Talk:Overseas Filipino

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

WikiProject Tambayan Philippines (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article name and content[edit]

This discussion started on Wikipedia:Tambayan_Philippines, but I've moved it here. Gronky 01:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

== Read about the "dirty war" and about all the people who speak out against the Philippines Government who go missing . —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I beleive that the two-word title is needlessly inaccurate. It includes many categories, one of which is Filipinos who are on holiday outside of the Philippines.

There is very little in common between overseas settled Filipinos and overseas holidaying Filipinos. The holiday habbits of Filipinos has more in common with Culture of the Philippines, so that's where that info should be. Then, if that category of overseas Filipinos is not described in this article, the title is misleading (just as the Overseas Chinese title is misleading). It's not terrible, but it could be better.

What adjective can be added to make the title describe the category of filipinos that the article is about. I agree now that my original suggestion of "overseas filipino communities" is too narrow (since not everyone participates in the community). How about "Filipinos residing overseas"? or "Filipinos living abroad"? or "Overseas settled Filipinos"? or "Emigrant Filipinos"? Gronky 01:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Overseas Filipinos always implies working abroad or studying abroad, both emigrants and non-emigrants. Filipinos on holiday are called tourists :) --Noypi380 06:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Should we not combine this page with the overseas Filipino Worker page they appear to duplicate each other substantially. It might be best if both search terms are directed to a single page (im not sure hoow to do this) Nickhk 01:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Nickhk

I think this should be expanded and it should be consistent and linked to the 'Filipino People' page

I do believe that if a merging should be done, it should be renamed to just the "Filipino Diaspora" since it is about Filipinos that are in parts of the world, other than the Philippines. Since Filipinos around the world are not necessarily workers, I suggest that this should be just the title for it. We also have to realize that with this article, we're not just talking about Filipino workers, but the Filipino dispersion around the world in general.


A request to merge Overseas Filipino Worker to Overseas Filipino has been made for the reasons stated above. Pls vote, and explain your reasons. Thanks.

  • Merge. For the reasons stated above. It also would be hard to fill both articles. Better to merge, and have one, good, long article, than to to have two short ones. Overseas Filipinos imply all OF workers, OF students, and "TNTs". --Noypi380 12:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. For the reasons stated above. Nickhk

Ok, then, I'll merge it. Pls edit accordingly. :) --Noypi380 07:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Question on Filipino official's number of remittances[edit]

2004 SURVEY ON OVERSEAS FILIPINOS, Philippine National Statistics Office, on OFWs:

  • 1.06 million Overseas Filipinos Workers
  • 33.4% are unskilled workers, 15.4% are Trades and related workers, 15.1% are plant and machine operators and assemblers.
  • 49.3% are males, 50.7% are females.
  • Remittances are 64.7 billion Philippine pesos (equals 1.2 billion USD then)

Even other Filipino official's number is about 10 billion.

Or it is my mistake?AirBa 03:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC) There appears flaws in all the figures on the page and I also would like to point out that my research leads me to point out that in POEA website you can download a pdf doc that gives every known detail which differ from WIKI numbers and stats they have figures for all categories from the last 8 or so years in all categories in all countries SO the burning issue is how many people leave each year ? how many of them renew their contracts and how many have stayed and become citizens of the said country? Please could some one rewrite this article to meet the figures suggested by the POEA instead of the figures given over leaf The other addition is the local amphibious cash trade not mentioned, there are many islands near the phils which are frequented by OFW's and they are illegal returning to and fro each 3 months to stay in the legal zone , they return by boat and bring cash and lots of it ,,More work is needed to access this figure as this too will amount to Billions and may even contribute to a more accurate illegal work figure than is available today. Incidently the figures for the GDP in remittances are said to top $21.3Billion for 2010 ( (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)) Dave Stewart , Market Researcher for European Hotels Ltd

Changing "countries" to "cities"[edit]

In my experience, Filipino emigrant communities are concentrated in certain cities, not spread across countries. I've been in a state of the USA where I saw no Filipinos, and I've been in two places in Spain where one was full of Filipinos and the second had none. This section is needlessly and misleadingly imprecise. Any objections to noting the cities? Or, any better ideas for how to improve this? Gronky 09:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

