Talk:Overseas Filipinos

	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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2014. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of Utah/Gender and Economic Development in the Third World (Spring 2014)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

Article name and content

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

== Read about the "dirty war" and about all the people who speak out against the Philippines Government who go missing . http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/ontv/unreported_world/philippines+dirty+war/2808567 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.152.103 (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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.

Merger

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)[reply]

Merge. For the reasons stated above. Nickhk

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

Question on Filipino official's number of remittances

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 www.poea.gov.ph. 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 (190.185.57.178 (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)) Dave Stewart , Market Researcher for European Hotels Ltd[reply]

Changing "countries" to "cities"

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)[reply]

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

data

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

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)[reply]

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.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 06:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Filipinos in Italy

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)[reply]

another Merger and tiptoeing on the Terminology

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)[reply]

___________________________________

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)[reply]

Fil-foreign

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)[reply]

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

Statistics on Overseas Filipinos by Occupation

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)[reply]

Please do not overlook the need to cite sources for the stats. -- Boracay Bill 01:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

And please remember that some sources of stats only count registered/declared/legal workers. Gronky 03:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==Issues== section

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)[reply]

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

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

Challenges section

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

note-Migrante seems to say nothing about 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?)

note-Migrante seems to say nothing about illegal recruitment.

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)[reply]

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

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

The humongous amount of failed verification tags is making it really difficult to read. --Destron Commander 10:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Overseas population figures

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Population figures

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)[reply]

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 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Total population

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Number of Filipinos in the US

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:

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.
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)[reply]

--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 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People of Filipino ancestry who are born in the United Stares are actually American. So I agree that the 4 million figure should not be used as the number of Overseas Filipinos. Please find a better source to cite. Seaworldca (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a person of Filipino ancestry born in the U.S. is an American. However, does being an American preclude also being a Filipino? (and, considering WP:V, what sources support that?).

Looking at this, I see what looks like a bit of a disconnect between this article and the Filipinos article. This article says, "[a Filipino] is a person of Filipino origin" (wikilinking there to the Filipinos) article. However, that article says, "[Filipinos] are a nation and ethnic group native to the Philippines that share a common Filipino culture and speak the Filipino language or one of the Philippine languages." There should be no conflict between these articles regarding what persons are and what persons are not Filipinos. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand section

Why is this protected? I can't remove possibly offensive/unproven material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.7.241.89 (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed a few problems with this article

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

Changed the infobox figure for Singapore from 136,189 to 136,489 to make it agree with the info in POEA2004
Removed the infobox POEA2004 cite from Finland, as POEA2004 doesn't mention Finland
Changed the infobox figure for Belgium from 12,810 to 12,600 to make it agree with the info in POEA2004
Changed the infobox figure for Switzerland from 11,996 to 14,647 to make it agree with the info in POEA2004
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)[reply]

Meaning of Balikbayan

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Extensive Editing

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)[reply]

Palau

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.

Lebanon

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 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Population figures

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)[reply]

"Middle East" is not a country...

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 108.183.84.89 (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Filipino Migrant Worker

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 (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Comments

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Feedback

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Offensive assertions unsupported by evidence.

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 108.91.69.250 (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Overseas Filipinos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080215012400/http://www.athenspe.net:80/about.html to http://www.athenspe.net/about.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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} 03:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Overseas Filipinos. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141113203531/http://www.istat.it/it/archivio/129854 to http://www.istat.it/it/archivio/129854

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Overseas Filipinos. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox scrambling, unscrambling, and problems

IN this edit, I unscrambled the numbering vs. ordering of region and pop parameters in the wikitext of the infobox according to their parameter names. I then tried to reverify the entry from Region19 (Austria, the first impacted parameter) onwards. I see the following problems:

Region19 (Austria) cites [7], a dead link apparently concerned with Papua New Guinea
Region20 (Papua New Guinea) cited [8], a source in German apparently having to do with Austria
Region21 (Germany) cites [9], a dead link apparently having to do with Brunei
Region22 (Brunei) cites [10], a source apparently having to do with Thailand
Region 23 (Thailand) cites [11], a dead link apparently having to do with The Netherlands
etc.

What a mess!!

The infobox clearly needs reworking. I have excised it from the article and moved it into this talk page section in a hidden comment just below here:

~~start-- --finish~~ The infobox has been moved back to the article for in-place updating there

I may work on this as I have time. I suggest that all entries be reviewed, reverified, and corrected as needed starting from Region1 and proceeding downwards in numerical order, and that work done be logged below as it is done. Can anyone suggest a better approach?

