Talk:Ferry Fiasco (Scotland)

Conflict of Interest

84% of the content of this 2000+ word article has been written by a single editor. That's quite impressive and while not unique, it's not common. As well as WP:COI I'd like to drawn editors attention to our policy on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi there - the article is 3 months and 10 days old, so more likely to have fewer editors. I have read the wikipedia policy of a neutral point of view, and believe this article is neutral because it accurately reflects events, timings and view points from article's reliable and independent sources. However, your point it taken and I will step back from editing this article for a period, and give others a chance to add sources and annotate, after which point the COI should be removed. Museeritrean2514 (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Museeritrean regarding neutrality. The article seems to be true to the sources - which all seem fairly suitable. There are even four references from The National Newspaper, which is strongly pro-SNP and pro-Scottish Government. 167.98.46.84 (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I’ve checked the sources and the article looks pretty accurate to me 77.101.220.35 (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I think this is unfair. The article is consistent with all the references and source articles. Good work by Museritream getting it up and running. 0642WaveRider (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

NPOV issues

This article appears to have some neutrality issues, specifically it seems to be written from a strongly biased anti-SNP slant. 2A02:C7C:D087:4F00:4DF6:1546:1D48:6F82 (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I disagree it is anti-SNP. There isn't an emphasis on the SNP as the party affiliations of all non-Scottish Government politicians are mentioned in this article. 167.98.46.84 (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I find it curious that this article has been hit with both Conflict of Interest and NPOV tags mere days after it was shared on the notoriously-partisan /r/Scotland subreddit...--185.13.50.214 (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The page views have really gone through the roof. I can see why people who are strong supporters of the SNP and The Scottish Government but 5is article is accurate and fair. 0642WaveRider (talk) 06:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The article doesn’t look anti SNP to me, but then it’s difficult to hide the fact that the SNP were the government that ordered these ferries. It wasn’t labour or the conservatives. 77.101.220.35 (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

It is unavoidable that the article mentions the SNP who are the Scottish Government and have been since the start of the saga. In that respect the article is not pro or anti SNP. 0642WaveRider (talk) 06:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I think this tag should be removed. The article focusses on the actions of state agencies rather than a political party. There have been no contributions actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that might remove these apparent anti-SNP bias. In fact the contributions to the talk page here overwhelmingly disagree with the NPOV issues. 167.98.46.84 (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The article doesn’t look biased. The sources are definitely critical of everyone involved, but I don’t know if that makes them biased. What is definitely true is that there are no sources which are complementary about the Scottish Government, Ferguson Marine and CalMac. Maybe someone can add these in (if there are any?). 5.148.156.91 (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I’ve updated the fact that Police Scotland are NOT investigating, hopefully removing some of the bias. 145.224.67.31 (talk) 07:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, this IP editor was me - I hadn't edited Wikipedia for a long while and forgot to log in to make these edits. illspirit|talk 19:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Even the title of the article betrays the author's biases in my opinion. If we're to keep this article it should be moved to something more NPOV e.g. Scottish ferry controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.31.136 (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

It’s important to note that the Scottish Ferry Controversy is actually referred to as the “Ferry Fiasco” by The National Newspaper, which is a pro-SNP newspaper. I’ve put a reference to an article by The National referring to Ferry Fisaco. As an aside I read somewhere that Nicola Sturgeon wanted the scandal to be referred to as “ferry situation”. But if you do feel strongly about the title then maybe you should change it to Scottish Ferry Controversy. 0642WaveRider (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Initially I thought the title was unfortunate, and probably biased. However, reading the article and looking at the news links at the bottom, it is actually probably quite appropriate!! It seems that everything that could go wrong did! 149.5.136.65 (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The title is - very obviously - not neutral. It must be changed. I'd suggest "Scottish Ferry Procurement". 212.159.44.241 (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I think Ferry Fiasco is right name for the scandal. It is regularly referred to as such in the press. Looking at the 46 references at the bottom of the page, 13 of them have the words "Ferry Fiasco" in their titles, only one refers to a "Ferry Scandal" in its title. 167.98.46.84 (talk) 12:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