No objections, in fact, good idea. :) --Noypi380 03:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


Philippines        1990    1991    1992    1993    1994    1995    1996    1997    1998    1999    2000    2001    2002                                                    
Workers' remittances, receipts (BoP, current US$)  (mill)       262     329     315     311     443     432     569     1,057   204     102     125     124     192

--World Development Indicators 2004

Data sources do not correspond[edit]

Is it possible that the source claiming there are 1.06 Overseas Filipino Workers and 7 million permanent residents/contractual workers abroad are both correct? This doesn't make sense to me.

Also, the 2004 Overseas Filipino Workers Survey says they remitted 1.15 billion USD, but BSP, the central bank of the philippines, says it was 8.55 billion USD. The BSP report is linked from the POEA: [1]. Direct link is here: [2] Canadianpotatoes 19:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

on the first part I believe 'Overseas Filipino Workers' is distinct from Residents. OFW's are contractual and often temporary, while residents are actual immigrants granted citizinship.--ObsidinSoul 06:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Filipinos in Italy[edit]

According to the this article, Filipinos number between 500 000 and 600 000 in Italy. In the Filipino people article, however, the figure given is 76 000. I’m hoping someone could fix that.

I checked the sources listed on this article, and it seems like the figure of 76,000 on the Filipino people article coincides with the sources presented. I've added a request for sources on the 600,000 figure that was given. --Edward Sandstig 16:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

another Merger and tiptoeing on the Terminology[edit]

i have recently merged the List of Filipinos abroad with this article, also, i have explicitly declared the implied usage of the terminology in this article i hope this helps to clarify things

the 1st paragraph now reads:

An Overseas Filipino is a person of Philippine origin who lives outside of the Philippines. This term applies both to people of Filipino ancestry who now live and reside as citizens of a different country, and those who continue to be Filipino citizens and those supporting their families back in the Philippines. It may also extend to Filipinos having extended holidays abroad, however, common usage does not usually include this group.

any further insight is welcome

.: Seth Nimbosa :. 00:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


I edited that first paragraph extensively in an effort to make it read better. I hope that I did not change the meaning, and that I improved it. --Bruce Hall (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


I see that Fil-foreign redirects to this page. I have only seen the term "Fil-foreign" used in relation to Fil-foreign players in the Philippine Basketball Association (PBA). As I understand it, the PBA treats Fil-foreign players as not-quite Filipino. I may have that wrong, but whatever the meaning of "Fil-foreign" is, it seems to me that this page ought to explain the meaning if "Fil-foreign" is to redirect to this page. --- Boracay Bill 03:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The said issue has been corrected. Thanks for the heads-up. Good luck to you! :) Zollerriia63 (talk) 08:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Statistics on Overseas Filipinos by Occupation[edit]

To add more value to this article, I believe we should put statistics on the numbers of Filipinos overseas by occupation.

For example: Domestic Helpers: 65% Nursing: 25% IT Workers: 5% Hospitality: X% Practising Doctors: Y% Accountants: N% etc.. We could also break it down by country. Eg: Filipinos in Australia: 90% Skilled Professional, etc Filipinos in Hong Kong: 90% Domestic Helpers, etc

FRM SYD 06:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not overlook the need to cite sources for the stats. -- Boracay Bill 01:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Actually, that is my main problem, I don't have access to these stats or Government Stats but really want to find out. Does anyone have access to any information around this? Thanks.
FRM SYD 01:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
And please remember that some sources of stats only count registered/declared/legal workers. Gronky 03:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

==Issues== section[edit]

This section reeks of POV and original research. It also contains various unsupported and possibly incorrect assertions. I propose deletion of this section. Objections? Comments? -- Boracay Bill 01:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to it being deleted. It says too much without citing sources. Gronky 10:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed the section. -- Boracay Bill 04:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Challenges section[edit]

I tried to verify the cites in this section. Rather than sprinkle {{failed_verification}} links throughout this section, I will remark on the results of my verification efforts here:

