Talk:Flood control projects scandal in the Philippines

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Flood control projects scandal in the Philippines article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in Philippine English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, realize, center, travelled) and some terms may be different or absent from (including jeepney and cyberlibel) other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Tambayan Philippines: Politics High‑importance 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. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Philippine politics task force (assessed as Top-importance). Disaster management Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Engineering Low‑importance Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering 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. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Low‑importance Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, use the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Article title

Article titles like what we have here "Flood control projects controversy in the Philippines (2024–2025)" is not how WP:Descriptive title is entitled. Some suggestions:

• Flood control projects controversy in the Philippines (no years)
• Flood control projects scandal in the Philippines
• Ghost flood control projects in the Philippines

Howard the Duck (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like "Flood control projects scandal in the Philippines". Most corruption cases that appear on the current events portal are titled with the word "scandal". _signed, Pat ^talk 08:00, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would slightly reword the proposed titles. Why not "Philippine flood control projects scandal"? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 17:16, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer this title over the current. At the very least, the use of years here as a disambiguator is entirely unnecessary. I don't think "ghost" is necessary here, nor does it accurately describe all of these projects (which also include projects which do exist but are of laughably substandard quality). Chlod (say hi!) 13:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Private sector response

Would be good to consider including statements and other reactions from the private sector, especially as the article already does a great job summarizing actions from the government and will likely cover any future protests done. An alliance of 30 business groups have released a statement today calling for a thorough investigation.^[1][2]

I hesitate to create a new section on private sector responses though given uncertain notability; it might well be the case that private sector participation stops here. Regardless, monitoring this space would be useful as we can consider a separate section should more developments occur.

1. Strangio, Sebastian (2025-09-05). "Philippine Business Groups Call For Action on 'Excessive' Corruption". The Diplomat. Retrieved 2025-09-05.
2. Lagare, Jordeene (2025-09-05). "Biz groups: Probe not just DPWH, contractors but also lawmakers". INQUIRER.net. Retrieved 2025-09-05.

PaoloBarts (talk) 07:32, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Thank you! _signed, Pat ^talk 08:37, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding! I'll change the section title to "Private sector and civil society responses" as it now covers actions from both the private sector and several progressive groups in the CSO space PaoloBarts (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Representatives of construction companies, including Sarah Discaya, take their oath as resource persons during the hearing of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee on alleged anomalous flood control projects.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:37, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Internet culture

I think I should put impact of internet that became meme of the Flood Control Project like this sources? ([1], [2]) ROY is WAR Talk! 09:08, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the increase in flood control memes may not be notable enough for inclusion in the article since most newsworthy events lead to memes being spread anyway and newsworthiness is not enough of a condition for Wikipedia inclusion (see WP:NOTNEWS). Unless there is something unique about how memes and internet culture where used in the context of the flood control controversy (e.g., if meme activity played a significant and unique role in enabling protests or capturing public attention, writing about memes may not meet notability requirements. PaoloBarts (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should we use photos uploaded by gov't officials / political groups with visible branding?

A currently used image commons:File:Protest rally at the EDSA Shrine over the corruption regarding the flood control projects.jpg is sourced from Rep. Perci Cendaña's Facebook page, prominent displays the Akbayan Partylist logo, and also promotes social media handles. Should we retain or remove such photos?

Use of these photos may be seen as an implicit endorsement of the politician/party and hence not align with WP:NPOV. If obtained from social media, it may also not be clear whether such photos were physically taken by the government official or borrowed/sourced elsewhere, and thus also not align with Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. See discussion of using social media derived photos. Not using such photos can limit the amount of photos we can use, but then there's also an ongoing campaign to get more photos.

On the other hand, use of these photos themselves solely to establish facts like the appearance and conduct of the protest may still be in line with WP:NPOV. I raise this point because there are also photos with PCO and Senate logos which fall under this category and use branding elements, albeit less prominently so (e.g., commons:File:Discaya-Couple-senate-hearing-090825.jpg PaoloBarts (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean its kinda iffy licensing wise, Cerdena seem to be posting those photos under the capacity as an Akbayan Partylist member. Akbayan itself is not a government entity. We could get more photos from the LGUs though. In contrast visible logos are a strong indicator that the photographs are their own work and not grabbed elsewhere. They could be removed and converted to EXIF credits as per Commons:Watermarks perhaps.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see, noted on logos being favorable as stronger proof of photo ownership.

While Akbayan is not strictly a gov't entity, it currently has representation in Congress and is a very active participant in the anti-corruption protests. Combined with how the photo in question contains prominent logos and social media handles, we might be in danger of breaching WP:NPOV.

My view though is that we leave the picture as is, but replace it with a more unambiguously neutral photo once available. PaoloBarts (talk) 10:21, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination?

Can this article be considered as good article nominee? Even if its currently being updated due to the events going on right now? Since some words, references, neutral point of view, and etc. may be updated due to its grammar and may be fixed in order to be nominated. ArinAstrid (talk) 05:30, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was thinking about this also. I thought the stability criteria under WP:GACR6 meant the exclusion of articles about current events, but it seems to only disqualify articles undergoing edit warring or other disputes which I think doesn't apply to this article.

I personally think the article has evolved significantly from weeks back when it was a newly rated B-class article, but not sure how close the article is to good article status and whether it makes sense to spend some more time on cleanup and content scoping PaoloBarts (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the controversy is still ongoing. I think we should nominate this if the controversy is done? ROY is WAR Talk! 13:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]