This IP was also me. I now tend towards keeping the title as 'Ferry fiasco' given this is what sources overwhelmingly call it. illspirit|talk 19:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify you also edited as Special:Contributions/2A02:C7C:D087:4F00:4DF6:1546:1D48:6F82 and Special:Contributions/90.197.31.136? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, also me. illspirit|talk 22:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

If the article is neutral, where are the parts that contradict the view that this is a "scandal" or "fiasco"? How about comparing this construction to other similar construction contracts? Why are we only mentioning McColl in connection to his accusations against the First Minister and the Scottish Government, does he not have any responsibility for the work his company was supposed to be doing? Is it really significant to mention that he used to say he supported Scottish Independence, but now doesn't? What does that have to do with the ferry contracts, is that why the ships are delayed? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, contradictory views are a "nice to have" but not a requirement for neutrality. The simple fact there are no news references which contradict the view that this is a "scandal" or "fiasco" does not mean the article is biased. As Mr WaveRider points out even The National(which is pro-SNP) has referred to it as a Fiasco. Yes, I think McColl should be mentioned more. He is not blameless. I think it is important to mention that he supported Scottish Independence and was close the Scottish Government as the timing of his intervention to allowed Alex Salmond to make claims during the campaign. Agree his current view on independence is now irrelevant. Importantly given the scandal relates primarily to the awarding of the contract to FMEL in the first place, McColl's political views are not irrelevant. 167.98.46.84 (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Contradictory views do exist though. Just not in this article. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Please can you add contradictory views to provide more balance. 0642WaveRider (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Presumably contradictory views are those that proclaim the procurement of these two ferries a success. I think everyone agrees this episode/situation/scandal/fiasco has not been a success. 5.148.156.91 (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

You are adding an NPOV, claiming there are “other views” but don’t actually edit or add those other views. If you don’t like the article then you should edit it. 185.120.129.1 (talk) 07:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Do not remove the NPOV notices until consensus is reached here. That the article has not been updated yet to rebalance does not mean the NPOV issues have been resolved or the notices can be removed. 90.197.28.10 (talk) 11:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I have made some edits to remove emotive language and unnecessary fluff around Scottish Independence (which is irrelevant in my view and clearly not NPOV). There is still some balance work to do before we can remove the NPOV notice - all sources are very one sided on this issue, and if there are other contrasting sources as mentioned above, this should be included. illspirit|talk 12:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

We need some specific proposals for change, as at the moment the tag feels basically like I just don't like it. May I encourage those who feel the article is NPOV to propose some specific changes to the article (or just add them into the article, then either through their acceptance, or through WP:BRD, we might make progress. In the meantime, the article has many typos - I got a few but I'm sure I missed many. Springnuts (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree with your comments on the Tag. 0642WaveRider (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

This seems to have run out of steam. See WP:WTRMT for the circumstances on which the tag can be removed. Consensus here is only one of nine reasons for removing the tag. I'll be honest - I was shocked to see the article title, and jumped to the conclusion that a name change was called for. I was wrong.

IMO we have kicked the question around here for a while: the alleged POV has not been demonstrated, and we have no suggested edits to get rid of it. In short, we have done all we can. The issue has been adequately addressed and the tag should go - but having been on the other side of such views I think we should give a week for those who feel strongly to put up suggested edits here - or just go bold and edit the article. Springnuts (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. Some of us want to edit the article but just haven't found the time to give it the attention it needs yet. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes the Audit Scotland report goes into some detail about the failings of FMEL which is brushed over in this article. More detail from this report needs to be put in to bulk out the article. 0642WaveRider (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - lots of detail in that link which I have added. 167.98.46.84 (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

