Talk:Philippines–United States Visiting Forces Agreement

message: On 30 August, 2006 I stumbled across this page on the VFA between the US and RP govts and noticed how heavily POV it was (and, largely, still is).  In my 14:56, 30 August 2006 revision, I rewrote the opening paragraph to correct a number of factual misstatements, to correct the glaring omission to mention the second VFA agreement (it is my guess that the original contributer was unaware that there are two companion VFA agreements), and to point up the fact that the remaindier of the article referred to only the first VFA agreement.  Between 30 August and 13 September I edited the article several times, correcting various niggling problems and one serious mis-quote.  I inserted inline comments into the text at a few points where I had left what I feel is questionable content in place in the article.  See the History and Edit pages of the Article for details.
The initial contribution of the article came with the comment, "VFA, this may be POV, I'm filipino".  IMHO, though I have toned it down quite a bit the article is still heavily POV - but I am not Filipino.  I may take a shot at a total rewrite, or I may not.  Comments? -- Boracay Bill 00:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flagged this article as Disputed

message: The section heading says it all -- Boracay Bill 23:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed flag has been removed; article has been edited to tone down POV

message: "Visiting Forces Act" directs to this article; however, the Visiting Forces Act was the UK statute that permitted American forces to try and convict their own servicemen on British soil during World War II. It's a wholly separate topic and should have its own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.73.102 (talk • contribs) 
:I changed that article from a hard redirect to this article to a stub on its title subject with a soft redirect here. -- Boracay Bill 00:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: We need a separate article and disambiguation

message: The general subject of Visiting Forces Agreement involves more than this one particular VFA.  I have just placed a wikilink to this page on the Visiting Forces Act page, but the context of that wikilink has nothing at all to do with the VFA described on this page -- it concerns VFAs which the Republic of Vantua has made with Papua New Gunea and with the United Kingdom. Barring objection, I plan to move this page as proposed here and replace it with a new page on the subject of VFAs in general.  That new page would contain a reference to  or . 
I will then go through the 15 or so pages which link to this page and replace some of those links with links to the moved page. -- Boracay Bill 23:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Renamed the article.  For now, the old Visiting Forces Agreement article redirects to this renamed page. -- Boracay Bill 19:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal: Rename this page ''RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement''

message: :File:Vfalogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for File:Vfalogo.jpg

message: I've moved a recently-inserted paragraph here from the article, citing WP:POV and WP:UNDUE as reasons and saying that I would explain further here.
The paragraph was inserted by Susanbryce. Prior to the insertion of this paragraph, the article text read:
... with that last-quoted sentence citing a supporting source () which is a currently-dead link but which presumably did support the assertion regarding the issues motivating the RP legislature to consider terminating the VFA.
The text which I've moved was inserted in between these two paragraphs, modifying the logis of the article at this point so that to assert that the issues presented in the added paragraph were the motivation for the RP legislature considering termination of the VFA.
The inserted paragraph changed the article text quoted above to read as follows:
The URL http://www.aprnet.org/index.php?a=show&c=Conference%20on%20US%20Militarism%20and%20War%20on%20Terror%20in%20the%20Asia-Pacific&t=conferences&i=93]is cited in support of the inserted paragraph.
The inserted paragraph was quoted verbatim from the cited supporting source {
To reword the snippet a bit, it says essentially that over a seven year period several thousand cases were filed  against U.S. servicemen and all of those cases were dismissed.  The suggestion that the dismissal of at least some of these cases was improper is unstated, but the inference is there to be drawn. The suggestion that the dismissal of at least some of these cases was in some way related to the VFA is unstated, but the inference is there to be drawn. The suggestion that accusations made against some members of a group (US servicemen serving in the RP) taints all members of that group is unstated, but the inference is there to be drawn.
Two paragraph prior to the one inserted is another snipped:
That quote, memorable though it is from a scene in the movie Full Metal Jacket, is not actually a U.S. army training song, and it is not reflective of of the values that the U.S. Military is teaching its soldiers regarding women — those assertions are figments of the imagination of Emmi A. de Jesus, the author of the cited article.
Elsewhere in that cited article, there is this snippet:
"... the result of joint planning and action by the U.S. government and the government of the host country"?? Wow!!!! If true, that is blockbuster investigative journalism! One wonders where that quoted snippet which is presented as "rationale" was published — a cite would be nice, but of course that outside source isn't subject to WP's verifiability policy. I think that this source deserves at least a  tag wherever it is cited.
Elsewhere, that cited article says:
The US-Korea MDT says nothing of the sort. Read it here. Methinks the quality of the information in that just-quoted snippet is likely to be reflective of the quality of the information present in the snippet from the article which I moved here. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph moved from article

message: I moved the page from RP-US ... to Philippines–United States Visiting Forces Agreement because "RP" is not an acronym that is used outside the Philippines and it is better I think to have an article title that is more understandable, less jargon. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 01:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved page from RP-US to Philippines–United States Visiting Forces Agreement