  • wage cuts
  • note-Migrante seems to say nothing about wage cuts. How are wage cuts a challenge for Filipino OFWs to face abroad, anyway? Is it actually the case that employers will cut the wages of an OFW once the OFW is overseas and on the job, not paying the promised wage but actually paying something less? If so, a cite recounting cases where this happened would be useful.
  • contract violations
  • welfare neglect
  • note-Migrante seems to say nothing about welfare neglect
  • note-BBC seems to say little or nothing about neglect of OFW welfare
  • unfair labor practices
  • note-Migrante seems to say nothing about unfair labor practices.
  • illegal recruitment (how is "illegal recruitment" a challenge which is faced abroad?)
  • physical/verbal/sexual abuses
  • note-Migrante seems to say nothing about physical/verbal/sexual abuses.
  • note-Flor seems to say nothing about physical/verbal/sexual abuses. (Yes, I do know about the case of Flor Contemplacion)
  • note-Riyadh seems to recount an incident of nontargeted criminal violence, not physical/verbal/sexual abuse.
  • mysterious deaths
  • note-Migrante seems to say nothing about mysterious deaths.
  • note-Riyadh seems to recount an incident of nontargeted criminal violence, not an incident of a mysterious death.
  • note-Lebanon speaks of a case where the family which had lost support by an OFW said to have suicided by jumping from an 8th floor window disbelieved the report, saying that they suspected foul play not involving a fall from 8 floors up. Interesting allegation, but nothing more than an allegation.
  • implementation of repressive migrant policies
  • note-Migrante seems to say nothing about implementation of repressive migrant policies.
  • note-BBC seems to say little or nothing about implementation of repressive migrant policies, unless deportation of illegals is considered repressive.
  • crackdowns (how are "crackdowns" a "Challenge"? Crackdowns on what?)
  • note-Migrante seems to say nothing about crackdowns.
  • note-BBC reports a Malaysian crackdown on illegal immigrants. How is this a "Challenge"?
  • raids and zoning (how are "raids and zoning" a "Challenge"?)
  • note-Migrante seems to say nothing about raids and zoning.
  • note-Flor seems to say little or nothing about raids and zoning.
  • racial profiling and discrimination
  • note-Flor seems to say little or nothing about racial profiling and discrimination.
  • note-BBC reports a Malaysian crackdown on illegal immigrants. Is enforcement of laws equivalent to discrimination against lawbreakers? If it is equivalent, is that a bad thing?
  • note-Migrante seems to say nothing about racial profiling and discrimination.
  • kidnappings
  • note-Gabnet quotes a Gabnet rant which says more about a POV point than it says about how kidnappings are, in general, a Challenge for OFWs
  • withholding pay and/or confiscating/hiding documents in some countries
  • note-Flor seems to say nothing about withholding pay or confiscating/hiding documents.
  • note-Gabnet does this requoted Gabnet rant point up withholding of pay or confiscating/hiding of documents?
  • note-Riyadh seems to say nothing about withholding pay and/or confiscating/hiding documents
  • note-Lebanon seems to say nothing about withholding pay and/or confiscating/hiding documents
  • abuse, assault, sexual harassment or murder of OFWs (mainly DHs)
  • note-Migrante seems to say nothing about this.
  • note-Flor seems not to speak to that point. (Yes, I do know about the case of Flor Contemplacion - a cite which did speak to that point in relation to her case would be better.)
  • NGOs "keen on taking action"
  • note-Migrante IMO an external link would be better here than a ref citation
  • note-Gabnet the gabnet rant requoted here doesn't seem to point up Gabriela's keenness on taking action.
  • RP govt urging OFWs to report any misconduct or abuse by employers to local Philippine consulates
  • note-DFA (cited twice in one sentence here) doesn't seem to urge this. I have seen other items (items not cited here) which did speak of this.
  • risk of involvement in a conflict
  • note-Lebanon doesn't seem to point up risk of involvement in a conflict.