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the first five regions in the infobox here. I think that it would probably be best to move the infobox back into the article and work on it live there, with a visible progress marker. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here, I moved the infobox back into the article for in-place updating. Parameters still needing review are commented out there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - Finished*** I've verified the region and pop parameters in the infobox, applying fixes and making adjustments where I thought they were needed -- see my edit summaries in the article history for more info. Several of these are now tagged ^{[failed verification]}, and many of them contain outdated info. Some of the figures given in the infobox conflict with figures elsewhere in the article, and many of those are outdated as well. All of that needs to be looked at, but I'm not going to do that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Population section

Aregino (talk · contribs) showed up and made a good point.

The Population section starts with:

Since the liberalization of the United States immigration laws in 1965, the number of people in the United States, from April 2023 report published by CNN there's approximately 40 million immigrants in the US, this consist of several nationalities, Mexican. 10.7M. Indian 2.71M. Chinese 2.38M. Philippines. 1.98M. El Salvador. 1.42M. Vietnam. 1.34M. Cuba. 1.28M. Dominican Republic. 1.26M.

Much of that is irrelevant, except perhaps for the amount of people of Filipino origin living in the US. But if we want to mention that we should probably use https://data.census.gov/table/ACSSPP1Y2022.S0201?q=filipino or https://data.census.gov/table/ACSSPP1Y2022.S0201?q=Filipino+alone+or+in+any+combination and not the 3 sources in the article (and it shouldn't be at the start of the section). Polygnotus (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been WP:BOLD and I moved this paragraph to the talkpage:

Extended content

Since the liberalization of the United States immigration laws in 1965, the number of people in the United States, from April 2023 report published by CNN there's approximately 40 million immigrants in the US, this consist of several nationalities, Mexican. 10.7M. Indian 2.71M. Chinese 2.38M. Philippines. 1.98M. El Salvador. 1.42M. Vietnam. 1.34M. Cuba. 1.28M. Dominican Republic. 1.26M. .<ref>Asis, Maruja M.B. (January 2006). "[http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=364 The Philippines' Culture of Migration]". ''Migration Information Source''. Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved December 14, 2009.</ref><ref name="Census2007 offilipinos">{{cite web |url=http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IPTable?_bm=y&-context=ip&-reg=ACS_2007_1YR_G00_S0201:038;ACS_2007_1YR_G00_S0201PR:038;ACS_2007_1YR_G00_S0201T:038;ACS_2007_1YR_G00_S0201TPR:038&-qr_name=ACS_2007_1YR_G00_S0201&-qr_name=ACS_2007_1YR_G00_S0201PR&-qr_name=ACS_2007_1YR_G00_S0201T&-qr_name=ACS_2007_1YR_G00_S0201TPR&-ds_name=ACS_2007_1YR_G00_&-tree_id=306&-redoLog=false&-geo_id=01000US&-geo_id=NBSP&-search_results=16000US3651000&-format=&-_lang=en |archive-url=https://archive.today/20200210232340/http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IPTable?_bm=y&-context=ip&-reg=ACS_2007_1YR_G00_S0201:038;ACS_2007_1YR_G00_S0201PR:038;ACS_2007_1YR_G00_S0201T:038;ACS_2007_1YR_G00_S0201TPR:038&-qr_name=ACS_2007_1YR_G00_S0201&-qr_name=ACS_2007_1YR_G00_S0201PR&-qr_name=ACS_2007_1YR_G00_S0201T&-qr_name=ACS_2007_1YR_G00_S0201TPR&-ds_name=ACS_2007_1YR_G00_&-tree_id=306&-redoLog=false&-geo_id=01000US&-geo_id=NBSP&-search_results=16000US3651000&-format=&-_lang=en |archive-date=February 10, 2020 |publisher=United States Census Bureau |title=Selected Population Profile in the United States: Filipino alone or in any combination |access-date=February 1, 2009 |url-status=dead }} The U.S. Census Bureau 2007 American Community Survey counted 3,053,179 Filipinos; 2,445,126 native and naturalized citizens, 608,053 of whom were not U.S. citizens.</ref>

It can be returned (to a different location, perhaps the end of that section?) when it is updated (data from 2007 in 2024?) and the irrelevant bits are removed (the other nationalities). Polygnotus (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]