May we now remove the tag? Alternatively, can we identify where there is an anti-SNP bias (as alleged when adding the tag) so that we can address it? The article is inocmplete of course, as all articles are, but to justifythe tag we need more than "there is more which could be added". Springnuts (talk) 12:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I can’t see any specific anti-SNP bias. It’s been more than a week now since your suggestion and the article has been updated. I agree that the tag should be removed as there is nothing concrete to keep it up. 213.1.216.190 (talk) 08:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

ditto 167.98.46.84 (talk) 10:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• The article should be renamed. "Scottish ferry scandal" or something. While "Ferry fiasco" makes a good clickbait heading, it's obviously not neutral.
• Tons of statements in the article are unsourced, or at least don't have clear sources. Reading through there are huge chunks where I can't tell what is actually based on WP:RS and what is just WP:OR.
• I know the media loves the windows thing, but do ships of that scale actually launch with windows installed?
• So from what I read in the article all the fault lays at the feet of the Scottish Government, Transport Scotland, etc. The guy who owned the shipyard and took on the contract bears no responsibility? Also the whole global pandemic thing didn't affect work at the yard at all, we don't mention it except that the yard took Covid support funds?

I could go on and on, but the article is such a mess I don't really know where to start fixing it.

AlistairMcMillan (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Fiasco is the right word. The Cambridge English Dictionary says a fiasco is "something planned that goes wrong and is a complete failure, usually in an embarrassing way". The Oxford Learners Dictionary says it is "something that does not succeed, often in a way that causes embarrassment". On the other hand, a scandal is "an action or event that is considered immoral, causing the public to react with shock or anger" (Cambridge and Oxford). I don't think the actions of any of the parties involved were acting immorally so fiasco is the right description. As I pointed out above of the 46 references at the bottom 13 have the exact words "Ferry Fiasco" in their titles whereas only one refers to "Ferry Scandal".

Yes there are lots of statements unsourced, but these these refer to that which has been added in the last 24 hours, reflecting the WIP nature of the argument. Previously everything was correctly sourced.

I'm not an expert on fitting windows on ships, but fitting out on water generally is a lot more difficult / expensive, which is possibly why the media (and most people) were surprised by the painted on windows at launch. I think the reason why the media returns to so often is because it is indicative and emblematic of the whole fiasco.

Finally, I agree on your last point. The article explores the involvement of the Scottish Government and more much more needs to be added to regarding Jim McColl, FMEL Management, CMAL interfering with the design changes. 167.98.46.84 (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The issue of recently added unsourced statements seems to be with this one edit [[1]] - by a single edit editor. I plan to remove what looks like WP:OR, and leave only what seems potentially verifiable. Springnuts (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Done. Diff here: [[2]] Springnuts (talk) 12:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I just want to be clear. Are you saying that "fitting out" typically happens on land? Could you cite any sources that say that? Would be handy to add to the article to distinguish from the decision to fit out Hull 801 and 802 on water. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Thought I would jump in here. Page 26 of the Audit Scotland Report states "Outfitting can take place after launch, but it is more efficient to commence it simultaneously with the construction of the hull structure." I suppose this makes sense as access to the ship on water is more restricted to when it is in a dry dock. 0642WaveRider (talk) 11:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much 167.98.46.84 (talk) 09:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I can see why someone who is sensitive about the portrayal of the Scottish Government or wishes to defend the reputation of the SNP might not like this article and think it biased, as the fiasco does not reflect anyone involved well. However, when you refer to the sources, look at the decisions made by whom and when, the article is not inaccurate vis a vis Scottish Government Ministers’ involvement.

Is the article biased? I don’t think so. As mentioned above there are no “contradictory” sources out there. I have not found one news article proclaiming the build of the Ferries to be a success. Again, look at the sources to check the article’s accuracy. The sources are pretty accurate: most are either direct official ones or reliable such as The BBC, The Times, The Herald, Guardian etc. There is even pro-SNP news sources such as The National Newspaper (where incidentally they refer to it as a fiasco).

