — Flask (talk) 08:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)