Regarding note-Migrante, see WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #3,4. -- Boracay Bill 02:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Added {{citecheck|section|date=March 2007}} to this section. -- Boracay Bill 06:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I added the {{failed verification}} tags which I mentioned above. -- Boracay Bill 23:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The humongous amount of failed verification tags is making it really difficult to read. --Destron Commander 10:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
There are two many references in this section. I tried cutting a few that did not seem relevant. Could we perhaps change their placement or remove more? Or find better references so that we could have only one or so per sentence?--Bruce Hall (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Overseas population figures[edit]

I added a bunch of [citation needed]s in the infobox and wrapped some external links in ref tags. Also, in the Nations with large Filipino constituencies section:

  • addded [citation needed]s
  • Italy - flagged a dead link
  • Ireland this section says 3,000, the cited source says 3,999, the infobos says 85,000
  • Hong Kong - used the cite which the infobox used

more changes planned. -- Boracay Bill 04:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Removed {{unreferenced}} tag because of display formatting conflict with the infobox.
  • Changed Taiwan to Republic of China
  • In Republic of China, replaced {{ref}/{{note} to {{ref_label}}/{{note_label}}.
  • Add {{ref_label}}/note_lable}}hooking infobox to the ROC note.
  • Changed handling of cite from HK Central Statistics office to handle similarly to ROC stats cite.
  • Changed handling of cite from Ireland Central Statistics office to handle similarly to HK and ROC stats cites. -- Boracay Bill 05:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Population figures[edit]

I'm thinking of redoing the population figures in this article, using figures from STATISTICAL DATA ON OVERSEAS FILIPINO WORKERS (OFWs). This MS Excel spreadsheet is one of the items currently listed in the article's General statistics from Philippine government subsection under External links. In some (most?) cases, these figures differ substantially from figures currently in the article, which are either from other sources or from unknown/uncited sources. Comments? -- Boracay Bill 08:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be more figures or a more summarized data inside. It would be better to make them more tabular and would be useful for study guides and research. By the way, how do people who edit this support your self at tambayan pinoy? any money given to update this site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nap-de-coco (talkcontribs) 20:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Total population[edit]

from the info box:

"10 million[1]
11% of the Philippine population"

How can it be 11% of the Philippine populaton when their not even in the Philippines? I mean it's Overseas Filipinos. So does that mean Filipino Americans count as part of the philippine population?
Coojah 11:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm... I think that the implication intended by the statement in the infobox was that the total number of Overseas Filipinos (as Overseas Filipino is defined in the article) verses Filipinos (here, I think the term Filipino was intended to refer to citizens of the RP) is about 11% of the total number RP citizens who are living inside the RP. However, after taking a look at the cited supporting source, I don't think that the cited source says that. Accordingly, I have placed a {{failed verification}} tag. -- Boracay Bill 13:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Number of Filipinos in the US[edit]

I have just reverted an edit by User:Coojah. The edit changed the figure for Filipinos in the U.S. in the infobox from 4,000,000 to 2,807,731. The edit summary said: "look at the source, its not close to 4 mil.".

Besides the infobox, the article contains a section titled, "Nations with large Filipino constituencies". The "United States" portion of that section contains the statement: "The Filipino population in the U.S. is estimated to be 2,807,731. As of 2007, this number grew to an estimated 4 million.", citing the same supporting source cited in the infobox.

The supporting source turns out to be two separate sources:

  1. A U.S. Census Bureau 2005 American Community Survey counted 2,807,731 persons identified as "Filipino alone or in any combination". I guess these would be persons who identified themselves to the surveyor as "Filipino", possibly in combination with one or more other ethnicities.
  2. A U.S. State Department Background Note on the Philippines dated May, 2007. This says: "There are an estimated four million Americans of Philippine ancestry in the United States, and more than 250,000 American citizens in the Philippines."