Is the article balanced? It could do with some more balance, as it is deficient on details of the actual build of the ferries, the involvement FMEL’s management, Jim McColl, and the breakdown between CMAL and FMEL, and details of the persons involved and the decisions they made. 0642WaveRider (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

There is a lot of detail about how the build process of the ferries failed in the Audit Scotland Report of March 2022 which should be added. I'll get around this at some point. 0642WaveRider (talk) 09:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Possible rename

Noting a few comments about the article title above, and looking at the policy in WP:POVNAMING and WP:NPOVTITLE:

When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids ... . An article title with non-neutral terms cannot simply be a name commonly used in the past, it must be the common name in current use. ... Article titles and redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess and balance that with what readers expect to be taken to.

Maybe iaw Wikipedia:Article_titles#Descriptive_title we can achieve that balance by a rename of this article to Scottish ferry procurement scandal and set up a redirect from Ferry fiasco? Springnuts (talk) 12:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

In the interests of WP:NPOV, I would suggest "Scottish ferry procurement failure". Dormskirk (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Well it isn't a failure yet, and may not be at all - I mean, the ferries will probably, eventually, enter into service (unless they go the way of BAE Systems Nimrod MRA4, when that title might be appropriate). We have no crystal ball. Springnuts (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Scottish ferries scandal or CalMac ferries scandal are other possibilities Springnuts (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

We would simply be replacing one tabloid-style headline with another. The obvious, neutral title would be "Scottish Ferry Procurement". Words like "Fiasco" and "Scandal" have no place in an encyclopedia. 212.159.44.241 (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The name is not the issue. Ferry Fiasco is pretty accurate as the saga is best described as an embarrassing failure. The ferries might still be built, but in the process a business has failed as has the management and oversight. People have certainly failed in their jobs.

Besides Ferry Fiasco is what a large bulk of the sources use (even the pro-SNP, pro-Scottish Government Newspaper “The National” have taken to referring it as Ferry Fiasco).

The issue is that there is insufficient cover given to the other players in the process. Not to let them off the hook, but Scottish Government didn’t build these boats, FMEL did, under direction of Jim McColl, on behalf of CMAL, under direction of Transport Scotland. 0642WaveRider (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

You keep mentioning that The National used the word fiasco. They used it in quotes. There is a difference between saying something, and pointing out that others said something.

You also keep pointing out that The National is a pro-SNP, pro-scottish Government paper... I wonder why it's so important to point this out... does this mean that you are saying that the other papers are anti-SNP, anti-scottish Government? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The National has used the term fiasco in the headline of one article, and in the body of two other articles in recent months. The National is pro-SNP and pro-Scottish Government, in the same way some of the right-wing press (notably The Daily Mail) are anti-SNP and anti-Scottish Government. This is not a comment on the neutrality other papers, it merely underlines that fiasco has become the common word across the political spectrum. 0642WaveRider (talk) 09:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Are all in favour of a name change for this article?

• Support name change. Monkey1987king (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

No I think the name is what the fiasco has become known by. 77.101.220.35 (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry I raised the subject. "Fiasco" is a non-netural word we would normally avoid, but I'm not convinced by any of the alternatives I have seen so far, and "Ferry fisaco" is the common name in current use. Springnuts (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree - to reiterate my point above, if a pro-SNP and pro-Scottish Government source has been referring to the scandal as a fiasco, then it shows the word fiasco is in use across the political spectrum and therefore become the common name. 0642WaveRider (talk) 09:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support name change. However I think my issue with the title at the moment is that it's not specific enough. The sources do almost universally refer to the situation as the 'Ferry fiasco', so I think this should remain as the defacto name. But it's not specific enough. Perhaps it should be Scottish ferry fiasco or Scottish islands ferry controversy with Ferry fiasco becoming a redirect. illspirit|talk 14:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  "Scottish Ferry Procurement" would be a much more neutral title. Or "Scottish Ferry Procurement Delays". I think we have to prefer neutral options. 212.159.44.241 (talk) 14:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose name change: plenty of political scandal articles on Wikipedia make use of their media epithets, for example, Partygate and Beergate.--185.13.50.212 (talk) 10:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  But there is no similar term for Scottish ferry procurement. We can't just invent one. 212.159.44.241 (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

