Talk:South Asian foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I created this page as a sub-article of Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration. Both this article and the summary of the South Asian foreign policy section of Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration will need extensive work to improve the overall quality of these articles. As you update this article consider adding a brief couple of couple sentences to the summary of this region in the main article. Edward Lalone | (Talk)

Honestly, I think it should just be merged back in. No reason for the separation. If the other is two long then shrink it a bit. Wizardman 01:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A number of subarticles were split out from there, not just this one. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we making hundreds or articles about Obama's administration, going off that? Seems foolish to note every single tiny thing ever, that's not an encyclopedia. Wizardman 01:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's the way it goes. If you look at this version of the main foreign policy article from six weeks ago, right before the split out, you'll see how big it was getting. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poor section[edit]

The U.S.-Pakistan section has been written as if its some diplomatic memorandum. The section states Clinton visiting Pakistan, yet fails to make a mention of the criticism that was made on American policy during her visit. That aside, it hardly illustrates the broader criticism of America's stance on Pakistan, especially its newly-coined "AfPak" phenomenon. Mar4d (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.prokerala.com/news/articles/a91057.html
    Triggered by \bprokerala\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on South Asian foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 07:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Neville Chamberlain's European Policy which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of South Asian foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nyttrooplevels":

  • From Presidency of Barack Obama: "American Forces in Afghanistan and Iraq". The New York Times. Retrieved November 15, 2015.
  • From Presidency of George W. Bush: "American Forces in Afghanistan and Iraq". The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 9, 2015. Retrieved November 15, 2015.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 17:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]