Talk:India–United States relations/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Better, but what about official policy?

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

I have some links from the state department that contradict those studies. I am not saying they should not be in the article, but these should be represented as well. It is directly from the government... Official policy trumps analysis.

[1] [2]

"Your program is also an opportunity for me to tell you that Secretary Clinton’s visit will answer those who are whispering that with President Obama’s new comprehensive strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, India’s importance to the U.S. has somehow diminished. Ladies and gentlemen, nothing could be further from the truth." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contralya (talk • contribs) 07:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"On the contrary, this is a time of great optimism and promise in America’s relations with India. Our two countries agreed we had to await the outcome of India’s recent elections before charting a new course in our relations."

"Just take Sri Lanka for example: I coordinated very closely with my Indian counterpart, High Commissioner Alok Prasad, and we have very close and similar views about the situation there, but also in Nepal, Bangladesh and other countries. That dialogue itself is a reflection of the close relationship between us." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contralya (talk • contribs) 07:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

What about the Doha round negotiations?

[3]

This article paints a very inaccurate picture of the article's subject matter.

Contralya (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Good

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for fixing the article.

[4]

Contralya (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Blatant POV in the introductory para

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the introductory text, at the end, there are a few lines which I believe are blatant POV. These lines have no cited in-line source, moreover they include such frivolous terms as 'high Profile'(not to mention the poor copy-editing of whosoever has added these lines), 'prominent Future Power' 'openly Supports' etc. which are most certainly intended to give a positive bias to the whole "India as a rising power on the world stage' discussion. Moreover, this issue has been covered in detail later in the article in the Obama visit I am an Indian myself, and I honestly believe such statements are absolutely redundant in the introductory para. I am removing them right now,except the one mentioning Obama's visit and that he might have supported India's UNSC bid, should any editor find statements supported by verifiable sources, and for God's sake less flashy than these, please add them. Batram (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Also a little bit of a POV statement in the first paragraph of the second section. "Although long considered a "strategic backwater" by Washington..." with no citation. Clearly gives an attitude of Western condescention towards India. I am removing it. 63.115.56.32 (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Copy Edits

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I spruced up the text with some copy editing but would need more time to have a look at the references. There seem to be long sections not directly tied to a source.Coaster92 (talk) 04:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

2013 US India diplomatic spat over Khobragade and Richard

Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments9 people in discussion

>> India-US row escalates over diplomat's arrest (Lihaas (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)).

@Numancia: Please note that the reciprocal/retaliatory measures take by India in the aftermath of the arrest of the Indian consular official in New York is well within the scope of tis wiki article pertaining to INDIA-US relations.109.128.163.66 (talk) 10:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Nnot it isn't I agree with numancia. The course of relations go back longer. Just because it is in the news today doesn't mean it will have repercussions. If the spat gorws w e can add it then. there is no rush to include it as itsnot going anyway.(Lihaas (talk) 21:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)).

So not one word about Khobragade's strip search and the bowling alley?

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Stop-commercial-activities-from-embassy-from-Jan-16-India-to-US/articleshow/28543897.cms

Hcobb (talk) 07:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Reinstated and updated info on the ongoing AND growing diplomatic spat which has now started to affect relations (one high-level visit already cancelled and another looks very unlikely). Also, senior US govt officials, politicians and political commentators have spoken out on how this incident is affecting India-US relations. 109.134.112.73 (talk) 10:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Does this incident deserve a serious progressive attention? I wonder why there is a significant coverage of this episode? Maybe the undue weight template is applicable here. Hari7478 (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It continues to get front-page attention by major media--that is the news editors have judged it of importance and Wikipedia should follow them. Rjensen (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I think that most of the Khobragade and Richard content in this article should be moved to Devyani Khobragade incident. Much of the content here duplicates what is said there and this content should not be developed in two places. Currently the Khobragade incident is given the most weight of any aspect of diplomatic relations, which is undue weight. This article should have a summary of the incident, then the expectation should be that people read the main article if they want to know more. Thoughts from others? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

See my comment at Talk:Devyani_Khobragade_incident#Merge_section_from_India.E2.80.93United_States_relations_here wherein I say OK to the content move but that the deletion should occur after the content is actually merged there 91.182.236.237 (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Not important enough to merit its own section

Though India had to respond due to public pressure, I don't think the incident has relevance in the long term. Much more important events like the Nuclear Deal, and India diluting its Climate negotiation stance at Copenhagen Summit are given lesser space than this, frankly, trivial episode. 27.6.240.93 (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Nuclear issues

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The nuclear issues are of major importance and deserve coverage in multiple articles. This article should be about how relations between US and India have been affected (as opposed to issues of Japan's plants and insurance...which are quite different aspects that belong in other articles.) Rjensen (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent Troubles In US-India Relations

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This section seems to be a wp:synthesis of disparate events being strung together to make a point that none of the sources themselves make, thus not complying with Wikipedia's rules against original research. It's also extremely NPOV; no counteragument or alternative perspective is provided. And frankly, I don't know if a few such events in one city in one time period is even worth noting on this page, much less a whole section. Orser67 (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis that it contains original research and it should be cleared/removed. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on India–United States relations. 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on India–United States relations. 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, 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on India–United States relations. 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)