Actually, in terms of the article, I think neither number is correct. The article's intro says: "An Overseas Filipino is a person of Philippine origin who lives outside of the Philippines." Many of the persons counted by both of the cited sources would not be persons of Philippine origin -- they would be persons born outside of the Philippines who considered themselves to have ethnic or ancestral ties to the Philippines. That suggests that both numbers are probably too high by some unknown amount. -- Boracay Bill 06:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

--Gaui (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)== There are Filipinos in Iceland too == Number of Filipinos living in Iceland is around 1000, about half is already Icelandic citizens. The whole population of Iceland is 306 000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatlason (talkcontribs) 21:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

New Zealand section[edit]

Why is this protected? I can't remove possibly offensive/unproven material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed a few problems with this article[edit]

I've reverified the items citing POEA2004 as a supporting source, and made the following changes:

  1. Changed the infobox figure for Singapore from 136,189 to 136,489 to make it agree with the info in POEA2004
  2. Removed the infobox POEA2004 cite from Finland, as POEA2004 doesn't mention Finland
  3. Changed the infobox figure for Belgium from 12,810 to 12,600 to make it agree with the info in POEA2004
  4. Changed the infobox figure for Switzerland from 11,996 to 14,647 to make it agree with the info in POEA2004
  5. Relabeled the links and backlinks sequentially a thru i (two links were labeled k, and some backlinks were missing or nonfunctional.

Incidentally, {{Infobox Ethnic group}} only supports 31 listed countries and this article currently attempts to use it to list 36 entries POEA2004 links now labeled f, g, and h are numbers 33, 34, and 36 and those backlinks are nonfunctional because the entries don't appear in the infobox. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of Balikbayan[edit]

The word Balikbayan redirects to this page. Would like to know if a person who returns to the Philippines is called a "Balikbayan". Could an expert please add a clarification to this article? Note that there is already an article on "Balikbayan Box". My specific question has to do with whether the word can also apply to a person. Salamat. WWriter (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

See definition info hereand/or here for a specific answer. I don't have time just now to work it into the article. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
What about having a short, more definitional article on "Balikbaya", a la kababayan, that could then link to this article for more information and discussion. The article could be more of one on etymology and use with no, or very little, discussion of issues. --Bruce Hall (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
A balikbayan is not a box. A "balikbayan box" is a box carried into the country by a balikbayan. A balikbayan is strictly a person. It comes from the words "balik" to return, and "bayan" home. It's legally a Filipino that has been absent from the country for a period of at least a year, or who has lost their citizenship. Cheers. Presidentbalut (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Extensive Editing[edit]

I did extensive editing because it did read easily, I thought, and because there seemed to be some repetition. I did not try to change any of the meaning, I hope. I just tried to simplify the language, including replacing of the more florid prose with more common words with the same meaning. I also adjusted some of the headings, editing one to read "population" and another to read "economic impact". I hope that you agree that I did not do any great damage to the meaning of the article. --Bruce Hall (talk) hi thanks 15:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


I feel that Palau should probably be mentioned. Although only ~5,000 Filipinos live there, that makes up 25% of the country's population. That is the largest percentage Filipino population outside of the Philippines.


The ban of sending Filipino workers to Lebanon has been relatively long time up to the extent that it came to be an unprecedented in the history of the Philippines. It has been further proven that most affected by this ban were both the Lebanese Employers who are in need of workers and the Filipino workers who wished to work in Lebanon and we would like to elucidate things that some changes will happen.

Although of the ban ,every year more than 20,000 DH arrive Lebanon from Philippine ,by illegal way without any protection .all the statistics say that the run always ,maltreatment, unpaid saleries,suicide…. Has been increases after the ban. The best way to avoid all problems to lift this ban now,espcialy that Lebanon government do all conditions to lift the ban, I attach evident and pls read the follow:

On July 20, 2006, the Philippine Government prohibited the sending of Filipino workers to Lebanon due to the war despite the lack of any injury to Filipinos in Lebanon.

During the visit of Philippines’ DOLE and DFA Secretaries in Lebanon which was last January 4, 2009, they have announced that President Gloria Arroyo had lifted the ban and allowing sending Filipino workers again to Lebanon. Unfortunately Labor Minister Roque agreed to the decision but only if agreement protecting the Filipino workers coming to Lebanon will be signed by the Lebanese Government (see attached newspaper article that proves what we say).