NPOV issues reloaded

Given the sock-puppetry above I’m now reluctant to say anything about any emerging consensus whether or not there is POV issue and if so whether it has been addressed. Could an editor/editors who feel there is a POV issue please summarise it here? Springnuts (talk) 06:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I added the NPOV notice as an IP editor here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferry_fiasco&oldid=1116889555

I added this because at the time, the article was a mess, and conflated many different issues - in particular the original author had peppered in lots of stuff around Scottish independence, which in my view is irrelevant to the contents of this article. There was also a lot of unsourced original research. I made some attempt to fix some of the worst of this in this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferry_fiasco&oldid=1121089434

I think this article is still a mess, personally. The NPOV issues are maybe not quite as egregious now but the sockpuppet account who's written most of this article has a very clear political slant in their writing that still needs to be unpicked. I haven't yet had time to go back through this article, as mentioned above I haven't edited Wikipedia for many years and have limited investment in doing so extensively at the moment.

For now I think the NPOV notice should remain. illspirit|talk 14:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the tag is still needed, but that said I have no objection to it remaining for the moment. If I can, I'll try to address the remaining issues you mention, and maybe then we can remove the tag, if all are content. Springnuts (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

After your cleanup (thanks), I think I'm reasonably satisfied that the egregious NPOV issues have been mostly sorted. I personally think the NPOV notice can be removed now. illspirit|talk 08:28, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy deletion

This article was created by User:Museeritrean2514 who has been blocked for abusing sockpuppets. According to this about 78% of the article was written by Museeritrean2514 and the two most obvious of their other accounts (which are also blocked). Notably since they were blocked there has been very little work on the article. So per WP:DWS I've tagged this article for speedy deletion. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Though I agree the article remains in an unfortunate state, it's clearly notable per the sources, so we should try and improve what we have instead of deleting, I think. I'll try to make some improvements over the next few weeks. illspirit|talk 18:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree with illspirit clearly notable per the sources. In any case, speedy nomination - and recent ProD citing same grounds for deletion - out of policy: the policy applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and then only if they have no substantial edits by others. The policy is absolutely clear: to qualify, the edit or page must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created (as here) before the ban or block was imposed will not qualify under this criterion. If re-nominating for ProD, editors are requested to notify those who have contributed to the article, rather than the (blocked) creator: twinkle will not (I believe) do this for you. Springnuts (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Meaty

Hi all,

The article is basically a wall of text..... I will go and try to edit the formatting a bit and add more pictures to add a bit of colour etc, but can folks try to reduce it down just a wee bit..... just will make it a bit easier for people to read it. I darent touch the text too much myself due to the sensitivity needed for this topic. Cheers Chutneycheddar (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

A further point from myself, which I shall include in this thread as it is still the same day.....

Does anyone believe that the Reverent D Blunt's opinions on that the ferry issues were caused by the "Wrath of god.... etc" " should be fitted on within this page, as the claims do root from a cause of calmac underfunding or is that more of a matter for an alternate article?

Additional conversation much encouraged — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chutneycheddar (talk • contribs) 23:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Cleaning up lead

Not to whack a hornet's nest again (see #NPOV issues reloaded), but it seems tautological that a political controversy is 'disputed'. I rewrote the lead sentence to be 'In Scottish politics, the ferry fiasco refers to a political dispute over the construction of two ferries...' Seems fair to me. · | (t - c) 22:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

