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" [1], as "Cash-for-visa scandal" [2] [3] [4] [5] (or its variant "Cash-for-visas scandal" [6] [7]) or as "Cash-for-visa scheme" [8].

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:

• 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.)

Chaotic Enby (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

@HiLo48: 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)

  @DarkSide830: 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 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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 20 § Visagate until a consensus is reached. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 08:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)