On January 7, 2010, the guarantee has been issued in the Philippines showing the conditions and way of lifting the ban of sending Filipino workers to any country. In short, if the Convention has obtained any of the following three conditions in the employment implementations, the ban shall be lifted:

1. If in case Labor Law of both the host country and foreign workers are integrated/incorporated.

2. If the host country has signed an International Agreement with the United Nations or Human Rights Organization which protects the workers.

3. If the host country has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with The Philippines.

Since Lebanon has several International Agreements with the United Nations and other organizations concerned with human rights, and women workers, thus completed the second item (link a copy of the signed agreements), and including the Ministry of Labor ratified the Convention sent from the Philippines, which protects workers coming to Lebanon, completed the third item .

Our federation has pledged in writing to the Philippine Embassy in Lebanon and established a full obligations on the Employment Contract of Polo, even the condition of the 400USD minimum salary.

It was 12th of August 2010 when the Lebanese Labor Minister received the draft agreement and understanding between the Lebanese Ministry of Labor and the DOLE. After reviewing, the approval has been made by the Lebanese Labor Minister Mr. Boutros Harb on the 15th of September 2010 which was sent to your Good Office. (Attached is the copy of the Convention and authentication of Lebanese Minister of Labor).

In view of the above, and in respect to the condition of the Philippines, our federation has completed all the official procedures between your country and our country which set on by your invitation to the Lebanese Minister of labor to visit Philippines. However, it will take a lot of time, and our work can longer put up with it. We are pleading from you not to offer us these proceedings but rather and lift the ban first while finishing the handing out of this protocol.

Federation of recruitment agencies in Lebanon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoral (talkcontribs) 11:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Population figures[edit]

These changes in a series of five edits by user Aglia81 caught my eye. Some were unsupported and unexplained changes to previously unsupported figures in the infobox. One changed the overall estimate from 12,500,000+ to a range of 9.5M to 12.5M+. I checked the supporting source cited for the 12.5M+ figure ([3]), and found that is is an article in Tagalog on the topic of results in an athletic competition which seems to have nothing whatever to do with population statistics.

The 12,500,000+ figure seems to have come from this April 2012 edit, which changed from 11M+ to 12.5M+, said, "There are about 9.5 million registered Overseas Filipinos while an additional 3 million are considered to be illegal aliens" in the edit summary, and cited this 2010 source for the 9.5M figure and this 2003 source for the 3 million illegals. That change apparently presumed that the 9.5M figure was for Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) workers. However, the source cited in support of that figure came from the Commission on Filipinos Overseas (CFO), the tasking of which goes beyond the POEA.

Presuming that the CFO is reporting figures for Filipinos overseas and not for POEA workers, in this edit I've WP:BOLDly removed the 12.5M+ figure and edited the article to use 9.5M+ (the 2010 CFO figure of almost 9.5M, plus some) as an estimate. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

"Middle East" is not a country...[edit]

In the list of countries that has Filipino populations, it lists "Middle East" as a country. The Middle East is not a country. It's not even an accurate scientific designation. Being mostly West Asia and NW Africa. The term is largely archaic and unscientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Filipino Migrant Worker[edit]

I intend to add this article as a student enrolled in Gender and Economic Development in the Third World (University of Utah) and would really appreciate some thoughts on the topic and my outline. As part of the Wikiproject Tambayan Philippines ( the aim is to highlight and create Philippine-related topics. Filipino Migrant Worker will specifically bring up issues surrounding the worker with a suggested outline as follows: 1. History, 2. Economic Developement (2.1 Remittances) 3. Gender equality (3.1 Labor Rights, 3.2 Women's Role as providers) 4. Migration Policy (4.1 WTO Policies, 4.2 Phillipines Domestic Policies) 5. Returnee Integration 6. Children to Migrant Parents. Please leave your feedbackYogibjorn (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


A couple things that I would like to comment about, and I do not even know if it really needs to be addressed, or even if you can address it, but under "population" and "economic growth" there is information and research from 2012, and it is newer information, but being that remittances is such a huge part of the Philippines maybe there is a way to get current information from last year. I do not know if it is out yet or obtainable. The other subcategories I would love to see added would be social acceptance of the Philippines remittances or something about how the government encourages remittances, and a subcategory of how gender inequality causes Philippines to leave in the first place. I know that some of this is commented about in the article, but I think that these issues need to have their own categories and can have a lot of information used to bring body and support to this issue.BrendonPorter (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