"Ferry Fiasco" is a - very obviously - loaded term which expresses a POV. The fact that it may have appeared in the press is no justification to use it here. This is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. Most UK newspapers are not neutral purveyors of facts but very strongly politically biased towards a target readership. The phrase should probably also be removed from the article title and replaced with a more neutral "Scottish Ferry Procurement" or similar. In the article text, the phrase "ferry fiasco" can of course be used but this should be done in a neutral manner eg by adding the phrase "alleged". This in no way detracts from any factual information presented. In fact, it improves the information provided by removing a POV. Efforts to include the "ferry fiasco" phrase in ways which are not reasonable or neutral appear to be deliberate attempts to bias the article with a POV.212.159.44.241 (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Following the sources is not "bias" it's what we do here on Wikipedia WP:RS. You don't strengthen your argument by accusing the multiple editors who disagree with you of being "bad actors". Personally I see pros and cons to using the term "ferry fiasco" but the important thing here is to follow the consensus WP:CONS, which is not currently in your favour.Tammbeck^talk 15:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but Wikipedia is not a platform for points of view, however strongly you might hold them. You haven't even bothered to deal with any of the points raised and make claims about being in an imaginary majority both of which seem to fatally undermines your criticism. 212.159.44.241 (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear: adding "alleged" does not detract in any way from the article. In fact, adding the "alleged" qualifier improves the article by removing a POV.

Your criticism that this is a valid term to use appears to completely miss the point. Nobody is being prevented from using the term "ferry fiasco". However, since this phrase specifically alleges a serious failure, it is important that it be used in a neutral way neither supporting nor diminishing the allegation. 212.159.44.241 (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

'Scottish ferry procurement' as suggested above is a non-specific title; ferries have been procured throughout history. Hence I believe that it's not tractable. The salience of the article is that there is an ongoing political dispute in Scotland over the construction of ferries, and the epithet 'ferry fiasco' has been used extensively across the gamut of Scottish and UK news coverage. There is not a consensus to rename the page, and in the absence of one edit warring while accusing other editors to be 'bad actors' is disruptive editing. There is a process for changes: that is not going in all-guns-blazing and accusing everyone else of being bad actors. · | (t - c) 17:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

As far as I understand Wikipedia, the editing process does not include reverting edits made in good faith by other editors attempting to remove POV.

This only makes me wonder what other parts of Wikipedia may have been infected by anti-SNP bias and if there should be a more thorough and wide-ranging review.

Note that Wikipedia can and should contain information about criticisms leveled at the SNP (inc ferry procurement) but any such criticism must be presented in a balanced manner where - for example - points of view are clearly represented as such and not as objective facts. 212.159.44.241 (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Should you happen to have a connection to any political party you would need to declare a conflict of interest per WP:COI. If you believe parts of Wikipedia are "infected by anti-SNP bias" and you wish to propose a "thorough and wide-ranging review", the place to raise that would be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.Tammbeck^talk 14:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The place to raise it is wherever it occurs. 212.159.44.241 (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Revert of Move, January 2024

The move of this page from the original title of "ferry fiasco" to "Construction of NV Glen Sannox and MV Glen Rosa" was never approved by the community. As can be seen from the discussion regarding the page title from December 2023, the consensus was to retain the title of "ferry fiasco": the subject is noteworthy because of the repeated delays and cost overruns surrounding the construction, not for the construction itself. 2A02:C7C:B62B:E400:28C5:185E:1B53:89BD (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree with sentiments above. The title of the page should revert to the original title addressing the main element that makes this subject notable. 169.239.168.98 (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

As far as I could tell, most of the comments in the December discussion (certainly those by registered users) supported a name change. If you don't like the new title, propose a move change, as per WP:RM. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jmorrison230582, On what basis have you made a unlilateral move to an undiscussed title, and at the same time opined that other users should go through a formal requested move procedure? That said, your move hasn't been reverted so it seems that most of us can live with it. I think it's important that readers googling "Ferry fiasco" find this article, and that still seems to be the case.Tammbeck^talk 08:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

A newspaper which sets out to take a political position can use the term "ferry fiasco" but an encyclopedia (Wikipedia) can't because this is a POV. We can (and should) include a balanced account of anything which went wrong. We just have to be careful to present the facts in a neutral way. 212.159.44.241 (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

We now seem to have an article title acceptable to most editors, so this debate is hypothetical. However Wikipedia policy specifically addresses situations where a non-neutral but common name is acceptable in WP:NPOVNAME. Please read that short section for yourself, and you might understand what other editors have been talking about.

