Talk:Water privatization in Metro Manila

	Philippines portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Alleged lack of neutral point of view

This article expands a single viewpoint on a complex issue. There is neither substantive discussion of alternative points of view nor even mention that they exist. However searches of online journalism and records of public institutions in Manila and at the national level of the Philippines government indicate clearly that the pro-privatization viewpoint of this article is not universally accepted. Beyond being the only viewpoint discussed it is unclear that it is a majority viewpoint.

Out of 15 cited sources:

1 was impossible to verify (link to Wikipedia article describing the named publication; no article found on website of named publication)

1 is not available publicly

4 are from international development agencies who universally and generally promote privitization or public-private partnerships

8 are either from the two private companies whom are the focus of discussion or citations from high officials of said companies

Not a single source is critical or oppositional to the viewpoint expounded in the article.

Many "facts" are not cited--for example:

"The plan to privatize the public utility of Manila, the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS), emerged from the inability of MWSS to expand coverage for a growing population or to improve service quality and efficiency. By 1996, MWSS only provided water supply for on average 16 hours each day to two thirds of Metro Manila. " -- two facts, no citations.

or:

"Maynilad incurred high costs, in part because it awarded contracts to affiliates of Suez without competitive bidding. It pursued an approach to connect poor communities that included laying pipes in slums, which made it difficult to control theft. Indeed, non-revenue water even increased in the Western zone. Maynilad also brought in new staff from Benpres that had no experience in water supply, which led to tensions and reduced the motivation of incubmbent staff." --again, no citations.

How can I verify this information as a reader of this article?

Further, normative and value-laden language appears throughout the article--for example:

"a spectacular increase in access"

or:

"a desolated financial situation"

In both cases the normative language adds no facts and further promotes the single viewpoint of this article.

In short this article is a poorly cited, value-laden, and one-sided discussion of a complex topic. It does not further the reader's understanding of the topic but rather promotes a specific viewpoint on the topic at hand. More than half the sources are public relations material from the companies at the center of this topic. It is open propaganda and not fit for an encyclopedia.

FYI, I have no agenda here other than the pursuit of good information. I came across this article while researching privatization and public-private partnerships of utilities. My shock at the one-sided presentation of a complex and controversial topic prompted me to open a wikipedia account in order to call attention to this article.

I hope attention from experts on the topic will be able to edit the existing article into a fact-based and substantive discussion.

Nfreedman (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing your views on this article and, first and foremost, welcome to Wikipedia as a new editor! Your points are well taken. One of the rules on Wikipedia is to assume good faith on behalf of other editors. So please take a moment to read this. I am the primary author of this article. Believe it or not, I have no interest in promoting a certain point of view. If you are not convinced, which I assume, I invite you to read the articles on Water privatization in Tanzania or Water privatization in Indonesia to which I contributed significantly. Please do not interpret the Manila case as being representative of Water privatization. Nowhere in the article is it portrayed as such. The Manila case was for many years, a textbook example of how in the same city, at the same time one privatization attempt failed (West Manila) and the other one succeeded (East Manila). Even observers cricital of privatization do not dispute the general trend indicated by the figures. In my experience proponents of water privatization focus on specific cases and avoid mentioning others, and so do opponents of privatization. East Manila is a case that has not attracted much attention by opponents of privatization, as far as I know. The most detailed critical appraisal of the Manila case that I came across is by Jude Esguerra, published in 2003. It is included in the article in the "see also" section. However, it is a bit old. If you find information in that article, please feel free to include it. The same goes of course for other publications that you may come across and that I may have missed. In my view, the best analysis of the Manila case is by Wu, Xun and Malaluan, Nepomuceno A. (2008), from which I quoted extensively. The corporate figures have been included so that the article is more up to date. If you have a neutral source for the figures, it would indeed be better. I suggest you read Wu's article and Esguerra's publication if you are interested in knowing more about privatization in Manila. Some of the facts that you identified as unreferenced are from the Wu article, although the footnote is not after the sentence you quoted, but a sentence later. All this being said, your initial allegation of propaganda may appear in a different light. For those who are genuinely interested in the topic at hand, the article should provide easy access to relevant information in an encyclopedic format. The choice of certain adjectives can certainly be discussed, although I believe they fit the facts in this case, even if some people do not like these facts. I invite you to read more about the Manila case and to then make constructive suggestions to improve the article or to improve it directly.--Mschiffler (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have not heard back from Nfreedman so far, I have gone ahead and added information from the critical study by Jude Esguerra to the article, added a hyperlink to one of the sources and removed language that could be perceived as violating a NPOV. I also would like to add that simply counting the references from various sources is not the best way of establishing whether an article has a NPOV or not. Concerning the references to the websites of the companies, they only establish the ownership structure of the companies and the current water tariffs. For this type of information, I believe that it is preferable to use primary sources instead of secondary sources. Unfortunately one source of the article, a speech by Perry Rivera from Manila Water at the 2010 Global Water Summit, is not available on-line, although I believe that the proceedings in which it is included can be bought. Some key figures from that speech are confirmed by the World Bank and by the magazine Global Water Intelligence. I could not find another source that confirms or denies these figures. The website of the MWSS Regulatory Office, which regulates both concessions, unfortunately has no performance data after 2003. It would be desirable to come up with other sources of information to strengthen the credibility of the article. This being said, I do strongly disagree with your assertion that the article is "propaganda" and I do believe that it provides highly relevant encyclopedic information on the topic. But even if the article is not biased, I can see that the absence of critical sources in the original article can create a perception of bias. I thus encourage you again to improve the article further.--Mschiffler (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am still waiting for a response. I will keep the NPOV tag for the time being, but plan to remove it if there will be no response over the next weeks.--Mschiffler (talk) 03:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines ≠ Manila

Don't you think the title is misleading. As a reader I expect to read about the Philippine situation but all it is about Metro Manila. -- 112.205.51.84 (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, thanks for pointing this out. One option would be to expand the article to include other cases in the Philippines. It seems that there are no public-private partnerships for water supply in other parts of the Philippines (see Water supply and sanitation in the Philippines. If this is indeed true, I suggest that the article should be renamed to Water privatization in Manila, probably with a redirect from the current title.--Mschiffler (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A very good point and statement of the obvious reason for a page move. The new name should be Water privatization in Metro Manila, since that the official geographic and administrative region covered by the concessions. Manila is small, compared to Metro Manila, and its many existing political subdivisions. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Water privatization in Metro Manila. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Ayala avenue street scene.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]