See [4]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Although we in the class understand, it might be useful to provide a definition of “remittances” for other readers. There is a wiki entry for remittance you could link to. Oh, there it is under the “Family” section. Maybe link it higher up as well. There also seems to be a dead link to “Japan-Philippines economic partnership agreement” that should be removed. Under the “Unions and advocacy groups” it seems a little vague as to what they actually do. Just “working to improve employment conditions”. This could use some examples.Mlittlefield (talk) 02:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

See [5] and [6]. I don't have time to work on fixing these problems just now. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The references need a lot of work. The citations need to be improved to be full citations instead of just the URL etc. The references should all be under one reference section instead of having an "additional sources" section. You may want to consider cleaning up the talk page, so it's easier for people to see what is needs to be worked on. I did not spend too much time looking at it, because it seemed like there was a lot of mess. Is there a better term than overseas Filipino? I looked at your title for the first time and was confused as to what an overseas Filipino was. If there a more popular or understandable term, it'll be more likely that your page will be viewed. Swaugaman (talk) 07:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


You've taken up the Consequences section to build this article; the structure looks good but the content and the flow of the presentation needs attention. Even if you were to focus on a few of the relevant course articles, you could present the material more systematically. There are some opinion sentences (e.g. "International migration will never be perfectly mobile..."?). The references #16-37 need to be prepared from scratch; they have to be full citations and you cannot add a link to Canvas which is a closed website! And you do not need to provide a link to journal articles anyway, only if the data or report is on a website, should you provide the website. You could add more links to other Wikipedia articles. BerikG (talk) 06:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

By "more systematic presentation," I mean the following: Under the "Family" section, one would expect the consequences for family members left behind, the international mothering, family breakdown, consumption levels back home, children's schooling and wellbeing (as in the Beneria, DeParle articles); instead, the first paragraph is talking about working conditions. In this section, you do discuss gender differences in sending back remittances, which is good. Also, there needs to be more systematic discussion and statistics on nurses' migration, care workers' migration from the Philippines (need to integrate a few new sources).BerikG (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)BerikG (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello and thank you all for the feedback and comments, I have addressed changes to everything mentioned above so please take a look and provide further comments. The references are still not 100% as I am using some multiple times and they show up more than once under references. How do I avoid this? Clarified remittances a bit and used examples under unions. The name of the topic is discussed on the top of the page, I see no reason to change the name so please argue. The sentence structure was changed throughout anything under consequences. English is my second language so please feel free to correct grammatical mistakes. As most problems under the talkpage yet has to be addressed I believe these comments can be helpful for future editors.Yogibjorn (talk) 05:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I used Reflinks to straighten some of that out. See this diff for details. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Offensive assertions unsupported by evidence.[edit]

One of the most insensitive things I've read on wikipedia >>> "Despite race relations problems of the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the American Northwest, most Filipino Americans today find it easy to integrate into American society, with a majority belonging to the middle class."

Filipinos (like many people) still suffer discrimination in the US. Yes, its less overt (less lynchings!) but its still a part of the Filipino experience. Many Filipinos are NOT middle class, and if assertions are going to be made regarding this, then they need to be cited. How Filipinos enter the US is very dependent on many factors and often influences their class status upon arriving and how easy it is for them to enter the middle class. Plus the section is lumped in and followed hard upon by the bit about mail order brides, whereupon "mail order brides" are lumped in with women that men meet traveling, etc. aka "direct contact". It would be nice to include numbers regarding men immigrants as well, and also to acknowledge female immigrants who might come here through other reasons. Providing only a sliver of this data is definitely very leading.

All and all, please lets be mindful of the things we say - do they represent the lived experience of the people we are describing, as supported by evidence? And do they do so respectfully? I think these two questions are important to consider, and were not addressed in this section.

Also, I find it weird that so much attention is being paid to the parts of the article that show the negative impacts of going overseas for work, and so little to weird sections like this which are uncited and provide bizarre, falsely positive ideas of this experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)