You have not replied to my comment above about conflicts of interest. Can you please state for the record whether or not you have a connection to any political party or other political organisation. Also for the record, I have no such connections. Tammbeck^talk 08:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I've just been bold and made the move. I hope I haven't upset anyone too much - however I agree with the fact that the what makes this noteworthy is not the construction, but the delay and cost overruns. Loosenbach (talk) 12:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Could you please revert your changes? "Ferry Fiasco" is (very obviously..) not a neutral term. It is a point of view. There is plenty of scope within the article to provide information about problems with ferry procurement provided this is done in a balanced, neutral way. 212.159.44.241 (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not making a comment on the bias of the title, but if the title clear, and commonly known and used by reliable Secondary Sources then it's not only acceptable but the correct title, *despite* bias and controversy. Names like "Boston Massacre" and "Jack the Ripper" are known and thus valid, though context matters and alternatives should be noted if relevant. So, unless there is an agreed alternative title which is as eligible as the existing one is agreed upon, then it should stay. WP:POVNAMING Loosenbach (talk) 14:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

"Ferry Fiasco" is used by media outlets and others who take a political position on ferry procurement issues. It is - very obviously - a point of view not a neutral term. A phrase which some people might use to refer to ferry procurement but which not all people will use.

It feels very odd that so much effort is being made to push a PoV into this article when nothing whatsoever is lost with a neutral title.

If you feel this phrase is in some way an important part of the story, it is quite possible to mention it within the article in a balanced manner. Eg "several media outlets have referred to these problems as..." but it is not balanced to use this phrase as a defining term for procurement issues. 212.159.44.241 (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Whether the sources are written to make a political position is a personal interpretation. Whether true or not is beside the point. "Ferry Fiasco" as a title aligns with the principle that Wikipedia should reflect terminology and viewpoints prevalent in reputable secondary sources, even if they convey a non-neutral perspective. The term has been extensively used by respected news outlets and public discussions to describe the ferry procurement controversies, indicating its significance in the narrative. Wikipedia's goal is to accurately mirror the discourse documented by reliable sources, ensuring the encyclopedia is relevant and accessible.

Incorporating "Ferry Fiasco" into the title, provided the article content remains neutral and factual, does not violate Wikipedia's neutrality policy but rather supports its commitment to verifiability. It's about presenting the subject as it is recognized in authoritative discourse, balancing recognizable terms with objective, comprehensive coverage that adheres to Wikipedia's standards.

I refer you to WP:NPOV and in particular the first paragraph. Loosenbach (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

PS: we did have an improved alternative. "Construction of NV Glen Sannox and MV Glen Rosa". Your edit takes us backwards. 212.159.44.241 (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Please keep unfounded allegations of conflicts of interest to yourself. No-one is interested.

If you want to argue to include a PoV, good luck. There are much better arguments not to. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a party political broadcast. There is plenty of scope to provide information on problems with ferry procurement within the article provided such information is accurate and balanced.

It actually feels quite odd that so much effort is being put into presenting the issue in a specific way - a fiasco - rather than providing balanced information and allowing the reader to form their own opinion. 212.159.44.241 (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

"Ferry Fiasco" is - very obviously - a POV not a neutral term. The title should not revert. "Construction of MV Glen Sannox and MV Glen Rosa" is definitely a step forward. 212.159.44.241 (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that the vast majority of this article was written by a single issue editor who was banned for abusing sock puppet accounts. If you think this article was written in good faith I have a bridge to sell you.

I'm sure all the commenters here editing from an IP address with a single edit have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Tidy needed

The delays have been added, necessarily, piecemeal, but with delivery of GS finally approaching (hopefully!) is it time for a consolidation and tidy of what’s now an overdetailed list of each separate failed promise? Springnuts (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)