Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a46402599dd02780

Jump to content

Talk:Rescission Act

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Robofish in topic Disparate treatment?

Untitled

[edit]

This article was requested on Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social sciences. Tangurena (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

News reports are cited as references supporting the "promise" of benefits to the Filipinos and the contention that the act rescinded that "promise." Wouldn't the actual document containing the promise, if it exists, be the best source? News reports often contain bias and are reliable source documents if they are actual first-hand testimony. Eye95 (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Barring the location of more credible documentation of both the "promise" and the contention that the bill "rescinded" that "promise," the article should be edited to indicate that lack of documentation. Rather than stating the promise and rescission as facts, the article should present them as contentions by the news services. If there is no objection... Eye95 (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply


== how nice - a whole year to claim - but ONly if you are alive - you die defending USA - too BAAAADD!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.64.119 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Reply

Disparate treatment?

[edit]

Can anyone comment on the sentence, "Of the 66 countries allied with the United States during the war, only Filipinos were denied military benefits,"? I don't know exactly which 66 countries this are, but the vast majority, if not all, of them were not U.S. territories as the Philippines was at the time, and I'm supposing that most of their soldiers weren't offered U.S. benefits to begin with. The sentence makes it sound like British, Canadian, and Russian fighters were granted U.S. benefits, leaving the impression that only Filipinos were short-shrifted. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

It also seems odd to describe the Philippines as a 'country allied with the United States during the war', when at the time it wasn't a sovereign country with an independent foreign policy, but an autonomous territory of the United States. That line really needs to be rewritten. Robofish (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)Reply