Talk:Rescission Act

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 18, 2020.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Asian Americans Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Asian Americans (assessed as Mid-importance).

Tambayan Philippines Low‑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.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Untitled

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reports are cited as references supporting the "promise" of benefits to the Filipinos and the contention that the act rescinded that "promise."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Barring the location of more credible documentation of both the "promise" and the contention that the bill "rescinded" that "promise," the article should be edited to indicate that lack of documentation.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?

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]